# Our offense sucks.



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Skiles constantly gets praised for having the best plays....well all his plays suck. 

We have Gordon and Deng standing in a corner. Not sure if anyone told Skiles, but Gordon's an easy cover in the corner, and its easy for the other team to deny him the ball. It only works for Deng because he's 6'9" Skiles, it won't work for Gordon because he's 6'2". 

I don't get our offense, it just seems illogical to me.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Hahahaha. 100.4 ppg. Good enough for 9th in the NBA.

Not sure why one play (in your estimation) means our offense sucks. 

Seems like you are trying to get a reaction from people by saying the most moronic thing possible. Guess it worked.

Gordon averages 21 ppg. Deng averages 19 ppg. Why are you complaining? What's logical to basketball professionals such as Skiles will not necessarily make sense to people who know little or nothing about how basketball is suppose to be played.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

lougehrig said:


> Hahahaha. 100.4 ppg. Good enough for 9th in the NBA.
> 
> Not sure why one play (in your estimation) means our offense sucks.
> 
> ...


Sometimes you just have to allow a crying child wanting attention to cry. You can't always give into the childs constant needs of attention..

... so cry cry cry.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Gordon averages 21 ppg. Deng averages 19 ppg. Why are you complaining? What's logical to basketball professionals such as Skiles will not necessarily make sense to people who know little or nothing about how basketball is suppose to be played.


it's kirk hinrich's fault.


----------



## bball_1523 (Dec 16, 2006)

well we are really missing a post player, and a little bit of defense.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Um,I disagree. We move the ball very well on offense and we score our share of points.


----------



## Blueoak (Aug 4, 2004)

Age: 17?


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

We alway's have to rely on Deng and Nocioni to get us going on offense out of the gate.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Someone needs to work on their game and it isn't Skiles. 

How can you post something like this and your only examples on why the Bulls offense sucks are the alledged misuse of Gordon and Deng? Ben is leading the team in scoring, with his highesst scoring average of his career, and Luol is leading the team in FG%.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

The offense still gets derailed by too many turnovers. Overall the Bulls are just too loose with the ball. Besides no low post scoring threat, the biggest problem is the inconsistent play at PG. When Duhon is hitting shots then he is a very good PG but when he is not he doesn't take open shots and the defense sloughs off him. Can't have two non-offensive players on the court at the same time unless 2 of the other three are shooting lights out. Also Kirk has just been bad this year. At times I think someone gave him a lobotomy as he does too many stupid things on the court at both ends. He has lost confidemnce and now he doesn't want to shoot. He has recently been a liabilirty. He better turn things around soon. We can't go very far without Kirk playing to his ability.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

obviously the data says the Bulls are a good offensive team.

The offense doesn't suck, but the players once you get beyond Deng and Gordon and Nocioni, who are rarely on the court at the same time, just aren't big offensive threats.

As it is, our starting lineup basically is playing 3 on 5 at the offensive end. I cannot fathom opponents quaking in their boots at the thought of Duhon or Wallace taking open shots. With Kirk's shooting woes of late, it's almost playing 2 on 5.

Skiles has been putting out lineups during games that are severely challenged to score, with Deng and Nocioni and Hinrich getting rest (or whatever) at the same time. It's hard to argue watching that group play that it's not 1 on 5 on the offensive end, and it's hard to argue anything but the offense does indeed suck.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> It's hard to argue watching that group play that it's not 1 on 5 on the offensive end, *and it's hard to argue anything but the offense does indeed suck.*


Its actually pretty easy. 

We are 9th in the NBA in ppg. 

We are 5th in the NBA in positive ppg differential.

We are 8th in the NBA in fg%. 

We are 6th in the NBA in 3pt fg%.

And 7th in the NBA in assists pg.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Your smert.
> 
> Wanna go back and re-read my post again?


You mean the part where you acknowledge the "data" but then proceed to argue that the Bulls' offense sucks despite the fact that they are ranked in the top 5-9 of every major team offensive category?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You mean the part where you acknowledge the "data" but then proceed to argue that the Bulls' offense sucks despite the fact that they are ranked in the top 5-9 of every major team offensive category?


The part where when we put gordon out there with a lineup of Griffin, PJ Brown, Thabo, and Duhon, the offense does suck.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The part where when we put gordon out there with a lineup of Griffin, PJ Brown, Thabo, and Duhon, the offense does suck.


I think that's by design. Gordon can usually carry a team on offense by himself. It's a credit to him that you can surround him with defensive role players and still have an effective lineup... Philadelphia used the same strategy with Iverson a few years back to get to the finals.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I think that's by design. Gordon can usually carry a team on offense by himself. It's a credit to him that you can surround him with defensive role players and still have an effective lineup... Philadelphia used the same strategy with Iverson a few years back to get to the finals.


18 point leads evaporating is a figment of my imagination.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The part where when we put gordon out there with a lineup of Griffin, PJ Brown, Thabo, and Duhon, the offense does suck.


Oh. I misundersood. 

So you are saying that a 5 man unit that quite possibly has never been used by Skiles would, in theory, suck if it happened. Or, that at the very least, there are some combinations of 5 players on our roster that wouldn't be terribly effective on offense. I agree. 

Your lineup isn't one of the 5 man units listed for the Bulls on 82games.com. 

Granted, they don't list them all. They just list the top 20. And number 20 has played 11 total minutes together in 34 games. 

So perhaps we do trot out the 1 on 5 offense, in some form, from time to time. Just less than 11 total minutes this season (which would come out to less than 32 seconds a game). 

Despite the undeniably poor offensive balance this lineup would produce for that half a minute per game, the Bulls seem to be doing okay in overall offensive production.

In short, I agree with you. That lineup would not be good offensively. No doubt this is why Skiles rarely, if ever, employs it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Not to mention the fact that Ron Cey's quoted statistics include any crap-tastic lineup combination that's been out there this year. It's taken into account, and therefore not rebutted by the point that we have bad offensive players who could share the floor at the same time.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> 18 point leads evaporating is a figment of my imagination.


Absolutely not. Neither are 42, 39, 27, 25, 18, 18, 17, 17, 15, and 15 point blowout victories.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

You can't just look at the stats when judging how things are and projecting how they'll be in the playoffs. Our offense is very inconsistent now that Kirk has no offensive game. There are many times in the last few weeks where Skiles has a line-up on the court that is offensively challenged in a big way. Stats are averages. Our offense is better than last year because of Deng, Gordon and Noc. The problem is if a couple of them are not hot, we struggle. To win consistentluy are offense needs to be more consisitent. Less turnovers would help along with offensive support from someone other than the big 3 (other than the occassional Duhon , Allen or Sweetney good game). We just don't have enough offensive skills on the team yet. I would hope Thomas and Thabo will develop and somehow Kirk finds his game. Otherwise we may be looking at another one and done in the playoffs.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Our offense runs a lot like Dallas, minus Dirk in the post.

I can't believe I actually replied in this thread.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Not to mention the fact that Ron Cey's quoted statistics include any crap-tastic lineup combination that's been out there this year. It's taken into account, and therefore not rebutted by the point that we have bad offensive players who could share the floor at the same time.


I didn't rebut the stats, and even said that the stats do say we're a good offensive team. If I rebutted anything, it's Mebarek's premise.

The point that when you have some lineups out there at times and the offense does suck is still valid.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> You can't just look at the stats when judging how things are and projecting how they'll be in the playoffs. Our offense is very inconsistent now that Kirk has no offensive game.


I think we can all agree that Hinrich's shooting woes are a problem. 



> There are many times in *the last few weeks* where Skiles has a line-up on the court that is offensively challenged in a big way. Stats are averages.


The "last few weeks" the Bulls are averaging 100.6 ppg, which is actually higher than their full season average of 100.4. They are offensively compensating for Hinrich's slump quite nicely, it appears.



> Our offense is better than last year because of Deng, Gordon and Noc.


I totally agree. 



> The problem is if a couple of them are not hot, we struggle.


And to what NBA team does this not apply?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> At the end of Q3 and start of Q4 against Detroit, the lineup was:
> Gordon, Griffin, Duhon, Brown, and Wallace.


So? Last I checked we scored over our season average and blew them out. 



> Against the nets, our lineup at the end of Q1 was
> Gordon, Thomas, PJ Brown, Duhon, and Thabo.


For how many minutes? Now spread it out over the whole season. 

EDIT


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> So? Last I checked we scored over our season average and blew them out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Answer the question:

is the offense good when either of the two lineups I just posted are on the court?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Answer the question:
> 
> is the offense good when either of the two lineups I just posted are on the court?


Logically, of course it isn't. Indeed, I already agreed with you that the Bulls have potential 5 man units that would be offensively poor. Every team in the NBA has some 5 man unit that would struggle offensively.

I suspect "1 on 5" a lineup of Marcus Banks, James Jones, Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas and Pat Burke wouldn't score a whole heck of a lot for the Suns, either. 

Now feel free to return the courtesy. How many minutes this season have those two lineups you cited actually been on the court together for Chicago?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Logically, of course it isn't. Indeed, I already agreed with you that the Bulls have potential 5 man units that would be offensively poor. Every team in the NBA has some 5 man unit that would struggle offensively.
> 
> I suspect "1 on 5" a lineup of Marcus Banks, James Jones, Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas and Pat Burke wouldn't score a whole heck of a lot for the Suns, either.
> 
> Now feel free to return the courtesy. How many minutes this season have those two lineups you cited actually been on the court together for Chicago?


In various combinations, a lot.

The bulls have the ability to keep any two of Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng on the court at all times. They don't.

What's worse is the team has two bench players, aside from Gordon, who you might consider to be offensive minded - one being Sweetney, who's had severely limited minutes.

(Malik Allen being the other, who's never met a pass he likes or a shot he doesn't)

EDIT: I'll also add that Franks is a brilliant coach. When he saw the lineup we put out there against him, he went zone. Who's going to score over it aside from Gordon? And which of the rest of the guys ON THE FLOOR AT THE TIME does he care takes shots?


----------



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

A softer, gentler title of this thread is "Our offense could be much, much better without Kirk over-dribbling and shooting 34%."

These aren't Kirk's (or VincentVega's, who for all we know is drowning in bowls and watching Robocop) finest moments.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Skiles constantly gets praised for having the best plays....well all his plays suck.
> 
> We have Gordon and Deng standing in a corner. Not sure if anyone told Skiles, but Gordon's an easy cover in the corner, and its easy for the other team to deny him the ball. It only works for Deng because he's 6'9" Skiles, it won't work for Gordon because he's 6'2".
> 
> I don't get our offense, it just seems illogical to me.


It might be useful to consider the consequences of not having a shooter in the corner. A good shooter in the strong side corner opens up the middle for the pick and roll and reduces the effectiveness of help defense. A shooter in the weak side corner is frequently open. Deng and Gordon have feasted on open looks from the corners this year. It's not clear to me how that is a problem.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> In various combinations, a lot.


What is "a lot"? 



> The bulls have the ability to keep *any two of Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng on the court* at all times. They don't.


At "all" times? You are right, they don't play two of those guys on the court at the same time for every single minute of the 34 game NBA season to date.

Here are the Bulls top 20 5-man units by minutes per game:

http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI2.HTM

As noted above, it excludes all 5 man units that have played less than an average of 32 seconds per game together (11 total minutes in 34 games).

Of those 20, 19 have "any two of Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng on the court". The one that doesn't, has played a total of 13 minutes together on the season (an average of 38 seconds per game), all of which, I suspect, were in gargabe time. 

Indeed, of those 20 5 man units, 16 of them actually have *three* of Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, and Deng playing together at the same time.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What is "a lot"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

superdave said:


> +1


Think he proved the bulls don't play the lineups I said they do?

Look in the game threads, I post when I see a weak lineup out there. Or look at the game logs (play by play) on ESPN which shows the substitution patterns.

Whatever 82games.com says, I've produced game logs from the last two games showing the players I said were on the court were indeed on the court.

And it's not like garbage time minutes, either.

The two games Kirk missed, it's fair to not have played any two of those four players the whole time.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I wouldn't call the bulls offense aestetically pleasing , but you cant fault the results ...its 10th in points per possesion , the only stat that truly counts in measuring offensive production.

the bulls offense is good .


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

This thread is comedy gold - intentional and otherwise.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

There are some posters in this thread EDIT) who either just don't understand basketball or fail to grasp the fact that a coach can't play his five best offensive players at the same time the vast majority of the game. If it's not one thing, it's another with this crew.

Also, Hinrich's 3PT% is 6.2% higher than Gordon's and a big reason we run a pretty efficient offense (we shoot the ball very well, and this is largely due to good playcalling and the ability for our PGs to get our scorers good shots). These things are significant, yet often overlooked by those who don't (or refuse to) recognize them. If anything brings this team down most on offense, it's A) lack of inside scoring/offensive rebounding and B) turnovers. Gordon sure could help the latter if he started to improve on his 1:1 A/TO ratio.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

And by the way, this thread is getting brutal for said "crew".


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Zeb said:


> This thread is comedy gold - intentional and otherwise.


I vote to sticky this thread.

Since it will probably be soon deleted or closed I guess we should just take solace in the fact that we were able to post in it. 

:jam:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Think he proved the bulls don't play the lineups I said they do?


I'm not trying to prove that. I readily admit that there are groupings of multiple seconds, maybe even a full consecutive minute or two, throughout the season when the Bulls have played these offensively challenged 5 man units. 

I'm pointing out, based on objective factual data, that to the extent a "1 on 5" 5 man unit is periodically used by Skiles, it is so limited in minutes (or seconds) so as to be inconsequential and to have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Bulls' offense "sucks". 

The Bulls' team offensive rankings and the 5-man unit statistics bear this out pretty convincingly, in my opinion.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Deleted


Are you kidding? Did you actually just post that?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

superdave said:


> I vote to sticky this thread.
> 
> Since it will probably be soon deleted or closed I guess we should just take solace in the fact that we were able to post in it.
> 
> :jam:




what's that  smell? 

it's not the bulls offense! 

:bananallama:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> what's that  smell?
> 
> it's not the bulls offense!
> 
> :bananallama:


I think New Yorker's must have a keen sense of smell considering that apparently they can easily differentiate between the odor of leaking gas, garbage and urine... 

As for this thread, its leaking badly too and about to explode.

:bananallama: More llamas!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not trying to prove that. I readily admit that there are groupings of multiple seconds, maybe even a full consecutive minute or two, throughout the season when the Bulls have played these offensively challenged 5 man units.
> 
> I'm pointing out, based on objective factual data, that to the extent a "1 on 5" 5 man unit is periodically used by Skiles, it is so limited in minutes (or seconds) so as to be inconsequential and to have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Bulls' offense "sucks".
> 
> The Bulls' team offensive rankings and the 5-man unit statistics bear this out pretty convincingly, in my opinion.


Does the offense suck when it's 1 on 5 or not?

It sucks when it's 2 on 5 a lot of the time, too.

Fini


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The Bulls' team offensive rankings and the 5-man unit statistics bear this out pretty convincingly, in my opinion.


How, exactly, does 82Games.com collect this 5-man lineup data?

How can you be sure of its accuracy? Could you please fill me in?

Thanks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> How, exactly, does 82Games.com collect this 5-man lineup data?
> 
> How can you be sure of its accuracy? Could you please fill me in?
> 
> Thanks.


The play by play data on espn.com (and probably other sites) details the substitutions and the times when the substitutions are made. As well as the score at the time, etc.

From this kind of data, you can determine +/-, # of posessions, who's on the court and for how long, etc.

But a lot of the data is subjective. If it says "Duhon enters the game for Wallace" you can't assume Duhon is playing C, nor can you assume any of the players are playing a specific position. That part of their data are suspect, to say the least. They claim our guards play SF some of the time, even though we're really playing 3 guards - they're all playing guard, it's even subjective as to whether we have 2 PGs or 2 SGs or even 3PGs or some other kind of "guard" in Skiles scheme of things.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> How, exactly, does 82Games.com collect this 5-man lineup data?
> 
> How can you be sure of its accuracy? Could you please fill me in?
> 
> Thanks.


Unlike trying to determine which player is playing which position what percent of the time in an interchangeable three guard rotation, 5 man units would be very easy to calculate with precision.

Simply go through the game logs and look. Its very easy to see who is on the court together and for what exact amount of minutes and seconds. You don't even have to watch the games.

For example, DaBullz' example of his "1 on 5" 5 man unit in the Nets game played 1 minute and 37 seconds together (if you interchange Sweetney with Brown when that substitution was made - if not, then its two different units playing 57 seconds (the one with Brown) and 40 seconds (the one with Sweetney), respectively). Very easy and precise. 

I assume the folks at 82games.com have a program that reviews the objectively proveable data from the game logs and calculates the minutes for the 5 man units. It would be pretty easy, and reliable with extreme precision down to the second. 

Its also easy to calculate team statistics for points per game, field goal %, 3pt field goal %, positive point differential, and assists per game with precision. All of which the Bulls do well in.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Does the offense suck when it's 1 on 5 or not?


I actually don't know. Because the amount of time those units are on the court together is so insignificant that no website I'm aware of calculates their offensive productivity. 82 games.com only goes down to units that have played together a whopping 11 minutes in 34 games.

But I'd assume the offense sucks during those few seconds when we play 1 on 5, yes. 



> It sucks when it's 2 on 5 a lot of the time, too.


Does it? 

Three of the four 5 man units at 82games.com that have only 2 of Deng, Nocioni, Gordon, and Hinrich have a positive +/-. 

And when you add all of the minutes and point differentials off all 4 of those same 5 man units, its a net positive for the Bulls. 

So evidently whoever the opposition is throwing at our "2 on 5" units, "sucks" worse.



> Fini


Was this your support for that argument?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I assume the folks at 82games.com have a program that reviews the objectively proveable data from the game logs and calculates the minutes for the 5 man units.



If 82games is like Stats Inc or Sportsticker, they collect the stats themselves by having humans watch the games.

Its the only way they can provide data that the major players can’t. (such as which player is playing what position)

Since you are starting to use 82games in your arguments, one would think that you feel they hire somewhat competent personal, yes?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I actually don't know. Because the amount of time those units are on the court together is so insignificant that no website I'm aware of calculates their offensive productivity. 82 games.com only goes down to units that have played together a whopping 11 minutes in 34 games.
> 
> But I'd assume the offense sucks during those few seconds when we play 1 on 5, yes.
> 
> ...


What's our best 5 man unit? Our 2nd best?

Your use of point differential is a misuse. if you want me to explain it to you, ask.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If 82games is like Stats Inc or Sportsticker, they collect the stats themselves by having humans watch the games.
> 
> Its the only way they can provide data that the major players can’t. (such as which player is playing what position)
> 
> Since you are starting to use 82games in your arguments, one would think that you feel they hire somewhat competent personal, yes?


I don't think 82games does anything more than analyze the play by plays. However, I do know that some of the contributors to 82games are or have worked for NBA clubs counting non-traditional kinds of stats while watching the games.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think 82games does anything more than analyze the play by plays. However, I do know that some of the contributors to 82games are or have worked for NBA clubs counting non-traditional kinds of stats while watching the games.


Yah, they may not have a big enough operation to have an stat collection operation like the bigger players.

I wonder what's stopping the bigger players from offering feeds just like the ones 82games.com provides though? Lack of demand?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> How, exactly, does 82Games.com collect this 5-man lineup data?
> 
> How can you be sure of its accuracy? Could you please fill me in?
> 
> Thanks.


Are you using the 'attack the source' tactic you've in the past accused others of?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

This thread is funny.

It's encouraging to know that some things never truly change. The Bulls offense is just fine. As I've said pretty much from the start of the season - it's our defense that still needs work.

Major props to The Penguin. You can only shout at the wind for so long. After a while, you lose your voice but the wind just keeps bellowing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Are you using the 'attack the source' tactic you've in the past accused others of?


I'm a big fan of 82games.com.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> I wouldn't call the bulls offense aestetically pleasing , but you cant fault the results ...its 10th in points per possesion , the only stat that truly counts in measuring offensive production.
> 
> the bulls offense is good .


That's because ankle breaking crossovers don't come with regularity in a pick and roll, pick and pop, and motion offense, which is what the Bulls run 80% of the time.

A lot of us (being bbb posters) can watch and appreciate good basketball. A lot of us also seem to prefer W's with style. Who cares if Kirk has a good game since he rarely has any sportscenter highlights.

We have no superstar, yet so many people crave one, ad nauseam. I really think it is a post-MJ spillover effect. We just got used to having the best, so it's hard to imagine winning it all without it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, they may not have a big enough operation to have an operation like the bigger players.
> 
> I wonder what's stopping the bigger players from offering feeds just like the ones 82games.com provides though? Lack of demand?


Stats Inc. does offer interesting kinds of data feeds.

The popularity thing is definately an issue, though. 

There's no data on 82games.com to suggest how popular they are (page views). 

I did find this article, which is way off topic to this thread, but interesting nontheless:

http://82games.com/andrade1.htm
*How are championship teams built?*

Twenty teams during this time period acquired at least four of their top eight players through the draft. They had a combined record of 807-833 for a *.492 winning percentage*.

The next table shows how teams who acquired four of their top eight players through trading fared over the past two seasons. These teams had a combined *winning percentage of .537*.

The last way a player can be acquired is through free agency; perhaps the answer lies in this way. overall the group had a combined *winning percentage of .579*

It seems that free agency is the best way to build; provided that the money is distributed among several players.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

id like to see us get a prime time scorer in the post like kg.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> We have no superstar, yet so many people crave one, ad nauseam. I really think it is a post-MJ spillover effect. We just got used to having the best, so it's hard to imagine winning it all without it.


Its also the scarcity of NBA teams that have won it all without a superstar.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> That's because ankle breaking crossovers don't come with regularity in a pick and roll, pick and pop, and motion offense, which is what the Bulls run 80% of the time.
> 
> A lot of us (being bbb posters) can watch and appreciate good basketball. A lot of us also seem to prefer W's with style. Who cares if Kirk has a good game since he rarely has any sportscenter highlights.
> 
> We have no superstar, yet so many people crave one, ad nauseam. I really think it is a post-MJ spillover effect. We just got used to having the best, so it's hard to imagine winning it all without it.


Unfortunately, regular season W's haven't turned into post season series victories. Some of us are focusing on what it takes to win in the playoffs, including Paxson who's said we need post scoring (e.g. another scorer).


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm a big fan of 82games.com.


Well, I figured that. I'm pretty sure you've used stuff from the site before, to suit your own arguments. That still doesn't answer my question though. Why in this case are you questioning the validity of the 82games.com's stats?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Why in this case are you questioning the validity of the 82games.com's stats?


I'm not questioning the validity.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The Bulls are 10th in offensive efficiency (4th in the eastern conference). That's not great, but it hardly sucks.

http://www.coverwire.com/basketball/poss_stats.htm?o=4

The disappointment for me is that the Bulls are only 4th in defensive efficiency (2nd behind Cleveland in the eastern conf). I expected with the addition of Wallace that they would be #1 in defense in the league.

The Bulls are 4th in the league in offensive/defensive differential (1st in the eastern conf), which is very good; but the standard deviation is second highest in the league, which reflects their very inconsistent performance.

All in all, the team still needs to improve their performance on both ends of the floor if they want to compete for the championship and find a way to play more consistently; particularly on the road.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Unfortunately, regular season W's haven't turned into post season series victories. Some of us are focusing on what it takes to win in the playoffs, including Paxson who's said we need post scoring (e.g. another scorer).


There you go again, getting all wrapped up in your Pax-worship.

Thanks to ALL for a very entertaining thread. Not all that enlightening, but a feast for the laugher.

The Bulls are a good offensive team at this point in the season. Arguing that "Our Offense Sucks" as this thread originally asserted is such an uphill climb that the originator seems to have pulled the pin, lobbed the grenade and quickly got the heck out of Dodge. Frankly, the wisdom shown by the quick exit shocks the heck out of me.

The issue of whether the Bulls' offense could stand improvement, via the acquisition of a post scorer or otherwise, is really a different argument, as is whether the Bulls' offense is playoff-ready.

I continue to find it odd that the focus here is always on the offense. Frankly, I didn't expect the Bulls to have the 9th most productive offense, so I'm pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, with the addition of Wallace, I expected them to be top 5 on defense...which they're not (9th best there too). While I'm mildly disappointed, I'll leave it to someone else to start an "Our Defense Sucks!" thread.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> That's because ankle breaking crossovers don't come with regularity in a pick and roll, pick and pop, and motion offense, which is what the Bulls run 80% of the time.
> 
> A lot of us (being bbb posters) can watch and appreciate good basketball. A lot of us also seem to prefer W's with style. Who cares if Kirk has a good game since he rarely has any sportscenter highlights.
> 
> We have no superstar, yet so many people crave one, ad nauseam. I really think it is a post-MJ spillover effect. We just got used to having the best, so it's hard to imagine winning it all without it.


i'm more about its lack of diversity , its simply not an engaging offense to watch , i dont remember being drawn to watching it when jason kidd was running it in pho. under skiles and i'm not drawn to it now.

everything is perimeter , and running the P & R 50 times the way the bulls run isn't up to par in effectiveness or entertainment value as watching stockton and malone.

the most appeaing offenses have players doing different things , posting up , running the floor , doing textbook and highlight things , the bulls dont offer that as much as other teams ...its like watching a euroleague game.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

All right, I just went through and tried to clean up this mess of a thread. Let's all play like nice kids in our little sandbox, or I'm going to have to lock it.

MANY MANY of you in this thread should know better than to post the stuff that was in here. Step it up, please.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its also the scarcity of NBA teams that have won it all without a superstar.


The best players usually make the best pieces to build upon. How are we, or how were we supposed to have acquired said player?

Paxson often gets criticized for never having drafted a superstar. However, how often has one been available at the Bulls selection that we did not take? The trade up for the #5 for Wade seemed to be closest, but then we still wouldn't have had Marshall's appealing contract to get Jalen Rose off of our hands.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> There you go again, getting all wrapped up in your Pax-worship.


Yeah, it's funny how some worship at his altar like he was the 2nd coming, and then argue against me (and him) the rare occaision we see eye to eye.





> Thanks to ALL for a very entertaining thread. Not all that enlightening, but a feast for the laugher.


I had a good laugh, too 



> The Bulls are a good offensive team at this point in the season. Arguing that "Our Offense Sucks" as this thread originally asserted is such an uphill climb that the originator seems to have pulled the pin, lobbed the grenade and quickly got the heck out of Dodge. Frankly, the wisdom shown by the quick exit shocks the heck out of me.


I think only the original poster argued that the offense sucks. I still maintain that there's a lot of lineups on the floor at times where the offense is more than challanged to put up points. That isn't arguing the offense sucks over 48 minutes a game for all the games - just for periods, extended or otherwise, in-game.



> The issue of whether the Bulls' offense could stand improvement, via the acquisition of a post scorer or otherwise, is really a different argument, as is whether the Bulls' offense is playoff-ready.


If the bulls do play 1 on 5 or 2 on 5 a lot, the addition of a post scorer (or otherwise) should mean we play 2 on 5, or 3 on 5, more.



> I continue to find it odd that the focus here is always on the offense. Frankly, I didn't expect the Bulls to have the 9th most productive offense, so I'm pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, with the addition of Wallace, I expected them to be top 5 on defense...which they're not (9th best there too). While I'm mildly disappointed, I'll leave it to someone else to start an "Our Defense Sucks!" thread.


Does the defense suck? A lot of people seem to think so, or are disappointed with 9th best, but it's not that cut and dried. We're playing against bigger players who can post us up and get higher % shots. And on offense, our pace dictates a lot of the points we give up - holding the ball for less than 24 seconds means more posessions for the other team, too. Plus, it seems to me we've been seeing teams get a lot of offensive rebounds (height thing again) in bunches that lead to higher % shots or at least 2nd chances.

The big indicator is point differential, since both teams are playing at the same pace...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> The best players usually make the best pieces to build upon. How are we, or how were we supposed to have acquired said player?
> 
> Paxson often gets criticized for never having drafted a superstar. However, how often has one been available at the Bulls selection that we did not take? The trade up for the #5 for Wade seemed to be closest, but then we still wouldn't have had Marshall's appealing contract to get Jalen Rose off of our hands.


We have two guys that are borderline superstar. They're just not getting minutes like superstars. One gets 36 minutes/game, which would put him at #20 in minutes/game among the top 25 scorers (if he were a top 25 scorer). The other gets 29 minutes/game and is among the top 25 scorers. That 29 minutes is almost 6 minutes/game less than #24 on that list in minutes/game.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Unfortunately, regular season W's haven't turned into post season series victories. Some of us are focusing on what it takes to win in the playoffs, including Paxson who's said we need post scoring (e.g. another scorer).


How often has a team with four starters all haaving four season or less of NBA experience win a championship? Unless a deal that comes along makes sense (both for win now and win later), I'm all for letting the young talent develop. Their value will only continue to go up (unless you feel they have peaked).

I know you operate most of your ideas around the theme, "what will it take the championship this year?" I try and look at things from a "win now" & "win later" perspective.

I'd say that most GMs that make a move just to make a move don't last very long in the business. The way some of us post, you would think you would make 4 trades per year every year if you were in Paxson's shoes.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We have two guys that are borderline superstar. They're just not getting minutes like superstars. One gets 36 minutes/game, which would put him at #20 in minutes/game among the top 25 scorers (if he were a top 25 scorer). The other gets 29 minutes/game and is among the top 25 scorers. That 29 minutes is almost 6 minutes/game less than #24 on that list in minutes/game.


This just brings up the usage debates. Will X player do better with Y more minutes? I see Skiles bringing Deng and Gordon along slowly as a good thing. You seem to believe that he is misusing them. Two different angles on the same piece of information... that's fine.

I understand your viewpoint, as season averages are your measuring stick. I think minutes being down is a sign of Skiles wanting to play our depth, which is solid for postseason aspirations as far as I'm concerned. I hope our young legs will be more fresh come playoff time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> However, how often has one been available at the Bulls selection that we did not take? The trade up for the #5 for Wade seemed to be closest, but then we still wouldn't have had Marshall's appealing contract to get Jalen Rose off of our hands.



I'd rather have Dwayne Wade a Bull in place of Hinrich and deal with Rose. We would have been able to trade him later on.

You are right, its tough to land a superstar.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> How often has a team with four starters all haaving four season or less of NBA experience win a championship? Unless a deal that comes along makes sense (both for win now and win later), I'm all for letting the young talent develop. Their value will only continue to go up (unless you feel they have peaked).
> 
> I know you operate most of your ideas around the theme, "what will it take the championship this year?" I try and look at things from a "win now" & "win later" perspective.
> 
> I'd say that most GMs that make a move just to make a move don't last very long in the business. The way some of us post, you would think you would make 4 trades per year every year if you were in Paxson's shoes.


Yeah, I look at the East this year and see that it's incredibly weak. We're not the best team in the East, but we're close enough that the addition of one guy who's not in his first four years of his career could get us into the finals.

If we stand pat, there are several teams that are almost certain to beat us in a playoff series: Washington, New Jersey, Cleveland, Indiana, Detroit, and even Miami. If they're all healthy and in shape.

No, I wouldn't make 4 trades every year. Most of the trades we've made I wouldn't have made. We sucked for long enough to get a lot of lotto picks; we gave some of them away for near nothing - and those guys are good and in their 6th seasons


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> This just brings up the usage debates. Will X player do better with Y more minutes? I see Skiles bringing Deng and Gordon along slowly as a good thing. You seem to believe that he is misusing them. Two different angles on the same piece of information... that's fine.
> 
> I understand your viewpoint, as season averages are your measuring stick. I think minutes being down is a sign of Skiles wanting to play our depth, which is solid for postseason aspirations as far as I'm concerned. I hope our young legs will be more fresh come playoff time.


Would Wade still be a great player if he got 29 minutes a game? It's not particularly about the usage numbers, but whether we actually have "superstars" already.

If we do, then the usage stats start looking a little odd.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

That does it. I'm going to go watch the movie Babel, I'm sure I'll see more useful communication in it than I have in this thread.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> If we stand pat, there are several teams that are almost certain to beat us in a playoff series: Washington, New Jersey, Cleveland, Indiana, Detroit, and even Miami. If they're all healthy and in shape.


This is where the disconnect I think is from me. I don't believe for a second the Bulls would lose to all of those teams in a 7 game series. I'm not absolutely sure any of them is a lock over the Bulls.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is where the disconnect I think is from me. I don't believe for a second the Bulls would lose to all of those teams in a 7 game series. I'm not absolutely sure any of them is a lock over the Bulls.


Agreed. None of them would be a "lock" against the Bulls, and I have no idea how one would even begin to support that argument.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If the bulls do play 1 on 5 or 2 on 5 a lot, the addition of a post scorer (or otherwise) should mean we play 2 on 5, or 3 on 5, more.


Not if you trade one of your offensively-talented players to get the new offensively-talented player...you end up in the same place, don't you? And, as has been proposed by many, if we trade 2 of our offensively-talented players to get the new offensively-talented player, don't we end up in a weaker position? I mean, if we really want to trade for a player who will make a real difference on the offensive end, don't we have to trade 2 of the following - Hinrich, Gordon, Deng or Nocioni?



> Does the defense suck? A lot of people seem to think so, or are disappointed with 9th best, but it's not that cut and dried. We're playing against bigger players who can post us up and get higher % shots. And on offense, our pace dictates a lot of the points we give up - holding the ball for less than 24 seconds means more posessions for the other team, too. Plus, it seems to me we've been seeing teams get a lot of offensive rebounds (height thing again) in bunches that lead to higher % shots or at least 2nd chances.


This works for me in an anecdotal way...I, too, have seen points in key games where it appeared that we had 5 midgets out there. Again, however, the stats don't seem to back this up. The Bulls still hold opponents to a pretty low shooting % and grab more offensive rebounds than their opponents. Statistically, their weakness appears to be defending the 3-pt shot. Simplistically, this tends to point to our smaller players, though as we all know, successful 3-pt shooting can often occur inside-out. Also, as you point out, the Bulls' relatively upbeat style of play makes it tough to hold teams to low point totals.

Nice post.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather have Dwayne Wade a Bull in place of Hinrich and deal with Rose. We would have been able to trade him later on.
> 
> You are right, its tough to land a superstar.


In hindsight, definately.

At the time of the draft, I was fine keeping the pick unless we could trade up into the top 4 (which was pretty obviously not going to happen). I preferred Wade to Hinrich, but was sold on Hinrich being a solid #2 on my draft board after the first four selections were made. I remember being in a very lonely boat as one of the few that cheered when Hinrich was selected. Being one of his few supporters on draft night, coupled with his gritty play as a rookie is what turned him into my favorite player.

However, I would not have given Marshall for the right to move up two spots in that draft. I think many wanted the trade done because they weren't sold on a backup guy. I was, and didn't want to give up Donyell to do so.

Clearly, trading would have been the better move. I don't fault Paxson for it, mainly because it seemed like he was thinking exactly the same as myself. Too bad Wade surpassed just about everyone's expectations. If the draft were redone, it would be a debate on who to take #2 behind LeBron, Wade or Melo.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Would Wade still be a great player if he got 29 minutes a game? It's not particularly about the usage numbers, but whether we actually have "superstars" already.
> 
> If we do, then the usage stats start looking a little odd.


Wade is pretty good on defense. If he bought into the defensive system, I see no reason why he wouldn't be playing Kirk-like minutes. Had he had as good a year as he did for Miami here, our W total should have gone up, and we would not have gotten Gordon the following season, nor might have Phoenix traded us the pick for the rights to Deng.

Skiles has limited Gordon's minutes in the past mainly because of defensive purposes. He has improved each year in this area, and I've actually been quite pleased. Had he been given his entitlement 40 mpg as a rookie averaging 22 ppg while playing poor defense, do you think he would have focused on that aspect of his game?

Maybe so. The answer is, I don't know.

How much would our record be improved by if Gordon played 40mpg? Would he be as effective by the end of the year?

After all of last offseasons moves were made, I didn't think we would be competing for a Championship this year. I thought we would need to develop chemistry and our young players develop another year. If everything was progressing as planned, I thought we might be contenders as soon as next season with our existing group. So far, things seem to be about on pace. Playoffs will be a good barometer. Making the ECFs is a lofty goal, but an achieveable one. I wouldn't expect a first round and out this season, unless something happens to one of our core guys.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> This thread is funny.
> 
> It's encouraging to know that some things never truly change. The Bulls offense is just fine. As I've said pretty much from the start of the season - it's our defense that still needs work.
> 
> Major props to The Penguin. You can only shout at the wind for so long. After a while, you lose your voice but the wind just keeps bellowing.


I feel sorry for Ron Cey sometimes. Let's start a club called "The Penguin Mafia", and stick up for the guy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My premise is based upon two factors. 

First being that it's a 7 game series and the opponents will learn about what we do and what are players are capable of after a game or two. That's been true of both the last two playoff series - we had leads of 2 games to none and then got swept. Instead of a team looking at game film of their next opponent, they're going to be looking at us and focused on how to beat us.

Second being that these teams have a number of mismatches against us they can exploit. This is how Miami beat us, and how Washington did the year before.

Washington looks a lot like our team. Except their best 3 players are better than our best 3 players.

New Jersey is pretty much the same story. Their best 3 are better than our best 3. Not only that, their guards are huge next to ours when standing upright - we saw Kidd post up and score at will late in the last game, and it wouldn't matter if it were Hinrich or Gordon or Duhon. They'll figure that out, and to play zone against us (we wilted) and more.

Cleveland is huge on the front line and that's a mismatch they can exploit. They also have THE best player in the game, arguably, and basically counter our best players with better ones.

Indiana is just a difficult matchup for us. O'Neal is Wallace-like on defense and Deng-like on offense. Harrington is equal to Deng on offense, IMO, and the real difference maker is Jackson. He's a skilled post up and isolation kind of player and he's way bigger than our guys who'd guard him. Plus, Indiana's offense is really geared toward finding the mismatch on the court and using those isolation plays to exploit it over and over. Like I said, it's a tough matchup for us.

We beat 'em convincingly without Billups. But this is a team with finals and conference finals experience. They match up with us on the frontline just fine, and their guards are superior to ours. They're a stronger defensive team than we are, currently, too.

Miami is something of a wild card. They sure don't look that good right now, but given a healthy Shaq ready for the playoffs, and if they have Walker in shape, they're pretty much the same team that won it all last season. And beat us. No matter how tough it was against us.


Now, to put back a sentence I wrote that qualifies my sense of things:



DaBullz said:


> *If they're all healthy and in shape.*


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*"The Penguin Mafia"*

:bananallama:


that's got a sweet dulcet ring to it. 

PM me - *mizenkay* - if you want to join the Penguin Mafia! i'm starting my first and last ever signature club. thanks slim!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> My premise is based upon two factors.
> 
> First being that it's a 7 game series and the opponents will learn about what we do and what are players are capable of after a game or two. That's been true of both the last two playoff series - we had leads of 2 games to none and then got swept. Instead of a team looking at game film of their next opponent, they're going to be looking at us and focused on how to beat us.
> 
> ...


We have had problem with lengthy teams in the past, this is true. We also still have these guys all playing meaningful minutes still on their rookie contracts:
Kirk Hinrich
Andres Nocioni
Luol Deng
Chris Duhon (if he were a first rounder)
Ben Gordon

Shouldn't inexperience be a factor in being able to win in the playoffs? Shouldn't player improvement be factored into figuring out winning? Remember how long it took MJ, the greatest of all time, to win in the playoffs. Why don't our kids get the same luxury?

Yes, a healthy Miami team still scares me in the playoffs. I'd say we are at about the same level as Detroit and Cleveland, and ahead of Washington and New Jersey. NJ is a tough matchup against us, I agree.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I feel sorry for Ron Cey sometimes. Let's start a club called "The Penguin Mafia", and stick up for the guy.


I am a big time fan of *The Penguin!*, but I think he doesn't need our help. In fact, sometimes I pity the guy for constantly arguing with folks who aren't interested in changing their own minds. I feel the same about the poor kid down the street who can't keep himself from beating his head against walls and such.

Ouch.

So I watch, read, and say a little "there you go, *Ron!*" when I see him wind up a good one, and then I just shake my head as I see the walls fail to be moved by the force of his puny little meat helmet.

I will say this, though. If I ever have a legal dispute of any consequence, I will find out exactly what it will take to get *Mr. Cey!* to work for me, because I imagine he'd be a bulldog as an advocate. Something everyone needs at least once in their lives.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Not if you trade one of your offensively-talented players to get the new offensively-talented player...you end up in the same place, don't you? And, as has been proposed by many, if we trade 2 of our offensively-talented players to get the new offensively-talented player, don't we end up in a weaker position? I mean, if we really want to trade for a player who will make a real difference on the offensive end, don't we have to trade 2 of the following - Hinrich, Gordon, Deng or Nocioni?


The trades I've seen were like Thomas, Deng, Sweetney, Draft Pick, PJ Brown for KG. We lose one guy. 

Now we get back to my whole thesis about who's on the court when the offense is sucking.

Suppose you subtract PJ Brown's 19 minutes/game and Nocioni's 28 but add back KG's 40 minutes?

(I know I'm substituting Noc for Deng in the trade, but this is the general idea)


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So basically...our offense would be more effective if we had a three point shooter in the corner? Thats what I'm gathering from this thread. Gordon is too short, they can easily close off the corner. But say if we were to trade for a JR Smith or Kyle Korver, we'd be just that much better of a team, with Deng in the other corner, and Gordon at the top of the key (where he's most effective). What would it take to get a JR Smith or Kyle Korver type player, that would be the perfect complement to Gordon and Deng in our perimeter offense...a couple 2nd round picks?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> What would it take to get a JR Smith or Kyle Korver type player, that would be the perfect complement to Gordon and Deng in our perimeter offense...a couple 2nd round picks?



Nocioni is a good 3pt shooter, isn't he? And since when is Ben having trouble getting his shot off because he's too short?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> What would it take to get a *JR Smith* or Kyle Korver type player, that would be the perfect complement to Gordon and Deng in our perimeter offense...a couple 2nd round picks?



i may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is just CLASSIC!!

seriously, a mod should consider a *big fat sticky* for this thread. maybe unstick the looking for a mod thread?

(sorry, bad former mod habit!!)

go sloth!

:yay:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is just CLASSIC!!
> 
> seriously, a mod should consider a *big fat sticky* for this thread. maybe unstick the looking for a mod thread?
> 
> ...


Notice also that he mentioned two second round picks as the value of JR Smith. Very nice.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Notice also that he mentioned two second round picks as the value of JR Smith. Very nice.


LOL. 

The hits keep coming in this thead :yay:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

pax's suck's as a gm.

(does that statement raise or lower the level of discourse going on here?)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Clearly, trading would have been the better move. I don't fault Paxson for it, mainly because it seemed like he was thinking exactly the same as myself.


What bothers me about Paxson not making that deal is that he supposedly wanted Wade. He had the right guy pegged, but he just lacked the stones to do the deal.

He had no problem trading Marshall a couple months later after promising a winning season to rid the team of a guy with a broken hand ASAP. He either didn't value Marshall that much or severely overestimated the need to rid the team of Jalen Rose immediately, IMO.

That being said, if we didn't have the sucky season that year that netted us the #3 pick that became Gordon, perhaps Phoenix would not have taken the gamble on the Bulls sucking yet again and we would not have Deng.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I feel sorry for Ron Cey sometimes. Let's start a club called "The Penguin Mafia", and stick up for the guy.


With all due respect, the Penguin has shown, time and again, that he can more than hold his own.

Personally, I don't always agree with the Penguin...just most of the time. He carries the mantle of the "voice of reason" brilliantly. Others have done this well over the years, but he may be the best of the breed.

Penguin, I won't join the club because it'll look silly when I think you're full of it. This doesn't mean that I don't hold you in the highest regard.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> What bothers me about Paxson not making that deal is that he supposedly wanted Wade. He had the right guy pegged, but he just lacked the stones to do the deal.
> 
> He had no problem trading Marshall a couple months later after promising a winning season to rid the team of a guy with a broken hand ASAP. He either didn't value Marshall that much or severely overestimated the need to rid the team of Jalen Rose immediately, IMO.
> 
> That being said, if we didn't have the sucky season that year that netted us the #3 pick that became Gordon, perhaps Phoenix would not have taken the gamble on the Bulls sucking yet again and we would not have Deng.


This is a completely fair rundown, IMO. Paxson, then a brand new GM, saw something special in Wade, but wasn't willing to go balls-out for him. It may be argued that he learned a lesson from that when he took risks to get Gordon and Thomas.

No matter how you rationalize it, Wade would look great in a Bulls uni.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

transplant said:


> This is a completely fair rundown, IMO. Paxson, then a brand new GM, saw something special in Wade, but wasn't willing to go balls-out for him. It may be argued that he learned a lesson from that when he took risks to get Gordon and Thomas.
> 
> No matter how you rationalize it, Wade would look great in a Bulls uni.


A lot of people had a lot of questions as to how well Wade would adjust to the NBA. You know, a short shooting guard without an outside jumper?

Paxson may have been hesitant, but it wasn't like Wade's emergence as a star was a certainty at the time of the draft.

Of course, you know what they say about hindsight.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> What bothers me about Paxson not making that deal is that he supposedly wanted Wade. He had the right guy pegged, but he just lacked the stones to do the deal.


Perhaps Paxson learned something from that decision. He certainly fanagled some trades in the past draft and still got the guys he wanted.

Of course, this year I preferred Aldridge to Thomas. I guess that shows we are not the same person.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

jbulls said:


> pax's suck's as a gm.
> 
> (does that statement raise or lower the level of discourse going on here?)


That depends if a comment, however idiotic, supports my agenda or not.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Electric Slim said:


> Nocioni is a good 3pt shooter, isn't he? And since when is Ben having trouble getting his shot off because he's too short?


Gordon has no problem getting his shot off, he has trouble receiving the ball though, because he's an easy cover by a lengthy, tall guard in the corner.

Ideally, when Hinrich gets out of his slump (hopefully soon), we can have Hinrich as the corner guy (he has a good three), and then Deng getting the midrange jumpers, and then Nocioni getting the my guy gave me space so I'm wide open on the wings threes. Kirk definitely has an easier time receiving the ball in the corner from what I've seen. I think Gordon is most potent at the top of the key, so thats where he should play. It can work with the players we have now, but it'd work best say if we get a solid post up option, then Gordon will work in the corner. If I was the Spurs, and Paxson plays his crap games with Gordon and free agency, Spurs should pounce and trade one of Ginobli or Parker for Gordon, because Gordon is the perfect player to play next to Duncan. Hopefully we can get that post up option, but until we get that post up option, Gordon will probably have to be at the top of the key to be most effective, and for the team to be most effective. If we get through his growing pains of turnovers now, we'll be a better team come playoff team....and come on, even with Gordon's mistakes, he still usually gets us the W.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i'm more about its lack of diversity , its simply not an engaging offense to watch , i dont remember being drawn to watching it when jason kidd was running it in pho. under skiles and i'm not drawn to it now.
> 
> everything is perimeter , and running the P & R 50 times the way the bulls run isn't up to par in effectiveness or entertainment value as watching stockton and malone.
> 
> the most appeaing offenses have players doing different things , posting up , running the floor , doing textbook and highlight things , the bulls dont offer that as much as other teams ...its like watching a euroleague game.


Oh, I definately agree that people watch and support teams for all sorts of different reasons. I was a PG and am a basketball purist, so I definately can appreciate watching an offense as a whole at work. I enjoy watching offensive efficiency, and with the lack of a superstar, I like the offensive sets we run.

It also skews my viewpoint on players. Outside of Dirk Nowitzki, most of my favorite non-Bull players have been PGs... Tim Hardaway, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, and Tony Parker. I also like to watch Jason Williams for entertainment, especially during his Sacramento days.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The Truth said:


> A lot of people had a lot of questions as to how well Wade would adjust to the NBA. You know, a short shooting guard without an outside jumper?
> 
> Paxson may have been hesitant, but it wasn't like Wade's emergence as a star was a certainty at the time of the draft.
> 
> Of course, you know what they say about hindsight.


Anyone that watched Marquette at all, could see that Dwyane Wade was going to be a superstar in the NBA. Paxson just didn't do his homework.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Anyone that watched Marquette at all, could see that Dwyane Wade was going to be a superstar in the NBA. Paxson just didn't do his homework.


Do you honestly believe that Paxson didn't do his homework? For the DRAFT?

Also, I can run-off a list of undersized shooting guard college superstars who didn't do squat in the NBA.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Do you honestly believe that Paxson didn't do his homework? For the DRAFT?
> 
> Also, I can run-off a list of undersized shooting guard college superstars who didn't do squat in the NBA.


He obviously did his homework, otherwise he wouldn't have wanted the guy. It was maybe a gamble to hope that he'd fall to #7. Pax was a rookie GM at the time, so it's fair to cut him a little slack because he didn't know better. he's gotten better.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

This thread basically ruined the board for a day. It should have been locked at around post 40.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Anyone that watched Marquette at all, could see that Dwyane Wade was going to be a superstar in the NBA. Paxson just didn't do his homework.


then why would riley even consider passing on the kid?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Anyone that watched Marquette at all, could see that Dwyane Wade was going to be a superstar in the NBA. Paxson just didn't do his homework.


Do you firmly, and truthfully believe that? 

I understand K4E's frustration that he didn't gamble on what turned out to an All-star, but part of why I think K4E is so frustrated is because he knew that Pax was so high on him (glowing reports on his 2 workouts, etc).


So where does your "homework" comment come from? Just curious.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

edit


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Electric Slim said:


> Do you firmly, and truthfully believe that?
> 
> I understand K4E's frustration that he didn't gamble on what turned out to an All-star, but part of why I think K4E is so frustrated is because he knew that Pax was so high on him (glowing reports on his 2 workouts, etc).
> 
> ...


Fine, he did his homework, but its only good enough for a "C"


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> edit


this is what i clearly remember as well. marquette got schooled by kansas in that semi-final game and kirk outplayed wade that night. 

also - as i recall - wade really didn't start to come into his own with the heat until the playoffs his rookie season (and this was the year before shaq remember). 

he struggled a bit, _like any other rookie_ that year not named lebron.


EDIT: rj quick with the edit!! but you were not wrong!!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I honestly think that when we score more points than the other team, Skiles should just keep doing that over and over again, and when we don't score more points than the other team, Skiles should just quit whatever he's doing and focus on scoring more points than the other team. Over and over again.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> this is what i clearly remember as well. marquette got schooled by kansas in that semi-final game and kirk outplayed wade that night.
> 
> also - as i recall - wade really didn't start to come into his own with the heat until the playoffs his rookie season (and this was the year before shaq remember).
> 
> ...


<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" class="TMSubHead2" width="140">* FINAL *</td><td class="TMSubHead2" align="center" width="35">*1ST*</td><td class="TMSubHead2" align="center" width="35">*2ND*</td><td class="TMSubHead2" align="center" width="35">*TOTAL*</td> </tr><tr> <td class="TBData1" valign="center" width="180">*Marquette*</td><td class="TBData1" align="center" width="35">30</td><td class="TBData1" align="center" width="35">31</td><td class="TBData1" align="center" width="35">*61*</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TBData1" valign="center" width="180">*Kansas*</td><td class="TBData1" align="center" width="35">59</td><td class="TBData1" align="center" width="35">35</td><td class="TBData1" align="center" width="35">*94*</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td colspan="14" class="TSubTitle" align="center">MARQUETTE</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Player*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center"> </td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Min*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*FG-A*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*FT-A*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*3P-A*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Off*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Reb*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Ast*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*St*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*TO*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Blk*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*PF*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Pts*</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Todd Townsend</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">F</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">22</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-3</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1-2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Scott Merritt</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">F</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">24</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">5-14</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2-2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">7</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">11</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">12</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Robert Jackson</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">C</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">30</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">6-12</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">3-4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">6</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">9</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">15</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Dwyane Wade</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">G</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">29</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">7-15</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">4-8</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">6</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">19</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Travis Diener</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">G</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">35</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1-11</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2-2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1-5</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">8</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">5</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Karon Bradley</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">14</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-7</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Jared Sichting</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Steve Novak</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">18</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-7</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-5</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Tony Gries</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Joe Chapman</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">10</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Chris Grimm</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">5</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1-1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Terry Sanders</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">11</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" class="TMData3" align="left">Team Totals</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">23-74</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">12-18</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">3-16</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">20</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">38</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">7</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">7</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">11</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">17</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">61</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" class="TMData3" align="left"> </td><td class="TMData3" align="right">.311</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">.667</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">.188</td><td colspan="4" class="TMData3" align="right">Team Reb: 1</td><td colspan="4" class="TMData3" align="right">Team TO: 0</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td colspan="14" class="TSubTitle" align="center">KANSAS</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Player*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center"> </td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Min*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*FG-A*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*FT-A*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*3P-A*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Off*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Reb*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Ast*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*St*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*TO*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Blk*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*PF*</td><td class="TMSubHead" align="center">*Pts*</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Nick Collison</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">F</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">26</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">6-7</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">15</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">5</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">12</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Keith Langford</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">F</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">32</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">11-14</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">5</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">23</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Jeff Graves</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">C</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">27</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2-4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1-4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">6</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">9</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">5</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Kirk Hinrich</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">G</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">25</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">6-13</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3-4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3-7</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">18</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Aaron Miles</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">G</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">29</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">7-12</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2-3</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2-4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">5</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">18</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Jeff Hawkins</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">6</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Brett Olson</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Stephen Vinson</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">5</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-2</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Michael Lee</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">22</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">4-8</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2-2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">3-3</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">6</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">13</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Bryant Nash</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">18</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">3</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData1" align="left">Christian Moody</td><td class="TMData1" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">3</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">2</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData1" align="right">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="TMData2" align="left">Moulaye Niang</td><td class="TMData2" align="center">
</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">4</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1-3</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0-0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">1</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">0</td><td class="TMData2" align="right">2</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" class="TMData3" align="left">Team Totals</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">38-71</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">10-17</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">8-19</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">19</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">51</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">22</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">8</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">12</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">5</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">15</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">94</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" class="TMData3" align="left"> </td><td class="TMData3" align="right">.535</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">.588</td><td class="TMData3" align="right">.421</td><td colspan="4" class="TMData3" align="right">Team Reb: 1</td><td colspan="4" class="TMData3" align="right">Team TO: 0</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
*Officials: *Mike Kitts, Karl Hess, Tom Lopes . 
*Att:*54432


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Gordon has no problem getting his shot off, he has trouble receiving the ball though, because he's an easy cover by a lengthy, tall guard in the corner.
> 
> Ideally, when Hinrich gets out of his slump (hopefully soon), we can have Hinrich as the corner guy (he has a good three), and then Deng getting the midrange jumpers, and then Nocioni getting the my guy gave me space so I'm wide open on the wings threes. Kirk definitely has an easier time receiving the ball in the corner from what I've seen. I think Gordon is most potent at the top of the key, so thats where he should play. It can work with the players we have now, but it'd work best say if we get a solid post up option, then Gordon will work in the corner. If I was the Spurs, and Paxson plays his crap games with Gordon and free agency, Spurs should pounce and trade one of Ginobli or Parker for Gordon, because Gordon is the perfect player to play next to Duncan. Hopefully we can get that post up option, but until we get that post up option, Gordon will probably have to be at the top of the key to be most effective, and for the team to be most effective. If we get through his growing pains of turnovers now, we'll be a better team come playoff team....and come on, even with Gordon's mistakes, he still usually gets us the W.


The Bulls have been running the play you describe from time to time. They don't do it more often because Duhon and Hinrich, and for that matter Sefolosha, are better ball handlers and passers than Gordon. Gordon has improved a lot in these areas, but he still has a long way to go before he could do a good imitation of Arenas or Paul at the top of the key. Besides, he's the best outside shooter on the team, and one of the best outside shooters in the NBA. It would be wise to use him as an outside threat.

Even if Gordon somehow approached Arenas-like skills as a point guard, I doubt very much that Skiles would be comfortable turning his team into a one-man show on offense like so many other teams have done. IMO, a point guard who takes 20+ shots per game is more a curse than a blessing, no matter how good a shooter he is. JR Smith, would demoralize the team's offense inside of a week if given a chance -- and lead the team to destruction on the defensive end as well. 

It's worth recalling the Skiles still holds the single game record for assists. My guess is that he'd love for the record to be broken by one of his players -- at this point Duhon or Hinrich.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

That reminds me, we should sign Robert Jackson. He was always a good big. Did all the little things, was a real banger downlow. Antonio Davis esque, but stronger. He'd be a good complement to Wallace.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

BTW, in that Kansas-Marquette game (the fourth-most lopsided score in Final Four history), Hinrich and Langford took turns guarding Wade, while Wade mainly guarded Langford. Hinrich didn't play much in the 2nd half as the game was already decided in the first half (KU had 59 at the break).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Wynn said:


> I am a big time fan of *The Penguin!*, but I think he doesn't need our help. In fact, sometimes I pity the guy for constantly arguing with folks who aren't interested in changing their own minds. I feel the same about the poor kid down the street who can't keep himself from beating his head against walls and such.
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure what to make of this post. But I like meat helmet references. 

But I don't understand the pity. If we aren't going to respond to baseless opinions, then the board is just going to have a ton of baseless posts with little contrast. And it might die a boring death indeed.

Lets find out.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not quite sure what to make of this post. But I like meat helmet references.
> 
> But I don't understand the pity. If we aren't going to respond to baseless opinions, then the board is just going to have a ton of baseless posts with little contrast. And it might die a boring death indeed.
> 
> Lets find out.


Hear here!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Fine, he did his homework, but its only good enough for a "C"



Just give it up already. You made it up and got called on it. Live with it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Just give it up already. You made it up and got called on it. Live with it.



Called out on what?

Paxson drafted Kirk Hinrich (good player), but just a roleplayer. He could have had Wade by basically giving up Hinrich and Marshall. He gave up Marshall as basically fish bait in a trade a few months later.

Doesn't seem like A work to me.


----------

