# What if Miami Heat don't win it all this season?



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

1. three healthy superstars are too young;
2. three superstars don't have great supporting casts;
3. three superstars need more time to play together.

What else?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Lakers are too good?

I'll probably go with lack of supporting cast.

If they don't win it I think injuries is a likely reason.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

5. Lebron spontaneously combusts killing Dwade and injuring Bosh's face causing him to live in the shadows with a mask like Dr. Doom.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

I think the only team Miami can obviously lose to without the media tearing them apart are the Lakers. Which means they would lose in the Finals. 

If they lose to any other team there's going to be heavy criticism for the big three, especially Lebron.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Its a ridiculous question, because the Heat will steamroll to win the EC. If they don't, it will be an embarrassment of epic proportions


----------



## BlackNRed (Feb 9, 2005)

If they don't win and there is no injuries we'll get it next year, no excuses. It's not like the year Miami got Shaq and a bunch of vets with a small window of opportunity to win. This core is together for 6 years.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Pay Ton said:


> I think the only team Miami can obviously lose to without the media tearing them apart are the Lakers. Which means they would lose in the Finals.


We shouldn't be torn apart by the media if we lost to the Lakers, but we still would.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Then we're going to act like the towers are comin' down again.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

if they don't win it all this season they will the next.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

O2K said:


> if they don't win it all this season they will the next.


This is the general consensus. 

I disagree though. I think they'll win it all when Kobe shows considerable decline (slight decline is not enough because he's still too good).


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

Lakers are obviously the #1 roadblock for now, and their core is intact for good essentially. There is also always the chance of them striking it lucky through another trade or draft, so who knows how large their window is. Fact is the 3 on the heat all have ETO's after the fourth year, so im in the camp that they better get it done sooner than later or they might end up going a different route to piggybacking a title.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Right now they don't really have any veteren's I would trust to make big plays except maybe Haslem. The Kobe-Shaq Lakers had guys like Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Fox... not guys who are even scared to shoot on lottery teams like Mike Miller.

They will get those guys over time I imagine, then they will win.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

If they don't win, not to many people would be surprise. Now if they don't make toe the finals, then that is when all hell breaks loose.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

As long as it's the Lakers that beat them then it won't be that big of a deal. If anyone else knocks them out though LeBron is going to feel Kobe mid 2000s hate from the media.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If Dwight Howard or the Old Folk's Home in Boston does them in, oh boy, it's going to be glorious.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

I would give them two years.


----------



## Krimzon (Feb 26, 2007)

Everyone is going to pick them apart for weeks. There will be many debates like the three not stepping up, coach not good enough, injuries, and one sided officiated games. The further they go in the playoffs the less criticism they will receive. They are likely to win at least one during their time together, but probably not this season. We'll find out when the season starts.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

This is probably going to be the hardest year for them to win it. If they do they're going to win like 6 in a row. Just because once they get that championship swagger to add to their talents, they'll scare the **** out of every other team in the league and win a lot of games before they even step on the floor.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

I love how some are looking right over the Celtics... again.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

A lot of people overlooked the spurs for a long time. Everyone said that they were getting old. 


And then they got old.


The end.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Duck34234 said:


> A lot of people overlooked the spurs for a long time. Everyone said that they were getting old.
> 
> 
> And then they got old.
> ...


Well if you scream it every year, eventually you'll be right. But in the meantime... 

So have fun with that.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

A lot of people are sleeping on the Bulls. I feel like they're the second biggest threat to the Heat, outside of LAL. I feel like the Heat are going to have to fight tooth and nail against them in a minimum six game set in the ECF.


----------



## Attila (Jul 23, 2003)

This group of guys haven't played a single game together yet. Yes, they should be one of the best teams this next season, but it's too soon to consider them a lock for anything.

They should win the east, but there are some other teams of out that do have a chance of competing with them.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

ChrisWoj said:


> A lot of people are sleeping on the Bulls. I feel like they're the second biggest threat to the Heat, outside of LAL. I feel like the Heat are going to have to fight tooth and nail against them in a minimum six game set in the ECF.


Maybe.

I feel like the Bulls are a solid team. That is our current state. Solid teams almost never win championships, and are usually just obstacles, albeit challenging ones, for greater teams before they win their titles. I feel like we're just an obstacle for the Heat. A threat is too strong a word, because it implies that we can beat them. I hate to be so negative, but I don't think our current roster can beat this Heat team. I don't even see it as being negative, I feel like that's realistic. We may take them to six games, but as Jordan once said, "It's like playing your little brother. He may take one or two games, but in the end you know you're going to beat him."


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Right now they don't really have any veteren's I would trust to make big plays except maybe Haslem. The Kobe-Shaq Lakers had guys like Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Fox... not guys who are even scared to shoot on lottery teams like Mike Miller.
> 
> They will get those guys over time I imagine, then they will win.


I pretty much was gonna say that, but wouldn't be surprised to see them win it this year.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

BeeGee said:


> I love how some are looking right over the Celtics... again.


Ray and Pierce defending Wade and LeBron? Yikes.


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Right now they don't really have any veteren's I would trust to make big plays except maybe Haslem. The Kobe-Shaq Lakers had guys like Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Fox... not guys who are even scared to shoot on lottery teams like Mike Miller.
> 
> They will get those guys over time I imagine, then they will win.


but you only have Fisher but Anyways from what i seen only Udonis and House has taken big shots for the last 5 years.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

If they lose, Spolestra is fired. Simple as that. Riley will take over and the Heat will win the next season.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MiamiHeat03 said:


> but you only have Fisher but Anyways from what i seen only Udonis and House has taken big shots for the last 5 years.


Not sure what you mean, either you missed the part where I said Kobe/Shaq Lakers or you feel Fisher is currently the only player on the Lakers worth mentioning.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Pay Ton said:


> Maybe.
> 
> I feel like the Bulls are a solid team. That is our current state. Solid teams almost never win championships, and are usually just obstacles, albeit challenging ones, for greater teams before they win their titles. I feel like we're just an obstacle for the Heat. A threat is too strong a word, because it implies that we can beat them. I hate to be so negative, but I don't think our current roster can beat this Heat team. I don't even see it as being negative, I feel like that's realistic. We may take them to six games, but as Jordan once said, "It's like playing your little brother. He may take one or two games, but in the end you know you're going to beat him."


I don't think the Bulls have much of a chance at beating the Heat either. That being said I don't think _anyone_ has much of a chance at beating Miami. In a normal year the Bulls would be legitamate contenders with the team they have put together. In a normal year the Lakers would be huge favorites to win it all. However this isn't normal i'm pretty sure that nobody will even be competitive if Miami stays healthy. (Lakers included)

But... You never know what can happen in a 7 game series. There is always Hope.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> I don't think the Bulls have much of a chance at beating the Heat either. That being said I don't think _anyone_ has much of a chance at beating Miami. In a normal year the Bulls would be legitamate contenders with the team they have put together. In a normal year the Lakers would be huge favorites to win it all. However this isn't normal i'm pretty sure that nobody will even be competitive if Miami stays healthy. (Lakers included)
> 
> But... You never know what can happen in a 7 game series. There is always Hope.


I don't know, your starting lineup is sorta bereft of shooting. I love Ronnie Brewer as much as the next guy, but he can't shoot to save his life. Korver is a SF only, so at the moment I'm not sure how you guys function with opponents packing the paint on you. You could start K-2 at the SG spot, but you're inviting everyone to torch you there. That's something Chicago has to address.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I don't know if there's a team in the East that can take the new Heat to 6 games unless something terrible goes wrong. The Lakers will be a dog fight for them, I can't wait for that potential Finals series


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yeah, the Celtics' owners are holding the line on spending and determined to punt away their last year of possible contention. If they piss off Pierce and Garnett with their refusal to add a bench they could be in for a loooooong spell at the bottom of the NBA.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> I don't know, your starting lineup is sorta bereft of shooting. I love Ronnie Brewer as much as the next guy, but he can't shoot to save his life. Korver is a SF only, so at the moment I'm not sure how you guys function with opponents packing the paint on you. You could start K-2 at the SG spot, but you're inviting everyone to torch you there. That's something Chicago has to address.


Every team has weaknesses. While we might not have great long-range shooting, we do have great mid-range shooting. So our shooting as a whole isn't bad.

But no team is perfect. The Lakers had a huge weakness (fisher) and also lacked good perimeter shooting and they still won the championship. 

We will be the best rebounding team in the NBA, An elite defensive team, and our team has plenty of scorers. So I am not too worried about lacking 3pt shooters. And Korver can play 2g in fact ESPN lists him as a 2g so I don't understand you calling him "a sf only". But whatever. I believe we are the 2nd best team in the east and our future is among the brightest in the NBA. so we just have to see how the season plays out.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

If Chicago had went after someone like Joe Johnson, then they would have a fighters chance against Miami.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Game3525 said:


> If Chicago had went after someone like Joe Johnson, then they would have a fighters chance against Miami.


I think we are better off without him. He just got grossly overpaid. And instead of him we addressed our second biggest concern from last year. Depth. We had no depth and would have still had no depth if we added JJ. Instead of JJ we have Korver, Brewer, Watson, K Thomas, Asik (and probably someone like Roger Mason). So that is a lot of depth that would have been filled by vet min guys, instead of legitamate players, and none of their salaries will be growing they will all keep the same cap hit, and are shorter term deals. I believe it is much more beneficial W/O JJ then with, both long-term (no brainer) and short term.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

caseyrh said:


> I think we are better off without him. He just got grossly overpaid. And instead of him we addressed our second biggest concern from last year. Depth. We had no depth and would have still had no depth if we added JJ. Instead of JJ we have Korver, Brewer, Watson, K Thomas, Asik (and probably someone like Roger Mason). So that is a lot of depth that would have been filled by vet min guys, instead of legitamate players, and none of their salaries will be growing they will all keep the same cap hit, and are shorter term deals. I believe it is much more beneficial W/O JJ then with, both long-term (no brainer) and short term.


Johnson is overrated but he is better then Brewer or Korver, if they had gotten him along with Boozer they would be the 2nd best team in the East. Currently, they are around 4th.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> Every team has weaknesses. While we might not have great long-range shooting, we do have great mid-range shooting. So our shooting as a whole isn't bad.


Without the long range shooting to stretch the floor the mid-range shooting is less effective. Essentially opposing defenses just don't need to worry about covering more than 18'-19' from the rim.



caseyrh said:


> And Korver can play 2g in fact ESPN lists him as a 2g so I don't understand you calling him "a sf only".


Because he can't really defend SGs at all? SGs score against him at a much higher clip.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> I think we are better off without him. He just got grossly overpaid. And instead of him we addressed our second biggest concern from last year. Depth. We had no depth and would have still had no depth if we added JJ. Instead of JJ we have Korver, Brewer, Watson, K Thomas, Asik (and probably someone like Roger Mason). So that is a lot of depth that would have been filled by vet min guys, instead of legitamate players, and none of their salaries will be growing they will all keep the same cap hit, and are shorter term deals. I believe it is much more beneficial W/O JJ then with, both long-term (no brainer) and short term.


Depth is overrated. It's only real use is to get your starters some rest during the regular season so that they're ready to go full bore when the games count. Come playoff time the whole "We have the best 9th through 12th men in the NBA!!!!" and $1.50 gets you a cup of coffee. 

In the case of the Bulls, you already had depth at the one area of concern (wherever Boozer plays) in Taj Gibson and James Johnson (as a swing forward) and further solidified the spot with a vet minimum signing that could have been made regardless of whether or not they'd signed Joe Johnson. And there's no universe in the multiverse where Ronnie Brewer + Kyle Korver > Joe Johnson (unless he's a paraplegic in some iteration of Earth).


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Depth is overrated. It's only real use is to get your starters some rest during the regular season so that they're ready to go full bore when the games count. Come playoff time the whole "We have the best 9th through 12th men in the NBA!!!!" and $1.50 gets you a cup of coffee.


Bottomline is that teams don't play their starters 48 minutes, and the more they do play them the less productive and more injury prone they get. Also players get injured is part of professional sports. Even when the entire starting lineup is healthy about a third of the game is played by your bench. That third of the game is important. Trust me we had vet min guys doing it last year and they absoluteley killed us. Imagine having Chris Richard, Jannero Pargo, James Johnson, Lindsay Hunter being your primary backups at their respective positions. It killed us.



> In the case of the Bulls, you already had depth at the one area of concern (wherever Boozer plays) in Taj Gibson and *James Johnson* (as a swing forward) and further solidified the spot with a vet minimum signing that could have been made regardless of whether or not they'd signed Joe Johnson. And there's no universe in the multiverse where Ronnie Brewer + Kyle Korver > Joe Johnson (unless he's a paraplegic in some iteration of Earth


James Johnson is terrible, so that isn't helping your arguement. Yes Taj is an excellent ench player to have but that would have been it on the bench. Backup C, SF, 2g, PG, aren't important? Ok.

And Like I said it isn't Brewer + Korver vs JJ. Brewer and Korver compine for like 9.5 mil this year. JJ gets like what 16 mil? 16 mil>9.5 mil. And JJ is averaging 20 mil a year, Korver and Brewer average 9.5 mil. At least in this universe. So if you are going to make an arguement at least try and be honest. I know, I know, too much to ask from you.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Without the long range shooting to stretch the floor the mid-range shooting is less effective. Essentially opposing defenses just don't need to worry about covering more than 18'-19' from the rim.
> .


I guess we will see. But for now I will trust my BBall IQ over yours.




> Because he can't really defend SGs at all? SGs score against him at a much higher clip


You realize you provided no suport for this statement. Right? anyayws even if it is true it doesn't mean Korver can't play 2g. Because we already know he can and has.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

The point is they would have been better off with Johnson, him being overpaid doesn't make him a lesser player then Korver or Brewer.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Bottomline is that teams don't play their starters 48 minutes, and the more they do play them the less productive and more injury prone they get. Also players get injured is part of professional sports. Even when the entire starting lineup is healthy about a third of the game is played by your bench. That third of the game is important. Trust me we had vet min guys doing it last year and they absoluteley killed us. Imagine having Chris Richard, Jannero Pargo, James Johnson, Lindsay Hunter being your primary backups at their respective positions. It killed us.


One really can't go without the other. You need quality depth so that your stars are fresh come playoff time. However that doesn't mean that you can replace a star with depth. Brewer/Korver and whatever else the Bulls have may be fresh come April, but when you pair up against a tired Joe Johnson, chances are you'll have more success with Joe Johnson. As a Raptor fan our team have played the depth card for years and it just doesn't work.

Basketball is a simple game really. Only 10 guys can be on the court at once and if you have 5 guys that are a lot better than the other team, chances are you will win.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> I will trust my BBall IQ


That and 75¢ will get you a morning paper



caseyrh said:


> You realize you provided no suport for this statement. Right? anyayws even if it is true it doesn't mean Korver can't play 2g. Because we already know he can and has.


Per 82games opposing SGs torch Korver at a rate of 22.4/48 on .514 shooting as opposed to 18.2 on .459 shooting at the SF spot. He isn't getting any quicker. And none of this changes the fact that Joe Johnson >>> Ronnie Brewer + Kyle Korver. Because JJ can shoot.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

I remember when I lived in NJ, and I used to catch some Philly games. They used to start him at the three and Iggy at the 2(Even though Iggy was more suited for the 3),because him and Iverson would have been the worst defensive backcourt in the league.

Korver can shoot the lightsout, but he is guy you want coming of the bench for no more then 20 minutes a night.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Can we make it BBB.net law so that Korver has to defend Joe Johnson 1 on 1 in all future playoff series? That might be the only way for Joe to average anywhere close to 20 ppg in the postseason.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

the bulls would have been better off this year and next with joe johnson. However it would be a very very shortsighted move. I don't think there is any bulls fan that is upset at losing out on Joe Johnson. He got paid. Unless he would have taken a massive paycut we don't want him. The bulls aren't winning a championship anytime soon unless they come out with a massive trade or signing (getting granger, melo, etc.) But the 2 spot is the weakest for the bulls, hopefully we can overcome it but it won't really be much different than last year. The bulls were really bad last year in three point shooting. They'll be better this year, that should help.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> Bottomline is that teams don't play their starters 48 minutes, and the more they do play them the less productive and more injury prone they get. Also players get injured is part of professional sports. Even when the entire starting lineup is healthy about a third of the game is played by your bench. That third of the game is important. Trust me we had vet min guys doing it last year and they absoluteley killed us. Imagine having Chris Richard, Jannero Pargo, James Johnson, Lindsay Hunter being your primary backups at their respective positions. It killed us.


What killed you was the fact that, offensively speaking, your starters weren't very good. I know that people relying on "depth" to fuel their favourite team's success don't want to face this, but really they're just there to give the starters rest. If your starters aren't good enough you can have the best 8th-12th men in the history of the NBA and it won't matter.



caseyrh said:


> James Johnson is terrible, so that isn't helping your arguement. Yes Taj is an excellent ench player to have but that would have been it on the bench.


Boozer, Noah, Taj Gibson, Kurt Thomas...and then James Johnson if someone gets injured. Would you need more than that? Obviously the Bulls disagree with you as they're actively shopping JJ because they don't think the extra depth is that important.



caseyrh said:


> Backup SF, 2g, PG, aren't important?


Not if the starters are NBA roleplayers, no. 



caseyrh said:


> And Like I said it isn't Brewer + Korver vs JJ. Brewer and Korver compine for like 9.5 mil this year. JJ gets like what 16 mil? 16 mil>9.5 mil. And JJ is averaging 20 mil a year, Korver and Brewer average 9.5 mil. At least in this universe. So if you are going to make an arguement at least try and be honest.


Soooooo, what you're saying is that Marquis Daniels + Von Wafer >>>>> Korver + Brewer? I mean they're making about a third of what Korver & Brewer are to be NBA roleplayers, and using your "logic" that makes them the superior option, right? I mean, you've just undermined your entire argument, because using this logic three vet min signings are always better than Korver & Brewer.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> That and 75¢ will get you a morning paper.


I'd love to compare bball resumes. But at the risk of looking like a douche I will pass.




> Per 82games opposing SGs torch Korver at a rate of 22.4/48 on .514 shooting as opposed to 18.2 on .459 shooting at the SF spot. He isn't getting any quicker. And none of this changes the fact that Joe Johnson >>> Ronnie Brewer + Kyle Korver. Because JJ can shoot


Honestly, not even to be sarcastic, but I couldn't find this section on 82games (I couldn't even find anything from last year the most recent was 08-09), maybe you could give me a link to the section you are referring to. I would love to look up more numbers and comparisons.

But you still seem to be forgetting (intentionally?) that Brewer+Korver doesn't account for the cap space that JJ would have eaten up.

The arguement is this:

JJ+ Vet Min+ Vet Min+ Vet Min+ Vet Min+ Vet Min + > Brewer + Korver + Watson + Thomas + Asik +2.5 mil dollar player


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Game3525 said:


> I remember when I lived in NJ, and I used to catch some Philly games. They used to start him at the three and Iggy at the 2(Even though Iggy was more suited for the 3),because him and Iverson would have been the worst defensive backcourt in the league.
> 
> Korver can shoot the lightsout, but he is guy you want coming of the bench for no more then 20 minutes a night.


Yeah, he definitely falls in to the _less is more_ category. They should have put on a full court press for Ray Allen, they would have been better off if the bidding on Joe Johnson was too rich for their blood. Though, honestly, with the deals for Noah and Rose looming this was their one chance to find a long term answer at the 2, and they should have paid the piper for JJ.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> What killed you was the fact that, offensively speaking, your starters weren't very good. I know that people relying on "depth" to fuel their favourite team's success don't want to face this, but really they're just there to give the starters rest. If your starters aren't good enough you can have the best 8th-12th men in the history of the NBA and it won't matter.
> 
> .


Yes we certainly needed to add more scoring to the starting lineup. And that _was_ certainly a negative for us. But not having any kind of bench had a huge negative impact on us. Pointing out one weakness doesn't mean it is the _only_ weakness or discredit another one.





> Boozer, Noah, Taj Gibson, Kurt Thomas...and then James Johnson if someone gets injured. Would you need more than that? Obviously the Bulls disagree with you as they're actively shopping JJ because they don't think the extra depth is that important.


Did K thomas sign for the Vet Min? And since when does management trying to trade JJ discredit my arguement that he is no good? I don't understand your logic on that one.



> Not if the starters are NBA roleplayers, no.


Like much of your arguements I don't get where you are coming from here. You are saying the bench isn't important if the starters are NBA roleplayers? Ok. I don't need to dispute that statement it is just ridiculous.




> Soooooo, what you're saying is that Marquis Daniels + Von Wafer >>>>> Korver + Brewer? I mean they're making about a third of what Korver & Brewer are to be NBA roleplayers, and using your "logic" that makes them the superior option, right? I mean, you've just undermined your entire argument, because using this logic three vet min signings are always better than Korver & Brewer


Are you serous? Do you really not understand that there is a salary cap in the NBA? And that the Bulls would not have had the money to sign anyone else other than minimum contract guys had they signed JJ and Boozer?

You do understand that right???

You get that my arguement is that after signing Boozer, we could have either gotten JJ and a bunch of vet min guys or we could have filled out our entire roster with quality players???

That is my arguement, please make an effort to comprehend it. You throwing out Daniels and Wafer is almost mind-boggling. It is an almost surprisingly stupid response. If you want to discuss the merits of my arguement go for it but at least follow the logic chain.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

With Rose at the 1, getting a great two isn't that necessary. The bulls needed a scoring pf and got him. They just need a sharpshooter at the 2


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> I'd love to compare bball resumes. But at the risk of looking like a douche I will pass.


Your insane obsession with Luol Deng pretty well disqualifies you here.



caseyrh said:


> Honestly, not even to be sarcastic, but I couldn't find this section on 82games (I couldn't even find anything from last year the most recent was 08-09), maybe you could give me a link to the section you are referring to. I would love to look up more numbers and comparisons.


You know, most people incapable of finding the current year statistics on 82games would probably keep their mouths shut and their heads down rather than waving their ignorance about like a red badge of courage.



caseyrh said:


> But you still seem to be forgetting (intentionally?) that Brewer+Korver doesn't account for the cap space that JJ would have eaten up.


You seem to be forgetting the cap space that Noah and Rose will soon be consuming, along with Boozer & Deng. And I know that you're not forgetting it intentionally. The reason they were in a position to address the SG long-term is that Rose & Deng are still on rookie deals. But they have to pay Noah next summer and Rose in 2012. So there won't be any significant cap space until the summer of 2014 anyway.



caseyrh said:


> The arguement is this:
> 
> JJ+ Vet Min+ Vet Min+ Vet Min+ Vet Min+ Vet Min + > Brewer + Korver + Watson + Thomas + Asik +2.5 mil dollar player


Then the argument is pretty stupid as the Bulls held Asik's draft rights, Watson was a sign & trade (which could have been completed anyway) and KT a vet min deal. Which leaves us at Brewer/Korver vs. JJ, a battle that JJ wins ten times out of ten.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

The bottom line is this, try to follow me for a while. The Bulls went out this summer to try to get 2 major FAs. They got 1 in Boozer but struck out on the other guys. They couldn't get Wade and they obviously couldn't get Lebron. The plan B was Joe Johnson but Johnson decided to take the max with the Hawks. I don't know if the Bulls were willing to offer the max or were willing to do a s&t with Deng but the fact is it didn't happen.

Now, we are arguing about whether the Bulls would be better off with Johnson (acquiring him using the ways that were originally planned, less than max contracts/sign&trade), of course they would. I don't know how that is even arguable. They wouldn't have tried to get Johnson if they didn't think that it would make them a better team than Brewer+Korver. Brewer and Co. are backup plans, keyword *backup*. To come back and argue that the Bulls are better off because their original plans failed just doesn't make much sense imo.

The Bulls didn't plan for depth, they planned for stars. They couldn't get stars so they ended up with depth. I'm not saying depth is completely useless but it wouldn't be a 2nd choice if it's not inferior.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

How are the Bulls that much better than the Jazz...if at all?

The Jazz are better coached. But last year the Jazz had Korver, Brewer, and Boozer, and Deron Williams. Deron is better than Rose. And they didn't exactly tear up the league.

Bulls will be solid and improved. But some perspective on their talent. I mean they basically just bought part of the Jazz lineup and mashed it in with Noah and Rose. And no Sloan.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> Yes we certainly needed to add more scoring to the starting lineup. And that _was_ certainly a negative for us. But not having any kind of bench had a huge negative impact on us. Pointing out one weakness doesn't mean it is the _only_ weakness or discredit another one.


But a quality 2 wouldn't have prevented Chicago from signing Ronnie Brewer to his deal (unless they overpaid for him, I was under the impression that he was getting Tony Allen money) for depth. Adding KT for the minimum and signing a player whose draft rights they held addressed the 4/5.



caseyrh said:


> And since when does management trying to trade JJ discredit my arguement that he is no good? I don't understand your logic on that one.


Your argument was that depth is more important than quality, but Chicago would be losing depth in shipping out JJ. So even they seem to realise that quality > quantity.



caseyrh said:


> Like much of your arguements I don't get where you are coming from here. You are saying the bench isn't important if the starters are NBA roleplayers? Ok. I don't need to dispute that statement it is just ridiculous.


I know this is a really complex argument, so let me make this simple for you, a good player is better than a pair of roleplayers. Saying "Sure, we have a couple of mediocrities starting on the wings, but we gots lots of mediocrities behind'em!!!" doesn't impress anyone but you.



caseyrh said:


> Are you serous? Do you really not understand that there is a salary cap in the NBA? And that the Bulls would not have had the money to sign anyone else other than minimum contract guys had they signed JJ and Boozer?


Except that they didn't really sign anyone except minimum guys outside Brewer and Korver. And, apparently, I'm not the one that forgot the existence of the salary cap as exactly one of us thinks that the Bulls have "flexibility" going forward. The only "flexibility" you have is the prayer that someone will trade you a capable SG for Korver & Brewer. 



caseyrh said:


> You get that my arguement is that after signing Boozer, we could have either gotten JJ and a bunch of vet min guys or we could have filled out our entire roster with quality players???
> 
> That is my arguement, please make an effort to comprehend it. You throwing out Daniels and Wafer is almost mind-boggling. It is an almost surprisingly stupid response. If you want to discuss the merits of my arguement go for it but at least follow the logic chain.


Again, let me make this reaaaaal simple for you. This was the Bulls one summer to add more than minimum level players. After this they're capped out until 2015. So, hoorah, they added a bunch of bench fodder, some of which will be starting, and now they're locked in for three years and probably more since they're going to need to be signing MLE guys to long term deals between now and then if they intend to compete for a title. They could have added JJ this year, added their own guys (like Asik) for depth, vet min guys like Thomas, and even bench fodder to back up Deng/JJ. Now they're praying that they get lucky in the draft between now and then.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

futuristxen said:


> How are the Bulls that much better than the Jazz...if at all?
> 
> The Jazz are better coached. But last year the Jazz had Korver, Brewer, and Boozer, and Deron Williams. Deron is better than Rose. And they didn't exactly tear up the league.
> 
> Bulls will be solid and improved. But some perspective on their talent. I mean they basically just bought part of the Jazz lineup and mashed it in with Noah and Rose. And no Sloan.


I think with Thibodeau they will be a very good defensive team, but they are no higher then 4th in the East.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

futuristxen said:


> How are the Bulls that much better than the Jazz...if at all?
> 
> The Jazz are better coached. But last year the Jazz had Korver, Brewer, and Boozer, and Deron Williams. Deron is better than Rose. And they didn't exactly tear up the league.
> 
> Bulls will be solid and improved. But some perspective on their talent. I mean they basically just bought part of the Jazz lineup and mashed it in with Noah and Rose. And no Sloan.


I've said the same thing on other boards about how the Bulls are basically an Eastern Conference version of Utah. Not to mention that this was a team that went 41-41 and needed second-half pushes to get into the playoffs the past two years.

What concerns me about Chicago's team is its backcourt depth. Two years ago, the team was almost too deep with Derrick Rose, Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinirch and John Salmons. Now only Rose remains and those guys have been replaced by Ronnie Brewer and Kyle Korver. Like E.H. Munro said, outside shooting is going to be a weakness for this team -- not to mention losing a lot of offensive firepower in the backcourt.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

EH Monroe:
I won't even bother Quoting you anymore. Let's just say you are full of nonsnese. Your arguements are terrible, the only impressive thing about you is the confidence you have in your terrible arguements. You constantly attempt to mislead, put words in my mouth, and generally change the course of the arguement when you choose to. I really am not interested in entertaining your drivel anymore. I would however like to point this one thing out since it has turned into the crux of this arguement:

Watson: Was aquired for the worst of our second round picks next year. This happenned because we had cap space. Or maybe you think Boozer/ Lebron/ Bosh etc.. were all just traded for and not signed by teams with cap room? I didn't realize that all it took was a second round pick to get these guys. Crazy! This is another one of your ridiculous and misleading statements. We could have gotten Watson without the cap room? OK.

Asik: We signed him for I believe 1.7 mil, not the rookie min (1.7 mil counts against our cap). Just because we held his draft rights doesn't mean we could give him whatever we wanted and still had cap space.

K thomas: As far as I know nobody has released the specifics of his deal. BUt you seem to know for sure he has a vet min contract? Link? Because the stuff I have read speculate he is getting more than the Vet Min. Meaning we could not have signed him if we lost our cap space.

And we still have about 2.5 mil left to spend probably on a fifth guard.

My arguement is this:
We have even conservativeley speaking roughly 75 points per game in our current starting lineup. Just to use round numbers: Rose 20, Boozer 20, Deng 15, Noah 10, Brewer 10. Meaning we really didn't need a borderline all-star that requires high usage rates. We were better off getting roleplayers and depth to work with Rose and Boozer. I believe that, as deep as our bench is, it can figure out a way to chip in quality production and 25 points per game. So I envision us scoring 100 points a game with the best rebounding in the NBA and an elite defense. If our only hole is one more shooter so be it. I think JJ (and his high usage rates) would have negativeley impacted the scoring of the rest of the team, minimizing his net scoring impact on the Bulls. I would prefer great depth and quality roleplayers over JJ and no depth. Got it? And when you look at it long term it is quite obvious that it is the right decision. 

It's boring arguing against your nonsense.

Bye.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> How are the Bulls that much better than the Jazz...if at all?
> 
> The Jazz are better coached. But last year the Jazz had Korver, Brewer, and Boozer, and Deron Williams. Deron is better than Rose. And they didn't exactly tear up the league.
> 
> Bulls will be solid and improved. But some perspective on their talent. I mean they basically just bought part of the Jazz lineup and mashed it in with Noah and Rose. And no Sloan.


Ive heard this arguement and it is a decent one. All I can say is that honestly Rose is a better talent than D-Will. I am not arguing that he is better (although let's see next year) but he has a higher ceiling. So when people project the Bulls to be an elite team I think at least part of that is based on an opinion that Rose can be one of the better players in the NBA. Much of the Knock on Rose is that he doesn't get many assists but look at the team surrounding him, it wasn't exactly a passers dream. 

Deng>>> Kirilinko
Noah>>>>> Okur


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> How are the Bulls that much better than the Jazz...if at all?
> 
> The Jazz are better coached. But last year the Jazz had Korver, Brewer, and Boozer, and Deron Williams. Deron is better than Rose. And they didn't exactly tear up the league.
> 
> Bulls will be solid and improved. But some perspective on their talent. I mean they basically just bought part of the Jazz lineup and mashed it in with Noah and Rose. And no Sloan.


Agreed, but playing in th east maybe different?


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Yeah, I got to say...as limited as I think our current Bulls team is, forgive me if I'm happy with going the direction we did as opposed to signing Joe Johnson for what would essentially be one or two seasons of faux-contention followed by gradual decline.

Yes, he currently makes us a better team with Booz, but that's about as shortsighted of an argument that you can make. Joe Johnson doesn't get us any closer to beating the Heat or the Lakers, he just gives us a few more regular season wins and a bit more playoff games. Whoopity doo.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Like someone said earlier the Bulls didn't have a choice. They had money to get two max guys, and that was the original plan. If they could choice between signing Joe Johnson or signing Korver + Brewer, they would have signed Johnson in heartbeat. 

Johnson is the better player, and can play off ball and did when he was in Phoenix. The depth argument is kinda of irrelevant since Johnson would be playing 38-40 minutes a night anyhow.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> EH Monroe, I'm too stupid to even be able to spell your name correctly, thus proving that Luol Deng is teh ossum!!!!


Thanks for clearing that up for us.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Pay Ton said:


> Yeah, I got to say...as limited as I think our current Bulls team is, forgive me if I'm happy with going the direction we did as opposed to signing Joe Johnson for what would essentially be one or two seasons of faux-contention followed by gradual decline.


Isn't that what they essentially ended up with? Only with fewer playoff games?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Game3525 said:


> Like someone said earlier the Bulls didn't have a choice. They had money to get two max guys, and that was the original plan. If they could choice between signing Joe Johnson or signing Korver + Brewer, they would have signed Johnson in heartbeat.
> .


Again if it hasn't been made plainfully obvious yet it wasn't Brewer plus Korver V JJ. It was basically filling out an entire bench with quality players plus a starting caliber young 2g for JJ. But Anyways...



> Johnson is the better player, and can play ofball and did when he was inf Phoenix. The depth argument is kinda of irrelevant since Johnson would be playing 38-40 minutes a night anyhow


Johnson had the 19th highest usage percentage in the NBA last season and has basically maintained or exceeded that level his entire career in Atlanta. Are you really suggesting the Phoenix version of JJ (off the ball version) is worth even close to what we would have had to pay him? Keep in mind his highest PER year there was 15.1. And that was in PHoenix in their high scoring goofy offense prime. I can only imagine how that version of JJ would have produced under Tommy T and the Bulls.

Do you guys really believe the arguements you are putting forward? Or did you just get stuck arguing?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Thanks for clearing that up for us.


It was intentional, I saw the tissy fit you threw last time someone spelled it incorrectly. I thought it would be funny to see you get all worked up again. 

It was worth it.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Isn't that what they essentially ended up with? Only with fewer playoff games?


Except I don't think Joe Johnson would have been a tradable contract in two years. He would have been an albatross, so I'm glad we didn't sign him. And right now, I think we have solid players signed to fairly manageable contracts, and I'll always pick those assets to acquire better players any day.

In other words, I think what we essentially have are better trading pieces for the future as well as a decent playoff team, as opposed to a slightly better playoff team and a contractual cesspool that we'll be trying to desperately dump in a few seasons, most likely for anything we can get, which will most likely be ****.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

caseyrh said:


> Again if it hasn't been made plainfully obvious yet it wasn't Brewer plus Korver V JJ. It was basically filling out an entire bench with quality players plus a starting caliber young 2g for JJ. But Anyways...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, because he plays in Atlanta where they don't run an offense and they score on alot of iso plays. Johnson isn't a number one option, but he can play off ball and would have been fine playing next to Rose, since Johnson can hit the open mid range shot and the three. You can live in denial about it, but having Johnson is better then having Korver and Brewer. With Korver, yeah he can shoot but that is about it, he can not guard 2's what so ever, he should be playing no more then 20 minutes a night. And with Brewer, he ie a good player but he can't shoot and doesn't space the floor.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Game3525 said:


> Yeah, because he plays in Atlanta where they don't run an offense and they score on alot of iso plays. Johnson isn't a number one option, but he can play off ball and would have been fine playing next to Rose, since Johnson can hit the open mid range shot and the three. You can live in denial about it, but having Johnson is better then having Korver and Brewer. With Korver, yeah he can shoot but that is about it, he can not guard 2's what so ever, he should be playing no more then 20 minutes a night. And with Brewer, he ie a good player but he can't shoot and doesn't space the floor.


Personally I think you got stuck on the wrong side of an arguement and are just sticking to your guns. But if you think the Bulls should have signed 29 year old JJ as a 3rd option (at best 2nd option with a very close third option in Boozer) . Because he showed he could max out as an average starting 2g when playing off the ball in Phoenix. To a six year 120 million dollar deal.... well then I will save my breadth from hear on out.

Call me crazy but I think it's better this way. 

We paid 4.5 mil for a 25 year old Brewer who has a higher _career _PER 15.8 than JJ's _best_ off the ball season of 15.1 (in Phoenix). Not to mention Brewer is the superior defender. And will accept his role.

Brewer career TS% .571, EFG% .531
Johnson career TS% .528, EFG% .493

Brewer's Career PER 15.8
Johnson's career PER 16.1

Brewer is the better defender

Johnson's worth 15.5 mil _more_ per year then Brewer. And a 3 year longer committment??? For a guy who is 4 years older???

Ok.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Again if it hasn't been made plainfully obvious yet it wasn't Brewer plus Korver V JJ. It was basically filling out an entire bench with quality players plus a starting caliber young 2g for JJ. But Anyways...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about the argument that you can play 4 guys along side Johnson and only 3 along side Brewer/Korver. On top of that he can run an offense while Rose sits.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

caseyrh said:


> Personally I think you got stuck on the wrong side of an arguement and are just sticking to your guns. But if you think the Bulls should have signed 29 year old JJ as a 3rd option (at best 2nd option with a very close third option in Boozer) . Because he showed he could max out as an average starting 2g when playing off the ball in Phoenix. To a six year 120 million dollar deal.... well then I will save my breadth from hear on out.
> 
> Call me crazy but I think it's better this way.
> 
> ...


:rotf:

People like you give PER a bad reputation, because they don't use it correctly. PER is only useful when you are comparing similer players, no disrespect to Ronnie, but Johnson is on higher level then him. And regardless of TS%, Johnson is a better shooter, defenders sag off Brewer all the time because he can't hit the jumpshot consistently, there was a reason why Kobe sagged off of him when ever they played Utah. On top of that Johnson is career 37% 3-point shooter, Brewer is only hitting 23% from three. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if you actually watch some of these guys play because throwing stats around without any context isn't a great arguement.

And if the Bulls had signed Johnson, chances are it wouldn't have been for 120 million, the only reason he got that deal was because the Hawks bid against themselves.

Edit: BTW in Johnson's off ball year with the Suns, he shot 47% from three while taking nearly 5 a game.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Game3525 said:


> :rotf:
> 
> People like you give PER a bad reputation, because they don't use it correctly. PER is only useful when you are comparing similer players, no disrespect to Ronnie, but Johnson is on higher level then him. And regardless of TS%, Johnson is a better shooter, defenders sag off Brewer all the time because he can't hit the jumpshot consistently, there was a reason why Kobe sagged off of him when ever they played Utah. On top of that Johnson is career 37% 3-point shooter, Brewer is only hitting 23% from three. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if you actually watch some of these guys play because throwing stats around without any context isn't a great arguement.
> 
> ...


HaHa.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> How about the argument that you can play 4 guys along side Johnson and only 3 along side Brewer/Korver. On top of that he can run an offense while Rose sits.


Brewer/Korver v JJ again?:whiteflag:

seriously? are you guys not reading or just choosing to ignore that JJ is averaging 20 mil a year ang brewer + Korver will average just under 10 mil?

you realize that that means there is an adiitional 10 mil to spend that you guys are not accounting for (7 mil this year). Money that has already been partially used to basically fill out an entire roster with quality players.

just curious if anyone here is actually interested in facts...


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> :rotf:
> 
> People like you give PER a bad reputation, because they don't use it correctly. PER is only useful when you are comparing similer players, no disrespect to Ronnie, but Johnson is on higher level then him. And regardless of TS%, Johnson is a better shooter, defenders sag off Brewer all the time because he can't hit the jumpshot consistently, there was a reason why Kobe sagged off of him when ever they played Utah. On top of that Johnson is career 37% 3-point shooter, Brewer is only hitting 23% from three. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if you actually watch some of these guys play because throwing stats around without any context isn't a great arguement.
> 
> ...


When you have to go fadeaway (wrong foot) to your left baseline against a not known for teh defense Vince Carter but still missed the shot, you know you dont waste any money signing the guy in Joe Johnson. Please watched the game where Josh Smith went for a winning put back dunk against the Magic in the regular season.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

John said:


> When you have to go fadeaway (wrong foot) to your left baseline against a not known for teh defense Vince Carter but still missed the shot, you know you dont waste any money signing the guy in Joe Johnson. Please watched the game where Josh Smith went for a winning put back dunk against the Magic in the regular season.


So what?

Johnson is not a number one option, but that doesn't mean he is a bad player, he is actually pretty good player and the Bulls would have been smart to sign him.

He is better then Brewer or Korver.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> So what?
> 
> Johnson is not a number one option, but that doesn't mean he is a bad player, he is actually pretty good player and the Bulls would have been smart to sign him.
> 
> He is better then Brewer or Korver.


But freaking 120 million over 6 years signing second tiers?


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> So what?
> 
> Johnson is not a number one option, but that doesn't mean he is a bad player, he is actually pretty good player and the Bulls would have been smart to sign him.
> 
> He is better then Brewer or Korver.


okay man,since you are from USA, I have nothing to say.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

John said:


> But freaking 120 million over 6 years signing second tiers?


He wouldn't have gotten that offer from the Bulls, the only reason Joe got that money was because Atlanta bid against themselves, no one was going to give an offer that high for Joe Johnson. He was clearly going to be overpaid, but the contract wouldn't have been that ridiculous.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> It was intentional


Sure it was. Your asinine arguments in this thread really don't support your assertion that you're intelligent enough to make stupid jokes.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Pay Ton said:


> Except I don't think Joe Johnson would have been a tradable contract in two years. He would have been an albatross, so I'm glad we didn't sign him. And right now, I think we have solid players signed to fairly manageable contracts, and I'll always pick those assets to acquire better players any day.
> 
> In other words, I think what we essentially have are better trading pieces for the future as well as a decent playoff team, as opposed to a slightly better playoff team and a contractual cesspool that we'll be trying to desperately dump in a few seasons, most likely for anything we can get, which will most likely be ****.


The only tradable asset on that roster (that you would want to deal, obviously Noah & Rose are tradable, but you don't want to trade guys like that) is Deng once he's expiring. I'll agree that after Wade came off the market there weren't a lot of attractive options, but to me it looks like they're essentially punting the next tree years to be a second tier team in the east.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Sure it was. Your asinine arguments in this thread really don't support your assertion that you're intelligent enough to make stupid jokes.


Dude I just saw you whining about it about a week ago. It was funny. Take it easy nobody cares about your internet name or if it is spelled correctly.

And tone down the name calling. I know its probably tough to restrain yourself from acting like a toughguy on the internet... But your supposed to be an admin, is it only ok if you do it? Come on bro calm down.

How about we settle this with a sig Bet?

I believe the Bulls will finish with more wins than the Celtics (regular season and playoffs combined). 

You willing to take the opposing stance?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> Dude I just saw you whining about it about a week ago. It was funny. Take it easy nobody cares about your internet name or if it is spelled correctly.
> 
> And tone down the name calling. I know its probably tough to restrain yourself from acting like a toughguy on the internet... But your supposed to be an admin, is it only ok if you do it? Come on bro calm down.
> 
> ...


I'm allowed to do it too. But R-Star is a special case.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

caseyrh said:


> We paid 4.5 mil for a 25 year old Brewer who has a higher _career _PER 15.8 than JJ's _best_ off the ball season of 15.1 (in Phoenix). Not to mention Brewer is the superior defender. And will accept his role.
> 
> Brewer career TS% .571, EFG% .531
> Johnson career TS% .528, EFG% .493
> ...


I don't even see the point of bringing up Joe Johnson's days in Phoenix. Johnson's best two seasons were his final two seasons there (2003-04 and 2004-05) and he was just emerging at 22 and 23. He also had a slightly different role in Phoenix, where was more of a spot-up designated shooter.

Even then, Johnson then was better than what Ronnie Brewer has shown in the NBA. Johnson is one of the best guards in the NBA, and has developed into a more well-rounded player since coming to Atlanta. He can score, rebounds, has good court vision, can defend on the perimeter and even is a good enough ball-handler to play the point at times. Johnson is a much better shooter than Brewer. The Joe Johnson in question is the one that has played for the Atlanta Hawks.

I don't see the point in bringing up Johnson's age. Kyle Korver (who is part of the two-headed monster with Brewer as being the alternative to Johnson) is three months older than Johnson. Korver is basically a spot shooter; Johnson can start for practically any team in the NBA.

Carlos Boozer (Chicago's big free agent signing) is five months younger than Johnson. So if Johnson would have been a risk to sign, he's no bigger of a risk than Boozer. 

The Brewer-Korver alternative only makes sense if they can exceed what Johnson brings to the table -- and for that to happen, Brewer would have to become a better player than what he has shown.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Najee said:


> I don't even see the point of bringing up Joe Johnson's days in Phoenix. Johnson's best two seasons were his final two seasons there (2003-04 and 2004-05) and he was just emerging at 22 and 23. He also had a slightly different role in Phoenix, where was more of a spot-up designated shooter.




I didn't bring up JJ's days in phoenix. Someone else did. They said JJ has already proven he can play off the ball in phoenix. 

All I did was point out that in his best year in phoenix he was an average starter. Which doesn't exactly prove to me that he is worth 20 mil a year. Get it?

Brewer has played off the ball his entire career and guess what he has been far more efficient during that stretch than JJ. And he is a better defender. Now I realize that JJ is better... but by how much? 15 mil better? NO

It wasn't until going to Atlanta and becoming the number one option that JJ became a star. JJ will not be the 1st option on the bulls. He would at best become the second option and likeley third. How productive will he be in that role? 

Anyways I won't get into the rest of your post. Lets just simplify it, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that JJ is worth 20 mil per for the next 6 years, especcially to not be the primary option. Please realize that this is the arguement you guys are taking. No really, spend a couple minutes and think about it.

Your getting sidetracked by the arguement that JJ > Korver+Brewer and not realizing that you are asking suggesting that the Bulls should intentionally give themselves one of the worst albatross contracts in the history of the NBA because you think he would be a good "off the ball" option for the Bulls.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Unless you're expecting Derek Rose to handle the ball for 48 minutes a game, it's always best to have multiple shot creators, especially when your primary shot creator is better at creating for himself than others.


----------



## TOC (Sep 15, 2010)

Miami has 3 superstars James, Wade and Bosh. But the problem with James is that he's not really a teamplayer. I don't think they'll win if James tries to much stuff alone. And I think they don't have enough offensive/deffensive power in the paint since Ilgauskas is the only 'experienced' center.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

i'm jumping into this thread way late and haven't read any of it, but if the heat do anything but win the title it will be a huge failure for them. supporting cast could have been a legitimate concern before they brought in the cast, but the cast they have is definitely good enough. not winning the title means they didn't play at a high enough level which likely means the blame would fall on one of more of their superstars. if those 3 play at a high level, no team is stopping them from taking home the title.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

TOC said:


> Miami has 3 superstars James, Wade and Bosh. But the problem with James is that he's not really a teamplayer. I don't think they'll win if James tries to much stuff alone. And I think they don't have enough offensive/deffensive power in the paint since Ilgauskas is the only 'experienced' center.


what the **** are you talking about? not a team player?


----------



## TOC (Sep 15, 2010)

rocketeer said:


> what the **** are you talking about? not a team player?


Watch some of his actions. Most times he never passes, he tries to much stuff on it's own.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Top 6 and he never passes? And that's top 6 with Cleveland's supporting cast.


----------



## TOC (Sep 15, 2010)

FX™ said:


> Top 6 and he never passes? And that's top 6 with Cleveland's supporting cast.


Well yeah he has many assists but some games he makes alot of assists but sometimes he makes not more than 5 assists. Well thats what I saw in the games i watched


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

The obvious result will be dogs sleeping with cats


----------



## Jesukki (Mar 3, 2009)

TOC said:


> Well yeah he has many assists but some games he makes alot of assists but sometimes he makes not more than 5 assists. Well thats what I saw in the games i watched


Holland? Oh now i see.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TOC said:


> Well yeah he has many assists but some games he makes alot of assists but sometimes he makes not more than 5 assists. Well thats what I saw in the games i watched


If you poop blood on Monday and Tuesday theres no blood in your poop will there be blood in your poop on Friday?


----------



## Wilmatic2 (Oct 30, 2005)

Like HKF said, if Boston or Orlando knocks em off their perch then all hell will break loose. But first, they gotta step foot on the perch. If LA wins, it'll be a disappointment for em, but not a total failure.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Conversley if Miami wins this year it decimates the rest of the league, because there is no real way for any team to assemble better talent, and Miami will have their MLE in the summer to get even better.

If they're not going to win the title, this is the year they wouldn't do it. Because after next year they'll be impossible to beat without catostrophic injuries.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> If you poop blood on Monday and Tuesday theres no blood in your poop will there be blood in your poop on Friday?


Nice analogy, but waaaay too much info :laugh:


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

TOC said:


> Well yeah he has many assists but some games he makes alot of assists but sometimes he makes not more than 5 assists. Well thats what I saw in the games i watched


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

TOC said:


> Well yeah he has many assists but some games he makes alot of assists but sometimes he makes not more than 5 assists. Well thats what I saw in the games i watched


just to be clear you are talking about a small forward who dished out 42% of his team's assists last year 

(5th best amongst all players -that's elite point guard type dishing, Larry Bird never even topped 30%, nor did Scottie Pippen, those guys are what we used to call 'point forwards')


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

e-monk said:


> just to be clear you are talking about a small forward who dished out 42% of his team's assists last year
> 
> (5th best amongst all players -that's elite point guard type dishing, Larry Bird never even topped 30%, nor did Scottie Pippen, those guys are what we used to call 'point forwards')


If you jimjam when you should jibboo, koala washing marshal bandit bumblebee hat. Early entry farm chainsaw with large commuter bus and will that apple pie tank with statue.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

There's a difference between passing the ball and making assists. LeBron James may create a lot of assists, but for the most part, those are the only passes that he makes. He held the ball for way too long in Cleveland, stagnating the offense and allowing teams with great halfcourt defense to best his team in playoffs series. Good decision making doesn't always have to lead to a stat.


----------



## S.jR. (May 18, 2010)

Ha.. if they don't win, more vets in the next offseason will just sign to play for the min. And Riley may just officially take over.. well he may takeover this season if they struggle a bit..... Man I don't look forward to the first 5 mins of Sportscenter/any ESPN show when the season starts.. *sigh*


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Duck34234 said:


> There's a difference between passing the ball and making assists. LeBron James may create a lot of assists, but for the most part, those are the only passes that he makes.


He throws passes with bad intentions.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Duck34234 said:


> There's a difference between passing the ball and making assists. LeBron James may create a lot of assists, but for the most part, those are the only passes that he makes. He held the ball for way too long in Cleveland, stagnating the offense and allowing teams with great halfcourt defense to best his team in playoffs series. Good decision making doesn't always have to lead to a stat.


Yeah, that LeBron, he's no Jameer Nelson, that's for sure. :kitty2:


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Lebron may be a bit of a douche, but people are now starting to underrate his abilities...


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Wade County said:


> Lebron may be a bit of a douche, but people are now starting to underrate his abilities...


It's starting to get out of hand.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Wade County said:


> Lebron may be a bit of a douche, but people are now starting to underrate his abilities...


Seriously... He went from being close to the unanimous best player in basketball (many saw it as not even close) to a flawed ball-hog without the ability to win.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

Hibachi! said:


> Seriously... He went from being close to the unanimous best player in basketball (many saw it as not even close) to a flawed ball-hog without the ability to win.


He's never been the unanimous best player in basketball except to ESPN.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

CosaNostra said:


> He's never been the unanimous best player in basketball except to ESPN.


Hence him saying 'close to the unanimous'.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Duck34234 said:


> There's a difference between passing the ball and making assists. LeBron James may create a lot of assists, but for the most part, those are the only passes that he makes. He held the ball for way too long in Cleveland, stagnating the offense and allowing teams with great halfcourt defense to best his team in playoffs series. Good decision making doesn't always have to lead to a stat.


42% of his team's assists is not an accident - he was the offense what are you talking about? have you seen his teammates?


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

The only way the Heat lose is if there is a significant injury.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

actually I could see Boston or Orlando beating them - I think the Lakers stand a good chance too


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> The only way the Heat lose is if there is a significant injury.


Like some sort of elbow injury?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Defense is the only way to beat the Heat.

You're not gonna beat them offensively. A healthy Boston team has a chance to beat them. I don't give Orlando a strong shot because they can't utilize Dwight better, they play Shard at the 4, and they have Vince Carter.

LA, if they took anything from this past finals, especially game 7 might be the team with the best chance. That's only if they carry that toughness they played with into next season. 

Home court advantage will be vital as well. LA doesn't win in 2010 without it, IMO.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> Defense is the only way to beat the Heat.
> 
> You're not gonna beat them offensively. A healthy Boston team has a chance to beat them. I don't give Orlando a strong shot because they can't utilize Dwight better, they play Shard at the 4, and they have Vince Carter.
> 
> ...


lakers, being the defending champs, pose the biggest threat to the heat. ron artest and kobe are good enough defenders that they can pretty much neutralize lebron and wade. ultimately the size of the lakers can cause a lot of trouble for the heat. they just don't have anybody who can contain gasol/bynum, and odom is a great backup bigman who's starting to play the best basketball of his career. bosh will have his hands full playing all 3 of those guys.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

Tragedy said:


> Defense is the only way to beat the Heat.
> 
> You're not gonna beat them offensively. A healthy Boston team has a chance to beat them. I don't give Orlando a strong shot because they can't utilize Dwight better, they play Shard at the 4, and they have Vince Carter.
> 
> ...


i agree. I think a healthy Boston could give us a run for our money. The Lakers probably have the best chance. As a fan, i could understand if we lost to either of these teams (in the first year). Boston's toughness/chemistry/D and L.A.'s talent are forces.

Don't think the Magic should beat the Heat unless Dwight improves that post game significantly to take advantage of our weakness at the 5 on a dominating level. 

Anything less then a Finals appearance is a media onslaught. Losing in the finals would be an onslaught too tho.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

The Heat are going to have trouble defending teams with depth at the bigs like Boston, Orlando and the two time defending champion Los Angeles Lakers. Orlando especially will present a problem, who's going to defend Dwight? Bosh is an elite offensive player, but he's nowhere near it on defense.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

CosaNostra said:


> The Heat are going to have trouble defending teams with depth at the bigs like Boston, Orlando and the two time defending champion Los Angeles Lakers. Orlando especially will present a problem, who's going to defend Dwight? Bosh is an elite offensive player, but he's nowhere near it on defense.


who on Orlando is going to defend Wade AND Lebron on the floor at the same time?..tit for tat man. 

VC? 

:50ha:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

c_dog said:


> lakers, being the defending champs, pose the biggest threat to the heat. ron artest and kobe are good enough defenders that they can pretty much neutralize lebron and wade.


No they can't. Ron Artest has never and will never be able to guard Lebron James one on one, and that's what he's going to have to do now. He won't have Battier shifting over behind him for the double. He won't have Kobe coming down to trap. Gasol won't be able to come over and get his back. He's going to be out on an island with Lebron.

Kobe's in an even worse situation because there's no way he can guard Wade for 48 minutes and still have the energy to get it done on offense.

You also are underrating the Heat defense that they can play on Kobe. Wade and Lebron can both go full bore at Kobe on defense and trade off. Imagine Kobe trying to post on Wade, and he gets stuffed from behind by Lebron. Or vice versa. 

The Lakers biggest problem beating the Heat I think is going to be their lack of great 3 point shooters. Miami can swarm all over the floor with Lebron cheating off Odom or Artest without much worry of either killing them from 3 enough to matter. 



> ultimately the size of the lakers can cause a lot of trouble for the heat. they just don't have anybody who can contain gasol/bynum, and odom is a great backup bigman who's starting to play the best basketball of his career. bosh will have his hands full playing all 3 of those guys.


Bosh will only have to deal with Gasol and Odom. Which he can do. The Heat arguably have a better power forward rotation than the Lakers with Bosh/Haslem.

As for center, and this goes for the Magic too...
The Heat have like a billion centers now, and a billion and one if they get Dampier. Bynum isn't good enough to exploit the five headed monster that Miami is trotting out at Center. It's a lot like those Bulls teams that sucked at center but made up for it with depth and fouls there. Longley, Perdue, Wennington isn't any better than Z, Dampier, Anthony, Magloire, Pittman.

The only way the Heat lose is through massive injuries to Wade and Lebron. Otherwise the team is too deap and too good at the top.

Miller, Haslem, House, Howard, Z, Dampier, Jones, Arroyo--the Heat are a legit 10-12 deep. Especially when any unit can be paired with at least one of Lebron or Wade and annihilate your second unit.

What are the Lakers going to do when Kobe is on the bench and Lebron is out there with Mike Miller, Haslem, and Z recreating the starting unit of the last two years of the Cavs? On the second unit!!!

Or if it's Wade out there with Anthony, Haslem, Arroyo, and Miller--recreating last year's heat but with Mike Miller!?

That's unheard of. There is no team in the league that has a second unit that can hang with the Heat right now.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you dont stop Lebron but in Artest, Barnes and even Odom you have guys who can mix it up with him pretty good
Wade and Kobe can have their battles (please double him with Lebron that's only the entire point of the offense is to force you to shift and double, please do it and thanks in advance)
Pau will score at will against Bosh and do a decent job against him on defense
Bynum is the difference maker - is he healthy? is he locked in? that's 20-10 at 55%+ down on the block and the Heat are in real trouble - no? or no? man the Heat are going to be tough to beat


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

e-monk said:


> man the Heat are going to be tough to beat


no it's impossible we should just give them the next 6 championships right now


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

e-monk said:


> you dont stop Lebron but in Artest, Barnes and even Odom you have guys who can mix it up with him pretty good


None of those guys have shown an ability to guard Lebron in the past one on one. Why would they start being able to now? Artest is too slow, and not strong enough either. Barnes isn't strong enough. Odom isn't quick enough.



> Pau will score at will against Bosh and do a decent job against him on defense


Bosh will score at will against Pau who isn't quick enough to both stay in front of Bosh, and provide help defense on Lebron and Wade. Bosh is going to be going at a rotating Pau, when he was already quick enough to blow by him before.

Bosh is probably going to play a lot at the elbow and out. He'll get the ball on cuts to the basket, dribble drives, and pick and pops. None of these is Pau really built to defend.

I suspect Phil is going to play Odom on Bosh a lot. And play Pau at center even more, because that's a better matchup with the Heat's quickness than playing Bynum there and having to play Gasol against Bosh.

Unfortunately going small plays into the Heat's hands, because they can shift Bosh to the center if Pau is there, and then play Lebron and Miller as the forwards, or Lebron and Bosh with Haslem as the center, which again is getting Pau out of the paint because Haslem plays the pick and pop.

The Lakers won't have much behind them on the perimeter with the shooting the Heat have at the 4. Which means it's up to Artest and Kobe to stay in front of Lebron and Wade, which they are too old to do anymore. I think Wade is going to annihilate Kobe if Kobe has to guard him one on one with no help for 48 minutes.

As for Bynum he's not good enough to really hurt the Heat. As you said he is at most going to go 20-10 efficiently. The Heat are probably going to score around 110-120 points...20-10 is a drop in the bucket. Particularly if Lebron and Wade are holding Kobe to a bad night, and Bosh is destroying Pau/Odom.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

To be fair though, I agree that the Lakers are the only team in the league that can even pretend to match up with the Heat. Those games are going to be a lot of fun to watch, and the real advantage the Lakers have is Phil Jackson. Spolestra will have to prove he can mix and match and adapt to the zen master on a high level to keep the Heat dominant.

But I mean the Magic and Celtics really have too many matchup problems. Ray Allen having to guard Wade one on one with no help is going to be hysterical. And with no Perkins for the first half of the year, the Heat can really go to town on the Celtics if they go small and play up tempo.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

futuristxen said:


> Bosh will score at will against Pau who isn't quick enough to both stay in front of Bosh, and provide help defense on Lebron and Wade. Bosh is going to be going at a rotating Pau, when he was already quick enough to blow by him before.


thats funny I seem to remember Pau limiting Bosh's effectiveness in both their matchups last year. I'm probably just a crazy Lakers fan though.

but you're right, no team with LeBron could ever lose after all he's the best player in the history of the NBA


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

*Jan 24 2010, Raptors 106 - Lakers 105*

Bosh - 9/17, 18pts, 13rbs, 2ast, 2stl , 1blk, 3to's in 37 mins
Gasol - 10/23, 22pts, 9rbs, 2ast, 2blk in 40 mins

*Mar 9 2010, Lakers 109 - Raptors 107*

Bosh - 7/18, 22pts, 7rbs, 4ast, 1blk in 31 mins
Gasol - 4/11, 17pts, 9rbs, 1ast, 1blk in 30 mins

Over 2 games:

Bosh - 16/35 (46%FG), 20ppg, 10rpg, 3apg, 1stl, 1blk in 34mins
Gasol - 14/34 (41%FG), 19.5ppg, 9rpg, 1.5apg, 1.5bpg in 35mins

They cancelled each other out really. Bosh shot the better percentage, rebounded better, passed more, stole the ball more, blocked .5 less shots a game in 1 less minute.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

Wade County said:


> *Jan 24 2010, Raptors 106 - Lakers 105*
> 
> Bosh - 9/17, 18pts, 13rbs, 2ast, 2stl , 1blk, 3to's in 37 mins
> Gasol - 10/23, 22pts, 9rbs, 2ast, 2blk in 40 mins
> ...


I didn't know what the stats were because they don't really matter, but having watched both of those games, Pau outperformed Bosh in both games.


----------



## BigWill33176 (Dec 21, 2003)

CosaNostra said:


> I didn't know what the stats were because they don't really matter, but having watched both of those games, Pau outperformed Bosh in both games.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

CosaNostra said:


> I didn't know what the stats were because they don't really matter, but having watched both of those games, Pau outperformed Bosh in both games.


If by outperform means go 1-1 in the team matchup, and perform worse in almost every statistical category - then sure..:horsepoop:


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

BigWill33176 said:


>





Wade County said:


> If by outperform means go 1-1 in the team matchup, and perform worse in almost every statistical category - then sure..:horsepoop:


Did either of you watch those two games last year?

Didn't think so, or else you wouldn't have had to bring up stats. Bosh does not play well against Pau.

Stats rarely tell the whole story. In this case, the stats are essentially identical. Having watched both of those games, I can tell you that Pau was the better performer in both games, and Bosh's efficiency was limited. In the Raptors win, the best player for the Raptors was definitely Bargnani, and in the Lakers win, the best player on the Raptors was Jarret Jack. Bosh's jump shot was not falling when Pau was guarding him.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

How was Pau the better performer though? He shot 41% against the 'crap' Bosh defense?


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

CosaNostra said:


> but you're right, no team with LeBron could ever lose after all he's the best player in the history of the NBA


Yup.

And it has been proven now for seven straight years.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

CosaNostra said:


> Did either of you watch those two games last year?
> 
> Didn't think so, or else you wouldn't have had to bring up stats. Bosh does not play well against Pau.
> 
> Stats rarely tell the whole story. In this case, the stats are essentially identical. Having watched both of those games, I can tell you that Pau was the better performer in both games, and Bosh's efficiency was limited.


But, oddly enough, he scored more efficiently than Gashole (PP/FGA 1.063 vs. .982), shot more efficiently (aFG% .486 vs. .412) and even outrebounded Gashole, and did so despite being the focal point of the Lakers' defense. Unlike Gasol who's "the other guy" for LA.



CosaNostra said:


> In the Raptors win, the best player for the Raptors was definitely Bargnani,


True, the way he shot up the Lakers to the tune of an aFG% of .441 while being Toronto's second or third option while holding Andrew Bynum to 21 points on 15 shots was a performance for the ages.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The funniest thing on this board is people actually think Gasol is not only better than Bosh but significantly better.

All I will say is that Bosh was the most productive big man in the NBA last year playing off Hedo and Derozan. Good luck defending him and dealing with LeBron and Wade.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

MemphisX said:


> The funniest thing on this board is people actually think Gasol is not only better than Bosh but significantly better.
> 
> All I will say is that Bosh was the most productive big man in the NBA last year playing off Hedo and Derozan. Good luck defending him and dealing with LeBron and Wade.


yeah, let's just forget about the defensive half of the game. Just like Bosh.

over 50% of Bosh's shots are jump shots. I prefer my big men to play under the basket. Gasol has a good jump shot as well, but unlike Bosh, he plays closer to the basket. Probably why he has a higher field goal percentage and a **** ton more offensive rebounds.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

CosaNostra said:


> over 50% of Bosh's shots are jump shots. I prefer my big men to play under the basket. Gasol has a good jump shot as well, but unlike Bosh, he plays closer to the basket. Probably why he has a higher field goal percentage and a **** ton more offensive rebounds.


Bosh aFG% .522 PP/FGA 1.184 
Gashole aFG% .536 PP/FGA 1.186

Their shooting and scoring numbers look eerily similar. The difference, though, is that one of those guys was the focal point of opposing defenses and the other guy is Pau Gasol. It's a lot easier to get yours when the other team is focused on Mr. Bean. Not so easy when opponents are cheating off Jarrett Jack, DeMar DeRozan, Jimmy Graham, et al to double you.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

CosaNostra said:


> yeah, let's just forget about the defensive half of the game. Just like Bosh.
> 
> over 50% of Bosh's shots are jump shots. I prefer my big men to play under the basket. Gasol has a good jump shot as well, but unlike Bosh, he plays closer to the basket. Probably why he has a higher field goal percentage and a **** ton more offensive rebounds.



Wait...now Pau Gasol is a defensive ace? You confuse playing on a good defensive team with being a good defensive player. Watch how much Bosh's defense improves this season because of the team he will be on.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Wait...now Pau Gasol is a defensive ace? You confuse playing on a good defensive team with being a good defensive player. Watch how much Bosh's defense improves this season because of the team he will be on.


You really think so?

Bosh has got to be one of the laziest guys in the NBA on defense. Moving south ain't gonna help the old crappy work ethic.

Then again, maybe Riley and Wade getting into his face might make a difference. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Bosh aFG% .522 PP/FGA 1.184
> Gashole aFG% .536 PP/FGA 1.186
> 
> Their shooting and scoring numbers look eerily similar. The difference, though, is that one of those guys was the focal point of opposing defenses and the other guy is Pau Gasol. It's a lot easier to get yours when the other team is focused on Mr. Bean. Not so easy when opponents are cheating off Jarrett Jack, DeMar DeRozan, Jimmy Graham, et al to double you.


the difference is that over 54% Bosh's points come from jump shots despite only shooting 44.4% (compared to 61% from inside). Gasol may not have as high of a shooting percentage on his jump shots, but he understands that and plays closer to the basket (61% of his points, and he shoots 63%). Call me crazy but I prefer smart players who understand their strengths and weaknesses.



MemphisX said:


> Wait...now Pau Gasol is a defensive ace? You confuse playing on a good defensive team with being a good defensive player. Watch how much Bosh's defense improves this season because of the team he will be on.


When did I say Gasol is a defensive ace? He's not a great defensive player but he's not a slouch. Even on the Grizzlies he was a good defender.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

CosaNostra said:


> the difference is that over 54% Bosh's points come from jump shots despite only shooting 44.4% (compared to 61% from inside). Gasol may not have as high of a shooting percentage on his jump shots, but he understands that and plays closer to the basket (61% of his points, and he shoots 63%). Call me crazy but I prefer smart players who understand their strengths and weaknesses.


So even though he's microscopically more efficient, as a second/third option, he's better because "he's smarter and plays closer to the basket". If he was so much better, given that he's further down the ladder than Bosh, shouldn't he be _substantially_ more efficient? Bosh _does_ play to his strengths, he shoots the jumpers to force defenders to guard him closely outside the paint, opening up a lane to the rim that he can drive. That's how he racks up all those free throws.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't understand why people criticize the type of shot Bosh takes. The guy shot 52% from the field last year and averaged 24 a game. That's the highest FG% for anyone that scores as much as he does. So what if he takes jump shots? I don't see people criticize Dirk for being a subpar offensive player because he doesn't back people down and score in the post. And it's not like Bosh relies solely on his jumpers, he got to the line over 8 times a game last year(8.4 attempts), that's more than Gasol (5.6), Boozer (4.9), Amare (7.7), Al Jefferson, Randolph and all the typical post players in the league. In fact, of all the big men in the NBA, Bosh trails on Dwight Howard in FTA per game. I don't get how someone can categorize a guy like that as someone that only shoots jump shots and shy away from contact.

I also love it when people throw out generalizations such as "I like a big man who scores inside" without interpreting the meaning behind the statement. It's an advantage when you have a player that can go inside because guys that do that tend to shoot a high percentage and tend to put opposing bigs in foul trouble. Bosh does all of those things and does it as well as any big man in the league.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

CosaNostra said:


> Probably why he has a higher field goal percentage and a **** ton more offensive rebounds.


Another idiotic statement.

Bosh averaged 2.9 off rebounds last year which is a gigantic step down from Gasol's 3.7. The year before Bosh averaged 2.8 to Gasol's 3.2. In the 3-4 years before that, Bosh has Gasol beat in that category every single year. 

Career wise they are both averaging 2.7 off rebound per game and Bosh has Gasol beat in total rebounds. I wouldn't call Bosh a better rebounder but it's absurd and idiotic to consider Gasol "significantly" better.

Let us know when Gasol averages 20/10 for a season. For all the hype that this guy gets it's funny that he has never actually produced that feat. He's gotten close, but never actually got it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Wade County said:


> *Jan 24 2010, Raptors 106 - Lakers 105*
> 
> Bosh - 9/17, 18pts, 13rbs, 2ast, 2stl , 1blk, 3to's in 37 mins
> Gasol - 10/23, 22pts, 9rbs, 2ast, 2blk in 40 mins
> ...


You also have to factor in that the Lakers keyed their defense at Bosh, while the Raptors were focusing on Kobe. So I expect he'll be even more efficient against Gasol this year because Gasol is going to have to cheat off of him to help on Lebron or Wade, and will be slower to recover to Bosh.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

CosaNostra said:


> yeah, let's just forget about the defensive half of the game. Just like Bosh.
> 
> over 50% of Bosh's shots are jump shots. I prefer my big men to play under the basket. Gasol has a good jump shot as well, but unlike Bosh, he plays closer to the basket. Probably why he has a higher field goal percentage and a **** ton more offensive rebounds.


I prefer my power forward to be able to shoot the mid range jump shot, because I'm going to use him in a lot of pick and rolls, and if he can shoot, then teams are just going to slag off him when he goes to set the screen.

That Bosh plays away from the basket so well is why he's the perfect 4 to put with Lebron and Wade. The only one better would be Dirk himself.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

seifer0406 said:


> Another idiotic statement.
> 
> Bosh averaged 2.9 off rebounds last year which is a gigantic step down from Gasol's 3.7. The year before Bosh averaged 2.8 to Gasol's 3.2. In the 3-4 years before that, Bosh has Gasol beat in that category every single year.


who else on Bosh's team was rebounding again? Pau has to deal with two other guys on his own team that pull down 20% of the team's rebounds - Pau is clearly head and shoulders above Bosh in this regard - considering the make up of his team Bosh should have been pulling down Dwight Howard like numbers and for the same reason, no one else on his team rebounds and someoone has to pull down the boards


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

just for fun Bosh's drtg last season was 111 and Gasol's was 102

but nevermind that - does anyone actually watch the games? look at Pau's performance in the finals against the Cs or the previous year against Dwight Howard - Bosh aint got that in him


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> who else on Bosh's team was rebounding again? Pau has to deal with two other guys on his own team that pull down 20% of the team's rebounds


No, Gasol doesn't play with Odom & Bynum at the same time. And none of them have a RebRate of 20.




e-monk said:


> Pau is clearly head and shoulders above Bosh in this regards


No, he isn't.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Who gives a crap? Laker protagonists would ride with Gasol and Laker antagonists would ride with Bosh... and lose :baseldance::baseldance:


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

I remember when people (foolishly) claimed that it wouldn't work for the C's because they had no bench, "needed time to gel", and had no point guard. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the Celtics were going to win it that season. You people are underestimating the impact of 3 superstars coming together (and in this case 2 of them are mega stars). I don't see any way in which it will even be close next season barring injury.

The stars Miami has put together are better than the ones Boston did and these guys are all just entering their primes. That's really pretty frightening. This team already has an excellent bench too.

I can maybe see Boston giving this team a little bit of trouble because they are so good defensively, but that's about it.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

The more interesting matchups will be in the backcourt. The Heat should think about putting Wade at the point with Miller and LeBron on the wings. Have LeBron guard Kobe and Miller take Artest. That would make things extremely difficult for the Lakers on both sides of the ball. 

Bynum is going to have to be healthy for the Lakers to have a chance.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

e-monk said:


> who else on Bosh's team was rebounding again? Pau has to deal with two other guys on his own team that pull down 20% of the team's rebounds - Pau is clearly head and shoulders above Bosh in this regard - considering the make up of his team Bosh should have been pulling down Dwight Howard like numbers and for the same reason, no one else on his team rebounds and someoone has to pull down the boards


I must have missed his incredible rebounding in Memphis. He is clearly being hampered by all that talent on the Lakers. I can't imagine that he was able to record a career high in rebounds last season while contending for rebounds against his own superior rebounding teammates! He is truly a legend of a player with no peer in this league. 

Or the Lakers were a team that couldn't shoot straight and benefited from having the largest lineup in the league which prevented other teams from shooting straight too. They were a worse offensive rebounding team than the Phoenix Suns by percentage of available rebounds. There were just more rebounds available.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

e-monk said:


> who else on Bosh's team was rebounding again? Pau has to deal with two other guys on his own team that pull down 20% of the team's rebounds - Pau is clearly head and shoulders above Bosh in this regard - considering the make up of his team Bosh should have been pulling down Dwight Howard like numbers and for the same reason, no one else on his team rebounds and someoone has to pull down the boards


The argument was about offensive rebounds and in that regard Bosh should be at a disadvantage because he is the one taking most of the shots. Gasol meanwhile plays off the offensive rebounding opportunities of a 30 point scorer. I would bet anybody that Bosh's offensive rebounding numbers will go up this year now that he is playing with Lebron and Wade. The same way that Gasol's off rebounding numbers went up after he joined the Lakers. (went up by almost 1 a game)

And let me say this again. It is an idiotic statement because the guy is trying to convince people that Gasol is a *much better* rebounder than Bosh. Not comparable, not slightly better, but *a lot better*. The stats clearly doesn't support that and if you actually watch the games that Bosh played (not just against the Lakers but against all teams) you would be a fool to not see that he is one of the best rebounders in the league.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BeeGee said:


> Who gives a crap? Laker protagonists would ride with Gasol and Laker antagonists would ride with Bosh... and lose


Yeah, I mean look at how many titles Gashole led the Grizzlies to... errr... wait, just look at how far Gasol led the Grizzlies in the playoffs! ummm... But, just look at how many playoff wins he singlehandedly carried the Grizzlies to! ummmm, that LeBron, what a loser. He can't carry a team to an NBA title with Larry Hughes as a sidekick! He'll never be a winner like that Gashole.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> I must have missed his incredible rebounding in Memphis. He is clearly being hampered by all that talent on the Lakers. I can't imagine that he was able to record a career high in rebounds last season while contending for rebounds against his own superior rebounding teammates! He is truly a legend of a player with no peer in this league.
> 
> Or the Lakers were a team that couldn't shoot straight and benefited from having the largest lineup in the league which prevented other teams from shooting straight too. They were a worse offensive rebounding team than the Phoenix Suns by percentage of available rebounds. There were just more rebounds available.


Hey, buddy, this thread is devoted to the dick size of Laker fans, don't you be bringing common sense into this discussion. Next thing you know you'll be telling them that their salamis won't expand by five slices if the Lakers win another title.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

They only meet twice a year and Miami isn't going to make the finals this year so I agree with BeeGee.

I don't care about Miami matchups with the Lakers. I care more about Boston matchups or Orlando matchups because if I had to pick it would probably be one of those two teams coming out of the Least.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Hey, buddy, this thread is devoted to the dick size of Laker fans, don't you be bringing common sense into this discussion. Next thing you know you'll be telling them that their salamis won't expand by five slices if the Lakers win another title.


They won't?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Ron said:


> I don't care about Miami matchups with the Lakers. I care more about Boston matchups or Orlando matchups because if I had to pick it would probably be one of those two teams coming out of the Least.


Unless they make a deal I don't think Orlando really has a chance. There's no way that they're going to be able to defend Bosh, James & Wade. Vinsanity, Re-Dick, and Pietrus aren't going to even slow down James & Wade. Boston has the best chance, but even there I think their best chance will come after they trade for Chris Paul. :bsmile:


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, I mean look at how many titles Gashole led the Grizzlies to... errr... wait, just look at how far Gasol led the Grizzlies in the playoffs! ummm... But, just look at how many playoff wins he singlehandedly carried the Grizzlies to! ummmm, that LeBron, what a loser. He can't carry a team to an NBA title with Larry Hughes as a sidekick! He'll never be a winner like that Gashole.


EXACTLY! You're finally comin' around, E.H.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> Hey, buddy, this thread is devoted to the dick size of Laker fans, don't you be bringing common sense into this discussion. Next thing you know you'll be telling them that their salamis won't expand by five slices if the Lakers win another title.


No one will disagree that there are no bigger dicks than Lakers fans.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

The Lakers are over-rated. I don't think they would have beaten Cleveland in a 7 game series last year.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> The Lakers are over-rated. I don't think they would have beaten Cleveland in a 7 game series last year.


:|


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> The Lakers are over-rated. I don't think they would have beaten Cleveland in a 7 game series last year.


Right, and I don't think the Celtics would've beaten the Cavs in a 7-game series, eith.... oh nevermind.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The Celtics are going to have problems with the Heat's athleticism. They always struggle with athletic end to end teams, and the Heat have the potential to be one of the all-time great teams at that. It's even worse with Perkins out. When he comes back he probably won't be the same player immediately, can you imagine the Celtics dealing with this lineup:

Wade
Lebron
Miller
Bosh
Haslem

With any of their new old lumbering centers? The Heat could beat them up and down the floor with ease.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Lakers are the only team that can beat them, but I don't think they will. Lakers do match up with them fairly well. Artest can body LeBron with Bynum behind him to help. Gasol can outplay Bosh while Kobe and Wade will probably be a standstill. Bynum will probably have a field day with whoever they stick on him. The Heat don't have a quick penetrating point guard, which is the Lakers biggest defensive weakness. 

I still believe the Heat will actually be _better_ than people think, but the Lakers are a stacked team in their own right. They should demand that kind of respect until they're beaten.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> The Lakers are over-rated. I don't think they would have beaten Cleveland in a 7 game series last year.


Yeah, a two-time defending champion is overrated. I get it.

And of course we will never know, because as usual Cleveland choked it up and didn't make it. The Lakers did and won.

History is a bitch, ain't it? Just can't change it.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> No one will disagree that there are no bigger dicks than Lakers fans.


Yep, and just to confirm that for you, Hyperion, I will remind you of the following:

Lakers 16, Suns 0.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Ron said:


> Yep, and just to confirm that for you, Hyperion, I will remind you of the following:
> 
> Lakers 16, Suns 0.


Good thing those Lakers won those 16 championships, or else you'd be stuck with a real small penis.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Good thing those Lakers won those 16 championships, or else you'd be stuck with a real small penis.


Nope.

While the two events are not mutually exclusive, they are not dependent upon one another either.

I am Italian. I don't need the Lakers to win titles.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Lakers are the *only *team that can beat them, but I don't think they will.


That's crazy. The Celtics have enough there to beat the Heat.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Especially since they'll have CP3 starting at the 1 by the playoffs. :bsmile:


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

BeeGee said:


> That's crazy. The Celtics have enough there to beat the Heat.


K.G. - 34 - wrecked knee.

Paul Pierce - 33 - purely a jump shooter at this point.

Ray Allen - 35 - see Pierce.

Shaq - 38 - just about finished.

J.O. - 32 - both of his knees are completely shot!

Perkins - shredded his MCL/PCL.

Tony Allen - the only athletic perimeter defender they had...and now hes gone.

Wade - 33pts 6.8ast 5.6reb 1.6stl 1.6blk 56FG% 40% from 3pt land. Thats what Wade did to Boston all by himself. Now give him this roster...

C - Anthony/Z/Magloire/Pittman
PF - Bosh/Haslem/Howard
SF - Bron/Miller/Jones
SG - Wade/House/Miller
PG - Chalmers/Arroyo/Beverly

You can probably replace Magloire with Dampier by next week.

Let me guess...not enough balls to go around?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BeeGee said:


> That's crazy. The Celtics have enough there to beat the Heat.


I don't see the Celtics returning to the same level. One year is a long time when 3 of your 5 starters are in their mid-30's. Not to mention, I think it's going to take Perkins more than a few games to get back into the swing of things after his recovery.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

It's still early to be declaring the Lakers as the only team with a shot to beat the Heat. As currently constructed, I find it hard to believe the Heat will lose to anyone in the East. However, as the Heat proved, things can change in a hurry. What happens if Boston or Orlando is able to get Anthony or Paul? Those are two elite players and it's not inconceivable that either would be shipped to Boston or Orlando given their current situations.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Super Friends said:


> K.G. - 34 - wrecked knee.
> 
> Paul Pierce - 33 - purely a jump shooter at this point.
> 
> ...


You are right, there aren't enough balls to go around. How very insightful of you. :|

You are too easily discounting Boston's defense, still the best in the league. I certainly hope the Heat don't take your cavalier attitude; otherwise, it is a given they will be sitting on their couches as you will be come June.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> It's still early to be declaring the Lakers as the only team with a shot to beat the Heat. As currently constructed, I find it hard to believe the Heat will lose to anyone in the East. However, as the Heat proved, things can change in a hurry. What happens if Boston or Orlando is able to get Anthony or Paul? Those are two elite players and it's not inconceivable that either would be shipped to Boston or Orlando given their current situations.


I don't see Orlando being a team that can acquire either of those players. Boston has a shot because they can dangle Rondo around (though I doubt he's enough), Orlando got absolutely nothing they can offer to either of those teams. I don't see Boston going after Melo because his game overlaps with Pierce. 

And as I said in another thread, it doesn't make any sense for NO to trade Collison away and then turnaround and trade Paul for Rondo. In my opinion Collison can very well be just as good as Rondo perhaps as early as next year. It would be a dumb series of trades if they decide to go that direction.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't see the Celtics returning to the same level. One year is a long time when 3 of your 5 starters are in their mid-30's. Not to mention, I think it's going to take Perkins more than a few games to get back into the swing of things after his recovery.


The O'Neal combo will be fine while Perkins is out. Age is not a big factor for the C's at this time. This same mid-30's team dominated the East playoffs and made the finals just a few months ago. It'll be a good excuse should the Celtics fail, but that experience is one of the factors that they can beat anybody including the Heat next year.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't see Orlando being a team that can acquire either of those players. Boston has a shot because they can dangle Rondo around (though I doubt he's enough), Orlando got absolutely nothing they can offer to either of those teams. I don't see Boston going after Melo because his game overlaps with Pierce.
> 
> And as I said in another thread, it doesn't make any sense for NO to trade Collison away and then turnaround and trade Paul for Rondo. In my opinion Collison can very well be just as good as Rondo perhaps as early as next year. It would be a dumb series of trades if they decide to go that direction.


It's going to happen eventually because if they do nothing then Paul leaves, and they have no assurances that they'll be able to replace him as a marketing tool. By this summer, with free agency only a year off, Paul will be calling the shots, and they might end up with pennies on the dollar for him. So their best bet is to move him this year when they can get a good return for him. The point guards that they'd doubtless prefer in trade either aren't available (Wall & Rose), play for teams that don't make those sorts of deals (Westbrook), or make no sense for them (Deron Williams, who'd simply bolt when he had the chance, and he probably should also be listed in the unavailable category).

For all his shortcomings, Rondo makes the sort highlight reel plays that make fans irrational. Visit a Celtics board sometime and see the sheer number of otherwise reasonable posters that think that Rondo is every bit as good as Paul or Williams, and who panic at the mere suggestion that he'd be swapped for either one. So while Collison might one day be marginally better, Rondo is a lot more marketable. Add in the fact that Boston can absorb a bad contract and send back a local hero (Davis) and the writing's pretty much on the wall.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Denver has the pieces to trade for Paul. Billups, Lawson, and some big expiring contracts. Of course then they are left with the possibility that they lose both Paul and Melo.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

No one really stands much of a chance against the Heat, they seem to be on another tier than anyone else in the league. Out East with the rosters as-is, Orlando's only chance is if Dwight becomes Hakeem which isn't really much of a chance at all. Against Boston, the Heat are going to be like the Hawks on steroids and they've been a mismatch even back in Boston's 2008 championship season. Boston's also going to have to manage the O'Neals (2 max player egos), Nate (prone to being a dumb jackass), and West (make sure he takes those pills) while losing a couple of coaches in the offseason. Should Boston face Orlando, its going to be up to the O'Neals to single cover Dwight and I think they can do it...if so, the Magic are screwed against 'em like they were a few months ago.

As for the Lakers, I think their three consecutive years of making it to the Finals will show wear and tear and Kobe will continue to decline. Bynum and Bryant had surgery and both have had lingering injury issues throughout the season; Odom piled on more miles playing a key role for the undersized Team USA. If they're not healthy I see them being vulnerable enough to get knocked out before the Finals. They're also potentially breaking the rule of not having two headcases on your team by signing on Matt Barnes; Phil, Kobe, and Fisher might have their hands full dealing with Artest and Barnes in the locker-room. 

Going to be a long season but the squad Pat Riley and friends have made with and around their star trio seems video game good. There doesn't seem to be a superstar big man or frontcourt around to really expose the Heat's main weakness which is at the 5 spot. It'd be great for Orlando fans if they somehow got CP3 though - a CP3 and Dwight Howard combination exploits not only the Heat's main positional weakness but also exploits another weakness which is at their 1 position.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> It's going to happen eventually because if they do nothing then Paul leaves, and they have no assurances that they'll be able to replace him as a marketing tool. By this summer, with free agency only a year off, Paul will be calling the shots, and they might end up with pennies on the dollar for him. So their best bet is to move him this year when they can get a good return for him. The point guards that they'd doubtless prefer in trade either aren't available (Wall & Rose), play for teams that don't make those sorts of deals (Westbrook), or make no sense for them (Deron Williams, who'd simply bolt when he had the chance, and he probably should also be listed in the unavailable category).


If it doesn't happen this year then it really isn't relevant to this thread. In my opinion if Boston doesn't beat Miami this year, their chance isn't a whole lot better next year even if you add Paul into the mix. KG and Allen have about a year left in terms of effectiveness and who knows how long Pierce can maintain the level of play.

In fact, if the Celtics don't get Paul this year I don't even think it's a good idea to trade Rondo for him. Paul isn't going to stay in Boston beyond his current contract. Who is he going to play with? Kendrick Perkins? Glen Davis? Avery Bradley? Not saying that theres no chance that he would re-sign in Boston but unless the Celtics can secure an extension at the time of trade it's just too big of a gamble for them considering everything. IMO after KG/Pierce are done the Celtics need to rebuild. Paul wouldn't want anything to do with that and even if he did the chances of that team being a contender is slim anyway.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think the only way that a team will actually have more talent than the heat is if the Lakers traded for Paul without giving up any of their core past Bynum.

Paul with the Celtics minus Rondo still isn't on the Heat's level, just because the Heat still have two players better than the Celtics best player, and Bosh who is as good as Pierce, and better than Garnett.

Even if the Magic got Paul, it would still just be Paul and Howard who are again both worse than Wade and Lebron, and Bosh is better than anyone left on the team. So is Mike Miller actually.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BeeGee said:


> The O'Neal combo will be fine while Perkins is out. Age is not a big factor for the C's at this time. This same mid-30's team dominated the East playoffs and made the finals just a few months ago. It'll be a good excuse should the Celtics fail, but that experience is one of the factors that they can beat anybody including the Heat next year.


That same mid-30's team dominated three teams with one superstar and not much else. This is a team with 3 of the top 10 players in the league. Different animal. 

I think the Bulls are more of a threat than the Celtics, honestly.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That same mid-30's team dominated three teams with one superstar and not much else. This is a team with 3 of the top 10 players in the league. Different animal.
> 
> I think the Bulls are more of a threat than the Celtics, honestly.


Chicago? Nah. Besides, there's only one ball. The Heat wouldn't be the first star-loaded team to lose to good team defense.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BeeGee said:


> Chicago? Nah. Besides, there's only one ball. The Heat wouldn't be the first star-loaded team to lose to good team defense.


I don't know how good that team defense is going to be without Perkins, and with a crippled Garnett, and Pierce/Ray being a step slower. Rondo is really the only elite defender left, and with Shaquille, you can pick and roll that team to death. Their defense last year wasn't as good as it was the year they won the title, and it's going to decline more next year. 

And there has never been a star-loaded team like the Heat. Never. There have been instances where former superstars out of their primes join up to try to win titles, but two top 5 players and three top 10 players? Never. 

Hell, the Heat's team defense will probably be better than the Celtics. They have a great defensive coach/scheme, and really active/athletic players.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't know how good that team defense is going to be without Perkins, and with a crippled Garnett, and Pierce/Ray being a step slower. Rondo is really the only elite defender left, and with Shaquille, you can pick and roll that team to death. Their defense last year wasn't as good as it was the year they won the title, and it's going to decline more next year.
> 
> And there has never been a star-loaded team like the Heat. Never. There have been instances where former superstars out of their primes join up to try to win titles, but two top 5 players and three top 10 players? Never.
> 
> Hell, the Heat's team defense will probably be better than the Celtics. They have a great defensive coach/scheme, and really active/athletic players.


I'm gonna wait and see the Heat play together before I form an opinion of how good they are. Right now, they're just a star-loaded team. The Celtics are still capable of playing solid team defense and making games ugly. Sure, I'd fully expect Bron & co. to be too much by the time the postseason arrives, but who knows what will happen between now and then. I don't get how everyone is giving this to the Heat, especially without ever having seen them play one game together. Sure they look the best on paper, but it's a long season and I'm sure the Heat, just like most teams, will have to deal with some sort of adversity along the way. We'll see how things shape up in the spring. If the Celtics are healthy and have time to get Perk back into the mix, I give the sum of their parts a chance to beat any team in a series.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

A new season is a new season. I don't give any team the benefit of the doubt just because they played together last year. On paper is all we really have because every team changes from year to year with roster changes, players declining and so forth. Right now, the Heat are the team to beat. If not them, the Lakers. I'm not someone that believes you give a team the benefit just because of what they did last year, without looking at what they're working with next season. Next season's circumstances are all that matter for next season.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> In fact, if the Celtics don't get Paul this year I don't even think it's a good idea to trade Rondo for him. Paul isn't going to stay in Boston beyond his current contract. Who is he going to play with? Kendrick Perkins? Glen Davis? Avery Bradley? Not saying that theres no chance that he would re-sign in Boston but unless the Celtics can secure an extension at the time of trade it's just too big of a gamble for them considering everything. IMO after KG/Pierce are done the Celtics need to rebuild. Paul wouldn't want anything to do with that and even if he did the chances of that team being a contender is slim anyway.


See, rebuilding is pretty easy when you have a top 5 player that all the NBA stars want to play with and tens of millions in expiring contracts to trade. It's a whole lot harder when your team's centerpiece is disliked by a huge portion of NBA stars.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> A new season is a new season. I don't give any team the benefit of the doubt just because they played together last year. On paper is all we really have because every team changes from year to year with roster changes, players declining and so forth. Right now, the Heat are the team to beat. If not them, the Lakers. I'm not someone that believes you give a team the benefit just because of what they did last year, without looking at what they're working with next season. Next season's circumstances are all that matter for next season.


Yeh but with Boston and many other teams, you at least have something to go on. With the new Heat, there's absolutely nothing to go on except speculation because the team is almost completely filled (top to bottom) with guys that haven't played together before. In my opinion, the team to beat is always the team with the trophy. The Heat haven't proven a thing yet, while we know what the other contenders are about, because they've been together.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I think the players on the team are more of an indication of how the team will do, than team chemistry. It's like saying if you put Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony on the same team. Without seeing them play, I'd bet they'd win more games than the Mavericks who have won 50+ games for years and years now. Talent means more than history/chemistry.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think the players on the team are more of an indication of how the team will do, than team chemistry. It's like saying if you put Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony on the same team. Without seeing them play, I'd bet they'd win more games than the Mavericks who have won 50+ games for years and years now. Talent means more than history/chemistry.


History has proven that this isn't always true. Talent can equal nothing more than a disappointing end to a promising season, if talent doesn't play together.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> See, rebuilding is pretty easy when you have a top 5 player that all the NBA stars want to play with and tens of millions in expiring contracts to trade. It's a whole lot harder when your team's centerpiece is disliked by a huge portion of NBA stars.


If that's the case then Celtics will have to make the necessary moves before going after Paul. I don't see Paul signing an extension because the Celtics promises that it will be a speedy rebuild. Those pieces better be in place or else Paul wouldn't sign that extension and I don't think it's wise to trade Rondo for Paul if the guy may leave in a year. KG and Allen needs to be moved before the Celtics go after Paul because I don't think by the end of this year the idea of playing with those 2 geezers along with the O'neal brothers would be high on Paul's to-do list.

My prediction is wherever Melo ends up will become the front-runner for Paul after next year. My feeling is it's going to be either the Nets or the Knicks.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> If that's the case then Celtics will have to make the necessary moves before going after Paul. I don't see Paul signing an extension because the Celtics promises that it will be a speedy rebuild. Those pieces better be in place or else Paul wouldn't sign that extension and I don't think it's wise to trade Rondo for Paul if the guy may leave in a year. KG and Allen needs to be moved before the Celtics go after Paul because I don't think by the end of this year the idea of playing with those 2 geezers along with the O'neal brothers would be high on Paul's to-do list.
> 
> My prediction is wherever Melo ends up will become the front-runner for Paul after next year. My feeling is it's going to be either the Nets or the Knicks.


Why not simply sign 'Melo when the year's over as they have the necessary expiring deals to make it happen? Rebuilding around Rondo is a recipe for the 90s Celtics.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Why not simply sign 'Melo when the year's over as they have the necessary expiring deals to make it happen? Rebuilding around Rondo is a recipe for the 90s Celtics.


Because Melo will either sign an extension or he will be traded before the end of this year. If for some reason the Nuggets do wait it out they still wouldn't want anything to do with Allen or KG's expiring contract unless it comes with high picks that Boston don't have. Denver just gets nothing out of it, certainly not something that they would consider when the other option is trading Melo before the season is up.

If getting Melo is what the Celtics need to do in order to get Paul it just sounds too difficult of a task for Ainge to pull off. Not impossible, just not something that I would consider a likely scenario worth of discussing.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

They would have until February of '12 to make a deal, by which time they would have some $37 million in expiring contracts with which to make a deal.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> They would have until February of '12 to make a deal, by which time they would have some $37 million in expiring contracts with which to make a deal.


I think we're going in loops here.

Paul will only sign an extension if the Celtics have the necessary pieces to contend. Not potential pieces as in expiring contracts. Unless Boston can secure an extension at the time of the trade it wouldn't be wise imo to trade Rondo for Paul especially after this year because theres a good chance that the Celtics only get him for 1 year.

Like I said, if we're looking at 2012 and beyond it's really not relevant to this thread. They're not getting Paul this year and that's why they're not a threat to the Miami Heat. Of course, this is referencing to the guy who said that the Celtics need Paul in order to beat Miami.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BeeGee said:


> History has proven that this isn't always true. Talent can equal nothing more than a disappointing end to a promising season, if talent doesn't play together.


Just because it isn't _always_ true doesn't mean it's not true most of the time. History has proven the more talented teams win the majority of the time. Therefore, betting on the most talented team(s) (Heat, then Lakers) makes for a better choice than betting on less talented teams based on what they did in previous years.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> Paul will only sign an extension if the Celtics have the necessary pieces to contend.


The Celtics are already contenders. He'd have a better shot at a ring in '11 in Boston anywhere shy of Miami. And they'd be well able to retool on the fly. And, yes, Paul will be dealt this year because if the Hornets wait until the summer they're getting pennies on the dollar for him. He's already indicated that he's out of New Orleans.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Just because it isn't _always_ true doesn't mean it's not true most of the time. History has proven the more talented teams win the majority of the time. Therefore, betting on the most talented team(s) (Heat, then Lakers) makes for a better choice than betting on less talented teams based on what they did in previous years.


It's meaningless, really, until proven on the court. Every single year, a talented team loses in the finals. It means nothing until you prove you can win 16 games in the postseason and hoist the O'Brien. It's all talk, regardless of how you look on paper and how much of a "no-brainer" you appear to be. I get the excitement surrounding the Heat, but even those guys understand that talent without the ability to play as a team equals inevitable disappointment. I'm not giving them anything, and I'm not making them the team to beat. Whoever is defending the title is the team to beat. People are penciling in 70 wins before training camp, lmao. It's a nice story, but until they put it on tape, it's just expectations.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> The Celtics are already contenders. He'd have a better shot at a ring in '11 in Boston anywhere shy of Miami. And they'd be well able to retool on the fly. And, yes, Paul will be dealt this year because if the Hornets wait until the summer they're getting pennies on the dollar for him. He's already indicated that he's out of New Orleans.


Which goes back to my original point of New Orleans trading Paul for Rondo this year. It doesn't make much sense for them to trade Collison in an attempt to please Paul and then rightaway turnaround and trade Paul for Rondo who for all we know could be a lesser player than Collison. Paul isn't more likely to leave now than he was before the Collison trade. Even if things do change it's going to be next year at the earliest unless they get an offer that they cannot refuse. It makes no sense for them to trade Collison and then trade Paul for someone that going to do what Collison could've done. This isn't a situation where it's a surprise to New Orleans that Paul doesn't want to stay. They've made a plan on what they want to do with Paul and all signs point to keeping him in New Orleans for as long as possible.

If Paul is going to be traded next year, then an extension must be secured for whichever team that he goes to. If Boston fail to win a championship this year it'll be even less appealing to Paul next year when KG and Allen are on their last legs. That's why I said that the Celtics must move those guys first and get good pieces in place to assure Paul that he will be on a contending team.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the fact they moved Collison does suggest they're committed to keeping Paul doesnt it

and I dont see Paul as that much of an upgrade over Rondo at least in terms of fit - all Rondo needs to do is develop an outside shot and he's an elite guard as it is


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Chris Paul's injury has left him criminally underrated.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

FX™ said:


> Chris Paul's injury has left him criminally underrated.


how do you figure he's under-rated? the entire world thinks he's this monstrous hybrid of Jon Stockton and Isiah Thomas with the defensive ability of Bruce Bowen - I think some people think he can fly even, leap tall buildings in a single bound etc

fact is Deron Williams owns him


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

e-monk said:


> the fact they moved Collison does suggest they're committed to keeping Paul doesnt it
> 
> and I dont see Paul as that much of an upgrade over Rondo at least in terms of fit - all Rondo needs to do is develop an outside shot and he's an elite guard as it is


*** No attacking posters, you know better Hyperion. Thanks. ***


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BeeGee said:


> Every single year, a talented team loses in the finals.


...to an equally or more talented team. 



BeeGee said:


> It means nothing until you prove you can win 16 games in the postseason and hoist the O'Brien. It's all talk, regardless of how you look on paper and how much of a "no-brainer" you appear to be.


Well if what teams look like on paper mean nothing, then all teams are created equal to you. Some people choose to have more foresight than calling the Warriors and Lakers equal next season simply because "_nothing is a no-brainer_" and "_talent on paper means nothing_". That's ridiculous. 

It's simple. The most talented team wins the title the majority of the time. The Heat have a talent level we haven't seen on a team in a long time. It's obvious they're going to be the favorite along with LA. Nobody is handing them the trophy, they're called predictions. Could they be wrong? Sure. It's September. A lot can happen. All we can do is predict things based on what we know now. Or in your case, just treat every team equally until they start playing games. Good thing you're not a bookie, you'd get killed the first couple weeks with those even spreads, haha.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hyperion said:


> *** No attacking posters, you know better Hyperion. Thanks. ***


it's ok - I can take it - especially when it's coming from some stranger on the internet *** it goes both ways ***


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> ...to an equally or more talented team.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is largely true but it does seem that for many of the citizens of BSPN nation it's more of an annointing than a prediction - even the title of this thread suggests it: 'what if the Heat dont win" as if it is assumed - maybe that's what is touching a nerve


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Well the Heat are the favorites are they not? They might not be favorites in your mind but according to the betting lines they are the favorites in the mind of the general public. It's not like this thread is talking about the aftermath in the case that the Warriors fail to win a championship this season, that in my opinion would come off as a thread that is out of line.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

seifer0406 said:


> Well the Heat are the favorites are they not? They might not be favorites in your mind but according to the betting lines they are the favorites in the mind of the general public. It's not like this thread is talking about the aftermath in the case that the Warriors fail to win a championship this season, that in my opinion would come off as a thread that is out of line.


I'm not even saying the thread is 'out of line' whatever that would mean - I'm just saying it's title is indicative of a certain attitude

as for the Vegas betting lines it's important to remember that doesnt mean that the bookies think the Heat will win (necessarily) - it (also) means that they are taking a lot of wagers on that line and need to insure their outlay - which is why the pay-out is so low - it certainly doesnt qualify as an expert opinion so much as it implies an insurance amoritization - what it really suggests is that Joe Public, citizen of BSPN Nation is voting Heat, well no kidding


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> and I dont see Paul as that much of an upgrade over Rondo at least in terms of fit - all Rondo needs to do is develop an outside shot and he's an elite guard as it is


Four years later and he still can't score from more than 6' out. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that jumpshot to develop. The fact is that Paul is a great defensive player with a complete offensive game. Rondo vanishes from games unless you can get him easy transition buckets. That's why he won't ever be a top 5 player in the NBA.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Four years later and he still can't score from more than 6' out. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that jumpshot to develop. The fact is that Paul is a great defensive player with a complete offensive game. Rondo vanishes from games unless you can get him easy transition buckets. That's why he won't ever be a top 5 player in the NBA.


you are probably right in terms of his offensive limitations but he is so good in almost every other phase of the game and fits in so well with the composition of the team it's hard to give up on him at only age 23 - he was very close two seasons ago hitting treys at a 31% clip (given that 33% from behind the arc is as good as 50% from within it) but you're right he took a major step backwards last season on that front


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

When you shoot a trey every other game, you can land less than a third of them by freak accident. Because aside from that he was a terrible shooter outside 6'. Same last year. And he turned 24 midseason, he'll be 25 next year. He might one day learn to shoot. But, then again, it's just as likely that like 'Dre Miller he never really does.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

e-monk said:


> you are probably right in terms of his offensive limitations but he is so good in almost every other phase of the game and fits in so well with the composition of the team it's hard to give up on him at only age 23 - he was very close two seasons ago hitting treys at a 31% clip (given that 33% from behind the arc is as good as 50% from within it) but you're right he took a major step backwards last season on that front


Shooting 31% from 3pt land is a percentage that gets you pulled from the game if you shoot it from there. Paul is head and shoulders better than Rondo. He can not only lock down on defense, which Rondo's d is getting a little bit way too overhyped, but he can also playmake as well as Nash. He's like the second coming of KJ.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

FX™ said:


> Chris Paul's injury has left him criminally underrated.


You are right about this. I hope he stays healthy and puts this best point guard discussion to sleep next season, because honestly not even Deron Williams is on his level.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You are right about this. I hope he stays healthy and puts this best point guard discussion to sleep next season, because honestly not even Deron Williams is on his level.


except for the small matter of head-to-head ownage you might be right


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hyperion said:


> Shooting 31% from 3pt land is a percentage that gets you pulled from the game if you shoot it from there.
> 
> *not really, there are guys who get major minutes and dont get pulled for shooting worst than that and well, it didnt get Rondo pulled did it? sort of a self-evident negation of your point there*
> 
> ...


*funny I think I myself have said that (back on the wire more than once), of course Paul does play defense better than KJ (if not Rondo)

as for Rondo and playmaking? on a team with a lot of passing to go around (KG, Pierce, Allen are all among the better distributors from their positions in the game) Rondo last season was responsible for 43.7% of his team's assists, that's pretty Nash-like as well

the way I see it Paul is better because he is a significantly better scorer with much greater range

the rest of their games are pretty darn close*


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

e-monk said:


> except for the small matter of head-to-head ownage you might be right


Except they've been pretty even head to head. Maybe a slight advantage to Deron, but a slight advantage in a small amount of head to head games doesn't supercede a clear and concise advantage in a large amount of games against the rest of the league.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

People are starting to compare Rondo to Paul? Are you kidding me? The only point guard in the world right now that he even on the same tier as Paul is Williams. There is no debating that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> as for Rondo and playmaking? on a team with a lot of passing to go around (KG, Pierce, Allen are all among the better distributors from their positions in the game) Rondo last season was responsible for 43.7% of his team's assists, that's pretty Nash-like as well


You may not have watched a lot of Boston games last year, but a third of the way into the season Pierce & Garnett were injured and Boston went into cruise control. At that point the offense became Rondo dribbling the air out of the ball while everyone else stood around and watched. The reason he was responsible for so much of the team's playmaking was the simple fact that for the last 54 games of the regular season the ball stayed in his hands until someone sprung free for an open shot.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> You may not have watched a lot of Boston games last year, but a third of the way into the season Pierce & Garnett were injured and Boston went into cruise control. At that point the offense became Rondo dribbling the air out of the ball while everyone else stood around and watched. The reason he was responsible for so much of the team's playmaking was the simple fact that for the last 54 games of the regular season the ball stayed in his hands until someone sprung free for an open shot.


tellingly his numbers stayed pretty close to the same in the playoffs with all three of those players more or less healthy and the Celtics getting to within a quarter of winning the title


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Because their entire postseason offensive plan consisted of "grab defensive boards and get Rondo in transition so that the other teams have to defend him"


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Rondo cannot be considered an elite guard. Even Jason Kidd, or Russell Westbrook, or other guards who aren't known for shooting could still hit a wide open 12 footer if left wide open. Rose too for example. 

I'm fine with Rondo being in the slot of top 5 point guard, but for me, he is definitely a tier below Paul, Deron and Rose.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

What's funny to me is how people act like the Heat are a sacrilegious Frankenstein but in the next breath say they don't even think they'll win the title this season.

I can't call it between them and LA at this point. I think with a gun to my head the only issue I could see for Miami is 3-point shooting, but that's not a fatal flaw. At the end of the day we're going to have to play the games, and despite what we want to believe on message boards noone has the thesis that predicts what will go down when these two meet in the finals. 

I believe these two are so evenly matched that most of the games are going to come down to foul trouble, injuries possibly, and miscues that bite either team on key plays (especially down the stretch). 

I could see this being one of those series' with alternating blowouts until about Game 5 too though, with the key players being so supremely talented and confident that they'll concede a game early (if it looks bad in the 3rd quarter) to conserve for the next one.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

I have zero faith in the Heat's bigs, but I find it very difficult to pick against the combo of James and Wade.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I said the same thing but the Heat fans already laid that out earlier this offseason with actual numbers that pretty much prove interior defense won't be an issue. If anything Joel Anthony will be the next Kendrick Perkins.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dre™;6368614
I can't call it between them and LA at this point. I think with a gun to my head the only issue I could see for Miami is 3-point shooting said:


> The Heat have better 3 point shooting than the Lakers though. Miller, House, James Jones, Chalmers...heck even Z. The Lakers have pretty much only Derek Fisher.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Rondo cannot be considered an elite guard. Even Jason Kidd, or Russell Westbrook, or other guards who aren't known for shooting could still hit a wide open 12 footer if left wide open. Rose too for example.
> 
> I'm fine with Rondo being in the slot of top 5 point guard, but for me, he is definitely a tier below Paul, Deron and Rose.


are you KIDDING me? Jason Kidd has topped 50% efg maybe twice for a season in 16 years (as opposed to Rondo 3 times in 4 tries) and Russell Westbrook? - shall we discuss his hall of fame resume at this point? really? and Rose, didnt Rondo take him apart last year? I mean of course he was a rookie but then you're the one talking about him being an "elite PG"

ehmonroe was a little more on the mark with the dre miller comment (of course dre miller was never that good defensively) but you're talking crazy here

Jason Kidd may be the best example but not for the reason you've brought him up - it's the D, the rebounding, running the break etc - that's more the mold, Rondo isnt there of course but as you've inadvertantly pointed out his lack of shooting accuracy is no reason to hold him back, I mean look at Jason Kidd...


----------



## The Immortal CJ (Sep 7, 2009)

Clearly it's a failure if they don't win the championship. Granted my Lakers are the team to beat, but not even they have the star power talent like the Heat do. Heat don't win it's a bust.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

e-monk said:


> are you KIDDING me? Jason Kidd has topped 50% efg maybe twice for a season in 16 years (as opposed to Rondo 3 times in 4 tries) and Russell Westbrook? - shall we discuss his hall of fame resume at this point? really? and Rose, didnt Rondo take him apart last year? I mean of course he was a rookie but then you're the one talking about him being an "elite PG"
> 
> ehmonroe was a little more on the mark with the dre miller comment (of course dre miller was never that good defensively) but you're talking crazy here
> 
> Jason Kidd may be the best example but not for the reason you've brought him up - it's the D, the rebounding, running the break etc - that's more the mold, Rondo isnt there of course but as you've inadvertantly pointed out his lack of shooting accuracy is no reason to hold him back, I mean look at Jason Kidd...


The Lakers literally played Rondo with a defender at the free throw line and let him shoot anything he wanted outside of 10 feet uncontested. That didn't work against Westbrook, wouldn't have worked against Kidd, Miller, Rose, etc. Rondo was helpless. Those guys can make wide open shots. 

The point is that there are point guards whose strength isn't shooting, like Westbrook, Rose and Kidd...then there is Rondo. I mean, dude shot *26%* from the *FREE THROW LINE* in the finals. I bet Shaquille will be giving him shooting tips when training camp begins. That kind of shooting from a point guard is unacceptable. The Celtics were playing 4 on 5 in the finals because Kobe was just roaming at the free throw line and Rondo was helpless. You can't be an elite point guard if you're _that_ handicapped outside of 10 feet.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> The Heat have better 3 point shooting than the Lakers though. Miller, House, James Jones, Chalmers...heck even Z. The Lakers have pretty much only Derek Fisher.


No. 

The Heat are going to go Chalmers/Wade/LeBron/Bosh/Anthony, Wade/Miller/LeBron/Bosh/Anthony, or Wade/Chalmers/Miller/LeBron/Bosh as their 3 primary lineups in real situations. 

Only one of them has more than two 3 point shooters on the court. Interesting reading your list that yes, the Heat have more cumulative long range shooters but they won't have better 3 point shooters on the floor for the majority of that series.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

What's funny is how similar the makeup of the Heat's lineup is to the Bulls of the 90's. Superstar SG/SF. Then you have an all-starish PF (Bosh and Grant/Rodman are very different, albeit), center by committee, and a roleplayer shooter at the point guard. And Jordan/Pippen weren't any better at three point shooting than LeBron/Wade. Mike Miller and Toni Kukoc even have games that resemble each other (tall lanky ball handling small forwards). 

So I think the outside shooting angle may be overplayed a bit. We'll see.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Yeah I don't think it's a fatal flaw like I said but it's one of the few things that's not a strength..hence it's worth mentioning.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> No.
> 
> The Heat are going to go Chalmers/Wade/LeBron/Bosh/Anthony, Wade/Miller/LeBron/Bosh/Anthony, or Wade/Chalmers/Miller/LeBron/Bosh as their 3 primary lineups in real situations.
> 
> Only one of them has more than two 3 point shooters on the court. Interesting reading your list that yes, the Heat have more cumulative long range shooters but they won't have better 3 point shooters on the floor for the majority of that series.


Even in the case that the Heat are playing: Wade/Lebron/Miller/Bosh/Anthony--they're still a better 3 point shooting team than the Lakers. The Lakers have no one on their team that plays who shoots above 40 percent from 3. Derek Fisher is the closest, but he's not a better shooter than Eddie House, and definitely not better than Miller.

I suspect Mike Miller is one of the most underrated aspects of this team. I mean the guy is 10-6-4 on 50/48 percents shooting. That's the perfect guy to play with Wade and Lebron. He's going to knock down the open looks as well as be unselfish enough to set them up as well. And he's going to rebound on top of that. 

He's going to force the Lakers into going big, but when they are big they won't be able to keep up with the athleticism of the Heat, who should beat them down the floor every time.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Did you forget about Steve Blake??


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Did you forget about Steve Blake??


No, I mean he's another shooter, but the Lakers are probably not going to play him at the same time as Fisher. Fisher is I think a slightly better shooter than Blake.

Neither are as deadeye as Miller. Both are comparable to Eddie House though. Mike Miller is the best 3 point shooter on either team.

My point really is that neither the Lakers or Heat are bombadiers from 3 point. The reason they don't have to be is because they are so good scoring elsewhere on the floor. Which the Heat will be as well. So long as there is a guy to punish teams that go zone the Heat will be good. And they've got a couple zone busting guys on their team.

Patchwork is right the Heat are built a lot like the mid 90s Bulls teams.

House/Chalmers/Arroyo in the Kerr/Armstrong/Paxson role.
Miller in the Kukoc role
Bosh/Haslem....Horace Grant?
Pippen: Lebron
Jordan: Wade
A bunch of no name centers on both teams

That team won by attacking people defensively, being efficient on offense, and running. A model the Heat will try to copy. I suspect Lebron and Wade will be up on the primary perimeter players of whoever they are playing trying to force turnovers, and just in general scrambling all over the place. Bosh will be showing on pick and rolls and helping to trap people. Anthony/Dampier the lot will be there to foul. Miller will be the sixth man extraordinarre.

The Second unit is where they will get a lot of separation on teams incidentally.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

To answer the thread's question, if the Heat don't win it all in 10/11, the cats that spent this summer proclaiming them the 10/11 champs, will spend next summer making excuses and vomiting up the crow that's shoved down their throats, only to be force-fed a heaping plate of "I told you" by all the ones predicting the Heat shortfall. 

Regardless of what happens, it's hilarious to see so many Ron Jaworskis script how the Heat will win or lose next season. It's become less entertaining than an hour with Mel Kiper and Todd McShay arguing their NFL mock drafts from February to April. No thanks </thread>


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

e-monk said:


> are you KIDDING me? Jason Kidd has topped 50% efg maybe twice for a season in 16 years (as opposed to Rondo 3 times in 4 tries) and Russell Westbrook? - shall we discuss his hall of fame resume at this point? really? and Rose, didnt Rondo take him apart last year? I mean of course he was a rookie but then you're the one talking about him being an "elite PG"
> 
> ehmonroe was a little more on the mark with the dre miller comment (of course dre miller was never that good defensively) but you're talking crazy here
> 
> Jason Kidd may be the best example but not for the reason you've brought him up - it's the D, the rebounding, running the break etc - that's more the mold, Rondo isnt there of course but as you've inadvertantly pointed out his lack of shooting accuracy is no reason to hold him back, I mean look at Jason Kidd...


Rose wasn't "taken apart" by Rondo in '09 if that's what you were talking about. If I recall correctly Rose was the best player on a 7th seed Bulls team that almost took out the *heavily* favoured Celtics and also more then any rookie sans KAJ in a debut playoff game. 

Oh and your little stab at Russell Westbrook isn't looking that great right now considering that Westbrook was ripping the Lakers apart for the first four games of the series while Rondo was a complete and total nonshow in the finals.

Rondo excells at certain points of the game and is embarassingly bad at others. He's one of the best on the break defenders we have in this league, he's a good distributer, and he can run the break better then 90% of the league. But the fact that he is nearly useless in a halfcourt setting (don't believe me? Watch the finals again, the Lakers pretended like he wasn't even there.) and literally cannot score from six feet out (as E.H. said) stops him from being a top three point guard.

If you had put Paul, Williams, or Rose on that Celtics team it would have been over in six at the absolute latest, and more then likely would've ended sooner.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Even in the case that the Heat are playing: Wade/Lebron/Miller/Bosh/Anthony--they're still a better 3 point shooting team than the Lakers. The Lakers have no one on their team that plays who shoots above 40 percent from 3. Derek Fisher is the closest, but he's not a better shooter than Eddie House, and definitely not better than Miller.
> 
> I suspect Mike Miller is one of the most underrated aspects of this team. I mean the guy is 10-6-4 on 50/48 percents shooting. That's the perfect guy to play with Wade and Lebron. He's going to knock down the open looks as well as be unselfish enough to set them up as well. And he's going to rebound on top of that.
> 
> He's going to force the Lakers into going big, but when they are big they won't be able to keep up with the athleticism of the Heat, who should beat them down the floor every time.


Mike Miller playing 3 is going to force the Lakers to go big? And he's not underrated at all, if anything people are underrating how he played the past couple years thinking he'll skip back to Grizzlies Mike Miller.

And can we stop all this "beat them down the floor every time"..this is what I'm talking about. People get far away from actual basketball games and they forget how they actually flow when you watch them, so they get theoretical with what's on paper. 

Have you ever seen a basketball game, a Finals game, where one team got the ball from under the basket and routinely got down the court before the other team, to the point where they had consistent 5/4 - 5/3 advantages?

And the Lakers don't have any ace 3-point shooters, but with the lineups they're going to utilize they'd routinely have the advantage there. 

That said, I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen. It's going to come down to key miscues that either team will have trouble getting themselves back from. 

There's no trend I see occurring that I can point to like 250 days out and say that's what's going to happen, and noone else can.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

People forget the versatility of this Laker squad. This squad is good because we can go small and still pound you in the post which essentially takes away the running game from teams that like to run. (See Phoenix and OKC series) A lineup of Fisher/ Kobe/Artest/Odom/Pau is more than capable of getting back on D with small teams. If a team decides to go REALLY small we can throw out Blake/Shannon/Kobe/Artest/Pau and not really miss a beat simply because Pau and Artest are both capable post scorers. Oh and that Kobe guy is no slouch in the post either...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> A lineup of Fisher/ Kobe/Artest/Odom/Pau is more than capable of getting back on D


Not really, there was a reason that the oh-so-speedy Celtics were running LA off the floor prior to losing control of the defensive boards with Perkins' injury. Gasol, Artest, and Fisher are terrible transition defenders. The question for the Heat will be how effectively their centers clean the defensive glass, because once they get James & Wade out in transition LA will find itself struggling.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Mike Miller playing 3 is going to force the Lakers to go big? And he's not underrated at all, if anything people are underrating how he played the past couple years thinking he'll skip back to Grizzlies Mike Miller.


I think people will take Washington Wizards Mike Miller just fine. 50 percent shooting. 48 from three. 6 boards. 4 assists. What more could you want from a sixth man?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Not really, there was a reason that the oh-so-speedy Celtics were running LA off the floor prior to losing control of the defensive boards with Perkins' injury. Gasol, Artest, and Fisher are terrible transition defenders. The question for the Heat will be how effectively their centers clean the defensive glass, because once they get James & Wade out in transition LA will find itself struggling.


The thing that is going to help the Heat on defensive rebounding is that team's won't be able to send their guards in to rebound because they have to get back to protect against James or Wade or heck even Bosh taking off down the floor. So that should allow the Heat defense to force a lot of one and dones just because of how formidable the threat of them fast breaking is. Especially a team like the Lakers that is a little slow on top of things. The Heat will also be aided by the fact that Wade and Lebron are both excellent rebounders for their position, and Bosh is a good rebounder as well. All of their centers are good rebounders too. They should clean the defensive glass against pretty much everyone in the league.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> People forget the versatility of this Laker squad. This squad is good because we can go small and still pound you in the post which essentially takes away the running game from teams that like to run. (See Phoenix and OKC series) A lineup of Fisher/ Kobe/Artest/Odom/Pau is more than capable of getting back on D with small teams. If a team decides to go REALLY small we can throw out Blake/Shannon/Kobe/Artest/Pau and not really miss a beat simply because Pau and Artest are both capable post scorers. Oh and that Kobe guy is no slouch in the post either...


There's normal fast breaks, then there is the fast break that is Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. I mean Wade or Lebron by themselves on the break is a problem, but both of them tearing down the court is more than Artest and Kobe can handle. Bosh is faster than Pau too, so he's going to get beat down the floor.

Like when the Lakers play:
Fisher/Kobe/Artest/Odom/Pau

they'll be against this:
Wade/Lebron/Miller/Bosh/Haslem

Which is a team that is bigger, stronger, and faster than the Lakers unit.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> I think people will take Washington Wizards Mike Miller just fine. 50 percent shooting. 48 from three. 6 boards. 4 assists. What more could you want from a sixth man?


He was more tentative than he should've been for a guy who was the most talented offensive player oncourt for his team more often than not. I think he'll work out, but my initial point remains that noone's underrating Miller's acquisition at all.


----------

