Im talking about our starting lineup. We had Jackson and Mckie last season, but I doubt either will be on the team this coming year.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">If you consider the Pistons a team with a ?primetime? scorer then there is no way you cannot call the Bulls one. Ben Gordon is capable of averaging 20-22 points a game if Skiles did not limit his playing time so much, and Nocioni averaged 21 and nine in the playoff series against Miami this season. Hinrich averages good scoring numbers for a point guard, and Deng is another great offensive player. Like Vintage said we where ranked 13th in the league in scoring last season, and we did not lose any great scorers. If anything our offense will be better with the improvement of our young guys and addition of Smith, Tyrus, and Brown.</div> Nobody on the Bulls can compare to Billups and Hamilton when it comes to scoring with the game on the line. Saying Gordon would score 20 ppg is conjecture. Jerome James averaged 16 points a game in the first round two years ago, and not to suggest Nocioni is anywhere near as bad as James, but I don't think he'll be doing what he did against Miami consistently next season. Hinrich and Deng are good, but they're not the kind of players you call a play for with 5 seconds to go. My definition of a primetime scorer is one who can score when the game is on the line. There's nobody on the Bulls who can step up and do that every time it's needed. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">See, Casual.... Its getting confusing bec. you keep changing your points. It has gone from "I don't consider Chicago is young" to "they don't score enough" to "they don't have a primetime scorer." I could continue on debunking stuff, but really, what is the point? You keep changing yours after its proven to be false. Your original statement was you don't see Chicago as young anymore. That is false.</div> I'm not changing anything. I admitted I was wrong about saying Chicago wasn't young and the other two points are connected. I don't think they score well enough to do anything more than win a first round playoff series at best, mostly because they don't have a player who can carry the team in the fourth quarter consistently. I don't really care if they were 13th in the league at scoring during the regular season. In the playoffs, I don't believe their offense will hold up against the elite teams of the league. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting michiganave17:</div><div class="quote_post">Um well who the hell is vince carter then? If he aint a primetime scorer then what is he?</div> I was referring to the Nets reaching the Finals in the 2002-2003 season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Casual:</div><div class="quote_post">Nobody on the Bulls can compare to Billups and Hamilton when it comes to scoring with the game on the line. Saying Gordon would score 20 ppg is conjecture. Jerome James averaged 16 points a game in the first round two years ago, and not to suggest Nocioni is anywhere near as bad as James, but I don't think he'll be doing what he did against Miami consistently next season. Hinrich and Deng are good, but they're not the kind of players you call a play for with 5 seconds to go. My definition of a primetime scorer is one who can score when the game is on the line. There's nobody on the Bulls who can step up and do that every time it's needed. </div> Ben Gordon has made numerous game winners throughout his young career. Ask any Knicks fan. He is a completely different player down the stretch of game. Although, saying he will average 20 is a conjecture it is one that is within reason to believe. He averaged 17 points a game last year and did not even start the whole season. Not only that, but he only averaged 31 minutes a game in the playoffs when he played 40 minutes a night he averaged 21 points so it?s not beyond reason to think he can't do the same during the regular season. Gordon is our ?primetime? scorer, and the scoring of Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni combined more than compensate (by a significant number) for the scoring of Billups and Hamilton.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rock4life:</div><div class="quote_post"> Well first off, Adam Morrison isn't anything yet. He's simply a rookie with zero shots, zero free throws, zero minutes, in zero games played. How does that equate to a "go-to-guy". Charlotte could be good, Okafur has to stay healthy though.</div>Funny, you could say the same about Rudy Gay, yet you're not happy about him being traded.
Is Utah out of the discussion? Araujo-25 Boozer-25 Brewer-21 Brown-21 Milisap-21 Kirilenko-25 Miles-19 D-Will-20 Okur-27 Harpring and Fisher are the oldest players I think and Harpring is only 30. Giricek is 29, but those guys aren't part of our core. I guess Utah is over the hill.....
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Casual:</div><div class="quote_post">You got me. They're old souls, I guess. I still don't think Chicago has enough scoring punch, unless JR Smith regains his confidence in a hurry. Hopefully they can pick up Kevin Durant in the draft next year.</div>The Bulls have plenty of scoring, so I'm not sure what you're thinking here. We have Ben Gordon, who can drop 20+ on any given night and do that in a hurry. Hinrich is capable of averaging 18-20ppg on any given night. Deng and Noc can each give us 15 a night or so. PJ Brown is still capable of producing a doubld double. Duhon can come off the bench and give us nearly 10 a game. JR Smith, given that he regains confidence and stays on Skiles good side can prove to be an explosive weapon off the bench, much like Ben Gordon was for the first year and a half of his career. So....yea....not sure how you can get by saying we don't have enough scoring.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Casual:</div><div class="quote_post">Nobody on the Bulls can compare to Billups and Hamilton when it comes to scoring with the game on the line. Saying Gordon would score 20 ppg is conjecture. Jerome James averaged 16 points a game in the first round two years ago, and not to suggest Nocioni is anywhere near as bad as James, but I don't think he'll be doing what he did against Miami consistently next season. Hinrich and Deng are good, but they're not the kind of players you call a play for with 5 seconds to go. My definition of a primetime scorer is one who can score when the game is on the line. There's nobody on the Bulls who can step up and do that every time it's needed.</div>Gotta disagree with you here. To say we have no clutch guy is wrong, first and foremost. I'm not sure if you've heard of him, but we have this guy named Ben Gordon, and he's pretty good. He's already knocked in at least a couple of game winners, just ask the Knicks, I'm sure they still remember him. Beyond that, he was second in the league in double digit scoring fourth quarters his rookie year and I believe was #1 in 4th quarter scoring average that year. If that's not clutch, I don't know what is. As for Noc, he didn't just do it against Miami, he was averaging a double double for about 14 straight games, something like that, near the tail end of the regular season. The man is a beast who isn't afraid to do the dirty work, like rebound and defense, and he's become a good jump shooter and he's fearless when going to the hoop. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm not changing anything. I admitted I was wrong about saying Chicago wasn't young and the other two points are connected. I don't think they score well enough to do anything more than win a first round playoff series at best, mostly because they don't have a player who can carry the team in the fourth quarter consistently. I don't really care if they were 13th in the league at scoring during the regular season. In the playoffs, I don't believe their offense will hold up against the elite teams of the league.</div>Note the post before this one for more info. The Bulls have plenty of offense, and regardless of that, they're defense will be more than adequate to carry them come playoff time. And again, the Bulls have a 4th quarter guy named Ben Gordon. He proved it his rookie year that he's capable of coming in during the 4th and scoring points in a hurry. The man is clutch and knows how to score. And just a thought, the offense should be even better this year. Ben Gordon should come in and average around 20 or so, Hinrich, Noc, and Deng will all get at or around the 16ish range. JR Smith has the potential to be a great sparkplug off our bench, much like Ben Gordon was for the first year and a half of his career....this all assumes he keeps his head on straight and doesn't fall out of favor with Skiles. So...to me...we have more than enough scoring, and, unlike some teams, when we don't have the scoring, we have a GREAT defense to get us more than enough stops to win a game. Remember, this is a team that led the league in defensive FG% the last two seasons, and should do it once again this year now that we bring in a true stopper in Wallace.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Casual:</div><div class="quote_post"> I'm not changing anything. I admitted I was wrong about saying Chicago wasn't young and the other two points are connected. I don't think they score well enough to do anything more than win a first round playoff series at best, mostly because they don't have a player who can carry the team in the fourth quarter consistently. I don't really care if they were 13th in the league at scoring during the regular season. In the playoffs, I don't believe their offense will hold up against the elite teams of the league. </div> The "Bulls have no 4th Quarter scorer" myth, per Casual. I guess you missed the part where in Ben Gordon's rookie season, he was one of the league's best 4th quarter scorers. As a rookie. The "Bulls don't have enough offense" myth, per Casual. Second, we finished 13th in the league in scoring. Cleveland, Detroit, San Antonio, Los Angeles Clippers, New Jersey, Indiana, and Memphis scored less than us during the regular season. Do they have enough offense to win in the postseason? Let's debunk your point some more.... In the post season, our average ppg was 7th out of the 16 teams. We outscored Milwaukee, Miami, Sacramento, New Jersey, Detroit, Cleveland, Indiana, Denver, and Memphis. Do any of those teams have enough offense to advance in the playoffs? So....if you are worried about our offense, it stands to reason, you are worried about the offense of ALL those aforementioned teams, right? Care to change your point again? Go for a 4th. 4th time is ALWAYS the charm.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">The "Bulls have no 4th Quarter scorer" myth, per Casual. I guess you missed the part where in Ben Gordon's rookie season, he was one of the league's best 4th quarter scorers. As a rookie.</div> I'm with Casual here. Gordon has the potential to be that primetime scorer, but right now he reminds more of Vinnie Johnson, in the sense he can absolutely light it up, but he can also stink it up. And until he goes through a season starting and putting up 20+ consistently every night (like Rip has done), then he isn't a go-to scorer. That's not to say he won't develop into one at all. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The "Bulls don't have enough offense" myth, per Casual. Second, we finished 13th in the league in scoring. Cleveland, Detroit, San Antonio, Los Angeles Clippers, New Jersey, Indiana, and Memphis scored less than us during the regular season. Do they have enough offense to win in the postseason?</div> Cleveland - Outside of LeBron, who scores? Hughes and Z can light up, as can Flip, but aren't consistently great scorers (very injury prone too). San Antonio and Detroit are very, very good defensively, and I seem to remember Cas saying earlier in this thread that the Bulls best chance at going deep into the playoffs was to become like this so they don't need to score as much. Memphis don't have any consistent scorers outside of Gasol and Miller and have two point guards who chuck up a lot of bad shots, the Clips lost Maggette for most of the season and Indiana lost JO for a lot of the season. New Jersey surprises me. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In the post season, our average ppg was 7th out of the 16 teams. We outscored Milwaukee, Miami, Sacramento, New Jersey, Detroit, Cleveland, Indiana, Denver, and Memphis. Do any of those teams have enough offense to advance in the playoffs?</div> Cleveland and Miami went as far as they did on the back of phenoms in LeBron and Wade, while Detroit were amazing defensively. How did all the other teams you mentioned go? In a way that just proves Casual's point more, as who is Chicago's LeBron or Wade? The guy who consistently scores big when his team needs him? A guy who averaged 17ppg on 42% shooting. Enough said. Methinks Bulls fans are just getting a little sensitive.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting I-Miss-MJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Your post is totally contradictory.</div> How so? I am merely agreeing with Casual that, until Gordon proves himself as a consistent 20+ a night scorer, Chicago's best chance at success is building in the Detroit mould of defense first (which they do seem to be doing). In any case, you still need that consistent scorer, like they have in Rip.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm with Casual here. Gordon has the potential to be that primetime scorer, but right now he reminds more of Vinnie Johnson, in the sense he can absolutely light it up, but he can also stink it up. And until he goes through a season starting and putting up 20+ consistently every night (like Rip has done), then he isn't a go-to scorer. That's not to say he won't develop into one at all. </div> He averaged 17 ppg last year. Its not unreasonable to expect him to put up 20ppg. And secondly, the quote you quoted from me....was me addressing Casual's claim that we don't have a 4th Quarter scorer. And we do. Gordon. As a rookie, he was one of the league's best. Your point here is irrelevant to my response to Casual. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Cleveland - Outside of LeBron, who scores? Hughes and Z can light up, as can Flip, but aren't consistently great scorers (very injury prone too). </div> And yet, they made it to the second round. Obviously, they had enough offense to win the first round and take Detroit to 6 games. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> San Antonio and Detroit are very, very good defensively, and I seem to remember Cas saying earlier in this thread that the Bulls best chance at going deep into the playoffs was to become like this so they don't need to score as much. </div> Again, more irrelevance. The point Casual made was that we don't have enough offense. I listed teams we outscored. I do agree, we will need to continue to play tough defense in order to win games. Defense is our strength. But Casual's point was that we don't have enough offense. Stats say otherwise. Your point here is irrelevant. ...skipping ahead.... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Cleveland and Miami went as far as they did on the back of phenoms in LeBron and Wade, while Detroit were amazing defensively. How did all the other teams you mentioned go? </div> Casual's point was, again, that we don't have enough offense. He never defined the parameters, which I wish he had...so I just went with the "making the playoffs" as the basis. We have enough offense to make the playoffs. And we even outscored some teams who went deeper into the playoffs. Which....my point was....we have enough offense to have success (advancing in the playoffs). To which, you'll probably reply with something like "...yeah, but you'll need to rely on your defense... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Which will spark me to reply with another "irrelevant" comment. The point Casual made.....well, one of them, was our lack of scoring. Which is clearly not as problematic as he thought it was. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> In a way that just proves Casual's point more, as who is Chicago's LeBron or Wade? The guy who consistently scores big when his team needs him? A guy who averaged 17ppg on 42% shooting. Enough said. </div> Sure....it proves Casual's point more...if he had made that point. He made three statements that I addressed, and that you went offtopic on in your reply to me. 1. We are not young 2. He doesn't like our scoring 3. We don't have a 4th Quarter scorer <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Methinks Bulls fans are just getting a little sensitive.</div> Methinks I just prefer having people actually use correct statements when they try to "knock us down." But then again, what would I know about my own preferences?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">How so? I am merely agreeing with Casual that, until Gordon proves himself as a consistent 20+ a night scorer, Chicago's best chance at success is building in the Detroit mould of defense first (which they do seem to be doing). In any case, you still need that consistent scorer, like they have in Rip.</div> You use examples of Detroit, who dont have a superstar scorer on their team and won with defense on their first title against the lakers. Saying the Bulls need a 20+ ppg like Hamilton was, but when they won it he was 17 ppg. Then use Miami and Cavs with Wade and Brown as teams with superstar scores saying the Bulls dont have that. But it clearly isn't needed since the Bulls are a top defensive team and have 4 or 5 capable double digit scorers. Then use the Spurs to use the defense point again. It just doesnt make much sense.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting I-Miss-MJ:</div><div class="quote_post">You use examples of Detroit, who dont have a superstar scorer on their team and won with defense on their first title against the lakers. Saying the Bulls need a 20+ ppg like Hamilton was, but when they won it he was 17 ppg.</div> I didn't say the Bulls needed one, I was pointing out the Bulls don't have one, and their best chance at winning is to go in the Detroit mould. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Then use Miami and Cavs with Wade and Brown as teams with superstar scores saying the Bulls dont have that. But it clearly isn't needed since the Bulls are a top defensive team and have 4 or 5 capable double digit scorers.</div> Vintage pointed out both as teams who score less than the Bulls. I pointed out both as teams who have a reliable go-to guy when needed, regardless of how many points per game they averaged as a team. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Then use the Spurs to use the defense point again.</div> See Detroit. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It just doesnt make much sense.</div> Sure it does. Chicago don't have a reliable go-to guy offensively, so their best chance at winning is to become a defensive powerhouse.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">He averaged 17 ppg last year. Its not unreasonable to expect him to put up 20ppg. And secondly, the quote you quoted from me....was me addressing Casual's claim that we don't have a 4th Quarter scorer. And we do. Gordon. As a rookie, he was one of the league's best. Your point here is irrelevant to my response to Casual.</div> I apologise for not specifically addressing what you and he are arguing about. My definition of a primetime scorer differs from his, and I don't think the Bulls have one. Of course it's feasible for Gordon to average 20 a game in the near future, but it's not a given either. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And yet, they made it to the second round. Obviously, they had enough offense to win the first round and take Detroit to 6 games.</div> Because of one guy who averaged 30+ points all playoffs. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Again, more irrelevance. The point Casual made was that we don't have enough offense. I listed teams we outscored. I do agree, we will need to continue to play tough defense in order to win games. Defense is our strength. But Casual's point was that we don't have enough offense.</div> Did you miss what I pointed out? Of the teams you outscored on a points per game basis - two are hands down the best defensive teams in the league, two have primetime scorers and the fifth had Brand and Cassell playing out of their skins. The others did nothing. I am happy for you to keep making the playoffs, but my point is that to actually progress and become a title threat, you need to have a reliable go-to scorer. Those five teams may have averaged less per game as a team, but they have Duncan, Wade, LeBron, Rip and Brand. Who do Chicago have? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Stats say otherwise. Your point here is irrelevant.</div> Only irrelevant because you want to argue this on a very basic and general level. Stats can be construed to show many things, but I'd still take a LeBron or a Wade to light up in the playoffs over an even Chicago offense. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Casual's point was, again, that we don't have enough offense. He never defined the parameters, which I wish he had...so I just went with the "making the playoffs" as the basis. We have enough offense to make the playoffs. And we even outscored some teams who went deeper into the playoffs.</div> I read his point as not having enough offense because you don't have a primetime scorer. Forget his definition of a primetime scorer - mine is different - and he has a point, regardless of team stats. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Which....my point was....we have enough offense to have success (advancing in the playoffs).</div> And my point is all teams who advance in the playoffs have a reliable go-to scorer. Chicago don't as it stands. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">To which, you'll probably reply with something like "...yeah, but you'll need to rely on your defense... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."</div> It is possible to have a debate without resorting to the childish, sarcastic, "my cyber penis is bigger than your cyber penis" stuff. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Which will spark me to reply with another "irrelevant" comment. The point Casual made.....well, one of them, was our lack of scoring.</div> Which he then further defined as not having a primetime scorer. Which you don't, yet. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1. We are not young 2. He doesn't like our scoring 3. We don't have a 4th Quarter scorer</div> 1) Pretty sure he admitted error on that. 2) Because.... 3) ...You don't have a primetime scorer. His definition to that is different to mine, and FWIW I think Gordon is one of the best 4th quarter players in the league. Doesn't change the fact he comes off the bench and has yet to crack 17+ ppg or shoot a decent field goal percentage.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting michiganave17:</div><div class="quote_post">Um well who the hell is vince carter then? If he aint a primetime scorer then what is he?</div>I think he was talking about the Nets team that went to the Finals. Also, it doesn't look good when you attack someone, especially when it was a misunderstanding. I always try and keep it cool/intelectual if someone says something I don't agree with.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">I apologise for not specifically addressing what you and he are arguing about. My definition of a primetime scorer differs from his, and I don't think the Bulls have one. Of course it's feasible for Gordon to average 20 a game in the near future, but it's not a given either. </div> Which is irrelevant, still, since I was addressing his post. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Because of one guy who averaged 30+ points all playoffs. </div> ...which matters, bec. 100 points is 100 points regardless of how its scored. It doesn't matter if one player gets 30, another gets 20, and the remaining members get 50 vs. a team sharing the 100 points in a more equal distribution. 100 points is 100 points. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Did you miss what I pointed out? Of the teams you outscored on a points per game basis - two are hands down the best defensive teams in the league, two have primetime scorers and the fifth had Brand and Cassell playing out of their skins. The others did nothing. </div> I guess we are going off tangent here. Fine. I will succumb to it. We were the league's best, IIRC, at opponent FG%. And, statistically, we were one of the better defenses. We added to that defense this offseason. So....we should be improved. Which, of course, is irrelevant to the "I don't like/you don't have enough offense" comment. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I am happy for you to keep making the playoffs, but my point is that to actually progress and become a title threat, you need to have a reliable go-to scorer. </div> To become a title threat, our youth needs to develop further. No one in this thread has said we were a title threat, IIRC. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Those five teams may have averaged less per game as a team, but they have Duncan, Wade, LeBron, Rip and Brand. Who do Chicago have? </div> NJ had an abunance of talent in Jefferson, Carter, Kidd, and Kristic...and went....? The Lakers had Kobe....and went.....? The playoffs are about winning. It doesn't need to be pretty, or conventional, or one set model system to follow. Just bec. something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done. Which, ultimately, is irrelevant still. But it was in reply to your's....so... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Only irrelevant because you want to argue this on a very basic and general level. </div> Because....the original poster made some very general and basic arguements. What a coincidence! <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Stats can be construed to show many things, but I'd still take a LeBron or a Wade to light up in the playoffs over an even Chicago offense. </div> Really? You'd take a team that was better than us over us? Call me shocked! A Championship team over us? Amazing! Way to go on a limb. Take a team with similar talent level to us; like Milwaukee, and make a call. Not a team that was clearly better than us last year. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I read his point as not having enough offense because you don't have a primetime scorer. Forget his definition of a primetime scorer - mine is different - and he has a point, regardless of team stats. </div> Forget his point? Why? Because its conveniant for you? Since I was originally addressing HIM, it stands to reason I should use HIS concept. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And my point is all teams who advance in the playoffs have a reliable go-to scorer. Chicago don't as it stands. </div> ...and yet, a very young, undersized, flawed, no go to scorer, team took the Champions to 6 games. And if you watched Bulls games, its clear who our go to scorer is. But this is further digression from the point. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Which he then further defined as not having a primetime scorer. Which you don't, yet. </div> Well, he has changed his point so many times, something's about to stick.
Time for one last parting shot at Sir Desmond. The thread title states "Who's gonna be the best young team next season?" Not "Can the Chicago Bulls compete for a ring?" HUGE difference. Casual's post was that he doesn't think we were young, which disqualified us from the vote. I addressed that. He was wrong. He then made another comment somewhere along the lines of "lack of scoring." I assumed he was using this as a reason for us not being the best young team, since that was topic. Again, he is wrong; we do score. Then the "lack of a 4th quarter scorer" came up. Again, he was wrong. The thread title is "Who's gonna be the best young team next season." Call me silly, but I thought Casual was referring to us NOT being the best young team next season bec. of those reasons.....since you know, the thread title, and all. My point about the playoff scoring as well as the teams we beat in scoring is simple: we were a playoff team last year. We outscored other playoff teams. I am going to say its not unreasonable to expect us to beat out Casual's other choices (which were, IIRC, Atlanta and either Orlando or NO-OK). All of my points in addressing Casual were directed at this thread. My points addressing you, Sir Desmond, were all off topic from this thread (which, to reply to yours, required going off topic)
