NBA Draft Lottery

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I meant Ratliff in his prime.  He was something else, man.  Best kept secret in the NBA, perhaps.

 

Brand is a fantasy monster, and like I said before, he's a legitimate starting PF on a championship squad.  However, he is by no means a guy you build around.  You build around guys like Chandler, Ratliff, Wallace, Camby, Duncan, Garnett, etc.  If they can score, it's only a bonus.  A good defense is a good offense, and not vice versa.  I know I ain't the only guy in here who ain't caught up in Western thought, the American dream.  The bomb, the long ball, etc.  People need to kick that capitalistic bulls*** to the curb.  Guard your motherf***ing fort, you don't want to have a Pheonix Suns or Dallas Mavericks game plan.  That's when your entire s*** gets wiped out.

 

 

Your posts no longer merit valid responses...

 

The very teams they are on or have been on have not nor will ever build around chandler, ratliff, or camby. That's just plain stupid. It just got worse when you went into the American dream, capitalism, and the bomb... :headshake

 

Word of advice: Don't post while drunk or high.

[WHarris1]

Sleepy's obviously just bought into the new NBA hype of scoring scoring scoring, 3 pt shooting, fast break, f*** defense.

 

Defense wins championships, keep preaching it hammer.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Sleepy's obviously just bought into the new NBA hype of scoring scoring scoring, 3 pt shooting, fast break, f*** defense.

 

Defense wins championships, keep preaching it hammer.

 

 

Scottie Pippen. Michael Jorden. Why were they so great? They were as good, or in the case of Pip, better, on the defensive end as they were on the offensive end. Don't give me that bulls*** that I'm all about offense. The only dillusional person preaching one single aspect of the game is hammer.

[hammerhead johnson]

               

 

Your posts no longer merit valid responses...

 

The very teams they are on or have been on have not nor will ever build around chandler, ratliff, or camby.  That's just plain stupid.  It just got worse when you went into the American dream, capitalism, and the bomb...    :headshake

 

Word of advice:  Don't post while drunk or high.

 

Sorry if I'm getting a little too deep for you, Sleepy.

 

Chandler, Ratliff, Camby, etc are the types of players that you build around if you expect to field a team that can do deeeep into he playoffs. Why is this such a foreign concept? Is a goalie not of the utmost importance in the vast majority of cases?

 

I wouldn't expect you to understand, though.

[WHarris1]

Out of curiosity who would you say the champion Pistons build around?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Sorry if I'm getting a little too deep for you, Sleepy.

 

Chandler, Ratliff, Camby, etc are the types of players that you build around if you expect to field a team that can do deeeep into he playoffs.  Why is this such a foreign concept?  Is a goalie not of the utmost importance in the vast majority of cases?

 

I wouldn't expect you to understand, though.

 

Too deep...

 

I don't speak bulls***.

 

So where are the Bulls, Blazers, and Nugs? Deep in the playoffs, right? Chandler shined in the playoffs, didn't he?

 

I get it. You love role players. I understand their importance, but you're glorifying them way to f***in' much...

[hammerhead johnson]

 

Scottie Pippen.  Michael Jorden.  Why were they so great?  They were as good, or in the case of Pip, better, on the defensive end as they were on the offensive end.  Don't give me that bulls*** that I'm all about offense.  The only dillusional person preaching one single aspect of the game is hammer.

 

My Top 10 Defenders since the mid-to-late 60s, in no particular order:

 

Bill Russell

Nate Thurmond

Hakeem Olajuwon

David Robinson

Dennis Rodman

Michael Jordan

Scottie Pippen

Dikembe Mutombo

Ben Wallace

Alonzo Mourning

 

My Ist Team since the mid-to-late 60s:

 

PG: Gary Payton

SG: Michael Jordan

SF: Scottie Pippen

PF: Dennis Rodamn

C: Bill Russell

 

You can begin to see why we won 6 championships in the 90s, no? Like I said, a good defense is a good offense, and not vice versa. The 90s Bulls in a half court offense? Not the most impressive thing I've ever seen, by any means. Jordan in isolation, oh yippee.

[qwerty]

Out of curiosity who would you say the champion Pistons build around?

 

Can't be anyone other than elden campbell?

[WHarris1]

Can't be anyone other than elden campbell?

I meant besides Elden and Darko.

[hammerhead johnson]

Too deep...   

 

I don't speak bulls***. 

 

So where are the Bulls, Blazers, and Nugs?  Deep in the playoffs, right?  Chandler shined in the playoffs, didn't he?

 

I get it.  You love role players.  I understand their importance, but you're glorifying them way to f***in' much...

 

Oops, you're using the Wizards series as a crutch once again.

 

If this were 1998, you'd be talking about how s***ty Ben Wallace is.

 

Have some forsight. Recognize the importance of time and place, a supporting cast, etc. I'm saying that these goaltenders represent a starting point. How you build after that is important, but not necessarily relevant in this particular discussion. You have to start somewhere. In baseball, you start with pitching. In football, you start with a D-Line and and O-Line. In basketball and hockey, you start with a goaltender. There are exceptions, of course, just like those 90s Bulls. But how many teams have (arguably) the best defensive SG and SF of all time?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

You can begin to see why we won 6 championships in the 90s, no?  Like I said, a good defense is a good offense, and not vice versa.  The 90s Bulls in a half court offense?  Not the most impressive thing I've ever seen, by any means.  Jordan in isolation, oh yippee.

 

Yeah, Jordan sucks on the offensive end of the floor. :headshake

 

And it was called the triangle, not isolation...

 

The Bulls offense throughout the 90's was one of the most impressive I've seen.

 

Sit down and watch a a '98 game. I don't see how you could not love their offense or defense. I was actually watching Game 6 '98 at Utah last night, and I was loving every minute of it. I don't see how you, as a supposed Bulls fan, is now going say they are unimpressed by the Bulls of the 90's. :headshake

[hammerhead johnson]

Yeah, Jordan sucks on the offensive end of the floor. :headshake

 

And it was called the triangle, not isolation...

 

The Bulls offense throughout the 90's was one of the most impressive I've seen. 

 

Sit down and watch a a '98 game.  I don't see how you could not love their offense or defense.  I was actually watching Game 6 '98 at Utah last night, and I was loving every minute of it.  I don't see how you, as a supposed Bulls fan, is now going say they are unimpressed by the Bulls of the 90's.    :headshake

 

Sleepy, the half-court offense is not what got it done for the 90s Bulls. This is something that I won't even elaborate on. You were 10 years old when we won our first championship. You should have vivid memories of everything that went down. We killed teams with defense and points off of turnovers. Jordan wrecked shop in the half court, and that's it.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Sleepy, the half-court offense is not what got it done for the 90s Bulls.  This is something that I won't even elaborate on.  You were 10 years old when we won our first championship.  You should have vivid memories of everything that went down.  We killed teams with defense and points off of turnovers.  Jordan wrecked shop in the half court, and that's it.

 

'90's is too broad. Those were essentially two seperate teams, and I did watch much more of the 2nd three-peat. Those teams excelled at many facets of the game, including the ones you mention, but don't discount their half-court sets. The triangle offense didn't enter general basketball terminology for nothing. They were good on offense, and I am appalled that a Bulls fan is going to say that it was all just handing the ball over to Jordan. You're wrong. That wasn't just it.

[qwerty]

Looks like memphis will be giving up their draft pick for cash... you have to bet the bulls will be looking into that.

Edited May 30, 2005 by qwerty

[ZoomSlowik]

Theo Ratliff in his prime is more valuable to a championship squad than Elton Brand.

 

It's hard to argue with people who only look at numbers and don't watch the games.  Ratliff has obviously been a superb defender, easily one of the best in the NBA for a number of years and damn near legendary despite the fact that he's never had a proper supporting cast.  He's been a poor man's Dikembe Mutombo.  As of now, he is past his prime, but that's besides the point.  Anybody who doesn't recognize how valuable he was is either a new jack, or a straight up basketball dumbass.

 

Chandler is so much better on D than Elton Brand that it's hard to put into words.  I can't even begin to comprehend your level of confusion when it comes to evaluating guys.  

 

How the hell are you gonna argue against pure numbers, you ask?  That's why you lose every time you type anything on here.  Remember when you said that Rod Strickland was a winner?  Or how Larry Hughes should win Defensive Player of the year?  Holy Christ.

 

Don't use the Wizards series as a crutch.  It only makes you even more annoying than usual.  I could envision the wackness now...here comes a post with like 10 smilies lined up one after the other.  You pioneered that, though.  I gotta give credit where it's due.

 

Please don't mention Ratliff and Mutumbo in the same sentance again. There is a MAJOR difference. Mutumbo absolutely shut down the other team's inside game and dominated the glass, and he was definitely a bigger impact on the offensive end too. Ratliff has been pretty good, but he's not on the same level. The difference between Wallace and Ratliff being on so many different teams is Ratliff was starting and in his prime when he was moved, Wallace wasn't. If he was such a defensive stud and a centerpiece of a team, Philly would have kept him and won something with him and Iverson. I won't argue that he wouldn't be valuable piece on a good team when he was in his prime, but there is no way you start your team with him. You need some other really good players around him to do something. With Brand, you have more flexibility inside and you could afford to use someone like Chandler for defensive purposes.

 

As for Chandler, I've watched enough Bulls' games to know that he is not that kind of player in any stretch of the imagination as of yet. He isn't the kind of guy that can absolutely shut down the paint like Wallace or Mutumbo or Hakeem in his prime. I've watched a good number of middling post players put up close to 20 against us, and it isn't all Eddy's fault. He has "shown flashes" of excellent defense and rebounding, but that's quite different than doing it in the long run. I've seen flashes of talent from a lot of players that never amounted to anything, so I'd like to see more from him before I even consider taking him over one of the top 10 (I'd argue top 5) PF's in the league. I wouldn't complain about his offensive abilities if he were on the same level as those previous players I mentioned, but he isn't. Given the choice between a pretty good defender with no offense and a decent defender that puts up 20 a game, I'd go with the latter. You really need to be proficient on both sides of the floor. You can say all you want about how good the defense is on pretty much every team that won the championship, but pretty much every title team I can think of other than the current day Pistons could score too. The Bulls could put up 110 on any given night, and the Badboys, any of the Celtics teams, and the Lakers' dynasties were quite proficient on the offensive end too. That was the difference between the Bulls and the teams the ran over like the Knicks and the Heat: they could beat you at both ends of the floor. Realistically I'd hypothetically replace Curry with Brand before Tyson becuase Eddy is so one-demensional, but I'd still take Brand over any of our post players because he can help on both sides of the floor.

 

Also, I won't argue that Childress doesn't have the potential to score 18 points per game, I just don't see him doing it next season. 12-14, maybe 15 but not much more than that, for the season seems to make more sense for the current state of his career, and the same for Smith. I was talking about his scoring in the context of a discussion about how having a PG like Paul would fit into their offense as opposed to a guy like Deron. Obviously there are other important facets to a player's game. As for claiming that the final four teams left in the playoffs is irrelevant, I don't really see how. These have been the best four teams all season, with none of them really doing any better than the other. You can argue that Ducan being hurt and Wallace's suspension were a factor in their win totals (which they were), but you could also argue that Shaq being out was a major factor. There are plenty of other teams that were decent-good on defense that got knocked out before these teams. This isn't exactly new to the playoffs either, at least one of the last few teams is less than stellar on defense every year. Yes, I know the Mavs get knocked out every year, but they have to go through the west, and they take weak defense to an extreme.

Edited May 30, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Please don't mention Ratliff and Mutumbo in the same sentance again. There is a MAJOR difference. Mutumbo absolutely shut down the other team's inside game and dominated the glass, and he was definitely a bigger impact on the offensive end too. Ratliff has been pretty good, but he's not on the same level. The difference between Wallace and Ratliff being on so many different teams is Ratliff was starting and in his prime when he was moved, Wallace wasn't. If he was such a defensive stud and a centerpiece of a team, Philly would have kept him and won something with him and Iverson. I won't argue that he wouldn't be valuable piece on a good team when he was in his prime, but there is no way you start your team with him. You need some other really good players around him to do something. With Brand, you have more flexibility inside and you could afford to use someone like Chandler for defensive purposes.

 

As for Chandler, I've watched enough Bulls' games to know that he is not that kind of player in any stretch of the imagination as of yet. He isn't the kind of guy that can absolutely shut down the paint like Wallace or Mutumbo or Hakeem in his prime. I've watched a good number of middling post players put up close to 20 against us, and it isn't all Eddy's fault. He has "shown flashes" of excellent defense and rebounding, but that's quite different than doing it in the long run. I've seen flashes of talent from a lot of players that never amounted to anything, so I'd like to see more from him before I even consider taking him over one of the top 10 (I'd argue top 5) PF's in the league. I wouldn't complain about his offensive abilities if he were on the same level as those previous players I mentioned, but he isn't. Given the choice between a pretty good defender with no offense and a decent defender that puts up 20 a game, I'd go with the latter. You really need to be proficient on both sides of the floor. You can say all you want about how good the defense is on pretty much every team that won the championship, but pretty much every title team I can think of other than the current day Pistons could score too. The Bulls could put up 110 on any given night, and the Badboys, any of the Celtics teams, and the Lakers' dynasties were quite proficient on the offensive end too. That was the difference between the Bulls and the teams the ran over like the Knicks and the Heat: they could beat you at both ends of the floor. Realistically I'd hypothetically replace Curry with Brand before Tyson becuase Eddy is so one-demensional, but I'd still take Brand over any of our post players because he can help on both sides of the floor.

 

Also, I won't argue that Childress doesn't have the potential to score 18 points per game, I just don't see him doing it next season. 12-14, maybe 15 but not much more than that, for the season seems to make more sense for the current state of his career, and the same for Smith. I was talking about his scoring in the context of a discussion about how having a PG like Paul would fit into their offense as opposed to a guy like Deron. Obviously there are other important facets to a player's game. As for claiming that the final four teams left in the playoffs is irrelevant, I don't really see how. These have been the best four teams all season, with none of them really doing any better than the other. You can argue that Ducan being hurt and Wallace's suspension were a factor in their win totals (which they were), but you could also argue that Shaq being out was a major factor. There are plenty of other teams that were decent-good on defense that got knocked out before these teams. This isn't exactly new to the playoffs either, at least one of the last few teams is less than stellar on defense every year. Yes, I know the Mavs get knocked out every year, but they have to go through the west, and they take weak defense to an extreme.

 

 

[DBAHO]

So anyways how bout that Andrew Bogut.

[DBAHO]

Looks like memphis will be giving up their draft pick for cash... you have to bet the bulls will be looking into that.

Steve Francis for Jason Williams and their 1st, something Orlando could look into.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

So anyways how bout that Andrew Bogut. 

 

tyson's defense is a million times better.

 

tyson >>>>>>>>>>>>> bogut

[DBAHO]

tyson's defense is a million times better.

 

tyson >>>>>>>>>>>>> bogut

Bogut >>> Curry.

[WHarris1]

Bogut >>> Curry. 

^

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Bogut >>> Curry. 

 

darko >>> bogut

[DBAHO]

darko >>> bogut   

So by that logic, Darko >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Curry.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

 

Well, let's see how bogut does. It's far too early to tell. To be honest, I think it's quite possible he'll be a bit of a bust. But then again, I only saw him play a couple of times. We'll see...

[hammerhead johnson]

Please don't mention Ratliff and Mutumbo in the same sentance again. There is a MAJOR difference. Mutumbo absolutely shut down the other team's inside game and dominated the glass, and he was definitely a bigger impact on the offensive end too. Ratliff has been pretty good, but he's not on the same level. The difference between Wallace and Ratliff being on so many different teams is Ratliff was starting and in his prime when he was moved, Wallace wasn't. If he was such a defensive stud and a centerpiece of a team, Philly would have kept him and won something with him and Iverson. I won't argue that he wouldn't be valuable piece on a good team when he was in his prime, but there is no way you start your team with him. You need some other really good players around him to do something. With Brand, you have more flexibility inside and you could afford to use someone like Chandler for defensive purposes.

 

Well, I couldn't agree less. Ratliff was a defensive monster, and I saw it coming waaay beforehand too, just like Chandler and a bunch of other guys. I have Dikembe down for Top 10 in defense since the mid-60s, so of course he's much better than Ratliff. That's why I said Theo is a poor man's Dikembe, kinda like STP is a poor man's version of Pearl Jam, you know what I'm saying?

 

You're obviously a smart guy. It's just a matter of actually watching guys play, and evaluating them on that basis. Defense doesn't really show up in box scores. Nobody could ever tell me that Ratlliff wasn't a defensive superstar, the kind of guy that you build around. That's why I was surprised by your previous post, Zoom.

 

 

As for Chandler, I've watched enough Bulls' games to know that he is not that kind of player in any stretch of the imagination as of yet. He isn't the kind of guy that can absolutely shut down the paint like Wallace or Mutumbo or Hakeem in his prime. I've watched a good number of middling post players put up close to 20 against us, and it isn't all Eddy's fault. He has "shown flashes" of excellent defense and rebounding, but that's quite different than doing it in the long run. I've seen flashes of talent from a lot of players that never amounted to anything, so I'd like to see more from him before I even consider taking him over one of the top 10 (I'd argue top 5) PF's in the league. I wouldn't complain about his offensive abilities if he were on the same level as those previous players I mentioned, but he isn't. Given the choice between a pretty good defender with no offense and a decent defender that puts up 20 a game, I'd go with the latter. You really need to be proficient on both sides of the floor. You can say all you want about how good the defense is on pretty much every team that won the championship, but pretty much every title team I can think of other than the current day Pistons could score too. The Bulls could put up 110 on any given night, and the Badboys, any of the Celtics teams, and the Lakers' dynasties were quite proficient on the offensive end too. That was the difference between the Bulls and the teams the ran over like the Knicks and the Heat: they could beat you at both ends of the floor. Realistically I'd hypothetically replace Curry with Brand before Tyson becuase Eddy is so one-demensional, but I'd still take Brand over any of our post players because he can help on both sides of the floor.

 

This is why I keep telling people over and over to have some foresight, try to spot devastating defense before it peaks. I say these things to the point where it's gotta be nauseating for a lot of people who read my posts, but repetition is like the only way to hammer my point down.

 

He has "shown flashes", and then some.

 

Of course, your second point in this paragraph is pretty obvious...you supplement defense with offense. No doubt about it. But what have I been saying over and over again? EVERYTHING STARTS WITH DEFENSE. You don't start with Elton Brand and go from there. You don't start with offense in baseball...you start with pitching. You don't start with Sakic, you start with Patrick Roy. You don't start with John Stallworth...you start with Mean Joe Greene.

 

How do you build? That s*** ain't rocket science.

 

 

Also, I won't argue that Childress doesn't have the potential to score 18 points per game, I just don't see him doing it next season. 12-14, maybe 15 but not much more than that, for the season seems to make more sense for the current state of his career, and the same for Smith. I was talking about his scoring in the context of a discussion about how having a PG like Paul would fit into their offense as opposed to a guy like Deron. Obviously there are other important facets to a player's game. As for claiming that the final four teams left in the playoffs is irrelevant, I don't really see how. These have been the best four teams all season, with none of them really doing any better than the other. You can argue that Ducan being hurt and Wallace's suspension were a factor in their win totals (which they were), but you could also argue that Shaq being out was a major factor. There are plenty of other teams that were decent-good on defense that got knocked out before these teams. This isn't exactly new to the playoffs either, at least one of the last few teams is less than stellar on defense every year. Yes, I know the Mavs get knocked out every year, but they have to go through the west, and they take weak defense to an extreme.

 

Childress already is, as the kids would say, "da bomb". You kinda mentioned him as a sidenote, and I know you were only talking scoring options, and that's cool. If this guy gets 30+ minutes a night, which he will, 18+ points should be money in the bank.

 

And about offensive powerhouses making the finals? I'm just saying, f*** a team that is founded on offense first and foremost. There ain't no longevity there. You might put asses in the seats and appease the endless supply of casual fans out there who don't know jack s*** about anything, but in the vast, vast majority of cases, you can forget about a ring.