Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by TrueBlue:

How were they able to do this with no post presence?

Why were Curry fans telling so many other fans the Bulls overspent for Ben Wallace?

Notice how much more important defense is than offense from your PF/Cs if they give only one of the two. (Obviously good offense and defense is nice.) NONE of the playoff teams have starting PFs and Cs who both are great on offense and awful on defense but plenty have PF/Cs who are mediocre on offense and very good on defense. Isiah's got this reversed. He's focusing on the wrong things at each position.

chris webber?

I've bolded the wordd "and" and "both" to clarify my point.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-30-2007 11:55 AM]

gotcha. just thought you were being a little too definitive when i could think of an exception off the very top of my head. didn't realize you meant an entire frontcourt that was offensive minded and lousy on D.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by Bippity10:

You could find a role for Curry on that team easily. It may not be the role he thinks he deserves but you can find a role for him. Same with Craw. The problem is when you build teams around players like them, which is what we are doing

Well no doubt you could find a role and you could say that for about 90% of the players in this league given any team player swap situation. I think a more appropriate assessment is the players they replaced them with are far superior role players. Curry and Craw turned out to be easily replacable.

I think the prevailing thought is that our players are so bad that add them to any roster and that team gets worse. I don't beleive in this logic


Personally I would not want Curry on my team as my "go to" "franchise" "leader" guy. He's not that type of player. I would prefer Craw in a six man role, a role I think he would be pretty good with on a veteran team with a coach that is willing to reign him in. I do not think Chicago falls apart if you add either of them to the roster. These guys are not the global killers they are beeing made out to be. Their flaws are maximized because we brought them to a roster with no veteran leadership, 4 coaches in 3 years, a circus atmosphere and no identity. We rely on them to be our leaders and bring identity and this they are incapable of.This is why these players look as bad as they do IMO.

Now if you were to ask me would I build a team using Curry and Craw as the core. Not in a million years.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 30-04-2007 2:52 PM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bippity10:

To me I'm kind of with Nixluva and TKF on this one. I think it's ridiculous to say getting rid of Curry and Crawford turned them around. I think what turned Chicago around was the overall committment to winning and self-motivated players from winning college programs. They stopped focusing on the potential of guys like Curry and Chandler and Craw and some of the others and instead focused on guys that were actaully giving results. This is something I wished we would do.

Now if you add Craw or Curry to that roster and it doesn't hurt that team. The Bulls are still good and young. The Knicks aren't bad because of Curry and Craw. We are bad because we've spent the last three years targeting 1 dimensional players and building around "flawed stars" with little or no leadership ability. Until we decide to start targeting players that have actually achieved winning results and not players that make excuses for not achieving we will always be a mediocre bunch.

Individually I have no problem with Craw, Curry, Marbs etc. It's the collective that has hurt us. So many acquistions that just didn't have to be made. Time wasters to fill seats. My only problem with Curry is that because he lacks the motivation to grab a rebound or block a shot or play defense he may force us to deal David Lee.

No one's saying losing Curry and Crawford are the sole reasons Chicago has improved. Their improvement is the result of their management realizing that you need to keep your talented, hard-working, two-way players and get rid of the lazy, soft, one-dimensional ones, or better yet, get lottery picks from Isiah for them. That includes Curry and Crawford but also includes getting rid of many other players that hurt teams (e.g., Tim Thomas, Eddy Robinson) and also entails keeping your good, hard working, versatile players. Getting rid of Curry and Crawford was an important part of (but not the whole) picture.

Agreed there. I wish Isiah had woken up last year and packaged Frye with JC and maybe Nate while they had value.

Wasn't it Simmons who said Knicks should just draft players form UNC, Duke, and UConn?

Look at Bulls, after getting rid of Ron, Chandler, Eddy, Erob, then fill it up with blue chip kids like Duhon, Hienrick, Gordan, etc. They might have stretched it with Ty.

They gotta regret trading Brand (duke) for eddy.

When you get a group of players that have never won, you can't be surprised when they don't win.

That's a brilliant line because it's simple but true