Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:10 am
Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:12 am
Fenix wrote:Even if we accept those two criterias as valid for measuring one team's depth, I still think Bulls pass. Rose may not be top 15 yet, but he's bloody near that ranking, and the rest of the starters certainly combine for one of the best starting lineups in the League. They're not championship material, but they're most certainly top 4 seed material.
Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:32 am
Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:36 am
Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:47 am
Fenix wrote:Andrew: I meant to say that McGrady presents a risk of ruining our chemistry in the sense that he is most likely to pout if not given enough playing time. Sure, he can give us his word now, but for someone with his ego and long history of being the man, it's just a matter of time before he explodes. I'd be willing to take that risk if the reward was worth it, but it isn't. He was never much of a defender or spot shooter, and he lost most of the athleticism that made him such a special player. He can probably still create for others, but I we have enough players I'd rather see with ball in their hands (Rose, Miles and perhaps even Brewer).
Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:49 am
Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:50 am
Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:20 am
Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:47 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:34 pm
benji wrote:What criteria are you going to use to judge how deep a team is? That they have a starter and a backup at every position? Doesn't every team pass this?
benji wrote:Boozer is far closer to top fifteen than Rose is currently, Boozer could sneak onto an All-NBA team because of the absurdities of voting. Rose would only get there at this point because all the voters worked themselves into an illogical lather. (Which should not be counted out as possible!)
benji wrote:Calling them a top four seed in a conference with only three contenders is damning with faint praise. Especially when you consider how horrible seven or eight of the teams are.
A team that's rotating Luol Deng, Ronnie Brewer, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson and Roger Mason on the wing while potentially relying on significant minutes from Kurt Thomas and playing a guy who should probably be at forward for most of the game is not the "deepest team in the league."benji wrote:Look at Orlando, look at Portland, look at Dallas, the 2004 Pistons, if you want to see what actual depth looks like. It's wretched excess, hell even Golden State if healthy last season was deeper than this Bulls team.
benji wrote:A team that's rotating Luol Deng, Ronnie Brewer, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson and Roger Mason on the wing while potentially relying on significant minutes from Kurt Thomas and playing a guy who should probably be at forward for most of the game is not the "deepest team in the league."
air gordon wrote:+
Fenix- who the heck is MILES? this is the 2nd time you've mentioned him
Andrew wrote:Where's the risk though? He's not going to be signed to a long term deal with a big salary, if he doesn't work out they can just cut him loose. I don't think he'd have the opportunity to ruin their chemistry, he'd be banished long before that. They already did that with Tim Thomas some years back.
Lamrock wrote:What chemistry? Half the team's been replaced.
benji wrote:Nobody said anything about being excited or happy, I was talking to the delusional strain that's throwing around things like "the deepest team in the league" and "LeBron's best chance to win a title" as it reminds me of the true believers of yore who were convinced Curry was a 25/10 guy and Chandler was a 20/25 guy.
Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:53 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:35 pm
Overall quality of the roster should be the main factor, obviously, meaning that you need have two to three quality to cover each position on the court.
Starting lineup should consist of proper talent, but there's no need for one of starters to be one of the best players in the League. See Larry Brown's (and also Flip Saunders') Pistons, which were your own example.
I could accept some other examples, but Orlando and Portland? They both had decent players coming off the bench, but neither of two had a bench that could easily trump ours.
Perhaps I'm too big of a homer, but a wing rotation of Deng (a 18/7 guy this past season), Brewer (a starting guard for some very successful Jazz teams), Korver (a lights-out shooter), C.J. Watson (one of the best backup combo guards in the League) and Mason (an important part of Spurs' rotation for the past couple of years) doesn't sound all that bad to me
And as far as Noah being forward goes: I once again disagree. He may not be a physical specimen in the mold of Howard or Shaq, but can hold his own against any other starting center in the League.
Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:39 pm
Fenix wrote:I could accept some other examples, but Orlando and Portland? They both had decent players coming off the bench, but neither of two had a bench that could easily trump ours. Adding Golden State makes thing all that more confusing - would they even remotely fill any of the criterias you've mentioned, even if completely healthy?
Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:43 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:00 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:01 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:06 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:52 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:04 pm
Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm
air gordon wrote:Andrew- so who do u prefer: tmac, mason JR, bogAns, house?
Fenix wrote:It's not just about the risk, it's also about the reward: I don't see any. It has been years since McGrady had positive impact on the court, and even then he had quite a few problems as a player, problems that wouldn't make him the best fit for our team.
Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:10 am
Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:56 am
Bulls worked out McGrady and it went well, though it sounds like the Bulls have no plans to do anything with him for now.
Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:04 am
Jae- bring your bucks shit to the bucks thread. ha but seriously- the Bucks/Bulls matchups should be fun. we should have a bet before the season starts. could be all in fun or put some $ on it. either way i'm game. that goes out to anyone...
Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:28 pm
Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:36 pm