[QUOTE=juju151111;13997351]They don't win shit, Derozen is trash in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
this
Printable View
[QUOTE=juju151111;13997351]They don't win shit, Derozen is trash in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
this
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13997574]They almost traded for prime Hornacek at the deadline but Krause screwed it up.
The people saying DeRozan wouldn't help are ridiculous. The Bulls would go from the worst starting SG in the league to an all-star. Somehow that wouldn't help. :biggums:[/QUOTE]
No Derozen is very bad and has had some very low moments. He was literally benched against the Cavs and he was being guarded by the legendary JR Smith :oldlol:
You MJ kids never watched Pete Myers play. :lol
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13997574]They almost traded for prime Hornacek at the deadline but Krause screwed it up.
The people saying DeRozan wouldn't help are ridiculous. The Bulls would go from the worst starting SG in the league to an all-star. Somehow that wouldn't help. :biggums:[/QUOTE]
Derek Harper was an even cheaper alternative to Hornacek. Hornacek required a 20 ppg starter ( Jeff Malone & a 1st).
Harper was traded to Bulls biggest rivals Knicks for a rotational player & a 1st rounder( 25th pick) . Bulls could have had Harper , plus kept him from the Knicks who upraded from an injured Doc Rivers . Harper was available/ relatively cheap & still solid player. Knicks most efficient player & best guard in the Finals.
Harper would have been an upgrade over sticking with damn Pete Myers.
[QUOTE=32jazz;13998171]Derek Harper was an even cheaper alternative to Hornacek. Hornacek required a 20 ppg starter ( Jeff Malone & a 1st).
Harper was traded to Bulls biggest rivals Knicks for a rotational player & a 1st rounder( 25th pick) . Bulls could have had Harper , plus kept him from the Knicks who upraded from an injured Doc Rivers . Harper was available/ relatively cheap & still solid player. Knicks most efficient player & best guard in the Finals.
Harper would have been an upgrade over sticking with damn Pete Myers.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Krause did a great job but having Myers instead of Harper or Hornacek may have cost them a ring. To make matters worse their top rival got Harper.
[QUOTE=Lebron23;13919321]Do they win the championship? Derozan's best statistical season in his career. Bulls won 55 games with Pete Myers replacing Jordan.[/QUOTE]
Well if stats won chips id say yes. Unfortunately theres way more to winning then just stats though. Id expect a lebron stan to understand this more than anyone given how much he loses.
[QUOTE=32jazz;13998171]Derek Harper was an even cheaper alternative to Hornacek. Hornacek required a 20 ppg starter ( Jeff Malone & a 1st).
Harper was traded to Bulls biggest rivals Knicks for a rotational player & a 1st rounder( 25th pick) . Bulls could have had Harper , plus kept him from the Knicks who upraded from an injured Doc Rivers . Harper was available/ relatively cheap & still solid player. Knicks most efficient player & best guard in the Finals.
Harper would have been an upgrade over sticking with damn Pete Myers.[/QUOTE]
Harper was a PG.
Harper didn't play well for the Knicks, which is part of their drop (along with Starks injury) post all-star break. It wasn't until the Finals that the real Derek Harper showed up.
DeRozan could have made Chicago better. But people who just wanna live in a vacuum are living in a vacuum.
The Bulls weren't better. The Knicks made things difficult. Hell, the Celtics in 08 did the same. Anyone think that young Chicago team wasn't lesser than the Lakers? Or whoever the hell it was they beat in the Conference Finals?
DeRozan would have changed the squad. He also didn't play defense. The Bulls overachieved. A big reason was the increased ball movement. They moved it around a lot before, but they did so even more that season and they needed to.
What would DeRozan do to Scottie's emergence? DeRozan is a scorer, but how is it going to mesh with him as the second scorer? Because if he's outscoring Scottie that isn't good. The Bulls had BJ Armstrong at the PG. DeRozan would have made them better, but how much would that have swung the series?
If they get Chris Mullin? Oh, then you might have something.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;13998198]Well if stats won chips id say yes. Unfortunately theres way more to winning then just stats though. Id expect a lebron stan to understand this more than anyone given how much he loses.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/oldlol.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/applause.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;13998198]Well if stats won chips id say yes. Unfortunately theres way more to winning then just stats though. Id expect a lebron stan to understand this more than anyone given how much he loses.[/QUOTE]
Warriors were a better team than the Cavs. Lebtron averaged 34/12/11 in the 2017 and 2018 nba finals,but his performance wasn't enough. Just like Jordan getting swept by Birds Celtics despite MJ scoring 63 points in the playoffs.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13998205]Harper was a PG.[/QUOTE]
It didn't matter whether he was a PG. Remember, the Bulls started two SGs with Jordan and R. Harper. With Pippen playing point forward you could start any two guards.
The Bulls looked at acquiring Harper. Krause didn't like his defense but 95' showed the team would have a strong defense no matter (no Grant, no Rodman, no MJ for 65 games and they still had the #2 defense). They needed offense and Pete Myers was a non-entity on offense.
[QUOTE]What would DeRozan do to Scottie's emergence? DeRozan is a scorer, but how is it going to mesh with him as the second scorer? Because if he's outscoring Scottie that isn't good[/QUOTE]
I doubt it would make a difference to Pippen. Pippen scored 20-21 with MJ there scoring 30-33 and 22 without MJ. So he was doing the same things, he just got more recognition when MJ was gone. So DeRozen scoring 20-23 wouldn't change much.
The key difference would be when Pippen got doubled there would be a second option to score against the Knicks, which they lacked. Grant scored 15 PPG but he was getting a lot of that from dunks and putbacks, versus offense run through him.
[QUOTE=Lebron23;13998218]Warriors were a better team than the Cavs. Lebtron averaged 34/12/11 in the 2017 and 2018 nba finals,but his performance wasn't enough. Just like Jordan getting swept by Birds Celtics despite MJ scoring 63 points in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Well i wouldnt equate the 85 bulls to the 17 cavs first of all. Second, yeah the the 17, 18 warriors were definitely better but the rockets in 18 had no problem with them in 18. They win that series if cp3 dosnt go down so its not like they were unbeatable. Maybe cavs shouldn't have won but they shouldn't have lost as bad as they did if old ass cp3 and james frauden could do what they did.
And there were other loses besides the warriors. 2011 is the obvios one. Then theres 2014 and orlando in 08 i believe.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;13998229]Well i wouldnt equate the 85 bulls to the 17 cavs first of all. Second, yeah the the 17, 18 warriors were definitely better but the rockets in 18 had no problem with them in 18. They win that series if cp3 dosnt go down so its not like they were unbeatable. Maybe cavs shouldn't have won but they shouldn't have lost as bad as they did if old ass cp3 and james frauden could do what they did.
And there were other loses besides the warriors. 2011 is the obvios one. Then theres 2014 and orlando in 08 i believe.[/QUOTE]
That Cavs team were a terrible defensive team
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13998225]It didn't matter whether he was a PG. Remember, the Bulls started two SGs with Jordan and R. Harper. With Pippen playing point forward you could start any two guards.
The Bulls looked at acquiring Harper. Krause didn't like his defense but 95' showed the team would have a strong defense no matter (no Grant, no Rodman, no MJ for 65 games and they still had the #2 defense). They needed offense and Pete Myers was a non-entity on offense.
I doubt it would make a difference to Pippen. Pippen scored 20-21 with MJ there scoring 30-33 and 22 without MJ. So he was doing the same things, he just got more recognition when MJ was gone. So DeRozen scoring 20-23 wouldn't change much.
The key difference would be when Pippen got doubled there would be a second option to score against the Knicks, which they lacked. Grant scored 15 PPG but he was getting a lot of that from dunks and putbacks, versus offense run through him.[/QUOTE]
Pippen scored 22 in that slow offense. How do they absorb DeRozen? Pippen's newfound leadership went beyond 22PPG. DeRozan is a midrange scorer who does a lot off the dribble. Wade lost much of his midrange quality when LeBron took over, because he lost the freedom to play off his dribble.
And the Harper point doesn't make sense. The Bulls started two SGs because Pippen was basically a PG and that super team didn't have anything better from the bench.
So how would Scottie being a PG allow the bulls to absorb Derek Harper, who was a PG, when they had BJ Armstrong, who was a PG? Pippen being a PG means they couldn't absorb Harper, because they'd then have 3 and no SG.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13998315]Pippen scored 22 in that slow offense. How do they absorb DeRozen? Pippen's newfound leadership went beyond 22PPG. DeRozan is a midrange scorer who does a lot off the dribble. Wade lost much of his midrange quality when LeBron took over, because he lost the freedom to play off his dribble.
And the Harper point doesn't make sense. The Bulls started two SGs because Pippen was basically a PG and that super team didn't have anything better from the bench.
So how would Scottie being a PG allow the bulls to absorb Derek Harper, who was a PG, when they had BJ Armstrong, who was a PG? Pippen being a PG means they couldn't absorb Harper, because they'd then have 3 and no SG.[/QUOTE]
Harper could defend the two which is all that would be required. Offensively he would add open shooting & they could runs plays for him. Positions irrelevant for 90s bulls really.
[QUOTE=Lebron23;13998249]That Cavs team were a terrible defensive team[/QUOTE]
dosnt lebron have some part in that though?
If you add any allstar calibre player to that squad you would think they would win the chip given they got pretty close without it.
[QUOTE=NabJam90;13998503]If you add any allstar calibre player to that squad you would think they would win the chip given they got pretty close without it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13998315]
And the Harper point doesn't make sense. The Bulls started two SGs because Pippen was basically a PG and that super team didn't have anything better from the bench.
So how would Scottie being a PG allow the bulls to absorb Derek Harper, who was a PG, when they had BJ Armstrong, who was a PG? Pippen being a PG means they couldn't absorb Harper, because they'd then have 3 and no SG.[/QUOTE]
Jackson's triangle never had a ball dominant PG so your point is irrelevant. The Offense ran through Pippen/ Jordan & not through BJ or any other Bulls PG. The offense woth Harper would seamlessly run through the SF/ SG as it always had. Jacksons offenses didn't through Derek Fisher , Smush Parker in L.A. neither.
Playing Harper in a traditional offense at SG next to the classic ball dominant PG like Stockton, Kidd , etc....... probably would not be optimal, but he would have fit fine as a scorer / facilltator in the Triangle. Much better than Pete Myers.
Dumbasses comparing DeRozen to MJ in this thread. :facepalm
[QUOTE=aceman;13998325]Harper could defend the two which is all that would be required. Offensively he would add open shooting & they could runs plays for him. Positions irrelevant for 90s bulls really.[/QUOTE]
That's a really good point. Beginning in 1995, they had 4 starters between 6-6 and 6-8.
CP3 was still in his prime in 2018. That’s why the Rockets gave the Warriors so much trouble that year. CP3 was quite possibly one injury away from being universally considered top 20 but now we have idiots like ESPN ranking him 40th
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13998205]Harper was a PG.
Harper didn't play well for the Knicks, which is part of their drop (along with Starks injury) post all-star break. It wasn't until the Finals that the real Derek Harper showed up.
[/QUOTE] Don't get caught up in the PG position since Jackson's Triangle was never run through a ball dominant PG.
Harper did have a slow start ,but was an upgrade over Doc Rivers whose job he eventually took. Better than Pete Myers. And hewas rock solid when it counted in the Finals & was by far the teams most efficient player.
[QUOTE=RRR3;13999049]CP3 was still in his prime in 2018. That’s why the Rockets gave the Warriors so much trouble that year. CP3 was quite possibly one injury away from being universally considered top 20 but now we have idiots like ESPN ranking him 40th[/QUOTE]
40th is ridiculous but injuries defined Paul's tenure in Houston. That is part of why they jettisoned him (the other being his issues with Harden). It doesn't matter how great a player is if they can't be counted on to show up. People talk about longevity but durability often gets overlooked. Kawhi playing 60 games isn't the same as LeBron playing 77.
Some of you guys have comprehension issues.
Yes, they didn't rely on a point guard. Which is why they didn't need another one.
If the PG plays like Steph Curry, then sure. But Derek Harper l, whilst not ball-dominant, was not an off-ball guard.
So my point isn't irrelevant, it is the point.
"Bulls don't need point guards, irrelevant, so they could go and get another point guard ".
Ay.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13999402]Some of you guys have comprehension issues.
Yes, they didn't rely on a point guard. Which is why they didn't need another one.
If the PG plays like Steph Curry, then sure. But Derek Harper l, whilst not ball-dominant, was not an off-ball guard.
So my point isn't irrelevant, it is the point.
y.[/QUOTE]
But Derek Harper had played SG in Dallas before & put up 18/6 ( 16 per) on a bad team but ........... . He's a big versatile guard & any version of Derek Harper is better than Pete Myers & my real point is he was available for a late 1st Rd pick. Bulls were hung out to dry by Mj retiring a week or so before the season instead of the early summer / free agency period.
Harper was a savvy veteran & a far better option than some guy found off the CBA scrap heap.
[QUOTE=32jazz;13999505]But Derek Harper had played SG in Dallas before & put up 18/6 ( 16 per) on a bad team but ........... . He's a big versatile guard & any version of Derek Harper is better than Pete Myers & my real point is he was available for a late 1st Rd pick. Bulls were hung out to dry by Mj retiring a week or so before the season instead of the early summer / free agency period.
Harper was a savvy veteran & a far better option than some guy found off the CBA scrap heap.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. All they needed was some scoring. Myers was not a scoring threat.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13999509]Agreed. All they needed was some scoring. Myers was not a scoring threat.[/QUOTE]
Essentially 4 on 5 with Myers in the lineup. Harper has to be respected. Magic Johnson played "SG" for the 1st 4 seasons of his career alongside a classic PG in Norm Nixon( won 2 rings ).
Harper would have been fine in the Triangle.
Bulls lose in round 1 to Cavs
[QUOTE=32jazz;13999607][B]Essentially 4 on 5 with Myers in the lineup[/B]. [B]Harper has to be respected[/B]. Magic Johnson played "SG" for the 1st 4 seasons of his career alongside a classic PG in Norm Nixon( won 2 rings ).
Harper would have been fine in the Triangle.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. People don't realize how bad Myers was. He was 5/2/2 on 42% for his career. [I]This[/I] is who the Bulls "replaced" MJ with. :lol
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13999402]Some of you guys have comprehension issues.
Yes, they didn't rely on a point guard. Which is why they didn't need another one.
If the PG plays like Steph Curry, then sure. But Derek Harper l, whilst not ball-dominant, was not an off-ball guard.
So my point isn't irrelevant, it is the point.
"Bulls don't need point guards, irrelevant, so they could go and get another point guard ".
Ay.[/QUOTE]
Kukoc played 4, Rodman spent most games at center, Pippen was pg, Ron Harper was only ever a SG but played along greatest two guard ever. BJ & Kerr were spot up shooters. Why do you have such a hard time seeing combo guard like Derek playing the two?
[QUOTE=aceman;13999649]Kukoc played 4, Rodman spent most games at center, Pippen was pg, Ron Harper was only ever a SG but played along greatest two guard ever. BJ & Kerr were spot up shooters. Why do you have such a hard time seeing combo guard like Derek playing the two?[/QUOTE]
Because he knows his Knicks would lose if Harper was on the Bulls.
[QUOTE=aceman;13999649]Kukoc played 4, Rodman spent most games at center, Pippen was pg, Ron Harper was only ever a SG but played along greatest two guard ever. BJ & Kerr were spot up shooters. Why do you have such a hard time seeing combo guard like Derek playing the two?[/QUOTE]
Rodman was on the Bulls in 93/94?
You mean Grant? Doesn't change much.
Bulls need an off guard.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;13999661]Rodman was on the Bulls in 93/94?
You mean Grant? Doesn't change much.
Bulls need an off guard.[/QUOTE]
Just pointing out Bulls of that era didn't have conventional positions
[QUOTE=aceman;13999684]Just pointing out Bulls of that era didn't have conventional positions[/QUOTE]
They need someone to be a second scorer and play off the ball. As he struggled with the Knicks, Harper would likely have struggled in the Bulls offense, and even more so if they asked him to play off the ball.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;14000021]They need someone to be a second scorer and play off the ball. As he struggled with the Knicks, Harper would likely have struggled in the Bulls offense, and even more so if they asked him to play off the ball.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that Pete Myers is the scorer they needed & should have stuck with him when Harper was virtually free?:oldlol:. Again Derek Harper had played off the ball in Dallas & put up 18/6(16 per) & could be a combo guard. Especially in the Triangle.
1)NBA Finals Game 7: Harper led the Knicks with 23 pts/ 6 assts/ 2 stls. 8/16 shooting & 2/5 from 3. Harper's 4th 20 point game in the Finals(Starks' 2nd 2-18 shooting night)
2)Harper put up 16.4/6 /3/ 2.5 steals . No one else was close to Harpers 59%(ts) & 56%(efg). Only 2 ppg behind the leading scorer
Bulls take away the thin Knicks ( Doc Rivers injury ) depth with signing Harper & you're not stuck with an offensive non factor like Myers that defenses ignore. The Bulls didn't need 20ppg from Harper. But he could have been a respected threat & a more nicely balanced scoring team.
[QUOTE=32jazz;14000111]So you're saying that Pete Myers is the scorer they needed & should have stuck with him when Harper was virtually free?:oldlol:. Again Derek Harper had played off the ball in Dallas & put up 18/6(16 per) & could be a combo guard. Especially in the Triangle.
1)NBA Finals Game 7: Harper led the Knicks with 23 pts/ 6 assts/ 2 stls. 8/16 shooting & 2/5 from 3. Harper's 4th 20 point game in the Finals(Starks' 2nd 2-18 shooting night)
2)Harper put up 16.4/6 /3/ 2.5 steals . No one else was close to Harpers 59%(ts) & 56%(efg). Only 2 ppg behind the leading scorer
Bulls take away the thin Knicks ( Doc Rivers injury ) depth with signing Harper & you're not stuck with an offensive non factor like Myers that defenses ignore. The Bulls didn't need 20ppg from Harper. But he could have been a respected threat & a more nicely balanced scoring team.[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile Myers was a 0 on offense. :lol
[QUOTE=aceman;13999684]Just pointing out Bulls of that era didn't have conventional positions[/QUOTE]
Neither did the Lakers under Phil. Certainly wasn't the case with Fisher & Smush Parker.
The Bulls could have been a well balanced / good defensive team:
Pipoen- 22ppg
Grant-14/15 ppg
BJ- 13/14pg
Harper 13/14 ppg
Kukoc- 9/10 ppg
And Derek Harper being able to step up & give you the 20 plus points like he did with great effiecncy, in 4 games, of the NBA Finals. Including game 7 .
I think realistically a Prime Derozan and Pippen are capable of winning an nba title in 1994. Demar would beast in the no zone defense era. His lack of 3 points erange was the sole reason why Demar Derozan ain't a top 5 shooting guard in this league.
Derozan & Pip were both choke artists :lol
it will be the most pathetic playoff team ever
[QUOTE=Lebron23;13919321]Do they win the championship? Derozan's best statistical season in his career. Bulls won 55 games with Pete Myers replacing Jordan.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they would've probably won that year. Obviously they would've beaten the Knicks.