They dont. Derozan has mental problems and gives up easily, thats not going to work at crunch time.
Printable View
They dont. Derozan has mental problems and gives up easily, thats not going to work at crunch time.
They would win 5 straight titles. Come on... Make some more smart threads.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13997275]The Bulls would get worse with DeRozan in place of Pete Myers? That is crazy.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying Chicago would be worse, but what is their ceiling? DeRozan is a terrible defender. And would he survive the triangle offense? Ron Harper went from being a 20+ PPG scorer to basically being Pete Myers. And at least Harper could play defense. So I'm not sure DeRozan automatically makes them a championship team.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14177693]I'm not saying Chicago would be worse, but what is their ceiling? DeRozan is a terrible defender. And would he survive the triangle offense? Ron Harper went from being a 20+ PPG scorer to basically being Pete Myers. And at least Harper could play defense. So I'm not sure DeRozan automatically makes them a championship team.[/QUOTE]
DeRozan was on the Raptors when they had a top 5 defense. In fact, the Raptors had the 5th ranked defense with DeRozan in 2018 and they traded him for superior defender Kawhi Leonard and they still had the 5th ranked defense in 2019.
DeMar would be fine defensively with Pippen and Horace Grant anchoring the defense (Grant at the time was one of the best defensive bigs in the league).
What that Bulls team needed was more firepower.
Myers was inconsequential - on the team mostly because he was Pippen's best friend.
Harper was a good player but he was never an All-Star, obviously.
DeRozan is a much more natural scorer than Ron Harper. He has proven that he can score in any offense. He's also a more natural star. His game is actually a lot like Michael Jordan's, so I see no reason why he wouldn't do well under Phil Jackson.
One of the things Jackson stresses with the triangle offense is a basic skill like footwork and DeRozan has excellent footwork, for example. The triangle also takes a bit of intelligence and DeMar is considered an intelligent player (he actually runs a basketball IQ clinic with Spalding).
The Bulls would've improved dramatically with DeRozan in the fold.
Demar would pull the defense out and make Pippen a co-MVP alongside him.
96 Bulls would be close to the dream team in terms of how good they'd be offensively.
Defensively I'd give them the notch as well
[QUOTE=light;14177737]DeRozan was on the Raptors when they had a top 5 defense. In fact, the Raptors had the 5th ranked defense with DeRozan in 2018 and they traded him for superior defender Kawhi Leonard and they still had the 5th ranked defense in 2019.
DeMar would be fine defensively with Pippen and Horace Grant anchoring the defense (Grant at the time was one of the best defensive bigs in the league).
What that Bulls team needed was more firepower.
Myers was inconsequential - on the team mostly because he was Pippen's best friend.
Harper was a good player but he was never an All-Star, obviously.
DeRozan is a much more natural scorer than Ron Harper. He has proven that he can score in any offense. He's also a more natural star. His game is actually a lot like Michael Jordan's, so I see no reason why he wouldn't do well under Phil Jackson.
One of the things Jackson stresses with the triangle offense is a basic skill like footwork and DeRozan has excellent footwork, for example. The triangle also takes a bit of intelligence and DeMar is considered an intelligent player (he actually runs a basketball IQ clinic with Spalding).
The Bulls would've improved dramatically with DeRozan in the fold.[/QUOTE]
Most of what you said is spot on. DeRozan does have good footwork and that is to his credit. For that reason, he might excel in the triangle.
Defensively, though, he's a liability. And Toronto may have maintained a #5 ranking. But to equate them year to year would be equating DeRozan to Kawhi defensively, and the two just aren't on the same level.
In addition, the Spurs went from 3rd in Drtg to 19th. So it doesn't really pan out both ways.
Having said that, there's no reason to think he wouldn't play better than Myers and Harper, due to offensive reasons you mentioned.
Demar is not a very impactful basketball player. His volume scoring stats are simply the result of getting a lot of touches. His efficiency in the playoffs is terrible (50.3 %TS for his career) and he barely does anything other than score the ball. My Raps after Demar (and without Kawhi) are still as good as they were with Demar. And Spurs didn't get better with him.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14177754]Demar is not a very impactful basketball player. His volume scoring stats are simply the result of getting a lot of touches. His efficiency in the playoffs is terrible (50.3 %TS for his career) and he barely does anything other than score the ball. My Raps after Demar (and without Kawhi) are still as good as they were with Demar. And Spurs didn't get better with him.[/QUOTE]
Yea but the question is if you put DeRozan on the 1993-94 Bulls, how high is their ceiling? My guess is higher than where they finished, but I still think Hakeem wins the chip.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14178090]Yea but the question is if you put DeRozan on the 1993-94 Bulls, how high is their ceiling? My guess is higher than where they finished, but I still think Hakeem wins the chip.[/QUOTE]
Pippen averaged 21 on 40% in the 94' ECSF as 1st option - would he get that next to derozan?.. would they have good chemistry or would pippen turn into complete garbage like he did next to Hakeem/Barkley in 99' (who are obviously much better than derozan)
Here's the reality... Hakeem's Rockets were trash in 94' because Ewing almost beat them with 18 on 35%... so MJ replacing pippen easily wins the chip that year... Otoh, the 95' Rockets were for real with Drexler and had the toughest ring ever based on opponent SRS.. they swept shaq's magic just like the 96' Bulls
[QUOTE=3ball;14178114]Pippen averaged 21 on 40% in the 94' ECSF as 1st option - would he get that next to derozan?.. would they have good chemistry or would pippen turn into complete garbage like he did next to Hakeem/Barkley in 99' (who are obviously much better than derozan)
Here's the reality... Hakeem's Rockets were trash in 94' because Ewing almost beat them with 18 on 35%... so MJ replacing pippen easily wins the chip that year... Otoh, the 95' Rockets were for real with Drexler and had the toughest ring ever based on opponent SRS.. they swept shaq's magic just like the 96' Bulls[/QUOTE]
But MJ could barely win a series without Pippen. Pip was responsible for too many things that Jordan didn't do. And Pip EMPHASIZED teamwork and selflessness. That's why the Bulls were better with Pippen at the helm versus Jordan who struggled with trusting his teammates. It's why a solo Jordan team was relatively easy to defend - you always knew what the Bulls offense was going to do.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14178090]Yea but the question is if you put DeRozan on the 1993-94 Bulls, how high is their ceiling? My guess is higher than where they finished, but I still think Hakeem wins the chip.[/QUOTE]
I'll kind of play devil's advocate here and say they don't even get better. Derozan only helps in scoring and he's isn't efficient. I don't see how he improves them significantly.
[QUOTE=light;14178265]But MJ could barely win a series without Pippen. Pip was responsible for too many things that Jordan didn't do. And Pip EMPHASIZED teamwork and selflessness. That's why the Bulls were better with Pippen at the helm versus Jordan who struggled with trusting his teammates. It's why a solo Jordan team was relatively easy to defend - you always knew what the Bulls offense was going to do.[/QUOTE]
so how's Pip's "great" leadership helped his career in '94? Houston? Portland?
[QUOTE=Vino24;13972290]I think DeRozan would fair pretty well with Jeff Hornacek being his toughest comp.[/QUOTE]
+1
[QUOTE=3ball;14178114]Pippen averaged 21 on 40% in the 94' ECSF as 1st option - would he get that next to derozan?.. would they have good chemistry or would pippen turn into complete garbage like he did next to Hakeem/Barkley in 99' (who are obviously much better than derozan)
Here's the reality... Hakeem's Rockets were trash in 94' because Ewing almost beat them with 18 on 35%... so MJ replacing pippen easily wins the chip that year... Otoh, the 95' Rockets were for real with Drexler and had the toughest ring ever based on opponent SRS.. they swept shaq's magic just like the 96' Bulls[/QUOTE]
Hakeem's Rockets were trash? You do realize Ewing's bad performance was because of Hakeem's defense, right? Offensive output is largely because of the opposition's defense.
Team's don't go out there shooting wide open jumpers that result in 35% shooting. Get real.
[QUOTE=light;14178265]But MJ could barely win a series without Pippen. Pip was responsible for too many things that Jordan didn't do. And Pip EMPHASIZED teamwork and selflessness. That's why the Bulls were better with Pippen at the helm versus Jordan who struggled with trusting his teammates. It's why a solo Jordan team was relatively easy to defend - you always knew what the Bulls offense was going to do.[/QUOTE]
You're letting your hatred for MJ cloud your judgement. Jordan did everything that Pippen did. And to say he barely won a series without Pippen reduces MJ's contribution in a series like the '88 series against Cleveland. Rookie Pippen wasn't the reason why Chicago won, MJ was.
To say a solo MJ team was relatively "easy" to defend is also disingenuous. Relative to whom? A Jordan-less Bulls? Chicago was [B]7th[/B] offensively in 1993 with an injured Pippen. In 1994, they had a healthy, peak Pippen, peak Grant, and peak Armstrong, and finished [B]14th[/B] offensively.
The '88 team finished [B]9th[/B] offensively. Is that due to Pippen? Keep in mind, the '88 team didn't play with the triangle, nor had Phil Jackson as the head coach.
Pippen '88: 21 Mpg, 8 PPG, 2 Assists, 49% TS%, 2 TOs, and 0.2 ORBs
So is Chicago's "relative" success, offensively, due to Pippen here?
In addition, I love that they were better with Pippen at the helm (healthy/peak Pippen, peak Grant, peak Armstrong) but complete disregard for MJ leading the team to a [B]26-12 record (56 team win pace)[/B] in 1998 [I]without[/I] Pippen for nearly half the season.
There are some who argue that the 94 Bulls WITH MJ would lose to the Rockets, so I fail to see how they'd win with DeRozan. The non-troll deduction is DeRozan would boost them past the Knicks and probably the Pacers then lose to the Rockets.
I'm not high on DeRozan at all, I think he's one of the most overrated shooting guards this past decade. I think he will actually make the Bulls worse
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14178416]Hakeem's Rockets were trash? You do realize Ewing's bad performance was because of Hakeem's defense, right? Offensive output is largely because of the opposition's defense.
Team's don't go out there shooting wide open jumpers that result in 35% shooting. Get real.[/QUOTE]
But the rockets barely won in 7 games despite Ewing playing like garbage.. so a better 1st option performance easily wins.. and we all know Starks played well except cratered in game 7
Again, they only became viable when Drexler arrived
[QUOTE=3ball;14178577]But the rockets barely won in 7 games despite Ewing playing like garbage.. so a better 1st option performance easily wins.. and we all know Starks played well except cratered in game 7
Again, they only became viable when Drexler arrived[/QUOTE]
That speaks more to the Knicks' team defense than the Rockets as an offense. You big up the Knicks in other posts, now all of a sudden the Rockets got taken to 7 games because they're trash? The irony.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14178449]You're letting your hatred for MJ cloud your judgement. Jordan did everything that Pippen did. And to say he barely won a series without Pippen reduces MJ's contribution in a series like the '88 series against Cleveland. Rookie Pippen wasn't the reason why Chicago won, MJ was.
To say a solo MJ team was relatively "easy" to defend is also disingenuous. Relative to whom? A Jordan-less Bulls? Chicago was [B]7th[/B] offensively in 1993 with an injured Pippen. In 1994, they had a healthy, peak Pippen, peak Grant, and peak Armstrong, and finished [B]14th[/B] offensively.
The '88 team finished [B]9th[/B] offensively. Is that due to Pippen? Keep in mind, the '88 team didn't play with the triangle, nor had Phil Jackson as the head coach.
Pippen '88: 21 Mpg, 8 PPG, 2 Assists, 49% TS%, 2 TOs, and 0.2 ORBs
So is Chicago's "relative" success, offensively, due to Pippen here?
In addition, I love that they were better with Pippen at the helm (healthy/peak Pippen, peak Grant, peak Armstrong) but complete disregard for MJ leading the team to a [B]26-12 record (56 team win pace)[/B] in 1998 [I]without[/I] Pippen for nearly half the season.[/QUOTE]
Made an error here. Chicago was actually [B]2nd[/B] in offense in 1993, which only furthers my point.
[QUOTE=FromDowntown;13972430]Think of his 90s competiton too:
•plumbers, mechanics, baggers, etc.
Think of his teammate:
•GOAT #2 option SP (Stimulus Pippen)[/QUOTE]
Yikes
[QUOTE=LeCroix;13996135]possible since they did 55 with Pete Myers[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13996214]Yup--Pete Myers who is a career 5/2/2 player (in the Bulls' defense, who else could they have signed in October, which is when MJ decided to bail?). :roll: DeRozen is 20/4/4 for his career and 27/5/4 in his peak year.[/QUOTE]
interesting
Pippen is an animal
any number 2 will do
He's an upgrade for sure.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14178449]You're letting your hatred for MJ cloud your judgement. Jordan did everything that Pippen did. And to say he barely won a series without Pippen reduces MJ's contribution in a series like the '88 series against Cleveland. Rookie Pippen wasn't the reason why Chicago won, MJ was.
To say a solo MJ team was relatively "easy" to defend is also disingenuous. Relative to whom? A Jordan-less Bulls? Chicago was [B]7th[/B] offensively in 1993 with an injured Pippen. In 1994, they had a healthy, peak Pippen, peak Grant, and peak Armstrong, and finished [B]14th[/B] offensively.
The '88 team finished [B]9th[/B] offensively. Is that due to Pippen? Keep in mind, the '88 team didn't play with the triangle, nor had Phil Jackson as the head coach.
Pippen '88: 21 Mpg, 8 PPG, 2 Assists, 49% TS%, 2 TOs, and 0.2 ORBs
So is Chicago's "relative" success, offensively, due to Pippen here?
In addition, I love that they were better with Pippen at the helm (healthy/peak Pippen, peak Grant, peak Armstrong) but complete disregard for MJ leading the team to a [B]26-12 record (56 team win pace)[/B] in 1998 [I]without[/I] Pippen for nearly half the season.[/QUOTE]
Why bother? These people are allergic to 2 things. Making good threads and good insight
If Derozan = MJ, then that makes Kawhi the GOD of basketball. Did what Derozan couldn't in just one year lol
[QUOTE=Shooter;14313250]He's an upgrade for sure.[/QUOTE]
A guy who has put up 22/5/4 on 42% in the playoffs is an upgrade over a guy who puts up 33 6/6 on 49%?
Bron stans intelligence on full display:facepalm
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313460]A guy who has put up 22/5/4 on 42% in the playoffs is an upgrade over a guy who puts up 33 6/6 on 49%?
Bron stans intelligence on full display:facepalm[/QUOTE]
Hes an upgrade over Pete Myers. Jordan wasn't on the 94 Bulls.
[QUOTE=97 bulls;14313461]Hes an upgrade over Pete Myers. Jordan wasn't on the 94 Bulls.[/QUOTE]
I truly don't know if DeRozan is an upgrade over him either. Seems like it is initially but when you really think about it i'm not sure it is. All your doing is putting the ball in the hands of a guard who shoots 42%fg and 22% from 3. He's also not a great passer or defender. At least with pete myers the ball is gonna move more because he's not gonna look for his shot that much and he's not gonna play alot. With DeRozan you have to play him alot and make him a focal point of the offense. That's impossible to manage given the way he performs.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14178459]There are some who argue that the 94 Bulls WITH MJ would lose to the Rockets, so I fail to see how they'd win with DeRozan. The non-troll deduction is DeRozan would boost them past the Knicks and probably the Pacers then lose to the Rockets.[/QUOTE]
That wouldn't make sense. the 1994 Bulls had 3 All-Star players, all at their peak. MJ was in his peak then and if you add a 4th All-Star/All-NBA player, then Houston wouldn't stand a chance.
They struggled to beat the Knicks in 7 games. And Chicago took that Knicks team to 7 games without Jordan. So if you're adding peak MJ to the mix, then the Rockets likely get swept or lose in 5.
1995, however, is a different story. Chicago would have been running on fumes having won 4 titles in a row. They lost Grant and would have had no one to contend Hakeem down low and grab rebounds at a high rate. Also, Houston added Drexler and that team swept a stacked Orlando team.
I'd say Rockets in 6 or 7.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313472]I truly don't know if DeRozan is an upgrade over him either. Seems like it is initially but when you really think about it i'm not sure it is. All your doing is putting the ball in the hands of a guard who shoots 42%fg and 22% from 3. He's also not a great passer or defender. At least with pete myers the ball is gonna move more because he's not gonna look for his shot that much and he's not gonna play alot. With DeRozan you have to play him alot and make him a focal point of the offense. That's impossible to manage given the way he performs.[/QUOTE]
Wow bro. You actually believe Pete Myers has the same impact as Demarr DeRozan? SMH.
With Pippen and Co there, why does DeRozan need to shoot that much? Let's say he takes less shots, and thus becomes more efficient. Perhaps 17 ppg on 47%. Myers was worthless on offense and not much on defense.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14313478]That wouldn't make sense. the 1994 Bulls had 3 All-Star players, all at their peak. MJ was in his peak then and if you add a 4th All-Star/All-NBA player, then Houston wouldn't stand a chance.
They struggled to beat the Knicks in 7 games. And Chicago took that Knicks team to 7 games without Jordan. So if you're adding peak MJ to the mix, then the Rockets likely get swept or lose in 5.
1995, however, is a different story. Chicago would have been running on fumes having won 4 titles in a row. They lost Grant and would have had no one to contend Hakeem down low and grab rebounds at a high rate. Also, Houston added Drexler and that team swept a stacked Orlando team.
I'd say Rockets in 6 or 7.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The 94 Bulls with MN would mollywhomp the Rockets. And I also agree that fatigue, injuries etc may catch up to them by 95. It's the same argument I use for Pippen. All those deep playoff runs catch up to you. Especially in the bruiser 90s
[QUOTE=97 bulls;14313485]Wow bro. You actually believe Pete Myers has the same impact as Demarr DeRozan? SMH.
With Pippen and Co there, why does DeRozan need to shoot that much? Let's say he takes less shots, and thus becomes more efficient. Perhaps 17 ppg on 47%. Myers was worthless on offense and not much on defense.[/QUOTE]
DeRozan is an obvious upgrade, but consider the Knicks would have probably shut him down. The Pacers were the best defense DeRozan saw in the playoffs and he shot 32% in that series. Still though, they likely beat the Knicks and advance to the ECF.
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313472][B]I truly don't know if DeRozan is an upgrade over him either[/B]. Seems like it is initially but when you really think about it i'm not sure it is. All your doing is putting the ball in the hands of a guard who shoots 42%fg and 22% from 3. He's also not a great passer or defender. At least with pete myers the ball is gonna move more because he's not gonna look for his shot that much and he's not gonna play alot. With DeRozan you have to play him alot and make him a focal point of the offense. That's impossible to manage given the way he performs.[/QUOTE]
Man, how many shit takes are you gonna have in one month?
[QUOTE=aj1987;14313508]Man, how many shit takes are you gonna have in one month?[/QUOTE]
It's crazy. I didnt know Pete Myers was this highly regarded.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14313489]DeRozan is an obvious upgrade, but consider the Knicks would have probably shut him down. The Pacers were the best defense DeRozan saw in the playoffs and he shot 32% in that series. Still though, they likely beat the Knicks and advance to the ECF.[/QUOTE]
Then Pippens gets less defensive attention. And his numbers look better. Much better. And most importantly, they win.
[QUOTE=97 bulls;14313485]Wow bro. You actually believe Pete Myers has the same impact as Demarr DeRozan? SMH.
With Pippen and Co there, why does DeRozan need to shoot that much? Let's say he takes less shots, and thus becomes more efficient. Perhaps 17 ppg on 47%. Myers was worthless on offense and not much on defense.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think DeRozan is gonna be able to do that though. In a easier scoring era he's only shot above 45% for a series twice. Imagine what his efficiency would be in era where it's harder to score. He'd have a career playoff efficiency of below 40% and that's with barely shooting 3's. Do you know how bad that is?
To answer the question though yes i think if he was willing to accept a limited role offensively he'd obviously be a better fit than myers. I don't think he would though. He's a max player who believes he's one of the best. He wouldn't be ok with that role. We've already seen this play out when he was on the Raptors and he was benched for his typical inefficient play and bad defense. [url]https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23419189/demar-derozan-toronto-raptors-frustrated-being-benched-poor-play-game-3[/url]
[QUOTE=97 bulls;14313524]Then Pippens gets less defensive attention. And his numbers look better. Much better. And most importantly, they win.[/QUOTE]
Nah. His numbers weren't crazy alongside MJ, so why would they be with DeRozan? In addition, the Knicks had great on the ball and help defense.
[QUOTE=aj1987;14313508]Man, how many shit takes are you gonna have in one month?[/QUOTE]
Right so you think it's a good a idea to play a guy that would shoot 40% fg who can't pass and can't defend? This is your path to a chip?
DeRozan is clearly better than myers dude it's not about that. Problem with DeRozan is you have to play him and make him a focal point of the offense. This clearly is detrimental to your offense. With myers you don't have to play him at all and you do you don't have to make him the focal point of the offense when he does play.
If you coukd convince DeRozan to take a myers type roll he'd clearly be better. That wouldn't be the case though
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313460]A guy who has put up 22/5/4 on 42% in the playoffs is an upgrade over a guy who puts up 33 6/6 on 49%?
Bron stans intelligence on full display:facepalm[/QUOTE]
An upgrade over Pete Myers.
MJ stans insecurities on full display:facepalm
Although now that you mention it....
[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313544]Right so you think it's a good a idea to play a guy that would shoot 40% fg who can't pass and can't defend? This is your path to a chip?
DeRozan is clearly better than myers dude it's not about that. Problem with DeRozan is you have to play him and make him a focal point of the offense. This clearly is detrimental to your offense. With myers you don't have to play him at all and you do you don't have to make him the focal point of the offense when he does play.
If you coukd convince DeRozan to take a myers type roll he'd clearly be better. That wouldn't be the case though[/QUOTE]
:facepalm