Printable View
[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.