Put DeMar DeRozan with the 1993-94 Chicago Bulls?

[QUOTE=Shooter;14313545]An upgrade over Pete Myers...

MJ stans insecurities on full display:facepalm[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't be a an upgrade over Pete myers either. Unfortunately unlike myers you have to play DeRozan and make him a focal point of the offense. So the question isn't is DeRozan better than myers. It's does a player who shoots 40%fg and dosn't pass or play defense help or hurt you? So if we agree that that hurts you than we should be able to agree derozan hurts you more than myers who dosn't play enough to hurt or help.

[QUOTE=aj1987;14313553]:facepalm[/QUOTE]

Cool so you think a player who shoots 15-20 shots a game at a 40% clip without threes and dosn't pass or play defense actually helps you? I just wanna see if you actually think this and will say it.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14313541]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]

Because MJ demanded the ball more. He was much more agressive.

chicago might get past the knicks, but don't see them winning a championship. demar has more skills and better numbers than pete myers - but his game is hollow. a net negative and its been that way even BEFORE this thread. demar's impact wouldn't move the needle and in a tougher defensive era, he would be even worse.

[QUOTE=Real14;13919328]It would be the bulls and the rockets in the finals.[/QUOTE]

This but they'd probably lose in the finals

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313555]Wouldn't be a an upgrade over Pete myers either. Unfortunately unlike myers you have to play DeRozan and make him a focal point of the offense. So the question isn't is DeRozan better than myers. It's does a player who shoots 40%fg and dosn't pass or play defense help or hurt you? So if we agree that that hurts you than we should be able to agree derozan hurts you more than myers who dosn't play enough to hurt or help.[/QUOTE]

DeRozan never shot 40% from the field what are you talking about, he's a career 46% from the field and is one of the best mid range scorers of this generation

Bulls would improve if they added DeRozan but I don't believe it would be enough to win a championship but they'll at least reach the finals

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14313541]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]

What do you think Derozans numbers would look like in place of Pete Myers?

[QUOTE=Manny98;14313851]DeRozan never shot 40% from the field what are you talking about, he's a career 46% from the field and is one of the best mid range scorers of this generation

Bulls would improve if they added DeRozan but I don't believe it would be enough to win a championship but they'll at least reach the finals[/QUOTE]

Before that i said he was 42% fg for his career in the post season. That's in an easier scoring era though. Drop him in one of the hardest scoring era's and his efficiency drops at least a couple % probably more.

As far as them being better it depends. If he's playing a smaller role than yeah. If he's taking 15-20 shots a game and he's your best or second best scorer then definitely not. I don't understand how anyone thinks adding a player who can't defend or pass and shoots 17 shots a game at 40%fg is gonna make you better. It dosnt make sense.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313555][B]Wouldn't be a an upgrade over Pete myers either[/B]. Unfortunately unlike myers you have to play DeRozan and make him a focal point of the offense. So the question isn't is DeRozan better than myers. It's does a player who shoots 40%fg and dosn't pass or play defense help or hurt you? So if we agree that that hurts you than we should be able to agree derozan hurts you more than myers who dosn't play enough to hurt or help.[/QUOTE]

Just for being an idiot and saying that I change my mind

Demar is an upgrade over Jordan.

1994 Bulls could swap MJ for Demar and win a chip. That's MJ's impact. HOWEVER, if you kept MJ and instead swapped Pippen for Demar they don't go anywhere.

The 1994 Bulls replaced the fraud GOAT MJ for Pete Myers. Pete Myers, the guy out of the league for 2 years playing in Italy. Pete Myers, the guy who averaged 7-3-2 during the playoff run. In 1995 Playoffs Pete Myers averaged 1-1-1. This is the guy who replaced MJ and the Bulls didn't skip a beat.

In fact they even had a deep playoff run and could have won a chip if they had a better replacement like DeMar Derozan.

Let that sink in.

The Bulls could have traded MJ for Demar Derozan and won a championship.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14313943]Just for being an idiot and saying that I change my mind

Demar is an upgrade over Jordan.

1994 Bulls could swap MJ for Demar and win a chip. That's MJ's impact. HOWEVER, if you kept MJ and instead swapped Pippen for Demar they don't go anywhere.[/QUOTE]

That's cool you can think whatever you want even though it has no basis. Mine does though.

Again though please tell me all about how someone who can't pass or defend and shoots 40% or worse without threes is gonna make the bulls or any team better. Still waiting on one of yall idiots to acknowledge this. You just keep avoiding the question.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14313945]The 1994 Bulls replaced the fraud GOAT MJ for Pete Myers. Pete Myers, the guy out of the league for 2 years playing in Italy. Pete Myers, the guy who averaged 7-3-2 during the playoff run. In 1995 Playoffs Pete Myers averaged 1-1-1. This is the guy who replaced MJ and the Bulls didn't skip a beat.

In fact they even had a deep playoff run and could have won a chip if they had a better replacement like DeMar Derozan.

Let that sink in.

The Bulls could have traded MJ for Demar Derozan and won a championship.[/QUOTE]

bud.. this is a facetious post right? i think you could replace jordan with another guard, say drexler, and chicago likely wins. but demar is the epitome of empty stats. checkout his real plus minus. over the last 4-5 seasons he's been a net negative. knowing this why do you think he is high impact?

[QUOTE=mehyaM24;14313962]bud.. this is a facetious post right? i think you could replace jordan with another guard, say drexler, and chicago likely wins. but demar is the epitome of empty stats. checkout his real plus minus. over the last 4-5 seasons he's been a net negative. knowing this why do you think he is high impact?[/QUOTE]

They almost won a chip with Pete Myers, who averaged 1-1-1 in the 1995 Playoffs. Any slight upgrade and they win the chip. Easily win with Klay or Kyle Lowry.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313954]That's cool you can think whatever you want even though it has no basis. Mine does though.

Again though please tell me all about how someone who can't pass or defend and shoots 40% or worse without threes is gonna make the bulls or any team better. Still waiting on one of yall idiots to acknowledge this. You just keep avoiding the question.[/QUOTE]

The guy is clearly a retard, but out of this, only the defence thing is true. Demar can pass pretty well and the threes didn't matter that much back then. Defence is a huge problem though. Demar is plain bad for whatever reason (doesnt seem like its lack of trying) while MJ is one of the best defenders ever if not the best in that position. So thats enough even with the efficiency and passing.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14313943]Just for being an idiot and saying that I change my mind

Demar is an upgrade over Jordan.

1994 Bulls could swap MJ for Demar and win a chip. That's MJ's impact. HOWEVER, if you kept MJ and instead swapped Pippen for Demar they don't go anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Lol

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14313954]That's cool you can think whatever you want even though it has no basis. Mine does though.

Again though please tell me all about how someone who can't pass or defend and shoots 40% or worse without threes is gonna make the bulls or any team better. Still waiting on one of yall idiots to acknowledge this. You just keep avoiding the question.[/QUOTE]

What do you think Pete Myers numbers would be today? Pts, RBD, assts, FG% And please tell me Scottie Pippens as well.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14313970]They almost won a chip with Pete Myers, who averaged 1-1-1 in the 1995 Playoffs. Any slight upgrade and they win the chip. Easily win with Klay or Kyle Lowry.[/QUOTE]

they lost in 7 to the knicks. in the eastern semis. don't think that is "almost" winning. klay & lowry are definitely names i can co-sign though. with pip's playmaking, klay would have been a very good fit.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14313970]They almost won a chip with Pete Myers, who averaged 1-1-1 in the 1995 Playoffs. Any slight upgrade and they win the chip. Easily win with Klay or Kyle Lowry.[/QUOTE]

No any slight upgrade and maybe they get passed the knicks. They don't win a chip though. A major upgrade and maybe they win a chip. That's kind of the whole point though buddy. Demar isn't a slight up grade. He has a negative impact on the game. He's not very good and in the post season he's worse than that although based on you switching to klay or lowery looks like your finally getting that.

And no they don't win a chip with lowery. Lowery is a basic gaurd who takes advantage of these rules. Put him in the 90's and he's an average gaurd. Klay is an interesting one. They still don't win a chip with him but they definitely make it to the finals and put up a decent fight.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24;14313987]they lost in 7 to the knicks. in the eastern semis. don't think that is "almost" winning. klay & lowry are definitely names i can co-sign though. with pip's playmaking, klay would have been a very good fit.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is stopping Scottie's Bulls with Klay or Lowry. 1994 Rockets were weak. 1995 may be different but 1994 would have been a cake walk.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24;14313987]they lost in 7 to the knicks. in the eastern semis. don't think that is "almost" winning. klay & lowry are definitely names i can co-sign though. with pip's playmaking, klay would have been a very good fit.[/QUOTE]

I think it's in relation to the fact that the Knicks beat the. Bulls in 7 hard fought games and the Rockets beat the Knicks in 7 hard fought ganes. Thus all 3 teams were pretty much on the same level.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314006]I think it's in relation to the fact that the Knicks beat the. Bulls in 7 hard fought games and the Rockets beat the Knicks in 7 hard fought ganes. Thus all 3 teams were pretty much on the same level.[/QUOTE]

The Bulls with or without Derozan don't match up well with the Rockets.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14313982]What do you think Pete Myers numbers would be today? Pts, RBD, assts, FG% And please tell me Scottie Pippens as well.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea. Probably not much difference. It's irrelevant though.

Let me try to help you. In 94 against the knicks in the second round myers averaged 7 pts a game on 53% fg. DeRozan in the post season in his career has averaged 22 pts on 42%. So if we apply that to that series Here's what you have to consider. DeRozan plays in an easier scoring era so if were dropping DeRozan in the mid 90's we can automatically take a couple points fg% away. So let's be generous and say he'd be at 20pts on 40% fg. Now we have to take into account playing minutes. He played twice as many minutes as myers. So if were talking about an exact switch and he's playing the exact amount of minutes then you can pretty much cut DeRozans points in half so now he's at 10 points on 40%fg. Let's be fair and give him an extra 5% fg for taking less forced shots as a role player and he's at 10pts on 45%fg.

So what your saying is the extra 3 pts on considerable less fg% is gonna be significant upgrade and the shit just dosn't make sense dude.

If were not talking about an exact switch and DeRozan is playing his usual 40 min and taking his usual inefficient shots than now you have a guy taking a large number of shots at inefficient rate. Add on the bad defense and i'm just not sure how having DeRozan is an improvement in any sense.

Either way the shit don't make sense bruh.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14314004]Nobody is stopping Scottie's Bulls with Klay or Lowry. 1994 Rockets were weak. 1995 may be different but 1994 would have been a cake walk.[/QUOTE]

dont think houston was weak. they actually had the highest playoff NetRtg. i agree they relied on hakeem quite a bit, but for a good reason. dream had one of the greatest peaks in history and the rockets were a decent 3PT shooting team because of it (crowd hakeem and he kicks it out). houston took the most threes that playoffs.

the 95 team was better though, agreed.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314006]I think it's in relation to the fact that the Knicks beat the. Bulls in 7 hard fought games and the Rockets beat the Knicks in 7 hard fought ganes. Thus all 3 teams were pretty much on the same level.[/QUOTE]

maybe, but that's just a hypothetical. they still lost in the semis and don't think they matched up well with houston anyway. for most of the 90s, chicago was dog chow for houston.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14313982]What do you think Pete Myers numbers would be today? Pts, RBD, assts, FG% And please tell me Scottie Pippens as well.[/QUOTE]

Pete Myers averaged 1 point, 1 assist, and 1 rebound per game (1-1-1) during the 1995 playoffs.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14314004]Nobody is stopping Scottie's Bulls with Klay or Lowry. 1994 Rockets were weak. 1995 may be different but 1994 would have been a cake walk.[/QUOTE]

Lowery? Are u flicking kidding me? Dude was a joke until kawhi got there. You guys aren't thinking this shit through. Lowery averages 16 points a game in the post season. You act like this is what he would do in 94. Throw him in 94 and Lowery maybe scores 12 pts a game. It was a different era. Point guards weren't looking for their shot as much and they weren't shooting 7 threes a game. Whole teams were barely shooting that. So take away a couple points for the harder scoring era and a couple points for shooting 2 threes a game instead of seven and lowery starts to look alot less impressive.

Klay is a bit different. He also scores less because of the same reasons but he's still a considerably better scorer than kyle. He's also a better defender. He would help the bulls alot more but i still don't think it's enough to beat the Rockets in the finals. Bulls still wouldn't have a guy that can go get his own shot.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14314048]Pete Myers averaged 1 point, 1 assist, and 1 steal per game (1-1-1) during the 1995 playoffs.[/QUOTE]

The op didn't ask about 95. He asked about 94. Pete myers scored about 7 pts a game on 52% shooting in the 94 playoffs. Imagine thinking lowery or derozan score way more than than 7 pts a game with half as many minutes as they play now and in an era where it was harder to score and where they didn't shoot threes. Y'all are crazy with this shit.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14314055]Lowery? Are u flicking kidding me? Dude was a joke until kawhi got there. You guys aren't thinking this shit through. Lowery averages 16 points a game in the post season. You act like this is what he would do in 94. Throw him in 94 and Lowery maybe scores 12 pts a game. It was a different era. Point guards weren't looking for their shot as much and they weren't shooting 7 threes a game. Whole teams were barely shooting that. So take away a couple points for the harder scoring era and a couple points for shooting 2 threes a game instead of seven and lowery starts to look alot less impressive.

Klay is a bit different. He also scores less because of the same reasons but he's still a considerably better scorer than kyle. He's also a better defender. He would help the bulls alot more but i still don't think it's enough to beat the Rockets in the finals. Bulls still wouldn't have a guy that can go get his own shot.[/QUOTE]

Kyle Lowry would transcend 90s basketball. A bull of a guard with good defense and unlimited range? Teams would be shitting themselves every time Kyle touches the ball with his 3point range. Keep up with the times man. The 90s was the weakest era in sports history, who are you trying to kid? Sorry it won't work on people that know what they're talking about.

[QUOTE=Shooter;14314070]Kyle Lowry would transcend 90s basketball. A bull of a guard with good defense and unlimited range? Teams would be shitting themselves every time Kyle touches the ball with his 3point range. Keep up with the times man. The 90s was the weakest era in sports history, who are you trying to kid? Sorry it won't work on people that know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Right kyle lowery would be a future teller and know that teams should be shooting 3 times as many threes. Good luck with that theory.

Here's reality. Teams shoot on average 35 threes a game. Lowery shoots 7-8 threes a game thats 20% of his teams threes. Teams on average shot 10 threes a game in 93-94. If lowery shot 20% of his teams threes he'd shoot 2 threes a game. Your an idiot dude.

And the league literally put rules in to male the game easier for players. This isn't even arguable. It's literally a fact. Must be nice living in denial:facepalm

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14314031]I have no idea. Probably not much difference. It's irrelevant though.

Let me try to help you. In 94 against the knicks in the second round myers averaged 7 pts a game on 53% fg. DeRozan in the post season in his career has averaged 22 pts on 42%. So if we apply that to that series Here's what you have to consider. DeRozan plays in an easier scoring era so if were dropping DeRozan in the mid 90's we can automatically take a couple points fg% away. So let's be generous and say he'd be at 20pts on 40% fg. Now we have to take into account playing minutes. He played twice as many minutes as myers. So if were talking about an exact switch and he's playing the exact amount of minutes then you can pretty much cut DeRozans points in half so now he's at 10 points on 40%fg. Let's be fair and give him an extra 5% fg for taking less forced shots as a role player and he's at 10pts on 45%fg.

So what your saying is the extra 3 pts on considerable less fg% is gonna be significant upgrade and the shit just dosn't make sense dude.

If were not talking about an exact switch and DeRozan is playing his usual 40 min and taking his usual inefficient shots than now you have a guy taking a large number of shots at inefficient rate. Add on the bad defense and i'm just not sure how having DeRozan is an improvement in any sense.

Either way the shit don't make sense bruh.[/QUOTE]

Lol. So DeRozan will be relegated to being a 10ppg scorer in the 90s, but Myers and even more Pippens offensive production will have no impact if they play in DeRozan era? And DeRozan is a 4 time Allstar?

I must say, you guys are the reason we have so many Lebron James trolls running around. I bet if I asked you what MJs numbers would look like you will probably say they'd probably be 38-39ppg on 62% shooting am I right? I cant with you guys lol.

Derozan in the 90s would be what? An ineffiecient 20+ppg scorer? Would that be enough for the Bulls to win it all especially considering his aforementioned inefficiency and shot selection? Lowry would be a worse fit given that they have BJ at that spot already.

Im not even sure if these guys would be perennial allstars in a slow paced, more physical era considering that guys like Ron Harper and Rod Strickland never made it even once and you could argue they were better than both prime for prime.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14314176]Derozan in the 90s would be what? An ineffiecient 20+ppg scorer? Would that be enough for the Bulls to win it all especially considering his aforementioned inefficiency and shot selection? Lowry would be a worse fit given that they have BJ at that spot already.

Im not even sure if these guys would be perennial allstars in a slow paced, more physical era considering that guys like Ron Harper and Rod Strickland never made it even once and you could argue they were better than both prime for prime.[/QUOTE]

Strickland had drug issues. He should have been an all star in 1998

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314141]Lol. So DeRozan will be relegated to being a 10ppg scorer in the 90s, but Myers and even more Pippens offensive production will have no impact if they play in DeRozan era? And DeRozan is a 4 time Allstar?

I must say, you guys are the reason we have so many Lebron James trolls running around. I bet if I asked you what MJs numbers would look like you will probably say they'd probably be 38-39ppg on 62% shooting am I right? I cant with you guys lol.[/QUOTE]

If he's taking myers exact spot with the exact same minutes then yes. Maybe you didn't finish school but if a player scores 20 points a game and he plays 38 min and you reduce his minutes in half hiw many points would you say he would score? Your problem isn't with me dude it's with basic math:facepalm

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314141]Lol. So DeRozan will be relegated to being a 10ppg scorer in the 90s, but Myers and even more Pippens offensive production will have no impact if they play in DeRozan era? And DeRozan is a 4 time Allstar?

I must say, you guys are the reason we have so many Lebron James trolls running around. I bet if I asked you what MJs numbers would look like you will probably say they'd probably be 38-39ppg on 62% shooting am I right? I cant with you guys lol.[/QUOTE]

And as far mj goes it depends. If he's in an offense that uses alot of on and off ball movement like the triangle then he probably scores 2-3 more points because of pace and the easier rules. So maybe around 33-35pts a game on a little better efficiency. If mj is playing in ball dominant role like harden and alot players of today do then yes he could definitely score 38-40 points a game. He wouldn't win that way though. Harden just had a couole seasons of around 35. You don't think if you threw mj in a similar system he couldn't score 2 or 3 more points a game than james harden?

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14314253]If he's taking myers exact spot with the exact same minutes then yes. Maybe you didn't finish school but if a player scores 20 points a game and he plays 38 min and you reduce his minutes in half hiw many points would you say he would score? Your problem isn't with me dude it's with basic math:facepalm[/QUOTE]

I didn't know we were getting technical. I see what you're saying. Ok, what would DeRozans numbers look like if he played the same amount of minutes as he does today?

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14314264]And as far mj goes it depends. If he's in an offense that uses alot of on and off ball movement like the triangle then he probably scores 2-3 more points because of pace and the easier rules. So maybe around 33-35pts a game on a little better efficiency. If mj is playing in ball dominant role like harden and alot players of today do then yes he could definitely score 38-40 points a game. He wouldn't win that way though. Harden just had a couole seasons of around 35. You don't think if you threw mj in a similar system he couldn't score 2 or 3 more points a game than james harden?[/QUOTE]

I do. I absolutely feel Jordan gets a boost in production in todays league.I'm just trying to find some scale on your reasoning. That why I asked for you to provide Myers and Pippen production in todays league. With the same number of minutes they played on the Bulls.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314287]I didn't know we were getting technical. I see what you're saying. Ok, what would DeRozans numbers look like if he played the same amount of minutes as he does today?[/QUOTE]

If he played the same amount of minutes than maybe he scores 2 or 3 points less on 2 or 3 less fg%. It was an era were pace was lower and scoring was harder so that puts him at around 19-20 pts on 39-40% fg.

I'm sorry that's not very good and that's my problem. Either he's taking myers exact minutes and he scores around 10 pts a game which is only 3 more points a game than myers in the 94 playoffs or he's playing his regular 35-38 minutes and he's hijacking a large part of your fairly efficient offense with his inefficient play. On top of that he can't defend for shit. Either way i don't see how DeRozan is helping the 94 bulls get anywhere close to winning a chip.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14314293]If he played the same amount of minutes than maybe he scores 2 or 3 points less on 2 or 3 less fg%. It was an era were pace was lower and scoring was harder so that puts him at around 19-20 pts on 39-40% fg.

I'm sorry that's not very good and that's my problem. Either he's taking myers exact minutes and he scores around 10 pts a game which is only 3 more points a game than myers in the 94 playoffs or he's playing his regular 35-38 minutes and he's hijacking a large part of your fairly efficient offense with his inefficient play. On top of that he can't defend for shit. Either way i don't see how DeRozan is helping the 94 bulls get anywhere close to winning a chip.[/QUOTE]

Ok. I cant argue with that. Who would you take to start a franchise. Pete Myers or Drmar DeRozan? Gun to your head.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314295]Ok. I cant argue with that. Who would you take to start a franchise. Pete Myers or Drmar DeRozan? Gun to your head.[/QUOTE]

Lol DeRozan is definitely the lesser of the 2 evils. I never thought myers was better than DeRozan. I just think on a contender he's a better fit because he knows his limited roll and will play it. DeRozan on the other hand thinks he's a superstar. He wants his 17-20 inefficient shots and that's not gonna win you a ring.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14314304]Lol DeRozan is definitely the lesser of the 2 evils. I never thought myers was better than DeRozan. I just think on a contender he's a better fit because he knows his limited roll and will play it. DeRozan on the other hand thinks he's a superstar. He wants his 17-20 inefficient shots and that's not gonna win you a ring.[/QUOTE]

I can see your point. That was Pippen’s team when jordan left. You cant just plug and play demar and expect others to have good chemistry with him. The rest earned their stripes and were riding on a whole lot of momentum. I can see that they may beat the knicks, but theyre not beating the rockets

[QUOTE=97 bulls;14314292]I do. I absolutely feel Jordan gets a boost in production in todays league.I'm just trying to find some scale on your reasoning. That why I asked for you to provide Myers and Pippen production in todays league. With the same number of minutes they played on the Bulls.[/QUOTE]

Myers doesn't do much more than he did back then. Roll players always gonna play their roll. Pippen is an interesting one. Unlike most mj fans i'm pretty high on pip so i feel like he'd definitely be a problem today. I say he's around 2-3 more points better because of pace and rules so that's around 25 pts a game. The one knock on pip would be his 3 point game but later in his career he got a better from 3. in this era with more focus on the three i don't see why pip wouldn't be at least respectable from three.