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
Printable View
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.