Image ImageImage Image

If you take the best player off every team . . .

Moderators: Ben, Senor Chang, HomoSapien, Morten Jensen, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, Ice Man, alucryts, Tommy Udo 6 , Mark K, GimmeDat, Rerisen

Where do the Bulls rank?

1
19
40%
2
6
13%
3
11
23%
4
6
13%
5-10
5
11%
11-20
0
No votes
21-30 (GTFO)
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 47

User avatar
coldfish
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 40,481
And1: 6,016
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
 

If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#1 » by coldfish » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:42 pm

Where do the Bulls rank? Assume that every other player is healthy.

For example:
- Miami without Lebron
- OKC without Durant
- SA without Duncan
- NY without Carmello

I think Chicago is up there. OKC would still be dam good. Same with SA. Indiana is pretty good without Granger. On the other hand, I think this Miami team would be in trouble without Lebron.
The regular season only matters when you lose.
I don't hate Mirotic anymore but I won't admit it.
User avatar
panthermark
RealGM
Posts: 17,767
And1: 1,474
Joined: Mar 15, 2010
Location: Undisclosed: MJ's shadow could be lurking....
         

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#2 » by panthermark » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:50 pm

coldfish wrote:Where do the Bulls rank? Assume that every other player is healthy.

For example:
- Miami without Lebron
- OKC without Durant
- SA without Duncan
- NY without Carmello

I think Chicago is up there. OKC would still be dam good. Same with SA. Indiana is pretty good without Granger. On the other hand, I think this Miami team would be in trouble without Lebron.


Is Granger the best player on that team? Or is it George?

Memphis is another one...who is the best player? Z-Bo?
Jealousy is a sickness.......get well soon....
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 18,096
And1: 5,811
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#3 » by johnnyvann840 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:52 pm

We're easily the best team in the league. That is being proven right now. Replace George with Granger and I think Indy gets worse.
User avatar
coldfish
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 40,481
And1: 6,016
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
 

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#4 » by coldfish » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:19 pm

panthermark wrote:
coldfish wrote:Where do the Bulls rank? Assume that every other player is healthy.

For example:
- Miami without Lebron
- OKC without Durant
- SA without Duncan
- NY without Carmello

I think Chicago is up there. OKC would still be dam good. Same with SA. Indiana is pretty good without Granger. On the other hand, I think this Miami team would be in trouble without Lebron.


Is Granger the best player on that team? Or is it George?

Memphis is another one...who is the best player? Z-Bo?


Fair points but it kind of doesn't matter for this analysis. If you think George is their best player, take George off Indiana and rank them. If you think Memphis has two top players who are equal in value, take one off and rank them.

I'm just curious about where people think Rose's "supporting cast" ranks and I suspect that this topic is going to get interesting when people are faced with admitting Rose has one of the best, if not the best, supporting cast in the NBA.
The regular season only matters when you lose.
I don't hate Mirotic anymore but I won't admit it.
jstnw89
Starter
Posts: 2,027
And1: 159
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
   

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#5 » by jstnw89 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:21 pm

Not the best
fresko024 wrote:LOL u mad because Knicks are logical fans.

Image
User avatar
Michael Jackson
RealGM
Posts: 12,420
And1: 599
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#6 » by Michael Jackson » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:22 pm

coldfish wrote:
panthermark wrote:
coldfish wrote:Where do the Bulls rank? Assume that every other player is healthy.

For example:
- Miami without Lebron
- OKC without Durant
- SA without Duncan
- NY without Carmello

I think Chicago is up there. OKC would still be dam good. Same with SA. Indiana is pretty good without Granger. On the other hand, I think this Miami team would be in trouble without Lebron.


Is Granger the best player on that team? Or is it George?

Memphis is another one...who is the best player? Z-Bo?


Fair points but it kind of doesn't matter for this analysis. If you think George is their best player, take George off Indiana and rank them. If you think Memphis has two top players who are equal in value, take one off and rank them.

I'm just curious about where people think Rose's "supporting cast" ranks and I suspect that this topic is going to get interesting when people are faced with admitting Rose has one of the best, if not the best, supporting cast in the NBA.



The FO is cheap. Our bench sucks long live Korver.
User avatar
Ralphb07
RealGM
Posts: 22,932
And1: 3,129
Joined: Jul 04, 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#7 » by Ralphb07 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:25 pm

Nice thread Fish. People seem to underrate his supporting cast and did it big time this offseason. The Bulls have done a really nice job.
Hoiball Era is here!!
NZB2323
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,230
And1: 800
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#8 » by NZB2323 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:30 pm

I think that you'd have to rank Marc Gasol ahead of Z-bo this year, considering that Marc is in the running for DPOTY and the Grizzlies are a great defensive team and an average offensive team.

But the best team without their best player is easily the Clippers. Not because Chris Paul isn't an MVP type player, but because Eric Bledsoe might be an all-star if he was a starter. His PER(which isn't an end-all-be all measure for judging players) has been 19.16 this year. That puts him at 39th in the NBA, just ahead of Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph. The league average for PER every season is 15.
Derrick Rose will Rise.
User avatar
Carl25
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,356
And1: 63
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
Location: Chicago
       

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#9 » by Carl25 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:32 pm

Third behind LAC and OKC.
"Through Thick and Thin."
RIP Norm Van Lier
BuffaloBull
Analyst
Posts: 3,493
And1: 368
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#10 » by BuffaloBull » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:33 pm

coldfish wrote:
panthermark wrote:
coldfish wrote:Where do the Bulls rank? Assume that every other player is healthy.

For example:
- Miami without Lebron
- OKC without Durant
- SA without Duncan
- NY without Carmello

I think Chicago is up there. OKC would still be dam good. Same with SA. Indiana is pretty good without Granger. On the other hand, I think this Miami team would be in trouble without Lebron.


Is Granger the best player on that team? Or is it George?

Memphis is another one...who is the best player? Z-Bo?


Fair points but it kind of doesn't matter for this analysis. If you think George is their best player, take George off Indiana and rank them. If you think Memphis has two top players who are equal in value, take one off and rank them.

I'm just curious about where people think Rose's "supporting cast" ranks and I suspect that this topic is going to get interesting when people are faced with admitting Rose has one of the best, if not the best, supporting cast in the NBA.


If you include Thibs in that supporting cast then yeah, Rose has a lot here. It's easy to say the Bulls need a clearcut #2 and all that (and it's not wrong to think so, you always want more talent at the top) but really, we put up a big fight with Miami in the ECF and that was without a transcendent performance from Rose. And cruddy offense from a whole bunch of guys.

The team is different now, and Rose is older, and has suffered some real setbacks, so we won't know anything until playoffs unfold. But he's had his time in the dark and will hopefully come out all the stronger for it. Failure forges strength if you learn from it.

This is a pretty good crew though. Booz, Taj, and Noah make for a tough frontcourt, Deng and Jimmy are strong on the wings. They clearly lack an offensive catalyst and iso player with Rose not here, but he's one of the best in the league at both of those things. And Thibs has everyone believing they can win no matter what.
User avatar
jumpmanjay
Analyst
Posts: 3,038
And1: 453
Joined: Jul 16, 2010
 

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#11 » by jumpmanjay » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:37 pm

Carl25 wrote:Third behind LAC and OKC.

yeah, thats what i think, too. hard to say with OKC, though as we have never really seen them without KD before.
BULLHITTER
Banned User
Posts: 4,814
And1: 19
Joined: Dec 05, 2007

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#12 » by BULLHITTER » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:40 pm

idk; it's rare for me, but i've been very un-invested in this team due to its transient nature. that stated, the "bench" has exceeded my expectations somewhat, but, and it's a BIG but, imo the credit goes to the coaching staff and using a system that plays to the roster's makeup/strengths.

i'm not overly impressed with the talent; the bulls love gritty defensive guys. rebounding and defense will win a whole lot of games as a fundamental precept. but at the end of the day i think thibs is such a fundamentally sound coach, he'd probably make a competitive team out of the charlotte bobcats.

deng, boozer and noah aren't scrubs; putting third tier talent with those 3, imo, the success they've had thus far speaks to the coaching. adding rose in a singular "superstar" model gives them a puncher's chance.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 18,096
And1: 5,811
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#13 » by johnnyvann840 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:45 pm

jumpmanjay wrote:
Carl25 wrote:Third behind LAC and OKC.

yeah, thats what i think, too. hard to say with OKC, though as we have never really seen them without KD before.


I totally forgot about the Clippers. Now they would be interesting. I still think we're a little better than a Clipper team without CP3. OKC without Durant is not on our level.

But I retract my "easily the best" comment as LAC and even MEM would be interesting. But Memphis without ZBo would lose the big advantage they have over most teams. Take Gay off Memphis and I don't think they change much. In fact, that happened and they made their best playoff run in team history and played the best I've seen them play.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 18,096
And1: 5,811
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#14 » by johnnyvann840 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:03 pm

BULLHITTER wrote:idk; it's rare for me, but i've been very un-invested in this team due to its transient nature. that stated, the "bench" has exceeded my expectations somewhat, but, and it's a BIG but, imo the credit goes to the coaching staff and using a system that plays to the roster's makeup/strengths.

i'm not overly impressed with the talent; the bulls love gritty defensive guys. rebounding and defense will win a whole lot of games as a fundamental precept. but at the end of the day i think thibs is such a fundamentally sound coach, he'd probably make a competitive team out of the charlotte bobcats.

deng, boozer and noah aren't scrubs; putting third tier talent with those 3, imo, the success they've had thus far speaks to the coaching. adding rose in a singular "superstar" model gives them a puncher's chance.


Transient nature? Rose, Deng, Boozer and Noah have been together now as long as any core in the league and have been at the pinnacle reaching the league's "final four" only to get hurt last year when they had a REAL chance, IMO. And I think we have more than a "punchers chance" this year.. After listening to Stacey King on Waddle and Silvy the other day talking about wathcing Rose practice and run and cut and dunk and knocking down shots that he "cannot even tell he was ever hurt"... and Jimmy saying Derrick looks "better than ever" to him. I'm even more encouraged.

Get on board the train, man. We're going to "Jordan".

here's that Stacey King interview at around the 40 min mark just after Eddie O.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play?id=8869724

Here's just Jimmy's part

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play?id=8869542
User avatar
coldfish
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 40,481
And1: 6,016
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
 

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#15 » by coldfish » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:13 pm

I think they are clearly top 5. I ranked them 3rd. That's pretty dam impressive and a complete 180 degrees from the narrative that Rose's supporting cast sucks. People focus on the lack of secondary creator and that's correct, but the team has awesome coaching, rebounding, defense, chemistry, etc. To discount all of that in light of a secondary shot creator is pretty ridiculous.

Now comes the controversial part. With a supporting cast this good, Rose can win a title if he plays like a top 3 player. With Wade and apparently Howard falling off, I think Rose really could be #3 in the NBA if he has an Adrian Petersen type recovery.

1. Lebron
2. Durant
3. Rose

If Rose can't return to being a top level player, the Bulls are pretty much screwed. The team would need to add a player better than Rose to be a contender and given the salary constraints, that is going to be impossible.
The regular season only matters when you lose.
I don't hate Mirotic anymore but I won't admit it.
Ice Man
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 11,093
And1: 2,732
Joined: Apr 19, 2011

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#16 » by Ice Man » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:13 pm

The great thing about this exercise from OKC's viewpoint is that it never faces this problem. Durant and Westbrook are never hurt. Not majorly, not minorly, not a ding. Between the two of them, they have played 542 of 546 games over the past 4 years.

Which is why I rate OKC as the title favorite this year. It has as much talent as any team, and its talent is not injury prone.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 18,096
And1: 5,811
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#17 » by johnnyvann840 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:18 pm

Ice Man wrote:The great thing about this exercise from OKC's viewpoint is that it never faces this problem. Durant and Westbrook are never hurt. Not majorly, not minorly, not a ding. Between the two of them, they have played 542 of 546 games over the past 4 years.

Which is why I rate OKC as the title favorite this year. It has as much talent as any team, and its talent is not injury prone.


People said that about Howard before last year. They have been really durable but NOBODY is immune. True, Lebron is a tank and Durant and Westbrook seem to be made of iron, but don't ever think it can't happen, cause it can and always does. No player goes an entire career without sustaining something significant. Even MJ, although it happened early and then never again.
sleepyhead
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,259
And1: 11
Joined: Jun 18, 2010

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#18 » by sleepyhead » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:35 pm

If we are the best team in the NBA (after each team takes away its best player), then we should be by far the best team in the NBA when Rose comes back; which will not be the case.

So unless you believe that Lebron, Durant, Duncan, Chris Paul, etc. are significantly better than Derrick, the Bulls are not the best team in the NBA without Rose.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 18,096
And1: 5,811
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#19 » by johnnyvann840 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:41 pm

sleepyhead wrote:If we are the best team in the NBA (after each team takes away its best player), then we should be by far the best team in the NBA when Rose comes back; which will not be the case.

So unless you believe that Lebron, Durant, Duncan, Chris Paul, etc. are significantly better than Derrick, the Bulls are not the best team in the NBA without Rose.


the argument that goes is really about the rest of the team as a whole, not Derrick. But I think a healthy Derrick isw the 3rd best player in the league and with him, we may very well be as good , or better than last year. Also, as BH alluded to, the Bulls coaching staff is top notch and that is a consideration.

Lebron is just THAT good that you take him off the Heat and we are CLEARLY better than them, IMO.
jstnw89
Starter
Posts: 2,027
And1: 159
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
   

Re: If you take the best player off every team . . . 

Post#20 » by jstnw89 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:44 pm

I meant to vote 3rd, but I clicked 4th :'(
fresko024 wrote:LOL u mad because Knicks are logical fans.

Image

Return to Chicago Bulls