
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10

Showtime23 wrote:MrSparkle wrote:
I'm definitely not on-board with "dumping" Zach. I'm into the idea of trading him if he can net a star return like Simmons, but I realize that's a long-shot hypothetical. The decision of resigning him to a bigger contract is difficult and should be considered. But what you do have is a high-ceiling problem with problems mainly regarding fundamentals.
We know the league is different. It's not like the 80s and early 90s where guys left college with most fundamentals in-grained. Zach literally without structure. I think a few more years with Thibs and no ACL tear would've had him on the right track. I would definitely not write off a 25 year old player who averaged almost 30 ppg.
I dunno, maybe a less similar (style) but parallel player comparison would be Jerry Stackhouse.
ppg doesnt mean jack when guys like Shai (type of two way player, less usg im talking abt) already eclipsed him and this is a guy that was not a great prospect. Meaning he had a way better understanding of the game from yr 1 and already figured everything out by yr 2 to become the next perennial allstar.
How do you know whether to dump a player or not? Simply, if your committing more resources than the output he is producing, you dump him. Hence why Rose was dumped, and Noah so on. Dunno why so many are caught in fantasy land. No one is going to trade away a star for our trash and an all time talent like Simmons will never play for Chicago. Just look at his jacked muscle. Looks like the next Lebron incoming. Expecting a player that has no fundamentals whatsoever to become the next MJ is just a pipedream and hating on Lavine. I have following this guy from UCLA and wanted him drafted in the first place but def not for this stupid experiment.
To a lesser degree, even White has some of those concerns it really worries me literally every Chicago prospects has some serious defect.
johnnyvann840 wrote:bullsnewdynasty wrote:Rose was always a net negative defensively yet people never fixated on it the same way they do for LaVine. I don't know if that was because Rose was a homegrown talent or not but I never heard anybody say Rose should've been a 6th man. Maybe because Rose had a great coach and defensive team around him?
What are you talking about? Derrick was not "always a net negative defensively". He was actually an above average PG in the league defensively in his prime. Whereas, Zach is not only one of the worst defensive guards in the league but one of the worst defensive players overall in the league. Also, we are talking about a league MVP who was an overall net positive player who played on a team with very little offensive talent around him. The fact is that the Bulls were always better when Derrick was on the floor. Lavine for his entire career has been an overall net negative player. Even on one of the worst teams in the NBA he still couldn't stay in net positive territory except for about a half a season when his replacement players were G league level talent or guys who shouldn't even be in the NBA.
bullsnewdynasty wrote:johnnyvann840 wrote:bullsnewdynasty wrote:Rose was always a net negative defensively yet people never fixated on it the same way they do for LaVine. I don't know if that was because Rose was a homegrown talent or not but I never heard anybody say Rose should've been a 6th man. Maybe because Rose had a great coach and defensive team around him?
What are you talking about? Derrick was not "always a net negative defensively". He was actually an above average PG in the league defensively in his prime. Whereas, Zach is not only one of the worst defensive guards in the league but one of the worst defensive players overall in the league. Also, we are talking about a league MVP who was an overall net positive player who played on a team with very little offensive talent around him. The fact is that the Bulls were always better when Derrick was on the floor. Lavine for his entire career has been an overall net negative player. Even on one of the worst teams in the NBA he still couldn't stay in net positive territory except for about a half a season when his replacement players were G league level talent or guys who shouldn't even be in the NBA.
He was never a good defender. The Bulls won 45 to 50 games without him because the team defense was that good.
bullsnewdynasty wrote:johnnyvann840 wrote:bullsnewdynasty wrote:Rose was always a net negative defensively yet people never fixated on it the same way they do for LaVine. I don't know if that was because Rose was a homegrown talent or not but I never heard anybody say Rose should've been a 6th man. Maybe because Rose had a great coach and defensive team around him?
What are you talking about? Derrick was not "always a net negative defensively". He was actually an above average PG in the league defensively in his prime. Whereas, Zach is not only one of the worst defensive guards in the league but one of the worst defensive players overall in the league. Also, we are talking about a league MVP who was an overall net positive player who played on a team with very little offensive talent around him. The fact is that the Bulls were always better when Derrick was on the floor. Lavine for his entire career has been an overall net negative player. Even on one of the worst teams in the NBA he still couldn't stay in net positive territory except for about a half a season when his replacement players were G league level talent or guys who shouldn't even be in the NBA.
He was never a good defender. The Bulls won 45 to 50 games without him because the team defense was that good.
My point is that LaVine can work if you put a good defensive team around him. People act like his individual defense kills the team when the rest of the team is also bad at defense yet nobody talks about it.
PaKii94 wrote:So total bulls nerd move but I've started rewatching this year's games now that we have more context. Two things I've realized is Lauri's game is fully dependent on pick and pop game. He uses that to get the ball in motion and ready for drives. If he gets the ball in those spots, more likely than not he excels.
Unfortunately, the other thing I've noticed is Zach doesn't know how to run the pick and pop. He's not bad at transition passing and pick and roll dump offs but he's horrid at pnp. I saw him take double takes on multiple plays when he spots Lauri open on pick and pops.
PaKii94 wrote:Unfortunately, the other thing I've noticed is Zach doesn't know how to run the pick and pop. He's not bad at transition passing and pick and roll dump offs but he's horrid at pnp. I saw him take double takes on multiple plays when he spots Lauri open on pick and pops.
WindyCityBorn wrote:PaKii94 wrote:So total bulls nerd move but I've started rewatching this year's games now that we have more context. Two things I've realized is Lauri's game is fully dependent on pick and pop game. He uses that to get the ball in motion and ready for drives. If he gets the ball in those spots, more likely than not he excels.
Unfortunately, the other thing I've noticed is Zach doesn't know how to run the pick and pop. He's not bad at transition passing and pick and roll dump offs but he's horrid at pnp. I saw him take double takes on multiple plays when he spots Lauri open on pick and pops.
Re-watching Bulls games seems like torture.
kodo wrote:PaKii94 wrote:Unfortunately, the other thing I've noticed is Zach doesn't know how to run the pick and pop. He's not bad at transition passing and pick and roll dump offs but he's horrid at pnp. I saw him take double takes on multiple plays when he spots Lauri open on pick and pops.
Nobody on this team got more open shots than Lauri. With the closest defender 6'+ away, Markkanen led the Bulls in open shot attempts. He averaged 3.5 "wide open" 3 point attempts per game. Lavine had to shoot under more duress, only 2.1 open 3s per game.
In context, Trae Young who starts with the ball in his hands and is prone to jacking up a 3 well beyond the line, averaged almost the same amount of open 3s at 3.8 per game.
Lauri had a lot of problems this year, but the # of open shots his team gave him was not one of them.

bullsnewdynasty wrote:He was never a good defender. The Bulls won 45 to 50 games without him because the team defense was that good.
My point is that LaVine can work if you put a good defensive team around him. People act like his individual defense kills the team when the rest of the team is also bad at defense yet nobody talks about it.
PaKii94 wrote:WindyCityBorn wrote:PaKii94 wrote:So total bulls nerd move but I've started rewatching this year's games now that we have more context. Two things I've realized is Lauri's game is fully dependent on pick and pop game. He uses that to get the ball in motion and ready for drives. If he gets the ball in those spots, more likely than not he excels.
Unfortunately, the other thing I've noticed is Zach doesn't know how to run the pick and pop. He's not bad at transition passing and pick and roll dump offs but he's horrid at pnp. I saw him take double takes on multiple plays when he spots Lauri open on pick and pops.
Re-watching Bulls games seems like torture.
I'm slowly going through November now lol. Guess I like the pain
Bill Walton wrote: Keep the music playing.
kyrv wrote:PaKii94 wrote:WindyCityBorn wrote:
Re-watching Bulls games seems like torture.
I'm slowly going through November now lol. Guess I like the pain
;p Major kudos to you! Are you finding things better or worse than we first thought, or is it a mixed bag?
I've been rewatching the games and watching them again, it seems like the biggest problem with the offense is there is no offensive system. Boylen put all his eggs in the blitzing defense basket and for offense he took the analytics mandate and implemented "pass the ball, only take 3s and layups" without any nuance.
The offense should have been heavy on Lauri/Lavine in the first few games. Instead it was "equal balance". That's why everyone's post game interview was usually "we are trying to find our offensive role".
That's why the offense devolved into Lavine/Coby iso ball
during tough situations and only those two had "good" years and not down years like everyone else. This team was like top 3 youngest in the league! They need a structure and need to learn how to win. Not to be thrown into the fire to just make things happen.
Then add in the tough defense that was too unbalanced (easy bucket for the other team if not everyone is tuned on a string) and didn't cater to 90% of our players (you need lengthy wings to play that type of defense...instead we downsized to 3 guard rotations)