PG: "Better Without DeRozan"

[HearshotKDS]

WTF do the Bulls do in the offseason? You extended Billy and seemingly committed to this roster by standing pat at deadline... this lockerroom has already started booking dinner reservations and tee times in for the 2nd week of April. The white towel been thrown onto the court from the bench, how do you run this team back next year?

[GoBlue72391]

Read on Twitter

Yup I couldn’t believe it ,glad you brought this up.

The collective basketball IQ of this team is embarrassingly low.

[MikeDC]

Overall I don't think that coaches really have a huge impact on a team but they do matter. The Knicks currently have a 6 game lead on the Bulls with a roster I would consider to be inferior to Chicago's and its all coaching.

I think you're really optimistic on the Bulls roster. They're top 7 in minutes played vs. ours

Brunson > Zach
Randle = DeMar
Barret >> Pat
Quickley >> Ayo
Grimes > Coby
Hartenstein < Caruso
MitchRob > Vuc

I strongly disagree with that. IMO, you are falling into the Thibs trap where he coaches up players to make them look better than they are while BD just hangs everyone out to dry. If you switch coaches, I think a lot of those ">" flip around. Just as an example, Randle was largely considered a bust type player before he met Thibs and now you have him as the equivalent of Derozan.

I mean, DeRozan was considered washed up before he met Donovan. If we're being consistent, we have to say they're pretty much equal.

Brunson was a successful player before he came to the Knicks.

A lot of what Thibodeau does is cater both the offense and defense to the skills of the players and then ride hot hands in the 4th. BD regularly will freeze out hot players and seems to have no personnel specific schemes.

There's no scheme to be had with a bunch of individual players who can't get each other the ball.

[Wingy]

Overall I don't think that coaches really have a huge impact on a team but they do matter. The Knicks currently have a 6 game lead on the Bulls with a roster I would consider to be inferior to Chicago's and its all coaching.

I think you're really optimistic on the Bulls roster. They're top 7 in minutes played vs. ours

Brunson > Zach
Randle = DeMar
Barret >> Pat
Quickley >> Ayo
Grimes > Coby
Hartenstein < Caruso
MitchRob > Vuc

I strongly disagree with that. IMO, you are falling into the Thibs trap where he coaches up players to make them look better than they are while BD just hangs everyone out to dry. If you switch coaches, I think a lot of those ">" flip around. Just as an example, Randle was largely considered a bust type player before he met Thibs and now you have him as the equivalent of Derozan.

A lot of what Thibodeau does is cater both the offense and defense to the skills of the players and then ride hot hands in the 4th. BD regularly will freeze out hot players and seems to have no personnel specific schemes.

Thanks, saved me from writing a long post.

[MikeDC]

Thibs was a big picture, stubborn coach - but his schemes and authority worked. The nightmare 14/15 season where the team looked broken, he still had 50 wins and took Lebron to 6 games. Not asking for 50, but being a bottom-10 (maybe even 5) team since last January, for 12mo, with a solid depth chart and decent healthy bodies… just seems to be a coaching strike first and foremost.

I think the difference is basically that Donovan deluded himself into thinking he could have a team without a PG and Thibs would never do that.

What I've thought about is what would Thibs do with this Bulls roster?

I think the very first thing he'd do is pull a PG off the scrap heap. Nate Robinson, DJ Augustin, Aaron Brooks, JLIII.... all of those were bad (generally because they were tiny), but for as much as Thibs is known as a defensive coach outside of Hinrich, he was willing to play a lot of little dudes and prioritize shooting and passing.

The current Bulls team just doesn't have anyone that he would live with as a PG. Maybe Coby in stretches. But it's just really bleak, and I think he'd recognize that and demand some change.

[Ice Man]

If winning is what Thibs does, then why did we fire him to hire Fred Hoiberg, and why was that decision reasonably popular on this board at that time? I mean, people love Stacey, and Stacey was gushing about how Fred would improve this team by letting the guys be free because they were "tight under Tom" (Stacey's words), and how the team would "play downhill" under Fred (also Stacey's words). A whole lot of people agreed. Are you guys saying that was bull? If so, it is largely a hindsight argument.

Not being a wise guy. Just saying that the arguments about the importance of coaches inevitably involve a lot of cherry picking. For example, Thibs didn't bring wins to Minnesota when he didn't have Butler. In fact, and ironically, when Thibs was hired at NYC I read an article criticizing the Knicks for hiring a retread coach with a history of failure rather than trying to get a guy who could do something special.

[MGB8]

Thibs was a big picture, stubborn coach - but his schemes and authority worked. The nightmare 14/15 season where the team looked broken, he still had 50 wins and took Lebron to 6 games. Not asking for 50, but being a bottom-10 (maybe even 5) team since last January, for 12mo, with a solid depth chart and decent healthy bodies… just seems to be a coaching strike first and foremost.

I think the difference is basically that Donovan deluded himself into thinking he could have a team without a PG and Thibs would never do that.

What I've thought about is what would Thibs do with this Bulls roster?

I think the very first thing he'd do is pull a PG off the scrap heap. Nate Robinson, DJ Augustin, Aaron Brooks, JLIII.... all of those were bad (generally because they were tiny), but for as much as Thibs is known as a defensive coach outside of Hinrich, he was willing to play a lot of little dudes and prioritize shooting and passing.

The current Bulls team just doesn't have anyone that he would live with as a PG. Maybe Coby in stretches. But it's just really bleak, and I think he'd recognize that and demand some change.

Thibs would be able to work with the roster. He'd use Lavine like he used Rip Hamilton and Korver. Pat Williams would be either a Bogans or on the bench, with someone else playing that role. Vuc would have a short leash on him, too, but I think he'd be really effective doing the Jo role on offense. And I have a sneaky feeling that DeRozan would play D for Thibs.

[MikeDC]

Thibs was a big picture, stubborn coach - but his schemes and authority worked. The nightmare 14/15 season where the team looked broken, he still had 50 wins and took Lebron to 6 games. Not asking for 50, but being a bottom-10 (maybe even 5) team since last January, for 12mo, with a solid depth chart and decent healthy bodies… just seems to be a coaching strike first and foremost.

I think the difference is basically that Donovan deluded himself into thinking he could have a team without a PG and Thibs would never do that.

What I've thought about is what would Thibs do with this Bulls roster?

I think the very first thing he'd do is pull a PG off the scrap heap. Nate Robinson, DJ Augustin, Aaron Brooks, JLIII.... all of those were bad (generally because they were tiny), but for as much as Thibs is known as a defensive coach outside of Hinrich, he was willing to play a lot of little dudes and prioritize shooting and passing.

The current Bulls team just doesn't have anyone that he would live with as a PG. Maybe Coby in stretches. But it's just really bleak, and I think he'd recognize that and demand some change.

Thibs would be able to work with the roster. He'd use Lavine like he used Rip Hamilton and Korver. Pat Williams would be either a Bogans or on the bench, with someone else playing that role. Vuc would have a short leash on him, too, but I think he'd be really effective doing the Jo role on offense. And I have a sneaky feeling that DeRozan would play D for Thibs.

Sure, but how would he actually handle those kinds of problems? Thibs (generally) has some alternatives. Like, in my head, I think DeMar is a better but slightly smaller version of Boozer already. So that tracks. Vuc is a bigger but worse version of Pau.

But we have to come back to personnel. Thibs always had the options of going with a different look. He could take out Pau or Boozer and play Noah and/or Taj.

He never was faced with the problem of playing Boozer and Pau together, but in this team, he'd almost have to play the Boozer/Pau equivalents together and have no Noah/Taj alternatives at all.

That really drives home what a mess the Bulls roster is. IMO Thibs literally couldn't do the Thibs thing with this roster.

There's no Deng, no Jimmy. Caruso is better defensively than Kirk, and stylistically similar, but if we're honest, Kirk was a much better point guard than Caruso is.

The type of guys that were the core guys in Thibs' approach are basically completely missing from the current Bulls.

[madvillian]

the knicks having brunson almost automatically makes their roster better. He's putting up almost twice the WS/48 as Zach and DDR. He's a complete player that doesn't have the defensive issues of Derozen and the mental and TO issues of Zach.

anyways, we stink, no use in comparing us to other team, we know what we are. tank and try the 4/10 odds of keeping the pick. Please. Just rest Zach and Demar as much as allowed.

[ChiefILL53]

If winning is what Thibs does, then why did we fire him to hire Fred Hoiberg, and why was that decision reasonably popular on this board at that time? I mean, people love Stacey, and Stacey was gushing about how Fred would improve this team by letting the guys be free because they were "tight under Tom" (Stacey's words), and how the team would "play downhill" under Fred (also Stacey's words). A whole lot of people agreed. Are you guys saying that was bull? If so, it is largely a hindsight argument.

Not being a wise guy. Just saying that the arguments about the importance of coaches inevitably involve a lot of cherry picking. For example, Thibs didn't bring wins to Minnesota when he didn't have Butler. In fact, and ironically, when Thibs was hired at NYC I read an article criticizing the Knicks for hiring a retread coach with a history of failure rather than trying to get a guy who could do something special.

I think Thibs' tenure had run its course. Fans were tired of him running players into the ground and not being really that creative on offense. I think the idea that Hoiball looked great at Iowa St gave people some hope and excitement on how the team could look. That being said, how they did Thibs was complete bs. That relationship between him and Gar was extremely hostile. However, he did maximize the teams he had here to win, there's no doubting that and it's being slightly disingenuous if you are. You're correct on his record elsewhere tho. Outside of Chicago his style hasnt been shown to lead to winning. I follow a couple Knicks fans on twitter and a week or two ago they were starting the fire thibs train lol. I think their fans are starting to get sick of him as well.

[Stratmaster]

Turns out we're not bad because of DDR. Shocker.

That was what you took from the game? Turns out we don't appear to be any worse worse without him.

No one has ever said the Bulls would be better by just subtracting Derozan. At least no one I have seen post.

[Stratmaster]

Zach was getting doubled in the corner, had Ayo wide open on the wing and decides a double contested corner fade is a better shot.

How many times does he have to screw up in the clutch before we go to another option in those moments?

Honestly, with no DeMar and Coby feeling it, I would have liked to use Zach as a decoy and give the ball to Coby in that situation.

Sent from my SM-S127DL using RealGM mobile app

Bad take on that play. Even Billy didn't think that. Zach gave the ball up and Ayo passed it right back and right into a double team.

[MikeDC]

the knicks having brunson almost automatically makes their roster better. He's putting up almost twice the WS/48 as Zach and DDR. He's a complete player that doesn't have the defensive issues of Derozen and the mental and TO issues of Zach.

anyways, we stink, no use in comparing us to other team, we know what we are. tank and try the 4/10 odds of keeping the pick. Please. Just rest Zach and Demar as much as allowed.

Brunson basically won the Mavs the playoff series last year vs the Jazz without Luca. Luca missed three games and the Mavs still won 2 of them with Brunson carrying them on his back.

Dude is a good player.

[HomoSapien]

Turns out we're not bad because of DDR. Shocker.

That was what you took from the game? Turns out we don't appear to be any worse worse without him.

No one has ever said the Bulls would be better by just subtracting Derozan. At least no one I have seen post.

That was a direct response to someone in the game thread who had said a few times when we had our big lead that we were playing better specifically because DeRozan was out.

[MrSparkle]

Thibs was a big picture, stubborn coach - but his schemes and authority worked. The nightmare 14/15 season where the team looked broken, he still had 50 wins and took Lebron to 6 games. Not asking for 50, but being a bottom-10 (maybe even 5) team since last January, for 12mo, with a solid depth chart and decent healthy bodies… just seems to be a coaching strike first and foremost.

I think the difference is basically that Donovan deluded himself into thinking he could have a team without a PG and Thibs would never do that.

What I've thought about is what would Thibs do with this Bulls roster?

I think the very first thing he'd do is pull a PG off the scrap heap. Nate Robinson, DJ Augustin, Aaron Brooks, JLIII.... all of those were bad (generally because they were tiny), but for as much as Thibs is known as a defensive coach outside of Hinrich, he was willing to play a lot of little dudes and prioritize shooting and passing.

The current Bulls team just doesn't have anyone that he would live with as a PG. Maybe Coby in stretches. But it's just really bleak, and I think he'd recognize that and demand some change.

I agree. And it's interesting, because Boylen and GarPax made this same mistake from 2018-20.

"Ball-handlers by committee" is a terrible concept that only works if you have ball-handlers. Demar and Zach were/are the best ball-handlers on the team, and that included Lonzo. This itself was a massive problem.

When you consider Zach's handle against 5th gear defense, it's completely unreliable. He's great in the first 3 Qs because he's good with low/moderate pressure. When a defense tightens up, we have 4 years of evidence that he just doesn't have the skills and vision to beat traps or strong ball pressure.

Demar has the handling skills, to an extent, but not the vision nor the 3P range to actually kill a good team in the clutch.

And then we have zero pressure ball handlers after that. So naturally, the only solution would be elite 3P shooting. But we don't have that either. And my recurring criticism, is while we don't have Strus/Duncan/Mikal on the wings... we do have Zach/Coby/Pat (and we "had" Goran, till his body/mind retired early), who are all capable of adding more 3PAs (and making more).

It's just frustrating watching the same problems for 8 years straight. Basically since D-Rose left. That guy at rock bottom opened up the floor better than anybody we've had since.

[Stratmaster]

Is this really a thing a lot of people say? That this roster would literally be “better” without DDR?

Strat has it out for DDR as being an offense-killing ISO machine, with the strong suggestion that the team is better when he is off the court and the guys can play freely and quickly. (As with yesterday's 1st quarter.) I'm not sure who else has voiced that opinion. But I am sure it has been said on occasion, at least out of frustration, after games in which DDR has missed his shots.

I mean the bottom line is that we're all annoyed ight now. Even the tankers, because they know that the Bulls are not intending to lose, and will most likely win enough games to keep the Bulls from retaining their draft pick.

Complete bull. I have never said any such thing.

[Stratmaster]

Turns out we're not bad because of DDR. Shocker.

That was what you took from the game? Turns out we don't appear to be any worse worse without him.

No one has ever said the Bulls would be better by just subtracting Derozan. At least no one I have seen post.

That was a direct response to someone in the game thread who had said a few times when we had our big lead that we were playing better specifically because DeRozan was out.

And yet you named me. I wasn't in the game thread. You want to call me out at least so it honestly instead of fumbling for a scapegoat because you've started a post game thread with an asinine comment.

I made multiple posts explaining exactly why I thought the Bulls would be better TRADING Demar. Not subtracting him. Feel free to find one and address my points. Otherwise leave my name out of yours.

[HomoSapien]

That was what you took from the game? Turns out we don't appear to be any worse worse without him.

No one has ever said the Bulls would be better by just subtracting Derozan. At least no one I have seen post.

That was a direct response to someone in the game thread who had said a few times when we had our big lead that we were playing better specifically because DeRozan was out.

And yet you named me. I wasn't in the game thread. You want to call me out at least so it honestly instead of fumbling for a scapegoat because you've started a post game thread with an asinine comment.

I made multiple posts explaining exactly why I thought the Bulls would be better TRADING Demar. Not subtracting him. Feel free to find one and address my points. Otherwise leave my name out of yours.

What are you talking about? I didn't name you or imply you said it. Not that it's important who said it, but it wasn't you.

Edit: Think you're confusing me with Ice Man. You know, it's kind of offensive for you to think all of us mods look the same.

[DuckIII]

Better Without DeRozan sounds like a name for an up and coming indie musical group.

I avoid game threads like the plague (and the first few pages of post game threads) because it’s just real time emotion spewing out and therefore mostly a cesspool for logic. Is this really a thing a lot of people say? That this roster would literally be “better” without DDR?

OP can explain it. To me, I thought the title of the thread is sarcasm for the people here who truly believe that we're better off without DeRozan especially LaVine riders.

Thanks. I knew Homo was being sarcastic. He knows hoops too well to say that seriously. I just didn’t know if the sarcasm was directed to an actual sentiment that exists.

[Stratmaster]

That was a direct response to someone in the game thread who had said a few times when we had our big lead that we were playing better specifically because DeRozan was out.

And yet you named me. I wasn't in the game thread. You want to call me out at least so it honestly instead of fumbling for a scapegoat because you've started a post game thread with an asinine comment.

I made multiple posts explaining exactly why I thought the Bulls would be better TRADING Demar. Not subtracting him. Feel free to find one and address my points. Otherwise leave my name out of yours.

What are you talking about? I didn't name you or imply you said it. Not that it's important who said it, but it wasn't you.

Edit: Think you're confusing me with Ice Man. You know, it's kind of offensive for you to think all of us mods look the same.

Oh oh. My bad. Hey Ice Man. That last post was for you.