2008-2009 Starting Point Guard/Rotation

carmelbrownqueen · Post #1 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:38 pm

With Scott Skiles now the coach of the Bucks (since it's pretty much a done deal).... I fully expect a new starting point guard, and I think that guy will probably be Chris Duhon. The only problem I see with that is having a rotation of Chris Duhon/Ramon Sessions means we won't get much efficient offensive production from the point guard position. If we keep Bell, he could end up making up for some of the lost scoring, and we will definitely be a better team defensively at the point with better passing, but I'm concerned that we will still be in search of a better PG because right now both of those guys are best coming off the bench.

Seems like Skiles is a HUGE Duhon fan/supporter but I don't know. What do you think it will take to sign him over here? And what will we get for Mo? I'm willing to take a backup player and a pick...

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:40 pm

I don't think we bring Duhon in. I think we draft Westbrook, trade Mo, and figure it out between Sessions, Bell, and Westbrook at PG next year.

Westbrook is a total Hammond/Skiles type player. Tenacious defender on and off the ball, and a hard worker.

I think we draft Westbrook and turn Mo and CV into a pretty solid small forward.

Post #3 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:40 pm

I'm guessing the rotation, at least to start the season, will be:

Williams/Sessions
Redd/Bell

europa · Post #4 » by **europa** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:41 pm

I agree, sis. The comments from the Bulls' fans make note of how strongly Skiles believes in Duhon. Given how he'll be a free agent with a limited price tag I could see the Bucks signing him. And as I posted in the draft thread, if that's the plan that could open the door for Hammond to go in another direction in the draft.

A Sessions/Duhon or Duhon/Sessions rotation would not surprise me at all. I expect Mo to be dealt so someone new will compete with Sessions for the starting job.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #5 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:43 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I don't think we bring Duhon in. I think we draft Westbrook, trade Mo, and figure it out between Sessions, Bell, and Westbrook at PG next year.

Westbrook is a total Hammond/Skiles type player. Tenacious defender on and off the ball, and a hard worker.

I think we draft Westbrook and turn Mo and CV into a pretty solid small forward.

Possibly, but I'm also considering whether they might be looking for a more veteran player to be the starter rather than depending on Westbrook or Sessions immediately. I guess it depends on how highly Hammond and others in the organization view Westbrook, and also whether they feel he has the immediate skills to run a team.

LUKE23 · Post #6 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:44 pm

Don't get the Duhon love at all. Guy isn't very good. I think if we draft Westbrook it's very conceivable we could have three PG's better than Duhon next year.

We can be a defensive team without having to downgrade in overall talent level.

Epicurus · Post #7 » by **Epicurus** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:44 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I think we draft Westbrook and turn Mo and CV into a pretty solid small forward.

wow, that will be worth it all to see two players made into one. will it have two heads like that Rosey Greer/Ray Milland movie of years ago? Luke always comes up with the best solutions.

LUKE23 · Post #8 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:45 pm

Epicurus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

wow, that will be worth it all to see two players made into one. will it have two heads like that Rosey Greer/Ray Milland movie of years ago? Luke always comes up with the best solutions.

Was this supposed to be funny?

europa · Post #9 » by **europa** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:48 pm

I posted this in the thread about Duhon: In last week's ESPN the Magazine there was a blurb about Duhon which said the Bulls players believed he was the team's best PG this season and when he started losing minutes under Boylan that's when the players started losing belief in the interim head coach.

Take from that what you will.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #10 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:48 pm

europa wrote:I agree, sis. The comments from the Bulls' fans make note of how strongly Skiles believes in Duhon. Given how he'll be a free agent with a limited price tag I could see the Bucks signing him. And as I posted in the draft thread, if that's the plan that could open the door for Hammond to go in another direction in the draft.

A Sessions/Duhon or Duhon/Sessions rotation would not surprise me at all. I expect Mo to be dealt so someone new will compete with Sessions for the starting job.

It sort of makes sense once you think about it because Duhon possesses all the skills we are looking for in a PG. He's a good defender, can run a team, and is a reasonably smart player from everything I have been told.

He also fits somewhat into the mold of a guy that might not be a popular trade piece or replacement for a more popular player (Mo Williams), but could end up working out even though most wouldn't agree that the talent is comparable.

LUKE23 · Post #11 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:50 pm

You guys are really overrating Duhon.

bango_the_buck · Post #12 » by **bango_the_buck** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:50 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Was this supposed to be funny?

You two should make a T-Mobile commercial together... :lol:

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:51 pm

There are plenty of people on the Chicago board that would rather see Ben Gordon start at PG for the Bulls.

That's how bad an idea it is to bring in Duhon to be a starter.

LUKE23 · Post #14 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:54 pm

DrugBust wrote:There are plenty of people on the Chicago board that would rather see Ben Gordon start at PG for the Bulls.

That's how bad an idea it is to bring in Duhon to be a starter.

Yeah, I don't know what Duhon has exactly done in his career to warrant wanting him as the starter of this team, but I hope and am pretty sure Hammond does not see him the same way. Just because Skiles liked him in Chicago does not mean we are going to make a mad dash to sign him, especially as the starter of this team.

Epicurus · Post #15 » by **Epicurus** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:00 pm

LUKE23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Was this supposed to be funny?

Yes, but for you it would require being able to laugh at yourself. Now go ballistic again.

fam3381 · Post #16 » by **fam3381** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:01 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:It sort of makes sense once you think about it because Duhon possesses all the skills we are looking for in a PG. He's a good defender, can run a team, and is a reasonably smart player from everything I have been told.

He's also a below-average offensive player that has been suspended a number of times for missing practices/film sessions. From the outside he's kind of tough to figure out, because on the one hand Skiles seems to like his game, but then again he's had a number of disciplinary issues that you'd think would drive a guy like Skiles nuts. I do love that ast/to ratio though.

If we don't get a PG in the draft and we're shopping Mo hard, Duhon is a very reasonable guy to add. He won't kill you if he's starting, plays some defense, and you can also bring him off the bench without causing a scandal.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #17 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:05 pm

LUKE23 wrote:You guys are really overrating Duhon.

Not really.. I don't believe anyone is saying that Duhon is a big time upgrade over Mo Williams in talent because he isn't. However he really does fit the mold of what both Hammond and Skiles like in a PG.

LUKE23 · Post #18 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:07 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Not really.. I don't believe anyone is saying that Duhon is a big time upgrade over Mo Williams in talent because he isn't. However he really does fit the mold of what both Hammond and Skiles like in a PG.

You can do that without downgrading talent level, which Duhon would be.

I am not in a hurry to turn into the Bulls on offense, you can have both aspects of the game.

Duhon is no better than Charlie Bell when Bell is healthy.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #19 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:15 pm

Duhon is a better playmaker than Charlie Bell, so I can't see that they are equal in that way. The fact that Duhon is a better playmaker puts him a step above Bell in that way.

Rockmaninoff · Post #20 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:17 pm

What is the point of Duhon if we have Sessions?

Are they not just too similar?

Kind of like Bogut and his long lost brother Kevin Love?

If Sessions is the starter, then we need to have a scoring combo off the bench.

If Skiles is the coach, then Duhon will create a conflict with their shared past history.

I'd be happy with Bell backing up the 1 and 2, and Ivey as the 12th man.

I'd also want Westbrook to be our scoring guard, if drafted.