PG: Well at least we are getting healthy

[Dresden]

Sad game tonight. We lost to a bunch of nobodies. Which means that we are also a bunch of nobodies. Until Porter regains his form, Coby is now the best player on this team, IMO. Again over 20 points, good efficiency, 6 assists, 0 turnovers. Now we just need 3 or 4 more just like him, in varying sizes.

Speaking of SGA- yeah, that is the kind of player that you need in the league these days. Wings who can shoot, dribble and pass. Unless you get a big man that can shoot lights out, just pick up a guy like Aaron Bynes. Celtics are doing fine with some guy named Theis.

Wendell was supposed to be such a shooting threat- yeah, he can make an elbow jumper, but he has no ability to get his own shot and he cannot shoot from 3.

[StunnerKO]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[johnnyvann840]

Time to trade zach?

For some people it always be time to trade Zach. Notice the handles that are not popping tonight since we lost. Compare it to Monday night...

I would trade him. The price has to be right. It would be for the best though.

Tonight, the best thing happened. They "made up" for last win vs. Dallas. When you're on the road and you put min restrictions on your best guys, it's pretty much a tank job. I hope they lose all their remaining games. See what a new GM does and a real NBA coach.

[kulaz3000]

Coby reminds me of Starbury with less hops, better shooting

His upside is phenomenal

Marbury had really good handles and was an underrated passer.

Coby isn't nearly the raw talent that Marbury was, however, he could be a more solid player due to his maturity.

On a side note, the kid has such a impressive beard for a 19 year old. Far out!

[dice]

So are we still a better team without Lavine?
I didn't think so.

has anyone actually suggested that? strawman argument (look it up)

bulls are still better w/o lavine in the lineup over the last two seasons

and where were all the pro-lavine people after the last game? you can't just pop your head up when it's convenient and expect to be taken seriously

You're joking right? That was supposed to be green font?
I was here. I was posting and responding. Why? Did Lavine play poorly last game?

the people who were saying "let's see what this team does w/o lavine holding them together!" sure weren't out in force. and after tonight's game they're back

[WindyCityBorn]

Time to trade zach?

For some people it always be time to trade Zach. Notice the handles that are not popping tonight since we lost. Compare it to Monday night...

I would trade him. The price has to be right. It would be for the best though.

Tonight, the best thing happened. They "made up" for last win vs. Dallas. When you're on the road and you put min restrictions on your best guys, it's pretty much a tank job. I hope they lose all their remaining games. See what a new GM does and a real NBA coach.

And why would it be for the best? Does that also apply to Markkanen, Porter, Carter etc. If so why not? He is better than all of them.

[dice]

Yes there are people that literally say that

i'll take your word for it. 'cause i'd refute those posters but can't recall ever having to do so. there are people who correctly point out that the team HAS performed better with lavine on the bench, but that's not the same thing as suggesting that the team would be better off without him

Please explain the distinction.

the distinction is that just because a team is better with a player on the bench doesn't mean that the team is better off without him on the roster. there are other factors involved

[Stratmaster]

has anyone actually suggested that? strawman argument (look it up)

bulls are still better w/o lavine in the lineup over the last two seasons

and where were all the pro-lavine people after the last game? you can't just pop your head up when it's convenient and expect to be taken seriously

You're joking right? That was supposed to be green font?
I was here. I was posting and responding. Why? Did Lavine play poorly last game?

the people who were saying "let's see what this team does w/o lavine holding them together!" sure weren't out in force. and after tonight's game they're back

I can only speak for myself.

[WindyCityBorn]

We should really just hand the keys to Coby at PG next season. He and Zach will be Hell to defend.

[Stratmaster]

i'll take your word for it. 'cause i'd refute those posters but can't recall ever having to do so. there are people who correctly point out that the team HAS performed better with lavine on the bench, but that's not the same thing as suggesting that the team would be better off without him

Please explain the distinction.

the distinction is that just because a team is better with a player on the bench doesn't mean that the team is better off without him on the roster. there are other factors involved

You know I vehemently agree with you when we agree, and vehemently disagree when we disagree.

I got to call bull on this one. So... they are better off with Lavine on the roster, but not on the court? What, is he a world class cheerleader? Or should they make him assistant coach?

[Stratmaster]

We should really just hand the keys to Coby at PG next season. He and Zach will be Hell to defend.

I honestly believe that is the plan. Certainly should be. Valentine has shown some ability to score off the bench. The Bulls would need to find another bench scorer to be able to do this though.

[WindyCityBorn]

has anyone actually suggested that? strawman argument (look it up)

bulls are still better w/o lavine in the lineup over the last two seasons

and where were all the pro-lavine people after the last game? you can't just pop your head up when it's convenient and expect to be taken seriously

You're joking right? That was supposed to be green font?
I was here. I was posting and responding. Why? Did Lavine play poorly last game?

the people who were saying "let's see what this team does w/o lavine holding them together!" sure weren't out in force. and after tonight's game they're back

Honestly I thought we were past having internal pissing matches about whether Zach is holding the team back. Monday just showed that those people were just waiting for the moment to start the garbage again. It literally took ONE game.

[johnnyvann840]

So are we still a better team without Lavine?
I didn't think so.

has anyone actually suggested that? strawman argument (look it up)

bulls are still better w/o lavine in the lineup over the last two seasons

and where were all the pro-lavine people after the last game? you can't just pop your head up when it's convenient and expect to be taken seriously

I'm not pro nor anti-Lavine.

A coach needs to have the team run sets and plays and chew out Lavine when he's jacking play after play. The dude can score, but you obviously can't treat him like Luka or Kobe.

Exactly. Regarding being open to trading Zach. Problem we have is that role is going to be harder to change than most realize. Hard to take the ball away. You just can't win in this league playing like that with huge usage.

[Stratmaster]

has anyone actually suggested that? strawman argument (look it up)

bulls are still better w/o lavine in the lineup over the last two seasons

and where were all the pro-lavine people after the last game? you can't just pop your head up when it's convenient and expect to be taken seriously

I'm not pro nor anti-Lavine.

A coach needs to have the team run sets and plays and chew out Lavine when he's jacking play after play. The dude can score, but you obviously can't treat him like Luka or Kobe.

Exactly. Regarding being open to trading Zach. Problem we have is that role is going to be harder to change than most realize. Hard to take the ball away. You just can't win in this league playing like that with huge usage.

The best team in the league also has the highest usage player in the league. I expect I am misinterpreting your point. Can you clarify?

[GameBredAPBT]

Coby reminds me of Starbury with less hops, better shooting

His upside is phenomenal

Marbury had really good handles and was an underrated passer.

Coby isn't nearly the raw talent that Marbury was, however, he could be a more solid player due to his maturity.

On a side note, the kid has such a impressive beard for a 19 year old. Far out!

I think their archetypes are similar though, and I see some Starbury in his game. That’s the comparison I like most, even though coby is very unique. Starbury was a superior passer at Cobys age, but I think Coby has underrated vision, and hes a way better jumpshooter than Steph. He doesn’t have stephs freaky explosive hops, but their speed & quickness aren’t that far apart

[kulaz3000]

Coby reminds me of Starbury with less hops, better shooting

His upside is phenomenal

Marbury had really good handles and was an underrated passer.

Coby isn't nearly the raw talent that Marbury was, however, he could be a more solid player due to his maturity.

On a side note, the kid has such a impressive beard for a 19 year old. Far out!

I think their archetypes are similar though, and I see some Starbury in his game. That’s the comparison I like most, even though coby is very unique. Starbury was a superior passer at Cobys age, but I think Coby has underrated vision, and hes a way better jumpshooter than Steph. He doesn’t have stephs freaky explosive hops, but their speed & quickness aren’t that far apart

I like the Gilbert Arenas comparison more.

[PaKii94]

I'm not pro nor anti-Lavine.

A coach needs to have the team run sets and plays and chew out Lavine when he's jacking play after play. The dude can score, but you obviously can't treat him like Luka or Kobe.

Exactly. Regarding being open to trading Zach. Problem we have is that role is going to be harder to change than most realize. Hard to take the ball away. You just can't win in this league playing like that with huge usage.

The best team in the league also has the highest usage player in the league. I expect I am misinterpreting your point. Can you clarify?

Lavine's style of play/shot selection isn't conducive to winning. He's a subpar playmaker when on ball but he's also very mediocre off ball. He needs to be an on ball scorer to make and impact but he can't run the team. I agree with Dice. If lavine can reign himself in he can be a legit positive impact but right now he doesn't still know the nuances of ball.

Also the people saying the offense looks better, because it WAS better for our role players. They get the ball moving around. If lavine could play like that AND score like he does, the team would be doing much better. Less of a "carrying the team" alpha and more of a "scoring leader" role. He would be a nice bonus then.

[GameBredAPBT]

You're joking right? That was supposed to be green font?
I was here. I was posting and responding. Why? Did Lavine play poorly last game?

the people who were saying "let's see what this team does w/o lavine holding them together!" sure weren't out in force. and after tonight's game they're back

Honestly I thought we were past having internal pissing matches about whether Zach is holding the team back. Monday just showed that those people were just waiting for the moment to start the garbage again. It literally took ONE game.

I think there’s arguments for both sides. The very best players can will their teams to victory even under lame duck coaches & alongside ho hum teammates. Zach hasn’t shown he can do that

I’d personally love to see him under a great coach with Coby, but that might not ever happen in Chicago. In the meantime, Zach is a relatively streaky player who’s stock is pretty high right now, and it might not ever be any higher. If a team offered your the farm or one of their best players, would you do it? Sacramento is in love with him (probably even more so now after he has broken out this season). If they offered you Fox for Zach & Wendell, or if Philly offered you Simmons for Zach/Lauri, would you do it?

[drosereturn]

So are we still a better team without Lavine?
I didn't think so.

has anyone actually suggested that? strawman argument (look it up)

bulls are still better w/o lavine in the lineup over the last two seasons

and where were all the pro-lavine people after the last game? you can't just pop your head up when it's convenient and expect to be taken seriously

exactly. its almost some guys rooted for the Bulls to lose so they can make the same case with Lavine.
Regardless of result, they played much better this game without Lavine and this is considering playing Shaq starter minutes.
Basically, Coby and Lauri are the main beneficiaries for the extra 30 usg they get.
And these are the players you grow them to be all stars, not a 25 yr old guy making max money soon.

[dice]

Please explain the distinction.

the distinction is that just because a team is better with a player on the bench doesn't mean that the team is better off without him on the roster. there are other factors involved

You know I vehemently agree with you when we agree, and vehemently disagree when we disagree.

I got to call bull on this one. So... they are better off with Lavine on the roster, but not on the court? What, is he a world class cheerleader? Or should they make him assistant coach?

they HAVE BEEN better when he hasn't been on the court. that is statistical fact. but there is random variation involved along with unit performance factors. for example, a good player on a bad unit is going to have a negative +/-. or if he's a starter and the bench performs well the same thing will happen