I personally think that the Chicago Bulls should start Nate Robinson [because] he provides more energy and offense. Why is he not the starting point guard? Loren Young
Sam: Now let’s not get carried away here. There’s a reason Nate is with his fourth team in the last three years and playing for a non-guaranteed minimum. Could everyone in the NBA be wrong? I’ve written that signing Nate was a good pickup, that I expect he’ll eventually be guaranteed for the season and that he’ll be popular with the fans. But if he’s a starting point guard, you are the Charlotte Bobcats. I know the fans like him because he is like them: Small, he cheers a lot and is annoying at times because he always stands up in front of you. He had a good game the other night against the Bucks, which is great for the Bulls since there really is no true backup point to Kirk Hinrich with Derrick Rose rehabilitating. Hinrich will need time off the court to stay healthy until Rose returns. It probably is the Bulls biggest hole without Derrick. If Nate can deliver 10 or 12 minutes a game as a competent backup, the Bulls will be thrilled. But Nate historically has been a mistake player, someone who commits a lot of turnovers and takes low percentage shots. They are two of the biggest reasons you get benched on a Tom Thibodeau coached team. It’s understandable as Nate is a hustle, activity, energy player who can be a bit out of control. But that’s how he defied the odds to have a remarkable NBA career for someone that size. It will take some compromise both by Thibodeau and Nate to make it work, for Thibodeau to look the other way at times given Nate’s excesses and Nate not to lose his enthusiasm if he’s disciplined often. I don’t think there are enough blood pressure pills Thibodeau could take to watch Nate running the offense.
After watching Nate Robinson play a very solid preseason game on tuesday it got me to thinking. Height is such an enormous advantage in the NBA. In fact, it seems that anyone under 6' 3" or so has pretty severe disabilities to overcome if they want to make it in the league. Surely, guys like Robinson are much better "pure" ballers given their extreme disadvantage in height. After all, how good do you have to be to make the NBA at 5' 9"? Also, if you consider that the vast majority of the population is below 6' 2", that means that most great basketball players just aren't tall enough to stand a chance, hence many better "pure" players never make it to the NBA. With that said, who do you think is the best "pound for pound" or "inch for inch" player in NBA history? Obviously, Jordan and occasionally Russell get the nod as the greatest ever, but if we are talking "pure" basketball talent, who was the best? Joe Tanner
During free agency a couple of years ago the Bulls were looking for some inside scoring. That's when we signed Boozer and he was supposed to answer those problems. Why is it that nine times out of 10, he is shooting a fade away jumper? Last year I didn't have too much of a problem with it since he made a bunch of them and also because he didn't play at the end of the games too often. Mike Reutell
I am a bit concerned about the depth the Bulls have off the bench. So far, the four preseason games have not been that pretty and Thibodeau doesn't seem to be that happy with their performances. Is there any reason that the Bulls did not go after players such as Josh Howard, Leandro Barbosa, Mickael Pietrus and Kenyon Martin? Was there asking price to high or do the Bulls feel that they brought in better players. I feel the players I mentioned could help the Bulls this year more than the players they brought in via free agency. Tony Nemeth
Taj Gibson is one of the players who embodies the values of this current Chicago Bulls' group. He's hard working, doesn't complain, trusts the coach's decisions, plays at a higher level than his raw talent projects, etc. With the loss of Asik, it appears the Bulls are preparing to do what it takes to keep Gibson and hope that he can handle 20-30 minutes a night playing the 4 and the 5. However, this is the type of contract that can really become cumbersome to a capped out franchise. In the eyes of fans, Gibson could be transformed from a hard hat, lunch pail team player to an overpaid, under-producing, aging forward. It reminds me of so many good reserve forwards who became pariahs after signing an unrealistic contract for a role player (Kenny Thomas, Malik Rose, Dan Gadzuric, Austin Croshere, Luke Walton, Jerome Williams... I could go on). Luol Deng only has haters because of that contract!I think Dallas may have a good model for moving forward in the new NBA when you don't have three All-Stars. If you strike out on a superstar, don't sign the lesser stars to multi-year and costly contracts. If the franchise is desirable, a quality veteran will always be available. And I'm not sold that Gibson is such an unreplaceable player. The 2001 Raptors spent way too much money retaining role players and it backfired immediately. I view Gibson as a 2-3 year, $5 million/year player. Anything longer or more costly can be crippling if he doesn't flirt with double/doubles on a nightly basis. A Kris Humphries is available every year along with other solid combo forwards. What is your assessment of Gibson's value under the new CBA? And are those past players an accurate precedent to determine the risk/rewards of Taj Gibson? Kris Dahlberg
These predictions suggesting the Bulls are going to win close to 50 games this season and be in a position to make a playoff run when Rose returns seem overly optimistic. In addition to the fact that they’ll be playing at least half a season without Rose the competitive landscape in the East seems to have changed over the past couple of seasons. While I’m not suggesting teams like the Cavs, Pistons, Wizards, and Nets are going to contend for an NBA title, they did get a whole lot better and more athletic in the off-season and these seemingly easy victories the Bulls had in prior seasons, won’t be a given this year. The Bulls will be playing a majority of this season at a greater athletic disadvantage than prior years and their offense is going to be reliant upon three guys who are “long in the tooth” in NBA terms. Coach Thibs may have a wonderful defensive scheme and be a tireless worker, but as it’s often said, have you ever seen a jockey carry a racehorse over the finish line?
Michael Dlugos
From everything I've been reading lately it sounds as though the Kings aren't going to give Tyreke Evans an extension. I realize the guy has been spotty, but he was still a ROY winner and can really be something when healthy. Any chance the Bulls could offer an aged Rip Hamilton for Evans? The numbers seem to work out, though I realize trading an over the hill player for a young asset might be tough. Reid Oppenhuizen
Why don’t reporters ask the follow up questions to Iguodala? It would be nice if they would point out that he is saying that playing winning basketball is not enjoyable to him and he would rather keep chucking threes. It's not unlike the political campaign, the lack of poignant follow up questions when people say things that beg for the obvious follow up questions drives me crazy. This may be more valid to politics than the musings of today's NBA player, but why can’t anyone be held accountable? Michael Koltun
As a native Brooklynite, I've bailed on the Knicks in favor of the Nets. I don't see a championship ceiling for this Nets team. At best they seem to be a second round team. What do you project for this group? And who is the best team in New York? Justin Grant
Is there anyone in your opinion that has really stood out from the team? Shaun Chalmer
With Hinrich playing so well with his second time around with the Bulls so far, I began to wonder how well the Bulls would have been if they didn't dump his salary and kept him with the bench mob players over the last two years. Could the Bulls have beaten Miami in the East and taken the title in the last two years? Something to ponder, especially the way Kirk appears to be revitalized. Tom Allen
I recently watched a three hour training session in Europe of Partizan Belgrade. The players use 17 seconds of the shot clock moving the ball around the 3 point line (8 to 12 passes during this time).
- Each player could only the hold the ball for a split second and had to pass it off.
- Once they passed the ball the player had to move sharply to a new location (I noticed that there seemed to be marking on the floor that the players ran to before changing direction - Kind of looked like route running).
- PF and C were required to move out to set screens every 4th pass then roll hard back oppersite side of the key (I never seen such hard screens and hard cuts by big guys. The assistant coach was yelling at them the entire time)
- Ball does not touch the ground through a dribble.
- All shots came 1 of 4 places (left 3 point corner, right 3 point corner, easy under the bucket layup/dunk and dead center on free throw line
I have to say every time a player dropped the ball or took too long they were subbed out and started running laps around the courts until they got subbed back in. The entire training session I did not see one player answer back or talk out of turn. All of them were 100% focused on the session. How many NBA pampered premadonnas do you think would do this training like these players did with out complaint? Daniel Lehnen