Derrick Rose

It doesn't say that at all. In fact, we've already covered how the column points out just how much better Taj Gibson is defensively, and that he was effective offensively.

Because the front office would look like assholes if Boozer didn't start games given his massive contract. There are guys all over the league who start simply to justify the money they're receiving. The column I linked did point out that Boozer is sometimes benched for long stretches of the game, but he starts because he's expected to.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Gibson's offensive efficiency rating was one point higher than Boozer's this season while also having a massively superior defensive efficiency rating?

Then why is there no one else on planet earth who agrees with you? You said things that were unconscionably stupid and multiple people here have made fun of you for it. Even you know that your posts were idiotic and wrong, but you have never admitted to being wrong about anything in all your time on TBR. Never. Not once. You cannot make yourself do it, no matter how ridiculous you look.

That's exactly what it means. You keep trying to argue with your own quotes because you're a dishonest piece of shit who can't man up to his mistakes.

So again, how did Boozer and Thibodeau do in the playoffs without Rose?

 

really?

"Gibson did well in an extended run against the Sixers, but he wasn’t able to lift the offense to an acceptable level, and the Bulls were probably stretching him a bit far at times."

and amnestying him would make them look like geniuses, right?

and? offensive rating != offensive ability. again, look at the article you quoted. defenses have to pay attention to boozer, they don't with gibson. boozer can play with his back to the basket. you can run an offense through him. with rose off the floor, he led the team in scoring. look at any list of the top pf's in the league. boozer makes the top 10-15. how many include gibson?

i like gibson's game, but he's not an offensive weapon. he simply isn't.

you show your delusion if you think anybody here is actually reading these posts beyond you and me.

i know this will come as a shock, but you're wrong. basketball is a team game. i estimated how well the team would do without boozer and thibodeau. that's it. you want to somehow extrapolate that to mean that i think boozer is more valuable than rose or some shit like that.

the irony here is that the bulls with rose missing nearly half the season actually had the same winning % as last year. what you're suggesting i said is actually likely true -- that boozer and thibodeau were more important to the bulls winning 62 games than rose's improved play. but that's still not what i said.

interesting. so now you're saying that my point is that rose is not a contributor to the team? seriously, is english your second language?

 

Evidently "did well" means something different in your brain than it does in the English language.

It looks better than paying a lot of money for a guy to ride the bench.

Boozer had the lowest points per game since his rookie season despite Rose missing all that time, and the column I linked made precisely the point that Boozer can't carry an offense. I agree that he's a better jump shooter than Gibson, but he's still an average offensive player at absolute best while being horrendous defensively.

Kevin Love, Pau Gasol, Dirk Nowitzki, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Garnett, Chris Bosh, Tim Duncan, Zach Randolph, Blake Griffin, Josh Smith, David Lee, Amar'e Stoudemire, Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, and David West are all better power forwards than Boozer. At one time Carlos was an 8th to 15th type player at his position, but he's not anymore.

People like train wrecks, and you're like the Black Knight from Monty Python who just keeps yapping with all your limbs cut off.

No shit that basketball is a team game, but you specifically credited Thibodeau & Boozer with the Bulls' improvement in wins. You minimized the impact of Rose's improvement as a player and you hilariously overstated the contributions of Boozer/Thibodeau. You said something stupid and a normal person would have acknowledged that long ago, but you have never admitted to being wrong about anything in all the thousands of posts you have made on TBR.

 

not at all, i just didn't fatigue myself three words into the sentence and was able to make it all the way to end. it states pretty clearly that he did well in the 6 games against the sixers but that he's not the answer for offense nor could you really hope to get that kind of production out of him in the long term.

so paying him to play for somebody else is better? for reals? not that it matters because they're not going to amnesty him and i don't see them starting gibson over boozer any time soon.

i didn't say he could carry an offense, i said you can run offense thru him. you can throw him the ball on the block and he can either work against his man, or if the double team comes he can pass it back out. gibson doesn't have that game. nobody is going to guard him more than 10 feet from the basket which means driving lanes will be clogged. gibson gets a load of offensive rebounds because he doesn't venture far from the rim. boozer is one of the top defensive rebounders in the league at any position.

i know you say boozer is "horrendous" on defense, but defense doesn't stop till you get the rebound. and "average at best" on offense? wow, now you're just *trying* to sound like a idiot. unless you mean "average for a starting power forward in the nba".

boozer's scoring and rebounding were off the pace of his best years in utah, but not by a large margin. and in those years he was an all-star and made 3rd team all nba once in 07-08.

hmm... utah starts two pf's? for real? jefferson is a center always has been. i'd say boozer is comperable to west, randolph, and lee. and i think it's clear you're quite a bit of with your estimate of his peak being 8th to 15th at his position (see all nba/all star coaches selection above).

i'm not crediting them with wins, i'm saying the team as a whole performs better with them. you are the person who is trying to say that's crediting the individuals. i'm addressing the accomplishments of the team(s) as a whole and you're trying to pick out what that means as individuals and extrapolating that to imply things i never said.


edit: btw, here's the salaries of those pf's you listed as better than boozer:

Kevin Love (rookie contract)
Pau Gasol ($18.7)
Dirk Nowitzki ($19.1)
LaMarcus Aldridge ($11.8)
Kevin Garnett ($21.2)
Chris Bosh ($16)
Tim Duncan ($21.3)
Zach Randolph ($15.2)
Blake Griffin (rookie contract)
Josh Smith ($12.4)
David Lee ($11.6)
Amar'e Stoudemire ($18.2)
Al Jefferson ($14)
Paul Millsap ($6.7)
David West ($10)

boozer makes $13.5. probably overpaid by a couple million.

 

You keep making bullshit excuses when the fact is that without Rose, Chicago lost four out of five to the Sixers. It's bad enough to be such a pussy that you can't ever admit to being wrong about anything, but it's much worse to post as often as you do making excuses for your stupidity. Here's what you said yet again:

Find one person on TBR besides yourself who doesn't think those statements were moronic and clearly wrong.

 

so here you are yet again coming up with some new interpretation of what i said. somehow it's turned into rose not being a contributor to the bulls' success.

seems like we've had plenty of time for people to weigh in if they felt like it. the silence is deafening -- nobody seems to care. god knows people have had ample opportunity to agree with you and yet...

but please, keep posting. your grasp of the nba is amusing.

you've stated that the whole team is rose, they then went on to have the best record in the league with rose missing nearly half the season. you've stated that boozer might be amnestied and then tried to argue that he's a below average nba player and the bulls would be better if they simply cut him loose.

i get why you're trying to paint boozer as a bum -- it helps ignore the bit about thibodeau's coaching. he won coy last year and was runner up this year. i know how accolades are so important to you in measuring somebody's worth, so that's gotta count for something. so you're trying to pin me down as saying something that turns out to be a reasonable assessment -- that thibodeau coaching a boozer on a team with rose of 09 would be better than del negro coaching rose of '10 without having signed a top tier free agent. in fact, it seems pretty likely.

of course, again, that's not what i said, but it's pretty clear your assessment that such a statement is foolish is about on par with your other assessments of the nba.

 

I'd rather have Taj Gibson than Boozer all things being equal. The Bulls would need to find a little scoring elsewhere, but I think Gibson could possibly improve on the offensive end if he got more minutes. His D is sick.


You two are RRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEAAALLLLY Long winded.

 

I'm just stubborn and S_Nut is a pathological liar incapable of ever admitting to being wrong about anything. I love this thread because he'll never live it down. In every argument he ever has on this site, the other side just has to link this thread and his credibility is automatically shredded because of what an idiot he has been. All he had to do was admit that what he said was stupid and wrong.

 

keep in mind that while gibson will only be in his 3rd year, he's turning 27 this month. it's likely that gibson is about as good as he's ever going to be. i don't see him suddenly learning low post footwork. i don't see him being able to develop a back to the basket game. maybe he get extend his range a bit. i agree he's great defensively (which makes boozer's numbers look that much worse) but the bulls lack offense more than they lack defense. boozer makes the offense better.

people have a skewed sense of boozer's contribution mostly because he's overpaid. but being overpaid doesn't mean he's less effective.

gibson is going into the last year of his contract. it'll be interesting to see what the bulls do with him.

 

but what i said was neither stupid nor wrong. and the numbers even illustrate that what you SAY i said wasn't either.

with rose missing nearly half the season the bulls still put up the same record (percentage-wise). without rose in the lineup at all, they went 18-9. that's about 54-55 wins in a regular 82 game season. without boozer last year, they went 15-8. a 53-54 win season. obviously, they're better when everybody is playing.

let me be clear that i'm not saying boozer is more important than rose to the success of the bulls. i'm pointing out that his contribution to their ascent to the nba's elite is significant. so is the coaching of tom thibodeau.

i've stated before and i'll state again, without boozer and thibodeau, i don't believe the bulls would be a contender. they'd be good, but not great. i wouldn't see them eclipsing the 50 win mark.

vinny del negro's current team went 40-26 last season. that's a 48 win pace with relatively equivalent talent.

you haven't made a single argument for why you think the bulls would be a 50+ game winner if they had stuck with del negro and failed to land a top tier free agent. all you keep doing is repeating the same incorrect interpretation of my remarks over and over. wait, i take that back, it's not the same mischaracterization -- it varies everywhere from me not giving proper acknowledgement to rose's personal improvement as a player all the way to me stating that rose doesn't contribute at all to the bulls' success. maybe you should find a dosage and stick with it.