What would the Bulls be like had Jay Williams not gotten hurt?

by armstrong2389 on Jan 28, 2008 11:14 PM CST Comment 35 comments

I would like to think he would have developed into a borderline all star point guard. We wouldn't have Kirk and probably would have traded up for Wade. It just bugs me to this day if Jay Williams didn't get hurt we would have had a very good back court. Its a big what if, but I think we would be a hell of a lot better off right now had he not gotten hurt. Prediction; we would have been in the 06 and 07 finals.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think

We'd be in Minnesota territory....Jay Williams was far too small and a bust his first year out of the gate.

Kirk has struggled this year, but in the past 3 had been good to great. He seems to be getting out of our funk.

Fact is, we likely wouldn't have traded for Wade either way....but perhaps we could have grabbed a Josh Howard or a Boris Diaw....

Fact is we probably would have taken Michael Sweetney since Paxson was pretty high on him when we grabbed him for Eddy Curry....

I think Jay Williams was a bust regardless of the accident. Kirk has been a solid pro, one who's finally getting back into form.

by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 8:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

a Dukie, seem to have Chris Duhon talent with a bigger ego.

by exult463 on Jan 29, 2008 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't call him a bust

I'll give it to you that he was a small guard, but he had some talent. He put up decent numbers for the Bulls, as a rookie (13ppg, 6.5ast). I don't think he would be the answer to all of our problems now, but I don't think he was a bust.

by BigScott03 on Jan 29, 2008 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

JayWill

he had a better "hands" rating and better passer rating in his rookie year than did Kirk in his rookie year (82games)...and even though he avg'd fewer points, he had a a better FG% than Kirk. Fewer TO's too.

I'm not a numbers guy because they never tell the whole story...point is, I think it was way too early to call him a "bust".

by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

then don't use numbers

especially when you don't bother to look them up.

Williams: .399, .446, .472 (FG%, eFG%, TS%)
Hinrich: .413, .478, .521

Hinrich ToV%: 14.5
Williams ToV%: 18.4

Fire Boylan!

by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 10:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

numbers

comparing rookie seasons

hands rating:
JW - 21.1
KH - 20.2

passer rating:
JW - 10.9
KH - 10.1

FG%:
JW - .399
KH - .386

TOs:
JW - 2.28
KH - 2.40

anything else you wanna be wrong about?

by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

You can't compare rookie seasons and declare Williams was on track to be better. There's no reason to believe Williams would have shot better, or turned the ball over less. Hinrich did do that, and and he had a better rookie PER.

The per game averages are meaningless; Williams actually turned the ball over more per minute. As far as 82games' hands and passer ratings go, please explain what they mean, because I have no idea, and there isn't a satisfactory explanation on the site.

Fire Boylan!

by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

better

where did I say that he was on track to be better? All I said was that it was too early to call him a bust.

As far as hands rating and passer rating...it looks like it takes into account the following:

passer rating:
Jump
Assists Close
Assists Dunk
Assists Total
Assists Passing
T/O's Assist/
Bad Pass

hands rating:
Offensive
Fouls Bad
Passes Ball Handling
Turnovers Other
Turnovers

like you, i don't see a real satisfactory explanation

by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're both ridiculous.

It was dumb to bring in Hinrich since he did better than Williams, but it was just as dumb to bring into account Hinrich's whole career to try to refute that, or whatever hscs's point was.

Probably could have all been summed up by saying, "One year is way to short a career to call a No. 2 overall pick a bust." and most people would have agreed.

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

both of you have incorrect numbers

according to basketball reference. Kirk played almost 50% more minutes than Jay and had a better TO/Ast ration and higher PER and he shot better. I don't know what goes into the hands and passer rating, but it doesn't make sense.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

heh?

The one who only played one NBA season with the Bulls had a 12.2 PER. Hinrich had 13.1 rookie PER.

Fire Boylan!

by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I get it

I was comparing career numbers, because one rookie season v. another doesn't do anyone much good. My numbers weren't wrong, they were better.

Fire Boylan!

by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you need to clue us in on that

but Kirk's rookie year still stands up as better than JWill's.

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's not a good comparson to begin with

There isn't much to extrapolate from a career consisting of 1961 rookie minutes. If Williams is going to be compared to Hinrich, what's the point of taking a single season out of a 4 1/2 season career? If Williams had played 2 seasons, and there was a margin of improvement, then comparing Hinrich's first two seasons to Williams would make some more sense. There's just nothing to go on.

Fire Boylan!

by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I never liked Williams.

Paxson's biggest problem has been bad draft luck. He's made some great moves and, imo, one two-sided bonehead move in hindsight.

Had he lucked into a Top 5 pick in 2003 and chosen between Wade, Bosh, James and Anthony, how much different would the team be?

What if Chris Paul or Derron Williams had come out a year earlier in 2004 instead of 2005?

What if the Knicks records had been reversed in 2006 and 2007 (which was really only a matter of injuries)?

How would a team of Bosh, Paul, Deng, O'Bryant and Durant look right now? There's only one bust there, and even Patrick's trying to dispel that notion is whopping 80 minutes of play this year.

All that said, I do think the key off-season was 2006. The only logical step that would have been definitely better and likely would have Hinrich, Brandon Roy, Deng, Smith, Chandler starting with Noah, Nocioni and Gordon off the bench. But, of course, Skiles would have had to have been fired.

I believe if a team is going to build a championship-caliber team w/o having say... a Top 10 player, the GM has to be nearly perfect and/or lucky. I'm disappointed that Paxson hasn't been that, but I don't fault him.

I also don't think it's over from here. Whatever one thinks of Deng, Thomas and Noah, it's still a front-line that will be 22/23 next year w/ loads of potential. I know Matt hates the draft talk, but maybe they get lucky and win the lottery (if there) or someone falls to them that turns out to be a steal.

Fortunately for me, I'm still optimistic.

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 10:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well that's something to be optimistic about..

"Whatever one thinks of Deng, Thomas and Noah, it's still a front-line that will be 22/23 next year w/ loads of potential".

Ok! Let's tank this year, and attempt to swing a draft deal with Tyrus, and replace him with Kevin Love or Michael Beasley (if they come out). Love might be a better fit with Noah and Deng. Actually, Derek Rose is another guy to keep a radar on as a pure point guard. This does mean Kirk needs to go anywhere, but allows Chris to be traded.

I guess we need to to refocus, forget the 07-08 projections, count last year as a fluke, take two steps back and start to improve where we're at today.

by exult463 on Jan 29, 2008 10:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fuzzy Math!

Since when does data from half a season wipe out 3-4 seasons worth of data? Last season wasn't all that was going into preseason projections. If anything, this year is the fluke. I hope you were being facetious.

by snley on Jan 29, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

snley

This year is not a fluke. The Bulls are now exactly what there are on paper. Last year everyone talked about this being a team of overachievers. And they did. We can't live in the past. The sooner those making personnel decisions realize it the better.

by exult463 on Jan 29, 2008 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What paper are you looking at?

Put some actual thought into what is happening this season. This is a relatively young team with most of its players yet to come close to their peak seasons. The young core coming into this season, Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng, had all been consistently improving since their rookie seasons. That all 3 of them would regress so much in the same season is mind boggling and much more likely to be flukish than what transpired the previous 3 seasons. It has been half a season of disappointment. So what we are comparing here is 246 games of progress to 41 games of inconsistent and mostly uninspired play.

I don't think that standing pat is ever the answer in building a franchise in any sport. At the same time, to completely dismiss this team's and its players' past achievements is just as folly. This team didn't simply "overachieve" last year. To say that is an admission of ignorance of the parts that make up the team. If Paxson were to keep this squad together again for next year and hire a coach who could bring back the defensive efficiency, I guarantee you the Bulls would be much closer to, if not exceeding, last years' 49 wins than whatever they end up with this year.

by snley on Jan 29, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

paper

the Bulls record today is 17-26.
the team shoot percentage is near the bottom of the NBA.
Now snley, the Bulls progress doesn't operate in isolation. They play in the NBA. Therefore

Many other teams have got better via trades, picks or just natural development or growth of their players. (Boston,Toronto, Cleveland, Detriot(dumping wallace), Orlando, Altanta)
246 games you mentioned were not played with depreciating Ben Wallace. Tyson Chandler was let go.
NBA defenses evolves, and teams determine other teams and players weaknesses.

Evidence existed that the Bulls were not as good near the end of the basketball seasons during the last two years just before entering the playoffs.
In 2006-07 The Bulls couldn't win games they need (and should) win.. against NJ. Forget the playoff seeding, good teams win regardless, so-so teams fold trying to avoid teams who will beat them anyway in the playoffs. The one thing I know from championship teams is they don't fear any competition and don't avoid the good teams.
You never heard the Championship Bulls team rest on a premise or strongly say "we would prefer to play this team as oppose to that team" John Paxson should know this..

In 2005-06 on March 28, 2006 at the UC Bulls lose 97-93 to the Magic. The Magic didn't even make the playoffs, but (with DHoward) were an emerging team who beat the Bulls when the Bulls really needed the victory. Now the Bulls can't compete on the same level with Orlando today. Orlando improved, and Bulls declined with old Wallace, etc.

comments from that game ..
Bulls coach Scott Skiles noticed a lack of confidence by the Bulls in the final quarter, saying his team was "very hesitant."

Meanwhile, the Magic's confidence kept growing.

snley, Good teams win the games they are suppose to win and the (hesitant) Bulls record reflects exactly who they are today in the NBA against NBA competition as it stands today. It's more than a half of a season, stop making excuses.

43 games this year reflects who the Bulls are relative to the competition in the NBA today, not who they were relative to the competition in the NBA on Jan 29, 2007. All of this about getting the perfect coach to change things is optimistic, but that isn't the situation today.

You can continue with your argument..
But "C'est la vie"

by exult463 on Jan 29, 2008 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we

competed wtih the now revamped Magic squad pretty well earlier this year losing at a last second shot in overtime.....

The Current Bulls ahve no consistency, we'll look good and play energized one game, then go throug the motions the next one or two games.

I don't buy that we played way over our heads in the past, those former teams tried and worked their butt of almost every night.

We've seen this eyar in games where we play hard from the opening to close that we're still the same old team, it's just that we haven't had any consistency at all and guys like Wallace (And for a while Hinrich) seemed to play with no intensity/passion at all, even on the good days.

This season is a bit of a mind-f if you ask me.

THere is no way that this team is possibly this bad, and yet it seems that we won't get better unless we get a real NBA coach (whcih ain't happening). The guys quit on Skiles, and now we've got a rookie coach who can't figure this team out. Get us a real coach, and you'll see, this team has enough flexibility and talent that we should be at least competing every game.

We aren't the title threats, but we shouldn't be as bad as we've been this year (and this year is all due to inconsistencies in intensity in my book), you can see from the opening horn to the end which games we have that competitive streak and which games we don't, and we're probably 1-24 in games where our guys don't show up to play.

by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This just keeps getting better

I criticize your argument for relying on a small sample size, so you respond by referring to even smaller sample sizes? I'm not going to bother to respond to single game performances. This is the NBA we are talking about, and single, regular season game results don't tell us much.

Obviously the Bulls don't stack up well with this year's NBA. The biggest reason for that is that they have dropped from the best team in the NBA in terms of defensive efficiency to the middle of the pack. With a barely average offense, it's no surprise that they struggle to beat the dregs of the league. That being said, I don't think it's a pipe dream to believe that a return to the top of the league in defense could bring this team back to the 45-50 win level.

by snley on Jan 29, 2008 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You were saying

We can't compete against the Magic, and DUH I was pointing out that we can.....sure our record can't compete with them, but I think we can prove that game in or game out if our effort is there we can still be a tough team for most to face.

Our team doesn't lack talent, we lack effort and execution (And now unfortunately coaching, even though that goes hand in hand with execution---I think also this club hasn't been following their assignments as much as we had in the past).

As you somewhat half heartedly mention our defense is still decent and has been greatly impacted by our anemic offense. If we could actually open up that offense and rely less upon the constant outside and forced shots we could be ok. I would hope that Deng can realize that he is effective when he drives into the lane.....but then again, he likely won't and only does that consistently when he plays against one of the worst defenders in the league (Antoinne Walker) too bad Deng's hurt today or he could have another superstar moment game....

Anyway, if you look at a series of games this year (Detroit, Magic, even Golden State, etc. there were games that we either won or had very good chances/should have won without stupid mistakes-----that Noc tip back to I believe Ellis ended the GSW game for one).

This club needs effort from Wallace and a coach who can use and focus on our matchup issues and hides our offensive inside deficiency....
It's very frustrating that we're flawed inside and yet have a decent outside big jump shooter added to the mix Joe Smith, who should rotate to C in the scenarios where our offense is really struggling and we can have T2 be our tip in specialist, yet he rides the bench so we can play Noc out of position.......

by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 8:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

aLSO

I think our D is ok, not as good as it was, but not bad by any stretch, it's our awful offense that causes the D to be worse than it is (Guys miss easy, open shots and/or shoot when there's noone inside who might be able to grab a board, and this leads to easy and open shots on the break for the other teams).....

If our offense improves consistently (We use the pieces we have appropriately now that Gordon and Deng when healthy seem to be playing more to their prior selves we should be able to do so), our D will improve. I think we were coming close to breaking records for worst FG% teams in Nov and Dec....

by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, pay attention to the thread

We were both replying to exult, who was actually replying to me. I was not responding to any of your comments.

by snley on Jan 29, 2008 11:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't sure.....

Because I brought up the Magic.....

by majoyenrac on Jan 30, 2008 7:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I may have implied that.

However, I didn't mean, too. I'm still a fan of Hinrich and this team. I think Paxson has done a okay job in trying to "win now" while providing promising youth to continue winning. His biggest decision of his entire GM career will be when he chooses who the next coach, or more accurately, what the next system, is.

Think if Paxson had traded Deng, Brown and (probably) Noah and whatever other filler for Gasol. With how poorly Hinrich and Gordon started off, would this team be any better. More importantly, would there be any hope for beyond the next couple of years?

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They may have been better

Gasol would give us an inside presence that would give us easy baskets that would open up some of the outside for Ben.

Kirk's assists would be higher having someone who can score more easily....and with some pressure off may have started playing better.

Noc would have fit in nicely for Deng who also didn't start off stellar this year.

Gasol would be the central piece of our offense, and would consistently score 20 and 10 again (he's still putting up solid numbers considering that Iavonni is using him wrong--I know I spelled his name wrong and I'm too lazy to look at the numbers).

I think that trade would have really helped us out this year.

It also might have helped to energize Big Ben, who is playing so lacklusterly without a solid big man on O to help bail him out.

Imagine:

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Sefalosha
Nocioni/Tyrus THomas
Gasol/Smith/Noah/Tyrus Thomas/Andres Nocioni
Rejuvinated Big Ben Wallace/Noah/Gray/Gasol

That's a winner in my book. We'd have 2 Olympic Gold players and 3 players (Gasol, Gordon, Nocioni) who don't fall asleep in the 4th quarter

by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Deng couldn't go for Gasol straight up.

Re-think your roster. And I don't buy that Skiles would have learned to make Gasol the centerpiece of the offense. Or that Wallace would be rejuvenated to a large degree.

I love your magic pixie dust, though. All your statements pretty much assume that the trade makes Gasol, Hinrich, Gordon and Wallace automatically better and unslumptastic.

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Last yr trade

Deng, Brown, and 2 of Duhon, Michael Sweetney, Viktor Khryapa. The Grizzlies benefit from getting out of Gasol's contract, getting Deng (high value) and getting at least $10-11M of free agent money/cap room for this year

Try this for Gasol then

This really makes no diff on the lineup I discussed above.....

by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you want to pine

for a previous roster, go back to 2004-2005: Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Chandler, Curry.

Forget about reversing an act of God; simply reverse a couple of acts of Pax.

by alec on Jan 29, 2008 10:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Curry still sucks.

the Knicks should go to Curry just about every time he's on the floor. That's because he doesn't do much else than score. So if he's on the floor and he's not scoring, he's hurting the team. Of course I also think Curry should only be playing 15-25 minutes a game, coming off the bench.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2008/01/29/what-they-saying-in-the-mainstreamosphere/

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Curry was a harder-working player

on the Bulls than he has been for Isiah. Isiah pandered to Curry, and Eddy just sloughed off to the level of Isiah's lowered expectations.

As much as Eddy hated Skiles, Skiles seemed to have the right approach to Curry's game.

Honestly, I think Isiah should look into hiring KT to kick Curry into gear.

by alec on Jan 29, 2008 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've always thought the Bulls got lucky

In a various but strange set of ways but JWill getting hurt.

Was Jay actually going to be good?
Would the Bulls have drafted Kirk with JWill on the team? I know he's out of fashion, but we sure wouldn't have gotten far with Pietrus or Jarvis Hayes.
Would the Bulls have pulled a trade? At the time there werse lots of rumors of dealing Jamal and change for Antoine Walker. How would a Jay, broken down Pip, Jalen, and Antoine Walker lineup strike people? In hindsight, pretty damn scary.
Would the Bulls have been able or willing to make the sort of Jalen for AD trade they made when things started going south?

Obviously we're talking hypotheticals here, but when I look at what was actually being talked about at the time, I tend to think the Bulls in some ways got off easy.

It's almost like our bad fortune turned out to not be that bad, because it changed our course for the better. At the same time, you can look at the Bulls now and think our good fortune in having cap space and a bit of success led them to get short-sighted and make some decisions that, no matter how forseeable you think they were, clearly didn't work out (ie, their part in failing to make things work with Chandler, signing Wallace, various use of draft picks, etc).

by Sports2 on Jan 29, 2008 10:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well, not lucky but you pretty much nailed it

I pretty much agree with your post, that things could have been worse. I do agree they should have got more for Chandler, I understand that PJ was going to be used for a trade but that fell through, so the trade was a failure there.

Chandler did need the change of scenery though and playing with Paul has brought of the best in him. Yet, I believe you take Paul away from Chandler and he becomes what we had here in Chicago.

Signing Wallace was the mistake, but we only have to deal with him for 2 more years, if we can't somehow unload him to someone else.

The draft picks that you can only talk about really is Thabo and Tyrus. Thabo has started to show promise and Tyrus, I believe, just needs the same extended type of run to regain his confidence. People seem to not realize that Roy and Aldridge went to a losing situation, so they got extended playing time from the get go, thus building their confidence and letting them improve as players at a faster rate.

Things aren't great now, but like you said, it could be much worse.

by BullsAttitude on Jan 29, 2008 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs