UMFan83

It's not just Cubs fans that rip every draft pick their team has and overreacts to every bit of success they have as well. I just remember thinking Casher, with luck, in the short term could be our 7th inning guy on the 2008 Cubs. Instead we had Jeff Samardzija. Either way, I didn't have much long term hope for him other than decent bullpen arm. Props to the Cubs. I don't participate in enough discussions around here. Does the 2008 draft's early returns suggest that Wilken might not be a bust?

No I agree, bring the bandwagon on. Put like you identified, my point was stop yelling things out like you know what your talking about. I still followed the Hawks during the bad years. I could name the top line and then some other players here and there on the team. I didn't go out of my way to watch very many of the games, but I generally knew how the team was doing on a week to week sometimes day to day basis, and I watched all sorts of hockey during that time (I went to UNH for a couple of years which is a huge hockey school who was really good at the time). But yeah, I can't confidently say "I stood by the team during the bad years" like I did with the Bulls, or the Bears in the early 00's, or the Cubs when they have a bad year. Does that make me less of a fan than those stodgy die hards? Maybe, probably. Does it make me enjoy it less knowing that? Not one bit. This stuff happens at every hockey arena in the USA. I've sat next to people in MSG who literally had the game explained to them the entire time. It's the nature of a major sport that is played by only a tiny fraction of the population. In Phoenix the only thing I heard the entire time was "HIT HIM!" when the Blackhawks had the puck, and "Shoot! Shoot it!" when the Coyotes had the puck. If I went to a futbol or cricket match, I'd probably spend the entire time asking people about situations. I totally understand that. It's when people try to sound like they are regular hockey fans and scream out when a team pulls off his goalie for an extra attacker on a delayed penalty that I can't stand. I'm guessing if you were at a futbol game and it was the 90th minute of a 1 goal game with the trailing team taking their time trying to set up their attack you wouldn't start screaming out "WHAT ARE YOU DOING YOU NEED TO PUT THE BALL ON NET YOU ONLY HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT", ignoring the likely presence of stoppage time. Or if a novice baseball fan was watching the Reds play and saw a player sacrifice bunt a runner to second. that fan wouldn't yell out "WHAT ARE DUSTY DOING GIVING AWAY AN OUT THERE ARE ONLY 27 OF THEM IN A GAME?" (oh wait.....im of course kidding on that last one) But maybe I did overreact a bit, I just don't like to feel embarrassed because we already have a bandwagon fan image. And knowing there are hockey mad Vancouver fans going back to canada after the game and telling their friends stories of the stupid chicagoans and their lack of hockey knowledge makes me embarrassed.

I think if you miss the penalty shot you should still get a 2 minute PP. The one thing that is supposed to separate a penalty shot from just a penalty is did the shooter still have a legitimate scoring chance. So if he has a legit scoring chance and doesnt score they still call the penalty. If however the player does not have a scoring chance then he gets the scoring chance with the penalty shot in theory, if he misses it..done. I think if a team could chose they would still take the penalty shot almost every time. My guess is successful penalty shot percentages are a lot better then even the best PP percentages. I think it would be fun if there could somehow be a way to line up the 2 teams on each side board inside the zone where the penalty is taking place, and after a shot it put on net, the teams are allowed to get into position if the shot is saved and rebounded, play continues like normal. Just like they do in soccer. That way not only do you get your breakaway shot again, you at least get some semblance of a rebound opportunity like you would on a traditional breakaway. It's a really far fetched idea, and the logistics might make it impossible to incorporate, but it would be fun to see nonetheless. Fake Edit: 3 players could either line up on each side of the side boards, alternating by team (like how they shoot FTs in basketball) or behind the net, and have 2 players on each team lineup outside the blue line, so you could put your D/Wings there and prevent breakaways.

by beating the Wings they already have kind of ruined it, could have been all 4 teams. If we wanted to have the most traditional semi finals and finals we would have something like Blackhawks/Blues, Red Wings/Kings, Rangers/Bruins, Maple Leafs/Canadiens, then the Blackhawks/Red Wings, Bruins/Canadiens in the semis and whoever wins those ones in the finals. What a great postseason for hockey traditionalists. I would replace the Kings with the Oilers. Sure, I just picked Kings and Blues becuase they (along with the North Stars/Dallas Stars) were WC teams that were part of the original expansion in 1967. But the Oilers were formed only a couple years later.

by beating the Wings they already have kind of ruined it, could have been all 4 teams. If we wanted to have the most traditional semi finals and finals we would have something like Blackhawks/Blues, Red Wings/Kings, Rangers/Bruins, Maple Leafs/Canadiens, then the Blackhawks/Red Wings, Bruins/Canadiens in the semis and whoever wins those ones in the finals. What a great postseason for hockey traditionalists.

No I agree, bring the bandwagon on. Put like you identified, my point was stop yelling things out like you know what your talking about. I still followed the Hawks during the bad years. I could name the top line and then some other players here and there on the team. I didn't go out of my way to watch very many of the games, but I generally knew how the team was doing on a week to week sometimes day to day basis, and I watched all sorts of hockey during that time (I went to UNH for a couple of years which is a huge hockey school who was really good at the time). But yeah, I can't confidently say "I stood by the team during the bad years" like I did with the Bulls, or the Bears in the early 00's, or the Cubs when they have a bad year. Does that make me less of a fan than those stodgy die hards? Maybe, probably. Does it make me enjoy it less knowing that? Not one bit.

I keep forgetting to mention this, so excuse the randomness of this post but... I went to game 5 of the Canucks series, and I swear, I was embarrassed at how dumb the fans around me were. The most glaring example of this was when a delayed penalty was called on the Canucks. When Niemi came out to get the extra attacker on, the person next to me tapped me on the shoulder and said "OMG WHAT IS QUINVILLE DOING, HES ADDING AN EXTRA ATTACKER IN THE FIRST PERIOD! WHY IS HE DOING SOMETHING SO RISKY?" I had to explain why the extra attacker was coming on. Then in the third period this happened again, and this time someone sitting 2 rows in front of me said almost the exact thing. Other than that, I heard people around me wondering outloud why certain whistles were blown (like not understanding offsides), booing the refs for not calling icing during a penalty, and one guy kept bitching about how the Hawks were spending the whole game back tracking when they had the puck, which could possibly be a valid point, but not when they are on a PK and trying to kill as much time as possible. Also not a valid point when it's either kicking the puck back when your in the neutral zone or turning it over and giving the other team an odd man situation. I don't think some people understand that plays are often set up and it's not just fast break end to end hockey all the time. Anyways, maybe I just sat in a bad section, but I was fairly embarrassed to sit with these Hawks "fans". I don't claim to be a huge expert on hockey. Sometimes I am unsure of why the whistle is stopping certain plays (like missing a hand pass or something), sometimes I blame a goal scored on Niemi, when the defense had a breakdown. But I try to keep stuff like that to this board alone, not at the UC, just as I don't go into a science lab and start ripping on the chemists for their work.

Except Jannero Pargo.

I just realized if the Bruins win game 7, there will be 3 original six teams in the final 4, and we will have a 100% chance of at least 1 O6 team in the finals with a 50% chance of 2 O6 teams squaring off for the Cup. Pretty cool. Sharks don't ruin this.

fixed I'm not saying it's not impressive to beat Detroit in 5 games, even if all 4 wins were by 1 goal. It just doesn't prove conclusively to me that they are playing great right now. Also, they definitely started to choke that series against Colorado. They didn't look particularly great in that series, falling behind 2-1 before winning their final 3 much like the Hawks, but I'd say Nashville was a stronger opponent than Colorado. Technically, didn't every first round Western Conference winner fall behind 2-1? Yeah but that doesn't mean its any less of a viable point that the Sharks didn't exactly dominate the first round.

I wonder if Utah would have any use for any of Hinrich, Deng or Taj. Do you think it would be worth it to try to do a sign and trade like Hinrich and Taj Gibson + 2011 1st for sign and trade Boozer and Okur if all of the bigger names went elsewhere. Rose Shooter with MLE or remaining cap space. Deng Boozer/Okur Noah/Okur Actually now that I give this even a half second of thought I don't think Utah would do this, even if Boozer said he's not resigning and only wants to sign with the Bulls. But Hinrich and Okur's contracts even out mostly, Taj takes a little chunk off signing Boozer, so you have I don't know 5-6 million in capspace plus the MLE to get a shooting guard. All I know is that a lot of people commented on how well the Jazz were playing without Okur on the floor the last month of the season + playoffs, so he might be expendable and is sort of like a better version of Brad Miller. Edit: I don't make basketball trade proposals that often so take it easy on me :)

The problem is that midrange shooting is not an attribute to build around, it's the least efficient shot in basketball. Even as a good midrange shooter, Rose shooting from 18 feet is not as good as LeBron/Rose shooting from 5 feet, or someone like Mo Williams shooting a 3. That's the crux of what I was getting at. On his current team, LeBron gets past his man and the PG help chooses between him shooting a shot at close range(65%), or Mo Williams shooting a 3 at 40+%. Either way it's a 1.2+ PPS. Now when you have the choice between LeBron at close range and a kick to Rose(ignoring that you can close better to midrange than you can to 3) who's a 50%(probably generous, he's 41% on jumpers including threes) midrange shooter, now it's an easy shot, 1 PPS from outside the paint is what you take. Obviously, this is a simplification, there are other things at work. The other 3 players are very important, Rose's other strengths relative to Williams, etc. But the point is that LeBron + Rose isn't going to burn down the league like some might think by looking at them separately. I know I admitted as much in terms of efficency. Rose doesn't get to the line or hit enough 3's to make his shooting efficient at this point. That said, his FT rate went up as the season went on, and he started hitting a few 3 pointers towards the end of the season, enough where him draining one was a semi-regular occurance. What I meant from saying he's a good shooter is that he's very good at hitting at midrange jumper relative to the rest of the league, so its not a stretch to see that translate into an at least average 3 point threat. And Rose is going to learn to draw more contact and get more respect from the refs as his career progresses. If I heard people say he's not an efficient shooter at this point then I'd have to agree. But the post that caused me to write my OP was the one that talked about neither Rose nor LeBron being good shooters and more to the bucket players. Maybe whoever wrote that post (might have been yours) meant efficient with the word good, but I just saw people say that one too many times over the last couple of years and had to comment on it. FYI, last season Rose had 1.18PPS, but that includes October and November where he shot around 45%, whereas he shot around 50.5% the rest of the season and took more 3's and FTs. He was averaging around 4-4.5 FTA per game back in October and November, and closer to 5.5 FTA per game the later part of the season. Still nowhere near good enough but a promising improvement. Back to PPS, I read somewhere that 1.5 PPS is a number for an elite player reach for, is that right? LeBron averaged 1.48 PPG this season. Also, I'm aware PPS is not a great stat to use, but like WHIP its a basic relatable stat that's easy to calculate.

fixed I'm not saying it's not impressive to beat Detroit in 5 games, even if all 4 wins were by 1 goal. It just doesn't prove conclusively to me that they are playing great right now. Also, they definitely started to choke that series against Colorado. They didn't look particularly great in that series, falling behind 2-1 before winning their final 3 much like the Hawks, but I'd say Nashville was a stronger opponent than Colorado.

I think the Hawks also went 1-0-1 in San Jose last season, when the Sharks were equally as dominant at home.

Also, I hate seeing people saying that Rose is not a great shooter. I'm not saying he's dominant and he obviously has issues shooting 3 pointers (although he improved during the season), but statistically he was one of the top 3 mid range shooters in terms of accuracy last season. (I saw this on RealGM but don't have the source...probably 82games). Of course the mid range jumper is the least efficient shot in basketball, but when over half his shots come in this range and he shoots around 50% there, that's pretty decent. I'm not saying he's Ray Allen in his prime, but I'd say Rose is an above average shooter. Now if you are referring to shooter as someone who can catch and shoot, which you very likely might be, then I'd open it up for discussion, because he hasn't shown to be great in that scenario. Most of his shots come off the dribble, creating space as a result of his dangerous speed to the bucket. So when people say the Bulls need a shooter, most likely you mean someone Rose can kick out to and bury a bucket. I agree 100%. But when people say shooting is a weakness in Rose's game, I have to partially disagree with that assertion. I've seen way too many people this season saying that Rose is overrated because he can only get points going to the bucket, completely ignoring the numerous games where he just destroyed an opponent with lethal midrange shooting.

This is an interesting point that I think makes a lot of sense. Be kinda like the Pete Carroll situation in Seattle. A lot of former Calipari coached players around the league. And he has recruited a lot more. If no Lebron, worse case scenario, he does a sale job to other FAs and Derrick Rose gets to play for him again. -Marcus Camby -Derrick Rose -Chris Douglass-Roberts -Joey Dorsey -Tyreke Evans -Antonio Anderson -Earl Barron -Rodney Carney -Shawne Williams -DeJuan Wagner -John Wall -DeMarcus Cousins -Patrick Patterson -Daniel Orton -Eric Bledsoe Those are all the players currently in the NBA that played under him at UMass, Memphis, and Kentucky (kentucky players assumed to play in NBA next season). There are no more active NBA players that played under Cal in New Jersey. Of course that doesn't include players that were recruited by Cal over the years that have an association with him but didn't goto his school, players recruited to Memphis that stayed at Memphis when he left, players still on Kentucky's roster that might make the NBA (not really any though).

Yeah maybe Rose and LeBron together wouldn't be maximizing each's potential and talents 100%, but if they are both playing to 90% of their talents, that's still better than any other player pairing with Rose IMO. If you have a chance to get the best player in basketball, you get him. If there are significant issues with the 2, you get rid of one of them in 2 years. Besides it's not like you are signing Chris Paul to play with Rose.

Who would have thought 6 months that listening to some people named "World Wide Wes" and Sonny Vaccaro and hiring John Calipari as coach would make it very feasible for LeBron James to sign with the Bulls. All this stuff feels like I'm reading some weird fiction novel.

You're right. If LeBron calls, we'll make sure to tell him to [expletive] off. Either that or we'll sign and trade Rose for Bosh and sign LeBron.

This is only true depending on the type of team you have. The Hawks, who can score 5-6 goals a game could be ok without an elite goalie but the Canadiens for example, would have been gone in round one. It's more than that though. The Hawks have won games 2-0 and 3-2 (the score was actually 4-2 but the 4th goal was an EN) in the playoffs. In their wins over Vancouver they gave up 2,2,4,1 goals. Yes they've won a 7-4 game and a 5-3 game and a 5-4 game but they've won by shutting down the other team's scorers as well. No they aren't going to etch out a lot of 2-1 games but they've proven they can win when they aren't scoring 5 goals a night.

If you really think about it. Thinking of some great goalies of the 80's and beyond, how many have won a ton of Cups? Ron Hextall never won one, Belfour only won 1, Hasek only won after his best days were behind him with a great Detroit defense, Roy won 2 cups but none after 1993. I'm not saying you don't need good goaltending, but I think goaltending and the defense have to work in tandem to make a dominant unit. Dominant goaltending can mask a weaker defense, can win you regular season games when the intensity level isn't 100%, can keep your team alive in long playoff OTs when your defense is drained. But I think it's been proven quite a bit over the last decade that you can win with average goaltending if other areas are strong. But even if you are a dominant goaltender, if your defense sucks, you are going to give up some goals and look mortal. For example look at Brodeur this season. A more local example is Khabibulin. Coming off an amazing Stanley Cup, Khabi signs with the Hawks after the lockout and strugles behind a weak inexperienced defense (although I gotta say his first year was more than just a weak D. He was beyond awful). The move is widely panned as a bust. The Hawks defense improves from bad to pretty good in his last year hear and he has a "resurgence" and helps lead a really young team to the WCF and gets a pretty good contract in the offseason. Edit: I just looked up Brodeurs numbers this year and I guess I was wrong he didn't have a bad season statistically, I guess I just remember his Olympic and playoff performances.

Just thought it would be interesting to see who at this point (5/12/10) the general populace thinks that the Bulls will end up with in this offseason armed with spending money. Choose as many players as you honestly think the Bulls will end up with. Edit: I don't know why I thought Tony Parker was a FA this year. He's not so don't vote for him. *waits for his vote totals to go up*

Bingo!! I believe that's all were going to end up with, zero faith in Gar and Johnny. Actually, if you had zero faith in GarPax, you would expect them to not even get Joe Johnson, and have to pay some mid tier player tons of money to say that we got something. LBJ stays in CLE Wade stays in MIA Bosh signs with MIA Boozer sign and trade with HOU or DAL Johnson signs with NYK Lee goes to like CLE or stays with NYK Tony Parker signs with NYK (new rumor) Just a really not well thought out example, but there might be a point in the offseason where signing Joe Johnson would bring a sigh of relief.

A Sharks blog, Fear the Fin, has a detailed preview of the Sharks/Hawks series from a Sharks perspective. At some points he's pretty complimentary towards the Hawks, in other parts the writer does't seem to have as big of a grap on the Hawks as he pretends to. And I'm certainly not upset he picks the Sharks in 7. My two biggest gripes is that he mentions how inconsistent the Hawks are (beginning with the post-olympics mediocre stretch) even though they've really stepped it up lately and are playing well in non-stinker games, and also he said before this season the Hawks only had 2 playoff appearances in 19 years, when its more like 2 in 12. Nitpicking? maybe but whatever. http://www.fearthefin.com/2010/5/13/1469658/2010-nhl-playoff-preview-san-jose

Hawks over Sharks in 6. They split the first 4 and win 5 in SJ and 6 at home. Then Hawks over Mon/Phi/Bos in 5. I don't know if that's my prediction as much as reality based hope.