PDA

View Full Version : Runi = John Paxson



jcouts
07-25-2006, 07:41 PM
Starpower aside, in theory, John Paxson was paired with a shooting guard and small forward who could bring the ball up the court just as well as he could...of course, they were also two of the best help-side defenders in league history as well...

Pax was just as slow and even more undersized than Runi, and just as much of a defensive liability...but, without him, there's no way the Bulls make their initial run of championships.

When Jax is in the game, this most likely won't work, because Jax can't handle the ball that well. But, when Quis is in the game, he can play the Jordan/Pippen ballhandler role, as could James White if Runi went with the second unit.

So, we could in all actuality see a starting lineup along the lines of

Runi
Quis
Granger
Al
JO

with a second unit of
Tinsley
White
Jackson
Foster
Harrison


It could be interesting. If Al and JO are both playing the post and Quis is helping to bring the ball up the floor, that leaves Runi all the freedom he needs to fill a John Paxson type of role.

circlecitysportsfan
07-25-2006, 07:46 PM
Runi=Brooks Thompson or Scott Brooks, take your pick

ARTESTINMYHEART
07-25-2006, 07:52 PM
lol @ another silly Sarunas starting over Tinsley thread from the Saras fan-boys.

bulldog
07-25-2006, 07:56 PM
lol @ another silly Sarunas starting over Tinsley thread from the Saras fan-boys.

Make a point. Then we'll talk.

As far as the main idea of the thread, every player is only as effective as the players around him. Runi can be an extremeley valuable player if other players compensate for his weaknesses (handling ball pressure, defense) and allow him to play to his strengths (scoring, distributing, shot creation, controlling pace of the game).

Then again, that can be said of any player. Point is, NBA basketball is not fantasy basketball, it's not about finding 5 guys who can put up the best stats. You need to put a team together.

ARTESTINMYHEART
07-25-2006, 08:00 PM
Make a point. Then we'll talk.

As far as the main idea of the thread, every player is only as effective as the players around him. Runi can be an extremeley valuable player if other players compensate for his weaknesses (handling ball pressure, defense) and allow him to play to his strengths (scoring, distributing, shot creation, controlling pace of the game).

Then again, that can be said of any player. Point is, NBA basketball is not fantasy basketball, it's not about finding 5 guys who can put up the best stats. You need to put a team together.

Make a point? When I have made a point about the same exact topic of this thread on other threads? Then if I make a point it is repeating the same exact arguments thus being the same things being said over and over. Others have said the same thing I believe.

jcouts
07-25-2006, 08:19 PM
I couldn't give a rats @$$ whether he starts or goes with the second unit. I'm not that big of a Sarunas fan, but it appears we're keeping him, so something has to be done to make the best use of him with what he offers.

But, chemistry-wise, whether he's with the first or second unit, he's going to need at least Quis with him, and Jax in the opposite unit (because Jax can't handle the ball) to help him with the ballhandling duties. White isn't experienced enough to guarantee he'll be able to help Runi in the second unit by himself.

So, if he goes second unit, that just makes our starters

Tinsley
Jax
Granger
Al
JO

and the second unit
Runi
White
Quis
Foster
Harrison

To me, that sounds a little out of balance. I personally would rather have Tinsley and Jax coming in and providing a scoring punch off the bench and Runi playing with the first unit when his role won't be nearly as prominent as it would be with the second unit.

ARTESTINMYHEART
07-25-2006, 08:22 PM
I couldn't give a rats @$$ whether he starts or goes with the second unit. I'm not that big of a Sarunas fan, but it appears we're keeping him, so something has to be done to make the best use of him with what he offers.

But, chemistry-wise, whether he's with the first or second unit, he's going to need at least Quis with him, and Jax in the opposite unit (because Jax can't handle the ball) to help him with the ballhandling duties. White isn't experienced enough to guarantee he'll be able to help Runi in the second unit by himself.

So, if he goes second unit, that just makes our starters

Tinsley
Jax
Granger
Al
JO

and the second unit
Runi
White
Quis
Foster
Harrison

To me, that sounds a little out of balance. I personally would rather have Tinsley and Jax coming in and providing a scoring punch off the bench and Runi playing with the first unit when his role won't be nearly as prominent as it would be with the second unit.

Nice idea but you put your most talented players to start, and Tinsley is that. He will bring more opportunities in the open court for guys like Jermaine. Sarunas is going to have to deal with playing with Granger/Quis than the starting unit.

Nice opinions though :)

Naptown_Seth
07-26-2006, 12:38 AM
I couldn't give a rats @$$ whether he starts or goes with the second unit. I'm not that big of a Sarunas fan, but it appears we're keeping him, so something has to be done to make the best use of him with what he offers.

But, chemistry-wise, whether he's with the first or second unit, he's going to need at least Quis with him, and Jax in the opposite unit (because Jax can't handle the ball) to help him with the ballhandling duties. White isn't experienced enough to guarantee he'll be able to help Runi in the second unit by himself.

So, if he goes second unit, that just makes our starters

Tinsley
Jax
Granger
Al
JO

and the second unit
Runi
White
Quis
Foster
Harrison

To me, that sounds a little out of balance. I personally would rather have Tinsley and Jax coming in and providing a scoring punch off the bench and Runi playing with the first unit when his role won't be nearly as prominent as it would be with the second unit.
I don't think it is that out of balance. First of all, the most effective offensive PAIR last year was SarJas to Harrison. Their high pick was one of the most repeatable scoring plays the team had, and it seemed that only those 2 could run it. No other player did either part well if swapped into it (AJ really struggled to get the ball to Dave on that play, just couldn't do it).

It was Stockton/Malone repeatable, if only Dave could stay in longer. :(

Add to this White and Quis being moderate attack style scorers that could give great weakside help and I think you are actually on to something here.

Plus, while at times RC has done the 5 for 5 swap, there is no reason why 1-2 starters couldn't interact with the first 5 in various supplemental ways to keep the offense flowing.

The one tweek might be that Danny comes off the bench (so Foster starts), but that to finish games it would be DG/AL/JO and they would be getting the 30+, just like 03-04 but with Ron and Al on the bench.


This is also why I hated Cabbages whining about being a SG as well as his fanboys. It's a label, not a limit. You are on the court and will handle the ball to initiate plays, even if you can't bring it up. Bust a 3, drive and dish, PnR and STFU about your position label.

There is no "I" in "TEAM" and that includes "I am not a SG". Magic wasn't a center, but he still did the job when the Lakers needed it to win a title.

Robertmto
07-26-2006, 03:13 AM
It was Stockton/Malone repeatable

stopped reading right there

Ragnar
07-26-2006, 09:38 AM
Uh lets see Pax could shoot for one.

jcouts
07-26-2006, 12:14 PM
Uh lets see Pax could shoot for one.

because Phil Jackson was smart enough to know that's all Paxson could do...so, he made it his job to do just that.

Pax didn't do anything under Doug Collins.

grace
07-26-2006, 12:28 PM
Pax didn't do anything under Doug Collins.

Huh?

Doug Collins was the Bulls coach in '86, '87, and '88. Pax had 930 points in the first year.

http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/paxson_stats2_030414.pdf

Slick Pinkham
07-26-2006, 12:37 PM
0.499 FG% for a career, from the perimeter.

Saras is to Pax what Bruno Sundov is to Rik Smits.

LG33
07-26-2006, 09:15 PM
One question: Is Jasikevicius > Dan Dickau?

Robertmto
07-26-2006, 11:44 PM
One question: Is Jasikevicius > Dan Dickau?

no

LG33
07-26-2006, 11:47 PM
wow man, that's harsh

Robertmto
07-26-2006, 11:50 PM
wow man, that's harsh

and true

Naptown_Seth
07-26-2006, 11:55 PM
stopped reading right there
More like "didn't watch a single game last season in which those 2 played together".

I didn't call THEM Stockton/Malone, I compared their high pick and slip play repeatable for success at a comparable rate to the S/M PnR. It was. Pull game tapes on me if you'd like to show how much it failed vs ending in a score.

The problem was that in other areas both players made themselves liabilities that couldn't stay on the court together. That was the problem. They would come in and run this for 3 straight buckets and by then DH would be fouled out or Cabbages would have lost the ball in the backcourt and burned a couple of times on defense and that would be the end of that.

If you can't understand the difference in concepts then I don't know what to do for you. But spare me that holier than thou BS of "stopped reading right there". Out of respect to PD I'll stop short here other than to say that "SRRT" ranks right next to using "A.Period.Between.Each.Word" for dramatic pause as the two most overused net cliches going today.

They make QFT sound like a Fitzgerald passage.

Robertmto
07-27-2006, 12:00 AM
Harrison can't stay in a game long enough to run a play with repeatable success and Saras can't brign the ball up for himself to set up the play without Harrison setting a pick in the backcourt. So maybe they could run the PnR from 70 feet away from the bucket??