So How Bout That Luol Deng!?!?!?

[Frank Breakfast Styleham]

So far so great. Luol's looking good. Had a monster game last night...hopefully he'll keep it up.

If the Bulls are below .500 at the deadline i still think we should package him along with Hinrich and Thomas...maybe some draft picks or something and get something special in return.

mlewinth wrote:

In all of our arguing about wheather or not Ben Gordon would of helped us the last 2 games, we lost sight of one very pleasent surprise this season....Luol Deng! Deng so far this season has been awesome on the court. Cutting like he used to, hitting jumpers, playing quality defense. I am definantly liking what I am seeing so far. I figured that Dengs shot would be off starting the season and it was in preseason. So far this season however, he is averaging 15+ pts on 50% shooting. Keep in mind, he played only 20 min against Boston and took only 8 shots. Beyond that he had 17 pts on 61% shooting vs San Antonio and 26 pts on 53% shooting against Miami. He has also been bitchin on the glass, avg 8.5 rebs in those 2 games.

Let me as you all this......is Luol Deng back!?

 

[??? ??????]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

No way in the world Skiles is an offensivley inept coach. We always talk about how if he were still here we would be scoring on 99% of all plays coming out of a timeout. There's not many coaches better, if any, at drawing up out of bounds plays than Skiles. Offensively inept...what is this garbage?

Scott Skiles coached teams have been:

99-00 Suns: 16th in Offense (Coached 62 games)
00-01 Suns: 22nd in Offense
01-02 Suns: 19th in Offense (Coached 51 games)
03-04 Bulls: 29th (out of 29) in Offense (Coached 66 games)
04-05 Bulls: 27th in Offense
05-06 Bulls: 23rd in Offense
06-07 Bulls: 21st in Offense
07-08 Bulls: 26th in Offense (Coached 23 games)
08-09 Bucks: 23rd in Offense
09-10 Bucks: 29th in Offense

If you take ou the 07-08 and 09-10 seasons, Scott Skile coached teams have been ranked an average of 22.5th best offensive team in the league.

So basically Skiles coached teams have been ranked 22.5 out of 29.5 offensively on average.

That means that on average, Skiles has had one of the bottom 25% offensive teams.

Facts:

-Has never had an offensive team in the top 50%
-Has had an offensive team that was in the bottom third of offense 75% of the time.
-Has had an offensive team in the bottom 25% of the league, 50% of the time.
-Has had an offensive team in the bottom 10% of the league, 25% of the time.
-Has had the worst offensive team in the league once.

Scott Skiles is a pretty bad offensive coach. He's coached great offensive talents like Jason Kidd, Ben Gordon, and Michael Redd. It's hard to blame the players, when we have seen the same bad offense with Skiles, team after team.

 

[houheffna]

Scott Skiles coached teams have been:

99-00 Suns: 16th in Offense (Coached 62 games)
00-01 Suns: 22nd in Offense
01-02 Suns: 19th in Offense (Coached 51 games)
03-04 Bulls: 29th (out of 29) in Offense (Coached 66 games)
04-05 Bulls: 27th in Offense
05-06 Bulls: 23rd in Offense
06-07 Bulls: 21st in Offense
07-08 Bulls: 26th in Offense (Coached 23 games)
08-09 Bucks: 23rd in Offense
09-10 Bucks: 29th in Offense

If you take ou the 07-08 and 09-10 seasons, Scott Skile coached teams have been ranked an average of 22.5th best offensive team in the league.

So basically Skiles coached teams have been ranked 22.5 out of 29.5 offensively on average.

That means that on average, Skiles has had one of the bottom 25% offensive teams.

Facts:

-Has never had an offensive team in the top 50%
-Has had an offensive team that was in the bottom third of offense 75% of the time.
-Has had an offensive team in the bottom 25% of the league, 50% of the time.
-Has had an offensive team in the bottom 10% of the league, 25% of the time.
-Has had the worst offensive team in the league once.

Scott Skiles is a pretty bad offensive coach. He's coached great offensive talents like Jason Kidd, Ben Gordon, and Michael Redd. It's hard to blame the players, when we have seen the same bad offense with Skiles, team after team.

Well he is an excellent defensive coach no doubt but lets examine this a little further.

The fact that you put "great" offensive talents and then named Ben Gordon and Michael Redd are beyond me...but you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing great about those two offensively...sorry.

Jason Kidd was an excellent franchise pg...but he did not have a premiere scorer on those Suns teams...Kidd was the best player he has ever coached, for those couple of years, the main scorers were over the hill players like Cliff Robinson and Anfernee Hardaway.

On the Bulls, he made the best of a mediocre situation. He had no great talent on those teams, he made them what they were a jump shooting team that could play hardcore defense. Phil Jackson couldn't have done any better with that talent. The offense was inept and that was NOT Skiles fault. It wasn't his fault that he didn't have an allstar player on those teams at all...

And the Bucks? Michael Redd played 30 games last year and his number one option after that? Richard Jefferson, who is not used to that role at all. Charlie V. is well...Redd missed 30 games...

Once again, he didn't have a premiere offensive player on any of those teams. The best player he had was Jason Kidd...then Marbury, Marion, and Redd. None of those are offensive superstars...they are good, but not great. Kidd was the closest to a franchise player, no one else is really close, though Redd is paid like one. So until he gets to coach players who can actually play offensively at the highest level, I would reserve comment on his ability to coach offense and say that he is one of the most creative and intelligent coaches in the game today.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Scott Skiles coached teams have been:

99-00 Suns: 16th in Offense (Coached 62 games)
00-01 Suns: 22nd in Offense
01-02 Suns: 19th in Offense (Coached 51 games)
03-04 Bulls: 29th (out of 29) in Offense (Coached 66 games)
04-05 Bulls: 27th in Offense
05-06 Bulls: 23rd in Offense
06-07 Bulls: 21st in Offense
07-08 Bulls: 26th in Offense (Coached 23 games)
08-09 Bucks: 23rd in Offense
09-10 Bucks: 29th in Offense

If you take ou the 07-08 and 09-10 seasons, Scott Skile coached teams have been ranked an average of 22.5th best offensive team in the league.

So basically Skiles coached teams have been ranked 22.5 out of 29.5 offensively on average.

That means that on average, Skiles has had one of the bottom 25% offensive teams.

Facts:

-Has never had an offensive team in the top 50%
-Has had an offensive team that was in the bottom third of offense 75% of the time.
-Has had an offensive team in the bottom 25% of the league, 50% of the time.
-Has had an offensive team in the bottom 10% of the league, 25% of the time.
-Has had the worst offensive team in the league once.

Scott Skiles is a pretty bad offensive coach. He's coached great offensive talents like Jason Kidd, Ben Gordon, and Michael Redd. It's hard to blame the players, when we have seen the same bad offense with Skiles, team after team.

Well he is an excellent defensive coach no doubt but lets examine this a little further.

The fact that you put "great" offensive talents and then named Ben Gordon and Michael Redd are beyond me...but you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing great about those two offensively...sorry.

Jason Kidd was an excellent franchise pg...but he did not have a premiere scorer on those Suns teams...Kidd was the best player he has ever coached, for those couple of years, the main scorers were over the hill players like Cliff Robinson and Anfernee Hardaway.

On the Bulls, he made the best of a mediocre situation. He had no great talent on those teams, he made them what they were a jump shooting team that could play hardcore defense. Phil Jackson couldn't have done any better with that talent. The offense was inept and that was NOT Skiles fault. It wasn't his fault that he didn't have an allstar player on those teams at all...

And the Bucks? Michael Redd played 30 games last year and his number one option after that? Richard Jefferson, who is not used to that role at all. Charlie V. is well...Redd missed 30 games...

Once again, he didn't have a premiere offensive player on any of those teams. The best player he had was Jason Kidd...then Marbury, Marion, and Redd. None of those are offensive superstars...they are good, but not great. Kidd was the closest to a franchise player, no one else is really close, though Redd is paid like one. So until he gets to coach players who can actually play offensively at the highest level, I would reserve comment on his ability to coach offense and say that he is one of the most creative and intelligent coaches in the game today.

Hou, your missing the point. It doesn't matter if he had the dream team or five dragon tarlacs. Look at Dan Tony and Nelson now. They have a bunch of scrubs and they are still very good offensive coaches. Despite having utter crap for talent, they still are ranked high offensively. Who does Dan tony have that was ever anyoneelses number 1,2 or 3 option? We all cringed when Duhon and Hughes shot, AL Harringtons ok but he can't create for himself, David Lee is a garbage man out there, Wilson Chandler is hot garbage, Nate is decent but certainly not a starter, Ginilari is coming along but he was hot garbage last year.

 

[houheffna]

D'antoni is an offensive coordinator, not a coach.

That is a gimmicky offense, that runs up and down and chucks shots up 5 seconds into the shot clock, they don't run offensive sets...that is the basketball version of the run and shoot. So if he coaches the Bulls in 07 they win more games? I don't think so, they would have been a lottery team.

You are missing my point, no matter what offense you run...its about talent.

Why isn't New York contending like Phoenix was at one time? Talent!

Duhon aint Nash and Lee aint Stoudamire. So lets not act like D'Antoni is some miracle worker. That ain't the case. The Knicks are 1-4 this year...

And just scored 89 points running that "chuck and duck" offense...against Indiana...

Give Skiles that Phoenix team, he makes them a contender and maybe a championship team. The only thing is he can't be there more than five years because he wears himself out.

Give D'Antoni the Bulls from 2007 and you got "hot garbage".

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

D'antoni is an offensive coordinator, not a coach.

That is a gimmicky offense, that runs up and down and chucks shots up 5 seconds into the shot clock, they don't run offensive sets...that is the basketball version of the run and shoot. So if he coaches the Bulls in 07 they win more games? I don't think so, they would have been a lottery team.

You are missing my point, no matter what offense you run...its about talent.

Why isn't New York contending like Phoenix was at one time? Talent!

Duhon aint Nash and Lee aint Stoudamire. So lets not act like D'Antoni is some miracle worker. That ain't the case. The Knicks are 1-4 this year...

And just scored 89 points running that "chuck and duck" offense...against Indiana...

Give Skiles that Phoenix team, he makes them a contender and maybe a championship team. The only thing is he can't be there more than five years because he wears himself out.

Give D'Antoni the Bulls from 2007 and you got "hot garbage".

Thats not the point. You said that Skilies never had any good offensive players and I have given you a couple of offensive coaches that have crap talent and still are good offensively. It doesn't matter if they have one guy moon the other 5 as a distraction for a gimmick. If it works, it works and more and more teams are moving toward it. If its such a terrible gimmick why was it effective in GS and Phoenix? Why is it easy to stop? Depsite crap talent, it gives their team a shot in any particular game.

 

[houheffna]

It doesn't work because they don't win! Pushing them as examples over Phil Jackson or Pat Riley? No, neither Jackson or Riley had gimmick offenses, they had superior talent and knew what to do with it...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

It doesn't work because they don't win! Pushing them as examples over Phil Jackson or Pat Riley? No, neither Jackson or Riley had gimmick offenses, they had superior talent and knew what to do with it...

no one is comparing any of them to phil jackson or pat riley. trust me, Scott Skilies is more than superior talent away from being one of the best coaches in history. The point that was being addressed was can you have a above average offense with crap talent and the answer is yes. Nothing was stopping Skiles from using a gimmick offense with his good defense. In fact the main thing that drives a dan tony or nelson offense is forcing turnovers so he could have potentially had more success with it. That offense also isn't designed to win rings, its mainly designed to hide weaknesses, something the non title bulls teams under skilies had plenty of. I think Dan Tony could have come in here and done wonders with Rose, BG and Noah. Those three guys would benefit the most from that style of play and were our best players. Instead we chose to play to their weaknesses.

 

[houheffna]

The Bulls scored what 102 points per game? Their offense was not the problem last year. I would rather have had Avery Johnson personally. He was a point guard and he is defensive minded. That is what wins championships. I just don't see the ineptitude offensively in Skiles coaching...by the way going according to offensive rating, which was the principal stat used for the argument against Skiles, D'Antoni's team had a worse rating than the Bulls.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

The Bulls scored what 102 points per game? Their offense was not the problem last year. I would rather have had Avery Johnson personally. He was a point guard and he is defensive minded. That is what wins championships. I just don't see the ineptitude offensively in Skiles coaching...by the way going according to offensive rating, which was the principal stat used for the argument against Skiles, D'Antoni's team had a worse rating than the Bulls.

I would have rather had Dan Tony for a few years. This team is far from a championship and I think it would have done absolute wonders for Rose and Noah. Rose is way to timid but Dan Tony would have forced him to create the offense and control the game. With our offense right now, I think we are stunting his growth. Noah also would have thrived even more in a open game and wouldn't have had his lack of strength picked apart but had his mobility and conditioning as an assest. I just don't think we really played to our strength. Deng also would have been great because Dan Tony would have made him develop a 3pt shot and played him at the 4. BG and Salmon's range would have really spread the floor.

Of course we had a higher rating, we played a poor mans version of their offense with much better players. Dan Tony had a much better rating in Phoenix too of course he had nash and stat.

Skilies was pretty bad offensively, the only ones who played to their peak under him were Kirk and Deng. He had a system that really worked for Deng and tried to get him going. Every other player played better offensively elsewhere. I mean really, when you are bringing in Othella Harrington for offense, something is really wrong.

 

[houheffna]

I think you are being way too hard on Skiles. Way too hard. The idea of Rose being Nash is titillating, but no one has won with D'Antoni's style, he came close but it hasn't happened. That team would not be successful. D'Antoni looked good not just because of Nash, but because of Stoudamire also. We have nothing close to that guy. Hinrich is not on Nash's level, I don't think he would have been if D'Antoni coached him either. I believe the Bulls maximized what they had. He made that team a top defensive team in the league season after season. Offensively, they could only shoot jumpers.

Skiles had Deng shooting threes, he was horrible, so Skiles told him to work on the 18 foot jumpers and shots in that range. Now the Deng we saw last night was a beast, no one saw that coming. But Skiles is an excellent coach, I still believe that if the Bulls had Skiles, they would have beaten the Celtics in the postseason.

 

[pinkizdead]

nash and stoudemire were benefited by d'antoni. do you really believe that d'antoni wasn't responsible for the suns' success?

 

[kukoc4ever]

Deng is looking good.

Very active against the lowly bucks and he's hitting his shots.

Nice. No longer a stiff it looks like.

He'll always be "overpaid" until he's playing at an all-star level for entire seasons. But if he can at least be productive the contract won't be a total waste.

Perhaps if he keeps it up we can trade him in a package for a real impact player.

 

[houheffna]

nash and stoudemire were benefited by d'antoni. do you really believe that d'antoni wasn't responsible for the suns' success?

Nash yes, Stoudamire, not as much...I believe he would have been a beast regardless.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

nash and stoudemire were benefited by d'antoni. do you really believe that d'antoni wasn't responsible for the suns' success?

Nash yes, Stoudamire, not as much...I believe he would have been a beast regardless.

Of course he would have been good but I don't think he could have put up 25 or 26 ppg in his great years and had his rebounding and defensive deficiencies hidden so well. Thats what got him to top 10 status those years. We just haven't seen him anywhere else but I would say his numbers would look like boshs if he didn't play in phoenix.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I think you are being way too hard on Skiles. Way too hard. The idea of Rose being Nash is titillating, but no one has won with D'Antoni's style, he came close but it hasn't happened. That team would not be successful. D'Antoni looked good not just because of Nash, but because of Stoudamire also. We have nothing close to that guy. Hinrich is not on Nash's level, I don't think he would have been if D'Antoni coached him either. I believe the Bulls maximized what they had. He made that team a top defensive team in the league season after season. Offensively, they could only shoot jumpers.

Skiles had Deng shooting threes, he was horrible, so Skiles told him to work on the 18 foot jumpers and shots in that range. Now the Deng we saw last night was a beast, no one saw that coming. But Skiles is an excellent coach, I still believe that if the Bulls had Skiles, they would have beaten the Celtics in the postseason.

No one has won in Skilies fashion and Dan Tony sure as hell had a lot more results than scotty. So I don't think I am being too hard on him at all. I respected what he did here but he is clearly a rebuilding coach and works best with old vets and college kids. There is a reason he barely got out of the first round. And its not about making Rose into Nash but making Rose control the game and create for others. To force a far too timid player into having to take over. I think that would definitely jump start roses development. Don't you think combining a top defensive team with a successful offensive gimmick might have helped hide their deficiencies? If all they could do is shoot jumpers that would have helped. If Duhon can run the offense, I am sure Rose and Kirk could have.

Where did you hear that? You are wrong, Skilies forbid Deng from taking threes after his second year. He told him to forget about it and develop the 20ft jump shoot. Thats why after his second year deng has taken a total of 49 3pta in the following three years. He didn't encourage him to develop and improve his 3 pt ability at all. Certainly, its not impossible that if he focused on it he couldn't become a 35+% 3pt shooter like he has been in the last couple of years.

 

[houheffna]

If Deng was chucking up threes at such a low rate, Skiles okayed that...believe me, otherwise it would have stopped. What do you think this team was talented enough to do, where do you think the Bulls would have finished under D'Antoni? Remember, that 07 Bulls team was not nearly as talented as those Suns teams. But you tell me? Were they good enough to go to the ECF? The Finals? I think they overachieved. I think Skiles got all he could out of them and knew it. I think he made some mistakes, but overall I believe he is a good coach.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

If Deng was chucking up threes at such a low rate, Skiles okayed that...believe me, otherwise it would have stopped. What do you think this team was talented enough to do, where do you think the Bulls would have finished under D'Antoni? Remember, that 07 Bulls team was not nearly as talented as those Suns teams. But you tell me? Were they good enough to go to the ECF? The Finals? I think they overachieved. I think Skiles got all he could out of them and knew it. I think he made some mistakes, but overall I believe he is a good coach.

Deng was a terrible 3pt shooter in his first couple of years but instead of encouraging him to practice, develop and slowly add it to his game, he forbid it and made his game much more limited.

I think you missed my point, I think Skilies was a fine couch. His main mistake that led to his downfall was mire of an organizational fault because they made him kiss BWs ass. that lost him respect and led to his downfall. I had no major problems outside of the whole making bg a 6th man in and out of the starting lineup, not letting deng develop a three,the whole bw incident and for not running a little more free flowing offense.

I wanted Dan Tony to replace boylan. We didn't have a shot at him before anyway but I think he really would have helped legitimize this team and attract 2010 free agents. He like skilies is not a championship coach but he would have been a great influence in developing rose and would have been a great intermediate coach till we got to the next level. I think he could have done so much for Rose, Deng, TT and Noah. He just has had so much success with those types. Add in Miller and Salmons and I think they would have been able to have been better. Most importantly, Dan Tony's offense wouldn't have these hang ups that we have had this season.

 

[houheffna]

we will see how many FAs D'Antoni attracts next summer...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

we will see how many FAs D'Antoni attracts next summer...

Its different though. They have no talent on their squad, while Miami will be the favorite to land Fa's. But if Rose would have developed into a nash type, we would be guaranteed a star. But I think the knicks will get some second tier talent, I can see them landing Amare and JJ and becoming a decent team.