PDA

View Full Version : Was Derrick Rose a product of Thib's system?



nycericanguy
01-30-2014, 02:07 PM
Just looking at the success of the Bulls point guards under Thibs got me wondering. Was Rose really that great or more a product of Thib's system?

DJ Augustine was almost out of the league, now he's lighting it up in CHI averaging 16 & 6 in Jan and over 19 & 5 his last 5 games. And CHI is winning.

Nate Robinson, another guy who was almost out of the league had a great run in CHI, put up over 13 & 4 in just 25mpg, and 16.3/4.4 in the playoffs.

Rose is obviously much better than those guys, but am I crazy to think that if you put someone like say Jeremy Lin in CHI, he could put up the same numbers Rose did? Lin I think would be a 22 & 8 high efficiency player there.

A lot of people will point to CHI's 60 win season under Rose, but they had a much better, deeper team then too. They are winning now even without Deng.

72 Wins
01-30-2014, 02:31 PM
Thibs plays a role, but not as much as this thread suggests. You either have it, or you don't. With this theory... shouldn't Mike James be an all-star at this point? Look at the other guards... Teauge sucked and Hinrich's offensive numbers are quite pitiful.

nycericanguy
01-30-2014, 02:37 PM
Thibs plays a role, but not as much as this thread suggests. You either have it, or you don't. With this theory... shouldn't Mike James be an all-star at this point? Look at the other guards... Teauge sucked and Hinrich's offensive numbers are quite pitiful.

no, like i said, Rose is obviously much better than Nate or DJ, but those are two guys that were basically out of the league.

I'm wondering how an average/good PG would do... Like a Lin, or a Reggie Jackson/Bledsoe... seems like those guys could put up Rose type numbers and have similar success.

I mean you look at Rose, at one point he was regarded as a top 3-5 player... but really, I think a good PG could have the same type of success Rose had... without even really being a top 20 player even.

D-Leethal
01-30-2014, 02:39 PM
Yea come on guy its all relative. He obviously wasn't saying those guys are just as good as Rose. Its similar to Nash and D'Antoni - Nash was an all star under previous coaches but turned into an MVP under Mike D. Rose was probably an all star under any coach but MVP? Its a legit question if you ask me. Thibs seems to be able to plug in any PG and get them to maximize their potential similar to the way Mike D does.

Pierzynski4Prez
01-30-2014, 02:42 PM
Awesome sample sizes for DJ and Nate.

Thibs gets more out of his players than other coaches. He doesn't have an offensive system where guys a PG puts up great numbers, like old D'Antoni.

Blitzace137
01-30-2014, 02:43 PM
I think any one of those three guys could put up numbers like 19 and 7 but they wouldn't have the same effect as Rose.

Stunner
01-30-2014, 02:58 PM
Lmfaooo

Ezio
01-30-2014, 03:00 PM
Oh look another Rose isn't needed in Chicago thread for them to win but yet they are barely a .500 team in a weak East w/o him.

D-Leethal
01-30-2014, 03:04 PM
I think the title is a little misleading compared to what Rican was really asking.

Gibby23
01-30-2014, 03:04 PM
Nope. Rose isn't a product of the system, he would do even better in a George Karl or Mike D system.

The players you mentioned are not playing better because of the system, they are playing better because of increased playing time. Compare Nate last year to the 2 years in NY where he got over 25 min a game. Same player. Compare D.J. Augustin to the 2 years in CHA where he got 30 min a game. Same player.

abe_froman
01-30-2014, 03:22 PM
yes and no-rose was a highly regarded prospect and had a very good first couple years before thibs,was on that star track and all before thibs....but the offense philosophy was built for rose to shine ,so athletic pg play is optimized and most pgs that can fit that bill will look better in this system than they otherwise might have

JEDean89
01-30-2014, 03:32 PM
he was simply the results of what happens when a player and coach align perfectly. he would have been good anywhere but thibs was a great situation for him to come into.

nycericanguy
01-30-2014, 04:05 PM
I think the title is a little misleading compared to what Rican was really asking.

agreed but most ppl don't read and just want to write "lmao" all day.

Rose obviously would have been a very good player anywhere he went, but Thibs I think made people think he was a top 5 player.

Nash/D'antoni was the perfect example you gave... Nash was always good, but without D'antoni would he ever have been an MVP? I doubt it. Rose probably doesn't win that MVP without Thibs either.

As for the Bulls being .500 this year, well their roster is nowhere near as good as it was when Rose was healthy. Last year they won 45 games... replace Nate with with Lin for example, and add Asik & Korver to that team, and they win 55+ games last year IMO.

Shammyguy3
01-30-2014, 04:14 PM
I think people take offense to questions like these too easily. Was John Stockton & Karl Malone a product of Sloan's offense? Of course they were! All players are to differing degrees products of a coach's system. A coach builds a system around a star player. If that player wasn't a product of the system then that coach would be an idiot or the player would refuse to play that style of offense (for whatever reason).

Stockton/Malone, Nash/Stoudemire, Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Pau, and so on. All players that benefited from a system, whether it be the p&r/flex/triangle/etc.

Regarding Jeremy Lin - I could not see him averaging those numbers in the Bulls' system. He'd probably be around 18/7 on average to above average efficiency, nothing like Rose and his 25/8 and good efficiency (taking into account ts% usg% ORtg Ws/48 PER)

nycericanguy
01-30-2014, 04:19 PM
I think people take offense to questions like these too easily. Was John Stockton & Karl Malone a product of Sloan's offense? Of course they were! All players are to differing degrees products of a coach's system. A coach builds a system around a star player. If that player wasn't a product of the system then that coach would be an idiot or the player would refuse to play that style of offense (for whatever reason).

Stockton/Malone, Nash/Stoudemire, Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Pau, and so on. All players that benefited from a system, whether it be the p&r/flex/triangle/etc.

Regarding Jeremy Lin - I could not see him averaging those numbers in the Bulls' system. He'd probably be around 18/7 on average to above average efficiency, nothing like Rose and his 25/8 and good efficiency (taking into account ts% usg% ORtg Ws/48 PER)

agree for the most part, especialy your first line...lol

I think Lin would do better than 18 & 7 though, Nate averaged 19 & 6 PER 36 last year. Lin is similar to Rose in that he's that attacking PG that gets to the line a lot. Give him 38mpg in that system and I think he's a 20/8 guy easily. Rose only averaged 25ppg once and he took about 20 shots per game that year.

Bookey
01-30-2014, 04:29 PM
To answer this question, Derrick Rose is the Bulls system offensively, defensively Thibs helped him tremendously. Lin wouldn't put up anything close to these numbers, D.Rose's athleticism is all-time great for a point guard status. He would have excelled regardless of where he went, he's too much of an elite athlete.

nastynice
01-30-2014, 04:31 PM
"Was Derrick Rose a product of Thib's system?"

No, Rose was a product of his ridiculous speed and body control.

nycericanguy
01-30-2014, 04:48 PM
After watching DJ put up 19 & 5 this week and CHI playing so well without Deng or Rose, I actually thought this was an interesting topic...

but man I can see a lot of people really are butt hurt with this topic so mods can close if they want.

uptown0364
01-30-2014, 04:53 PM
Was Michael Jordan a product of Phil Jackson? I think every good player gets better with good coaching. Why do you think Duke players are drafted so often? It's not necessarily their athleticism.

MonroeFAN
01-30-2014, 05:19 PM
Both examples used in this topic (Nate and Augustin) have done this in other systems before. Not sure why they had trouble finding contracts (especially Augustin), they're not bad players. That kind of negates the point. I think I would take DJ over Lin tbh.

Stunner
01-30-2014, 05:38 PM
Noah is the real PG for Chicago not DJ

ManRam
01-30-2014, 05:41 PM
I don't think the evidence provided means anything.

Also, what is Thibs' offensive "system" exactly? I mean, if you're gonna say he's a product of it, you gotta explain what it is and why it lends itself to PGs thriving.

I've always maintained that Rose's individual offensive efforts received a bit too much credit for that/those team's success at the expense of the defense's credit, but his offensive skills are not flukish and would translate over perfectly to any other team. Sure, certain coaches can get more out of certain players by doing a certain thing, and obviously not every player is set up to succeed individually as every one else, but this seems like a flimsy way to discredit Rose's accomplishments offensively with the Bulls.

And your examples are kinda weak. Nate Rob wasn't any better last year than he had been at times with NYK or even the year before at Golden State. You know why he scored 16 points a game in the playoffs? Because he was getting almost 35 minutes a game. He wasn't any better then than he had been frequently in the past, he was just getting more burn because of injuries. His per 36 minute basic stats look quite similar this year to last, as well.

Augustin has had a nice year, but it's a tiny sample size. He had a bad 2012-13 season, for sure. Getting lots of minutes certainly is helping. At the very least, using him to discredit Rose, again, paves a pretty weak foundation to base your argument on.

Stunner
01-30-2014, 05:49 PM
Bulls just changed to another offensive scheme this year , more reaction so it's not that same as last years or the year before for that matter because Rose played. Rose and really Noah are the Bulls offensive , Thibs most impact is defensively and using his methods to get the most out of players. He's bizarro Mike D but he's better than him .

Stunner
01-30-2014, 05:51 PM
And to DJ Augustin's credit even in limited mins he played well . Indiana doesn't play a PG friendly system you can see that with George Hill and who knows what was happening in Toronto pre Rudy Gay , it's like he never fit in with that bunch . He has grown a little as a player since his Cha days .

KingstonHawke
01-30-2014, 05:58 PM
The system obvioulsy helps. He's got shooters on the wing, mobile big men that can hit 16 footers, and they play good enough team defense that he isn't worn out all the time. That system will give a boost to anyone's stats. But Nate and DJ were always players I liked. Augustin was a beast a Texas with KD. And Nate has always scored everywhere he got minutes going all the way back to his Knick days when him and Frye were looking like great prospects.

nycericanguy
01-30-2014, 06:18 PM
Looking at what DJ & Nate did on their rookie deals on horrible teams is kind of irrelevant.

Bad teams tend to give draft picks alot of playing time and allow them to make a lot of mistakes. They were both scoring on bad teams.

By the time Nate & DJ were off their rookie deals they were both having trouble finding contracts even for the vet minimum. Then they went to CHI and not only played well, but played well while WINNING.

So no I don't think are bad examples at all. Thibs resurrected both of them.

Stunner
01-30-2014, 06:56 PM
Looking at what DJ & Nate did on their rookie deals on horrible teams is kind of irrelevant.

Bad teams tend to give draft picks alot of playing time and allow them to make a lot of mistakes. They were both scoring on bad teams.

By the time Nate & DJ were off their rookie deals they were both having trouble finding contracts even for the vet minimum. Then they went to CHI and not only played well, but played well while WINNING.

So no I don't think are bad examples at all. Thibs resurrected both of them.


That's false , DJ signed with the Pacers after Cha and they don't really cater to PG's on their system . Lance leads the team in assist . Look at CJ Watson right now not doing anything at all in a back up role even Hill isn't having the impact he should , DJ got paid again too with the Raptors and was dropped be she's he didn't fit in and they had too many PG's to begin with . Nate didn't sign because of rumors of his attitude and height , even then every season he played he contributed offensively rather it was in Boston or Golden State . Robinson was looking for a pay day which he kind of got with the Nuggets.

NoahH
01-30-2014, 06:58 PM
Yeah i think alot of the time on PSD people automatically just reply to the thread title instead of reading the entire thread.

Chronz
01-30-2014, 07:10 PM
After watching DJ put up 19 & 5 this week and CHI playing so well without Deng or Rose, I actually thought this was an interesting topic...

but man I can see a lot of people really are butt hurt with this topic so mods can close if they want.

I dont have a problem with this topic but you really should separate defensive success from offensive contributions. They both matter when discussing wins, and its clear, OFFENSIVELY, the bulls are far from the team they are with Rose. They are a scrappy bunch, but if you are elite defensively, .500 shouldnt be too big of an obstacle.

Everyone should have known from the start that his "MVP" was strictly a narrative decision, but the masses fall in love with isolation heroes so they gave him too much credit, that much is certain. Doesn't mean Thibs created him, ANY coach could draw up simplistic flex sets and get the same out of Rose. What Thibs deserves credit for is revolutionizing modern defenses.

Chronz
01-30-2014, 07:12 PM
Looking at what DJ & Nate did on their rookie deals on horrible teams is kind of irrelevant.

Bad teams tend to give draft picks alot of playing time and allow them to make a lot of mistakes. They were both scoring on bad teams.

By the time Nate & DJ were off their rookie deals they were both having trouble finding contracts even for the vet minimum. Then they went to CHI and not only played well, but played well while WINNING.

So no I don't think are bad examples at all. Thibs resurrected both of them.

Im not seeing the point here, can you show us some numbers?

b@llhog24
01-30-2014, 07:15 PM
I don't think the evidence provided means anything.

Also, what is Thibs' offensive "system" exactly? I mean, if you're gonna say he's a product of it, you gotta explain what it is and why it lends itself to PGs thriving.

I've always maintained that Rose's individual offensive efforts received a bit too much credit for that/those team's success at the expense of the defense's credit, but his offensive skills are not flukish and would translate over perfectly to any other team. Sure, certain coaches can get more out of certain players by doing a certain thing, and obviously not every player is set up to succeed individually as every one else, but this seems like a flimsy way to discredit Rose's accomplishments offensively with the Bulls.

And your examples are kinda weak. Nate Rob wasn't any better last year than he had been at times with NYK or even the year before at Golden State. You know why he scored 16 points a game in the playoffs? Because he was getting almost 35 minutes a game. He wasn't any better then than he had been frequently in the past, he was just getting more burn because of injuries. His per 36 minute basic stats look quite similar this year to last, as well.

Augustin has had a nice year, but it's a tiny sample size. He had a bad 2012-13 season, for sure. Getting lots of minutes certainly is helping. At the very least, using him to discredit Rose, again, paves a pretty weak foundation to base your argument on.

+1.

Kyben36
01-30-2014, 07:39 PM
to Argue against you a bit here, Kirk Hinrich has also played under thibs, Have we had some success at PG, sure, but rose being a product is rediculous, people forget the type of load rose took because he has been out so long, he had doubles, getting guys open buckets, Nate never really had that, DJ hasnt had to deal with that,

i think that there are a few reasons that the bulls Pgs have succeded, Nate has allways been known as a scorer, and i think the bulls system does make him look better due to us running an offense, unlike some team in the nba he has played for like the Knicks. the team move the ball well and that made him look like a better overall player, thibs also camands defense or you dont play, making you look at least capable on the defensive end, hell, look at some of the players Thibs took and made OK defender, Korver, Boozer, robinson.

but no, i dont think that rose is a product of Thibs, but i could agree that his assist numbers are a bit higher than they might be on another team.

TheNumber37
01-30-2014, 11:34 PM
He doesnt run a pick and roll or drive and kick offense so.. No.

Mike d has a system that benefits one position, like svg

NBA_Starter
01-30-2014, 11:38 PM
I'd have to say no.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
01-30-2014, 11:39 PM
Defensively, Rose is definitely a product of Thibs. I wouldn't think so though on the offensive end. In the small sample sizes that are provided in the OP, Rose's numbers still look clearly superior to Augustin's and Robinson's.

Kashmir13579
01-30-2014, 11:42 PM
Derrick Rose's individual game and production isn't a product of anything other than Derrick Rose.. Its his perceived success and the MVP award that are products of Thibbs system.