View Full Version : Anybody care to bitch about Bullard tonight?
Pass 1st, shoot 2nd
11-30-1999, 12:58 AM
I know he didn't have to guard SteveSmith, but Shareef Abdur-Rahim's a heavy, too. Air Bullard hit some key shots folks, and even dunked the ball once for Caveman.
11-30-1999, 12:59 AM
Who says white men can't jump!!!!!!
11-30-1999, 01:04 AM
Lets go ahead and trade Anderson and start Matt Bullard. Rudy t. is the only coach in the NBA who would play Bullard two whole fourth quarters and two overtimes in a row. Rudy T. loves guys who with no movment, who stand behind the three point line.
11-30-1999, 01:06 AM
Matt showed lots of guts tonight - hitting two big 3's. That was all guts.
I have to eat crow cus I'm one of the ones who say he shouldn't be in in the 4th quarter. Of course, with us so shorthanded that is not the case right now - he is a veteran and needs to be in there.
Go Stevie and Go Matt - the guts of Mario Elie lives again!
11-30-1999, 01:06 AM
They are actually married but Matt wanted to keep his maiden name.
11-30-1999, 01:07 AM
i'm as happy as anyone about bullard's double nickel, but if anderson was playing rahim (who had 9 points at the start of the 4th quarter, and ended w/ 23 (14, i assume against bullard?)) maybe 3 point heroics wouldn't be necessary?
regardless, it's a great win. who cares if they should have blown out vancouver... they learned how to play it cool, force an overtime and get the win.
11-30-1999, 01:09 AM
Damm you're hard to please booster !
Maybe we should trade Walt and start Bull.
11-30-1999, 01:12 AM
If Bull can hold his own against a guy like Abdur-Rahim, that IS a win. Go Air Bullard!
I wouldn't start Bull over Anderson, but he might be better right now that WW.
11-30-1999, 01:14 AM
You guys shouldn't be so hard on Matt. Both Rudy and Matt know what he's good for - a couple of three's when you need 'em. Rudy knows when to play him and when not to. You've gotta admit his threes the past couple of games couldn't be more timely...
Anyway, Matt doesn't mind sitting on the bench most of the time; he's content with the minutes he's getting (he's probably ecstatic the past couple of games). I think he's looking at a career in broadcasting...
11-30-1999, 01:21 AM
Dont get me wrong I am very excited about the Rockets getting a W, but seeing Bullard in there with Barkley so much makes me cringe. They (Charles and Matt) tend to play the same half court offense with Bullard parking behind the three point line, and its obvious Matt Bullard is a horrible defender. I mean is our small forward position so depleted that Matt Bullard is gonna be the main man at that position.
11-30-1999, 01:43 AM
DAMM, Bullard was in and played a key role in this win.Give Rudy a break !
BULLARD IS THE LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS.
11-30-1999, 03:02 AM
It seems that the Rockets are making the extra pass around the perimeter and giving the Rockets a lot of open 3's if we can hit them....like Bull things will get better
11-30-1999, 03:17 AM
Hey, open 3's are the best kind.
But it's not so much position as opportunity that's played a big part in the past couple of games.
Bullard is not really a position shooter, he's an opportunity shooter - owing to his relative lack of agility and lack of defensive prowess.
But when the opportunity arises... For example, when Rudy thinks that the opponents will doubleteam Francis or Dream (that's out for now), he may put Matt in on the SF defender. Hopefully, this will leave Matt open for a three or two...
Bullard's an opportunity shooter. Rudy knows what he can and cannot do, and that's why Matt's numbers are good relative to his minutes this season. He's an opportunistic 3-point shooter - nothing more, nothing less.
11-30-1999, 03:26 AM
Bullard was HOT, and I don't think anyone here can BITCH him this time. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif
... but we don't get any D from Air Bullard, did we? Rahim was like an animal at the end of the 4th, and that's why the Grizz came from behind and took the lead. Why didn't you Rudy play Anderson at the 4th? Not even 1 minute?
This is the one question that leaves us scratching our head.
.. but we won ... http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif
11-30-1999, 10:03 AM
Didn't see the game so I can't comment directly on Bull's performance. I will extend props to Bull -- look, I know this guy is an inexpensive role player who has hit some big shots for the Rockets over the years. Again, this isn't really about Bullard. It's more about the rocket tendency to say "we need a big three here" and make substitutions accordingly instead of saying "we need a big defensive stop here". This live and die by the three mentality is agonizing and painful to watch. I feel, in retrospect, the big three point shots during the championship years have rewritten history -- and our emphasis on team defense has shrunk as a result.
"Waiting for threes" is a passive approach to the game. Everyone stands around waiting for someone else to do the work. This kind of system wasted Pippen's defensive talents and is a waste of Anderson's as well.
"Anybody care to bitch about Bullard tonight?" I'll "bitch" about any decision to go with a "three point line-up" over a defensive line-up. Thanks for asking..
couldn't agree with you more Rocketbooster!!!!
[This message has been edited by kissofdeath (edited November 30, 1999).]
11-30-1999, 10:06 AM
You woke me up from the DREAM. Good point!!!
Thank you! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif
11-30-1999, 06:12 PM
Bullard hit some big shots, but I mean, how many other 6'10" guys cut inside then go right back to waiting outside the three point line. With Hakeem out, a guy that big needs an inside game.
Pass 1st, shoot 2nd
11-30-1999, 06:28 PM
Kiss of Death,
I don't see any thing you last posted in this thread as a personal attack. Nor should you take the "anybody care to bitch about Bullard tonight" remark as anything other than a happy remark made by a fan who's team just won.
You said, "I'll 'bitch'about any decision to go with a 'three point line-up' over a defensive line-up." Any decision? On it's face, that seems foolish. Offense is always needed-as is defense. And I'm sure you meant to say that that in close situations, you'd go with a defensive line-up over an offensive line-up. But to say it like you said it is asinine.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there weren't many problems with our defense last night. We had seven steals, nine blocks, and a 36-21 defensive rebounding edge. Sure I'd like to make the margin of victory higher, but your defensive line-up* can't score with consistency (high percentages, low PPGs), except for Francis and Mobley, and those two are prone to have low shooting percentages. Sure, offensive numbers would go up as time in the rotation goes up, but shooting percentages would likely take a dip as the shots fly. With our team, you can't have it both ways (offense and defense).
In all seriousness, who would you rather have take the shot with the game on the line- Shandon or Matt? I don't blame Rudy for doing as he did. Enjoy the victory!
*Our defensive line-up:
C: Dream/Cato (Cato starts while Dream is out) (.466/.463 FG%)
PF: Cato/Rogers (.463/.531 FG%)
SF: Anderson (.459 FG%)
SG: Mobley (.382 FG%)
PG: Francis (.425 FG%)
11-30-1999, 07:03 PM
Air Bullard has impressed me the past two games. He was pretty good in the game @ Portland. He *almost* sent the game into double OT. Close, but no cigar.
Sir Charles is DA MAN.
11-30-1999, 07:27 PM
Bullard's okay man. He's all that Rudy T is looking to use for a while. I just HATE to see Charles Barkley do those mid-air cross court passes...scare me soooo bad, that's a dangerous pass. Our guys need to space out more.
"Not NOW, Cato!!!"
-Kevin Calabro, Sonics Commentator
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.