There are a lot of qualities that make up a point guard. A point guard has more than a few jobs to do while on the court, and there are more than a few skills that a point guard should have.

Imagine a perfect NBA point guard. I took point guards from around the league and incorporated a strength from each one to create the perfect NBA point guard. These factors include speed, versatility, court vision, strength, ball handling, pure scoring, mid-range and three point shooting, defense and athleticism.

Lets see exactly which players this perfect point guard takes after. 

Begin Slideshow

We want it, and we want it now. That phrase could be said about the NBA season on a whole. It is also a true sentiment of many Bulls fans, drunk on the success of the 2010-2011 team. So close to the NBA Finals, most don't want to wait to fill the needs to take the next step.

Here is a thought many Bulls fans may roll their eyes and heads to the Bulls aren't likely to win the 2012 NBA championship.

Here is another, even bigger revelation: Derrick Rose, and one of the young big men (Joakim Noah or Omer Asik), are likely to be the only key contributors from last season who will still be a part of the organization, if and when it finally wins another title.

What about Luol Deng, Taj Gibson, Ronnie Brewer, hell, even Carlos Boozer?

Let us start with Deng: Gluol has been a very good player for the Chicago Bulls, especially the past two seasons. That said, it is clear, he has reached his ceiling. That isn't a terrible thing, as he is a top five or seven small forward in the NBA.

Deng is a nice role player, but he is paid like a player who should be much closer to Rose in the offensive pecking order. I think everyone knows he's the clear second choice, but everyone also knows, that is a very distant second.

Still, Deng has built a great reputation across the league. So, while I doubt he will ever be capable of truly stepping up in support of Rose in big games against elite talent, he has value. To take the next step, the Bulls need to move Deng in a package or alone for a significant piece. It must be a player who leaves no doubt about offensive support for Rose.

Taj Gibson is the most overrated Bull amongst many of the fan base in the last 10 to 15 years. He is a nice bench player that provides energy and good defense.

Those are nice qualities, but very replaceable, and certainly not enough to threaten to bench Boozer. Especially when you consider the Bulls Achilles' heel is offense, not defense.

Boozer is the only capable low-post threat on the team. Energy only gets you so much; you gotta have some talent to command a double. Gibson does not and never will. The Bulls would be wise to move him while his value is so high.

I'm skipping straight to Ronnie Brewer because none of the other shooting guards are even worth addressing in this regard. Brewer is a great defender with a great attitude and he could possibly remain in a reserved role.

Anyone who thinks he's a starting two guard for this Bulls team is delusional. Keeping Brewer or letting him go in free agency is a wise move to free up cap space.

Boozer is certainly the second best scorer on the team, but he doesn't fit in well with the team's identity. Boozer's lack of defensive intensity will always make him a bit of an outsider and a target for criticism.

Boozer is playing the way he always has: it was good enough to get the big contract, but now, the microscope is on him big time. This ain't Utah and that is a max contract, one he didn't deserve anyway.

He was a reflex signing, one the team made after they struck out on Miami's Big Three. The combination of his age, lack of athleticism and propensity for injury makes it a bad signing. 

He is the best low-post threat the team has, and while he's there, he should be fed the ball, but he puts a ceiling on the team. Boozer is a classic case of how production can be deceiving (see Elton Brand).

Finally, the young big men. Only one will be able to remain if the Bulls want to add to the trophy room. The prospects and trade value they could acquire is too great to resist parting with one of them.

If the Bulls were to trade Noah or Asik and procure a lottery pick in the 2012 Draft out of the deal, it could be huge.

In Noah's case, they would be cutting salary and he has enough value that a team projected for the lottery may go for the deal. Many believe Asik is a strong enough prospect to start anyway.

Though I'm not sold he'll ever be a double figures scorer, he could start on a team with a significant amount offensive talent.

Think about the projected class of wing players in the 2012 Draft. Jeremy Lamb of UConn, Austin Rivers of Duke, Brad Beal of Florida and Harrison Barnes of North Carolina. Barnes is listed as a SF, but he is versatile enough to play the SG.

Miami is going to get better, so coming close last year isn't necessarily an indication of how close the two will be this year. The Bulls should pursue Dwight Howard, but they can't count on landing him as they did with LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.

The Bulls have the two most important pieces, a superstar and a head coach, but the supporting cast is still being tweaked.

Read more Chicago Bulls news on BleacherReport.com

The icon is getting dissed by those who grew up worshiping him and probably had his poster on their bedroom wall, but Stephon Marbury calling out Michael Jordan is beyond belief.

What's behind the rage is Jordan's hard-line stance as the owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, wanting the league to go beyond the 50-50 split offered to 53-47 or more in the owner's favor.

Golden State Warriors rookie Klay Thompson called Jordan out, inferring that the "1996 Jordan would never have done this."

But that pales in comparison to Marbury and the swipe he took at "His Airness."

Quoting a column from Lacy J. Banks in the Chicago Sun-Times, Marbury said, "Michael 'Fake' Jordan is a sellout. He forgot the hole he came out of. He never was my idol; I just loved his game. When he earned his $30 million a season, nobody complained."

It is amusing that Marbury used the word "earned" because Michael Jordan actually earned every penny he ever made on the basketball court! Realistically, he was underpaid most of his career until he made over $30 million his last two years with the Chicago Bulls, and that still didn't compensate him fairly considering how much money he generated for his team and the league.

The United Center, home of the Chicago Bulls, should be called the Jordan Center, because he's the one who built it.

The Chicago Bulls were rock stars, and Jordan was the biggest star on the planet, yet he made far less money than Marbury did in his playing career, according to Basketball Reference.

Jordan earned $90,235,000 while Marbury stole $151,115,945 during his playing days. In fact, many of those days were spent away from his New York Knicks team late in his career, who paid him to stay away.

Marbury was a cancer in the locker room from the start. He was jealous of his teammate, Kevin Garnett, on the Minnesota Timberwolves, and forced a trade because he was envious of the money Garnett was making.

It was appropriate that he used the word "earned" while talking about Jordan. How many players today really earn their money?

They're calling Jordan out because now he is a rich, fat-cat owner, but he's risking his own coin with a small-market franchise that is hemorrhaging money.

NBA commissioner David Stern said NBA teams lost $370 million last year. 

Players only care about getting paid as much as they can, and they're saying Jordan has turned on them.

As Cuba Gooding Jr. said in the movie Jerry McGuire, "Show me the money."

Jordan was on the other side, but since he's crossed over to the dark side as the players like to think, they say he's changed, but that's not the case.

He's paying his hard-earned money to players that clearly don't deserve the salaries they're making and he knows that. Would the players of today be throwing out contracts like they're playing with Monopoly money if that money was coming out of their pocket?

If they had to pay the bills and some fringe journeyman asked for $40 million for five years, they would say, "Are you crazy? I'm not going to pay you that. You stink."

That's what they would say if it came out of their pocket, but since it doesn't, they don't care.

Jordan had integrity when he played. He practiced harder than any player in the game, and he honored his commitments.

When he was stuck in an under-market, long-term contract with the Bulls, he didn't gripe about it. Other teams like the Lakers and Celtics ripped up Magic Johnson and Larry Bird's contracts and gave them lucrative deals.

When he was asked about being underpaid, he would say that if Jerry Reinsdorf offered him more money, he would have taken it, but that he agreed to the contract and felt obligated to honor it.

Does that sound like something today's players would say?

Do you think Marbury would do that, or would he cry and demand a trade because Garnett signed a $126 million contract and he was only going to get $71 million?

We all know the answer to that. 

Jordan isn't a "sellout" like Marbury said he is, but Marbury is still a cancer, and there's no cure for that.

Read more Chicago Bulls news on BleacherReport.com

With the list of 45 legends being revealed for the "Legends Showcase" downloadable content for NBA: 2k12, there are some questions that should be answered. First, what should make a legend, and second, who is truly a legend? The following questions are helpful in determining a legend, but are not the only way. There are more factors than can be addressed by one article, but understandably, star players will often end up being remembered as legends more than role players.

Question 1: Was or is said player immediately associated with a team or a city?

This question is really in terms of opinions, but is still important nonetheless for determining a legend. For example, Michael Jordan is immediately associated with the Bulls, Larry Bird is immediately associated with the Celtics, and Magic Johnson is immediately associated with the Lakers.

Question 2: If said player never existed, would we have missed something meaningful? 

Again, this question relies on opinion, but it is still important. If Michael Jordan never existed, we would have missed one of the most athletic, talented, and competitive players of all time.

Question 3: Did said player in some way affect the way the game is played today?

This question really applies to the pioneers of the game, who cannot be accurately compared to the legends of today. Instead, their case for being a legend is through their contributions to the game today. Bob Cousy changed how dribbling was viewed, George Mikan began a trend of dominant big men, and Elgin Baylor introduced the vertical aspect of the game today.

Question 4: Would seeing said player in person affect you in some way?

I'm far too young to have seen some of the greatest players ever in person, but players like Jordan have a certain air around them. They seem to be larger than life, and that's what makes them endearing. 

Question 5: Does said player hold any records?

This question is based purely on the statistical portion of basketball. Given that stats are not everything, this question is not the most important, but it does help. John Stockton is still remembered for his records in assists and steal, while Bill Russell is remembered for his 11 rings. 

Question 6: Did said player have memorable moments?

This question really relies on what one considers "memorable." Michael Jordan had an entire mode built around his memorable moments in NBA 2k11. Enough said.

Question 7: Did they have a memorable nickname?

This is the least important, but still has an effect. Nicknames can help cement a players legacy, for example, His Airness perfectly describes Michael Jordan as the greatest player of all time, The Human Highlight Film describes Dominique Wilkin's athleticism perfectly, and Mr. Clutch definitely describes Jerry West. 

Using these questions, the only players that should be considered legendary are: George Mikan, Bob Cousy, Bob Pettit, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, John Havlicek, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Bill Walton, Magic Johnson, Doctor J, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Moses Malone, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, Run TMC as a whole, Dennis Rodman, Dan Majerle, Tim Duncan, Robert Horry (His success in the clutch actually passes enough questions for him to be a legend), Allen Iverson, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant.

I feel good about these 32 (technically 34) being considered legends. 

Guys who passed some of the questions, but not enough to be legends are: Manute Bol, Robert Parish, James Worthy, Yao Ming, Shawn Bradley(I'm guessing he holds a record for getting dunked on), Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Dikembe Mutumbo, Ben Wallace, Tom Chambers(although the Mark Jackson Dunk might just make him a borderline legend), Gheorge Muresan, Popeye Jones(unfortunately, this is based on his legendary ugliness), Paul Mokeski(Ditto), Clyde Drexler, and David Robinson.

Aside from Kobe, most active players today are not considered legends, but may one day become ones. 

Guys who may someday be considered legends: Jason Kidd (Who is a borderline legend, but only 37 steals away from being a solid legend), Steve Nash(Who needs to be in the top 5 all-time in assists to be a legend), LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobilli, Kevin Durant, Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose, and John Wall.

Read more Chicago Bulls news on BleacherReport.com