# Kirk is and always will be...



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

The better player than Jamal Crawford. There was a time when I thought that Crawford was the better player but Kirk the better PG hence the need for Crawford to try and play SG alongside him. Crawford has proven me wrong. He has proven that Kirk is not only the better PG but a much better player now and will continue to be because of his drive and hard work. People seem to forget that Kirk is young himself and he will continue to improve. Main goal for this summer is to get a REAL SG alongside Kirk. Pierce is my dream. That would be the best backcourt in the NBA.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Straight from Skiles himself:




> On Hinrich:
> 
> “We fall of significantly when Hinrich is off the floor. That’s just the way it’s been.”


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Here we go.

I think this is irrelevant. They both play on the same team. They're teammates. All that matter is we suck as a team.

I hope Hinrich can became a great player.

I hope Crawford can become a great player.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

Jamal Crawford sucks! He is a nut case! With so many chances for him from Bulls, he proved nothing. He is useless as PG and useless as SG. Period. If someone is happy with Crawfords one good game per 10 then I don’t know what to say…Anyway, Kirk is our future and only he should be “untouchable”.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

:laugh:


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

You guys laugh all you want. Crawford is nothing more than a tall Tony Delk. Utility guard off the bench. That is what his career will amount to.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

When I read the thread title, I thought the only words in the post were going to be "my boo."


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> When I read the thread title, I thought the only words in the post were going to be "my boo."


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> When I read the thread title, I thought the only words in the post were going to be "my boo."



:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Excuse me for stepping on the toes of these Crawford lovers. I guess you are not interested in a serious discussion. We have talked a lot about contracts in relation to JC and how much he is worth. Well call me crazy but Kirk in less than one year has earned more money than JC in nearly 4 years has. That is the truth.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Excuse me for stepping on the toes of these Crawford lovers. I guess you are not interested in a serious discussion. We have talked a lot about contracts in relation to JC and how much he is worth. Well call me crazy but Kirk in less than one year has earned more money than JC in nearly 4 years has. That is the truth.


serious discussion? laughable


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Excuse me for stepping on the toes of these Crawford lovers. I guess you are not interested in a *serious discussion*. We have talked a lot about contracts in relation to JC and how much he is worth. Well call me crazy but Kirk in less than one year has earned more money than JC in nearly 4 years has. That is the truth.


:laugh: uh, no offense but you can't be serious. PC Load letter nailed this one. too funny. 

ah, wither GB.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Excuse me for stepping on the toes of these Crawford lovers. I guess you are not interested in a serious discussion. We have talked a lot about contracts in relation to JC and how much he is worth. Well call me crazy but Kirk in less than one year has earned more money than JC in nearly 4 years has. That is the truth.


I don't think you have ever been interested in serious discussion, just in promoting Kirk Hinrich. You should be his publicist. Kirk is a good player and he has really impressed me. But thats no reason to make Jamal into a red headed step child, he is a very talented player no matter how many jabs you take at him. And I'm not susprised Kirk is further along than Jamal, amazing what being a coaches son and competing in organized basketball from a young age, not to mention playing 4 years at Kansas can do for your game. Jamal started playing organized basketball high school playing his last two years. But I supposse it's convenient to ignore that.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Bullhawk...I mean nor disrepect and lord knows we all want opinions on this board but I have a question or two that I need answered. 

1. How many times have you said this now? Hinrich is better or Hinrich vs. Crawford...What is the point? To me, both play guard. Different positions. So what does it matter who is better? What matters is wins and losses with both of them as our guards. Right now, it aint working as far as wins are concerned. 

2. What if I was to say that Curry is and always will be better than Hinrich(realize I Kirk), but what possible motive do I have in saying that statement? What is point of me saying that statement? 

Again, no disrepect from me is intended, but what serious discussion are you talking about here? Jamal is our SG and Kirk is our PG. They are not fighting for the same spot as far as I am concerned. 

Maybe I am not seeing something.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

You know what this damn kid is TIRED...

What does he contribute to the board except to start Kirk is better than JC threads?

It's clear you're a KH fan and not a Bulls fan...

The best thing you've done here was leave that one time...

Grow the hell up kid


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Again, no disrepect from me is intended, but what serious discussion are you talking about here? Jamal is our SG and Kirk is our PG. They are not fighting for the same spot as far as I am concerned.
> 
> Maybe I am not seeing something.


There are some posters here who would love to see Jamal back to the PG position. They are using this every time when they talk about Crawford (“…he is much better player at PG position…”).


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> There are some posters here who would love to see Jamal back to the PG position. They are using this every time when they talk about Crawford (“…he is much better player at PG position…”).


:laugh:  :uhoh:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Bullhawk, do you ever listen to what other people are saying?

Even the folks who for the most part agree with you are telling you to grow up so that we can have a serious discussion. I have never seen anyone on any message board anywhere called out as often as you are by people _who agree with you._


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> There are some posters here who would love to see Jamal back to the PG position. They are using this every time when they talk about Crawford (“…he is much better player at PG position…”).



well yeah, and bullhawk isn't one of them. he has his own transparent agenda. 

"my boo" :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Bullhawk, do you ever listen to what other people are saying?
> 
> Even the folks who for the most part agree with you are telling you to grow up so that we can have a serious discussion. I have never seen anyone on any message board anywhere called out as often as you are by people _who agree with you._


Yet you guys continue to let him do it...

This is all he posts about...

Is that making any contribution to the board?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet you guys continue to let him do it...
> ...


We just did, don't you think? We talked to him. Sometimes that is all that is needed.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Bottom line is it's a free board and he can post whatever he wants as long as it meets the guidlines we have established. Comparing Kirk & Jamal is a fair thing to do, it has just been done ad nauseam. The bottom line is they both are gifted players that have their own strengths and weaknesses.

What I really take exception to is why people have to hate Jamal to like Kirk, or vice versa. This is a TEAM and these are TEAMATES. I hope they both do well myself. Of course, everytime Jamal has a couple of bad games Bullhawk is right there to rub it in everyones face. And when Jamal had a really good stretch all the sudden Bullhawk was backing off of Kirk and saying good things about Jamal. Doesn't take much for him to do a 180.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> You know what this damn kid is TIRED...
> 
> What does he contribute to the board except to start Kirk is better than JC threads?
> ...


Yes arenas809, I forgot that you are the brightest one and your contribution to the board is amazing... Who are you to question BullHawk? Do you have any professional (basketball connected) experience at all? Probably not! You are just an "ordinary" member as Bullhawk is, so you have no right to tell him “shut up” or “grow the hell up”…


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet you guys continue to let him do it...
> ...


To his credit, his threads usually generate alot of discussion and activity.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

yada, yada, yada. 

The only thing more tired on this board than longing for Brand(which btw I am guilty) is the constant comparisions/tearing down of the Bulls back court.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Since everyone wants to know my point. Here goes. Kirk is our PG and JC is our SG. Bottomline this is the case. With our record as lousy as it is we have to evaluate everyone. Throwing excuses and whatever aside is it not safe to say that Kirk is doing a MUCH better job at PG than Crawford is at SG? When Paxson decides what to do with Crawford and whether to match a contract offer for him he has to look at what Crawford brings to the table at SG. Point blank. And IMO Kirk will always be a better player at PG than Crawford will be at SG. Hence I think we let Crawford walk and bring in someone who can play SG as well as Kirk can play PG. This would be a step in the right direction for this team.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Since everyone wants to know my point. Here goes. Kirk is our PG and JC is our SG. Bottomline this is the case. With our record as lousy as it is we have to evaluate everyone. Throwing excuses and whatever aside is it not safe to say that Kirk is doing a MUCH better job at PG than Crawford is at SG? When Paxson decides what to do with Crawford and whether to match a contract offer for him he has to look at what Crawford brings to the table at SG. Point blank. And IMO Kirk will always be a better player at PG than Crawford will be at SG. Hence I think we let Crawford walk and bring in someone who can play SG as well as Kirk can play PG. This would be a step in the right direction for this team.


Bold statement. You're suggesting that we let Crawford walk for absolutely nothing in return? Already it's looking like we're letting Fizer walk for nothing. By doing so, we make that draft an absolute waste with nothing to show for it. IMO, letting Crawford and Fizer go for nothing is up there with losing JWill; it will set this franchise back yet another step.

Of course sometimes to stop the bleeding you need to sever the limb, so who am I to say anything.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes arenas809, I forgot that you are the brightest one and your contribution to the board is amazing... Who are you to question BullHawk? Do you have any professional (basketball connected) experience at all? Probably not! You are just an "ordinary" member as Bullhawk is, so you have no right to tell him “shut up” or “grow the hell up”…


Just as he has no right to do that, you don't seem to have much right to insult his intelligence or contributions to the board.

Look, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. If you guys all "know" what Bullhawk is all about, then why do you keep getting in big arguments about it. He has a right to an opinion, and it's not going to be stamped on because it's an unpopular one. 

Since his opinion is unlikely to change and since we aren't going to censor it, all of the "you're stupid" and "make him shut up" stuff is pretty uncalled for. Just let it go... you'll be happier for it and the board won't get bogged down in this kind of petty personalizing of disagreements.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Spook to answer your question yes I do think we let JC walk for nothing in addition to Fizer. Yes it is giving up on that entire draft but we have to IMO. As for other moves if no Okafor in the draft then I want the pick traded. Bottomline he is the only guy from that draft I want. Lets say for instance we don't get him. I then want Chandler along with our pick traded for Mike Dunleavy Jr ,Troy Murphy, and the Golden State first round pick. Use it on Andre Iguodala. Sign Macijauskas this summer in addition to addition to Voshon Lenard. Second pick maybe on someone like Romain Sato



Hinrich,Macijauskas,Brunson
Lenard,Iguodala,Sato
Dunleavy,Robinson,Dupree
Murphy,JYD,Austin
Curry,Davis,Blount


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

This thread was absolutely ridiculous and I was going to block Bullshawk because I was so sick of this Kirk the King, Jamal the Pauper threads until he made a decent post towards the end.

Redemption, I guess.

Is it safe to say that Kirk is a better PG than Jamal is a SG? Yes. 

It is, and I really like Jamal.

Is it safe to say Kirk has played PG longer than Jamal has played SG? Yes, once again it is.

Is it safe to say that Jamal has been a victim in Chicago? Yes, it is.

Krause brought in the heralded one, Jay Williams after Crawford rushed back from an ACL tear and performed amazing at the end of his second season. The starting PG spot was gifted to JWill and Crawford won it back from him outright.

Now, Jamal focused on being a PG this summer, only to have Kirk drafted when we really needed a 3 more than anything. Not that I'm upset with the pick of Kirk, we did well there.

But anyways, Jamal was the PG... then the team asked Jamal to move to SG.

Jamal is a PG playing SG. This is a fact. The selflessness that Jamal has shown in Chicago is up there with Mother Teresa... Jamal basically gave up a giant payday by moving to the 2 spot. The kid was an athletic freak as far as PGs go, with endless potential and slowly starting to fill it. As a SG, he has no physical advantages, only physical detriments.

He has done the best he can with what he is given. Kirk's shot has been off all year, Pippen has hardly played, E-Rob just showed up, AD is terrified to shoot from closer than 12ft, JYD can't catch a ball in the post and Curry is just starting to shed all the pizza he ate over the summer. He has been surrounded by no offensive threats and been forced to do it all himself.

Tough bill for a guy who really doesn't deserve all this... he's been the consumate pro this year buying into the coaches system and being the leader everyone thought Tyson Chandler was going to be.

The more and more I think about it, yeah. Jamal probably isn't the best fit for this team. *I do think however that 3 years from now he will be a better pro player than Kirk Hinrich.* But Kirk doesn't deserve the same treatment Jamal recieved, being benched because his game has holes and Jamal might end up a better PG. Jamal will always be limited individually as a SG... his real financial and accolade upside is as a PG.

I hope Jamal stays in the East. Firstly, because I think Jamal will turn out to be a GREAT PG and I'm big on the "Let's improve the Eastern Conference" thing. Secondly, because I want the Chicago brass to see him four times a year and realize what they screwed up.

I really, truly believe Jamal will be a better player than Kirk in three years, probably the soonest we'll be extremely competitive anyways. It's just too bad we are so shortsighted that by then, he'll be an All-Star on someone else's team.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> This thread was absolutely ridiculous and I was going to block Bullshawk because I was so sick of this Kirk the King, Jamal the Pauper threads until he made a decent post towards the end.
> 
> Redemption, I guess.
> ...


This is the quintessential Crawford excuse response. Let's see here. He's a victim. He's the basketball equivalent of Mother Theresa. He's been "forced" to be the alpha and the omega on the bulls. He's "sacraficed" future financial gains.

As for your opinion that Jamal will be a better player in three years - on the Bulls or not - I disagree.

Ask yourself this question. If the game is close, who would you rather have on the floor? Hinrich or Crawford? I know what your response is because you're adoration for Crawford obscures your judgement. I'm pretty confident that if you asked the 28 other NBA GM's what their answer would be, you might not like the results.

I really like Crawford. He's got buttloads of potential. What I don't like about him is that you just don't know, on any given night, what Jamal Crawford is going to show up. A starter in the NBA cannot be so unpredictable. An off game here or there is fine but with Jamal he's just too inconsistant. Now, I don't want to hear how he's gotten a raw deal. I don't want to hear about him losing a year to an ACL tear. no more excuses. This guy has lost his PG duties every year he's been in the league. Hell, Khalid El-Amin started over him. I'm sorry but I won't take it from you, ACE2000, Arenas or any other Jamal camper that he's a better PG than Kirk. They're both the same age and yet in less than one year as a pro, Kirk has shown more consistancy and a better understanding of the game than Jamal has in his fourth year. I listen to these announcers for other teams on League Pass and to a team they all rave about Hinrich. The Pistons announcers couldn't have gushed over him more. The Wizards duo gave him kudos.

Folks keep saying the guy is gonna be a star. When, exactly is that going to happen? When is this star going to shoot above 40% for a period of more than 2 or 3 games? You guys see all-star. I see a less aggressive Larry Hughes and that's not all that great. I'll be exstatic for the kid if he reaches the level of proficiency that you seem to see in him whether its with the Bulls or not. I just don't see it.

I think Jamal will have a pretty nice career as a second or third tier player. Kirk Hinrich, I have no doubt, will have a very long and solid NBA career. He may make an all-star team or two. He won't be a Jason Kidd-type all-star lock but I would hazzard to guess he'll have a better and brighter career than Jamal Crawford. 

I really hope you Jamal campers can come back an say "nyah-nyah-nyah. You were wrong about him. See, he's a stud." I won't hold my breath waiting for that day tho!  

(nothing like fanning the flames of the jamal vs kirk world!!!)


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

Hi guys. first time poster. I just wanted to say good post airety. I don't agree with everything you've said but I do feel that Jamal has been short changed by the bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> This thread was absolutely ridiculous and I was going to block Bullshawk because I was so sick of this Kirk the King, Jamal the Pauper threads until he made a decent post towards the end.
> 
> Redemption, I guess.
> ...


Thats a good post. I'm glad I'm not the only one besides Arenas that has a handle on the Crawford situation. I won't say for sure that JC will definitley end up being better than Kirk, Kirk is really impressing me lately. BUt I do think when it is all said and done they are going to be closer in terms of impact than a lot of folks think.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>atlbull</b>!
> Hi guys. first time poster. I just wanted to say good post airety. I don't agree with everything you've said but I do feel that Jamal has been short changed by the bulls.


Welcome aboard! Now post more often and join in!


----------



## honk4tad (Feb 18, 2004)

I've loved Jamal Crawford's game since he was a Kenyan-looking freshman at the University of Michigan. He's got all the skills and physical tools necessary to achieve greatness in the NBA. BUT, fact of the matter is, he won't. The kid just doesn't have a leadership bone in his body. I don't know how far Kirk's basektball game will progress, but I know his ability to lead a team already surpasses Jamal's by a large, large margin.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> This is the quintessential Crawford excuse response. Let's see here. He's a victim. He's the basketball equivalent of Mother Theresa. He's been "forced" to be the alpha and the omega on the bulls. He's "sacraficed" future financial gains.
> ...



fan away, fl_flash. great post. airety has his fans and you have yours.

peace kids, it's just a game.

and honk4tad makes an excellent point. and quotes dignan in his sig. love it. 

:meditate:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

These threads are about as predictable as clockwork. Not as useful, though.


----------



## honk4tad (Feb 18, 2004)

Thanks all around to mizenkay. Nice recognition on the Bottlerocket quote. Good man.

Vincent Vega breast fed until the age of 13. I have proof.


----------



## honk4tad (Feb 18, 2004)

Dang, aural -- you're a vet here now? Where has the time gone?


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

I have always been pro JC and I think he has been handled pretty horrible by the Bulls until now. 
But matter of fact is that he just doesn't really get it. What really bothers me is that he just can't play near consistent, I would be happy with him if he would play defense on a rising level and if he would be a 15 ppg 5 apg 5 rpg without the 41 point outings and the 8 point outings. And putting out real effort out there. 
It's so frustrating to know that he can be so good, but he is so good just once in a while. I'd rather have someone more consistent, where you can count on every game.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

While I agree that this thread is guilty of "broken record syndrome" and while I have to say that "my boo..." is the funniest damn thing I've read on this board in a long time (I'm still laughing) I have to admit that however unlikely the scenario, Bullhawk's fantasy backcourt of Pierce/Hinrich would make for a pretty tasty combination.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Thanks TB. I have two scenarios for summer. One realistic and one a dream.


Realistic:


Chandler/pick for Dunleavy,Murphy,Pietrus


Dream:


Chandler/pick/JYD/future considerations for Pierce/filler.
Sign Swift with MLE.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

They both have holes in thier game. 
They both shoot about 40%. :no:
They both have great games some nights, crappy the next.
They both average about 6 assists. :yes:
Neither brings it every night, much as we'd like to believe. :no:
They both have very good jumpers that should fall more then they do. :yes:
Neither seems to want to drive to the rim very much. :no:
They are both under 25 and have a lot of time, reason, and the needed effort and drive to improve themselves. :yes: :yes: :yes:

Lots of similarities there, yet it seems most people want to put a gaping chasm between them.
But...There isn't one. 
They are both good soild players in thier own right.

The bottom line is they are both Bulls. Neither is a sinner. 
It's my team, I find it impossible to lay the so much abuse on either. I'd like to see them both in Chicago for a long time.

On the Chicago Bulls... The 16-47 team. :nonono: Neither is a saint.
The Bulls Stink, I find it even more impossible to say either is a so great. If that were so, we'd be at .500.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> People seem to forget that Kirk is young himself and he will continue to improve.


I think thats by choice.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> You guys laugh all you want. Crawford is nothing more than a tall Tony Delk.


My wife thought I was crazy the night I read that.

I couldn't stop laughing.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> When I read the thread title, I thought the only words in the post were going to be "my boo."


Followed up by that.

(shes staring at me weird again)

Greatest post in the history of this board.

:rofl:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I never really got into the whole Jamal vs. Kirk threads because nothing good comes out of them except this one. "my boo" AHAHAH

seriously though *airty*, excellent post recapping what Jamal went through. I agree with you 100%. I remember Gilbert Arenas said Jamal would make so much money if Jamal was a PG.

*fl_flash*, even though I didn't agree with everything you said, still you brought up good points. Skiles said he was pissed at Gilbert for making comments about money. Hinrich is Skiles' protege.

and finally thanks to *Jim Ian* for knocking off Kirk or Jamal colored glasses that some of us have on sometimes and forcing us to look at the production both brings.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> I remember Gilbert Arenas said Jamal would make so much money if Jamal was a PG.


Did he say anything about him being a better player though?

Nope.


I think he was placing a higher premium on the *position* played and it's percieved value to a GM holding the payroll checks.


Everyone missed that one.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Did he say anything about him being a better player though?
> ...


Whatever helps you sleep at night


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Did he say anything about him being a better player though?
> ...


No, I think everyone got that he was placing an importance more on the position but the bottom line is money. Skiles joked later that Gilbert should be GM so he won't have to practice and shoot pool all day.

For me, it doesn't matter what position he plays and I applaud Jamal for not caring. I just want the best Jamal that he can be. sounds corny but oh well.

here's the quotes btw

"I like [Crawford], but I'll tell you the truth, he'd make more money playing point guard,'' Arenas said. ''A 6-6 point guard who can score is more rare than a skinny shooting guard.

''It's hard to judge somebody on a losing team.'' 

who does he think he is, Jesus? with that "I tell you the truth""


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Whatever helps you sleep at night


TruthHurts, huh?


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> No, I think everyone got that he was placing an importance more on the position but the bottom line is money. Skiles joked later that Gilbert should be GM so he won't have to practice and shoot pool all day.
> ...


Arenas definitely has the credibility to say something like that. What's the Wizards' record this season? (Whatever, injuries, yada yada.)


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TwinkieTowers</b>!
> 
> 
> Arenas definitely has the credibility to say something like that. What's the Wizards' record this season? (Whatever, injuries, yada yada.)


Well....

If anyone can use the injuries excuse, it's them...

We've used it, they can't?


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well....
> ...


Injuries or not, the Bulls are just terrible. The Wizards are still terrible, even with Arenas back, and even if Stackhouse was still playing.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Bump

Just for you mizenkay! This is where the infamous "my boo" comment got started! Fun times!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I hate it when people bump old threads and then I reply to them as if they were new.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Bump
> 
> Just for you mizenkay! This is where the infamous "my boo" comment got started! Fun times!



LOL! 
thanks bas - and i know you are "taken" - so am i - but in the world of bbb.net i'll stand by you.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You rock mizenkay! Thanks for having a great sense of humor! I will gladly be your "boo"!


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> Bottom line is it's a free board and he can post whatever he wants as long as it meets the guidlines we have established...


Thanks ACE, IMO, you made a very good point. Folks, leave him alone. 

Let us ask ourselves, who are we? We are the Bulls fans. So-called group of people who got a passion for that team and in mean time that team is sucks a big time. 

I’am sure a lot of people feel that we are crazy by staying that long with that organization (specifically our close relatives  . But we still here regardless, because of that passion.

So, why some of us feel that only they are entitle to have “fanatical privileges” ?


----------

