# Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

"If I really wanted to break it all down, Kirk's our best player," Scott Skiles said matter-of-factly. "So he stays on the court the most. All around, top to bottom, with all the things he does for the team, he has been our most consistent and best player. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,5724915.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I hope you feel self validated.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

The Bulls don't really have a best player. Everyone, including Kirk Hinrich, is inconsistent. 

I can see his point about being the best player on the team because he's solid on both ends, but I'd say Crawford is the best player on the team. Chandler is when healthy.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Well there you have it then.

Does this mean no more Jamal Crawford threads?:whoknows: 

Tune in next game. Same basketball forum. Same basketball team.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

It says a lot about your team when your best player is a rookie not named Lebron or Michael Jordan. If Kirk Hinrich is our best player for the long haul this team isnt gonna go anywhere for a long time.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

And apparently, Skiles isn't the only one who holds Hinrich in such high regard:

*Skiles shared an anecdote from the Dec. 30 loss in Minnesota that shows how far Hinrich has come.

"I felt like Kirk was being too quiet," Skiles said. "And I simply said to the guys, 'Do you trust this rookie point guard to run your team?' Every guy said yes. I said, 'There you go, rook. Run the team.'"

That's why most players weren't surprised when informed of Skiles' comment. His teammates also hold him in high regard.*

That's a real honor. A rookie has been acknowledged by his coach and teammates as the team leader. And the fans feel likewise: _Skiles simply needs Hinrich on the floor, which is fine by the fans who regularly shower him with the loudest applause._

It's true. I've been to a number of games this season and Kirk clearly draws the loudest applause during introductions...by a large margin.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

As we've discussed before, there aren't more than 5 other teams in the NBA that Hinrich could even start for at the PG. That is the Bulls best player???

That's just sad, unless you happen to like collecting ping pong balls.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

He is our best player on a what 11-23 team? Big Whoop, if the Bulls are gonna get better its gonna take a whole lot more than Hinrich playing solid fundamental ball. I like him because he reminds me of myself in a lot of ways but some people on here act like he is a savior or something. He is the leader of a 12-23 team. That says a lot more about what we have or what is still developing than it speaksof Kirk's abilities.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Crawford is the most talented, and has the highest ceiling on any given night.

But Kirk is consistent. Since the beginning of December, he has had only six games where he scored less than 10 points. Two of those games were wins, where his stat line read 6 pts, 8 assists, 4 boards, 1 steal and 1 block (12-1-03 vs. Bucks) and 5 pts, 11 assists, 1 steal.

Crawford, with the green light to take any shot he likes as long as it's "good", has scored less than 10 points on four occasions since the beginning of Dec. Of those four games, we have won only one: yesterday against Phoenix, where the Suns basically beat themselves. In the other three games, Crawford was adequate in assists but still relied mostly on his shooting.

Crawford IS a consistent player, in the sense that he does the same thing every night he plays. BUT his shooting is inconsistent, and that makes him consistent in his practices but inconsistent in his effect for the team.

Give it a season and I think Hinrich + Crawford will become a very very consistent backcourt. We do need JC.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Well there you have it then.
> 
> Does this mean no more Jamal Crawford threads?:whoknows:
> ...


I'll see em live tomorrow....


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> He is our best player on a what *11-23* team? Big Whoop, if the Bulls are gonna get better its gonna take a whole lot more than Hinrich playing solid fundamental ball. I like him because he reminds me of myself in a lot of ways but some people on here act like he is a savior or something. He is the leader of a *12-23* team. That says a lot more about what we have or what is still developing than it speaksof Kirk's abilities.


Keep typing. We're getting more wins.:grinning: 


I agree though. There isn't a "best" player on this team. None of the guards shoot above 41%.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

2nd coming of Elton....best player as a rookie on this team.....only the team was expected to get last place with Elton....not make the playoffs


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Crawford is the most talented, and has the highest ceiling on any given night.
> 
> But Kirk is consistent. Since the beginning of December, he has had only six games where he scored less than 10 points. Two of those games were wins, where his stat line read 6 pts, 8 assists, 4 boards, 1 steal and 1 block (12-1-03 vs. Bucks) and 5 pts, 11 assists, 1 steal.
> ...


Nice post.:yes:


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Crawford is the most talented, and has the highest ceiling on any given night.
> 
> But Kirk is consistent. Since the beginning of December, he has had only six games where he scored less than 10 points. Two of those games were wins, where his stat line read 6 pts, 8 assists, 4 boards, 1 steal and 1 block (12-1-03 vs. Bucks) and 5 pts, 11 assists, 1 steal.
> ...


Good point. Crawford is inconsistent in FG% but consistent in assists, rebounds, steals, and blocks for the most part.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*The team is getting better*

but they are still not very good. I agree JAF311


Kirk Hinrich is not the second coming of Elton for two reasons, one he is not going to get is a #2 pick in the draft, and second of all he isnt good enough to lead a team to the playoffs.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

I'm surprised at the number of people who seem upset about the news that Skiles, most of his teammates and the majority of fans all think so highly of the Bulls' first round pick. Couldn't similar things be said about James, Anthony and even Wade? Why the sour grapes when one of our own gets paid such an honor?

All things being equal, if Paxson can fill this roster with players who consistently put it on the line at both ends of the floor like Hinrich does, we'd have a very successful team (think Kirilenko as an example).


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I dont think people are upset its just the point you are trying to get at behind the Skiles statement. Its not the fact that Hinrichi is good or not its just that he is our best player. My friend that is sad. No matter how you try to look at it.


Be easy fella!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Hinrich would hardly get any burn on most teams....

and I still think right now JC is our best player.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

I don't hear any disparaging remarks coming from Chandler's fans...or JYD's fans. No sour grapes from Curry supporters...just Crawford's fans seem to be having a problem with this KJ Johnson story. Why is that, I wonder?

*Hinrich hasn't played fewer than 30 minutes in 16 straight games and has played 40 or more in seven of them. That's a lot of running through screens, taking charges and leading fast breaks for someone who is generously listed at 6 feet 3 inches and 190 pounds.*

This should count for something. No one will argue that Hinrich plays hard every minute he's on the floor. And isn't that what Skiles is _really_ talking about? He's acknowledging hard work and tough-minded play as valuable characteristics he wants to see from every one of his players. That's all this is really about...effort and mental toughness. Don't kid yourself into thinking its anything more than that in Skiles' (and Paxson's) mind.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> I don't hear any disparaging remarks coming from Chandler's fans...or JYD's fans. No sour grapes from Curry supporters...just Crawford's fans seem to be having a problem with this KJ Johnson story. Why is that, I wonder?


well maybe its because youve divided the board into factions 


Crawford fans 

Chandler fans 

Jyd fans 

AD fans 

Currys fans 

:laugh: what the hell ?Arent we all supposed to be Bulls fans here  

But since skiles has settled it and Kirks our best player lets just dump everyone and get players to compliment him .Let the rebuilding continue !!!!!


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> I don't hear any disparaging remarks coming from Chandler's fans...or JYD's fans. No sour grapes from Curry supporters...just Crawford's fans seem to be having a problem with this KJ Johnson story. Why is that, I wonder?


You have an accurate list of who's a JYD fan, who's a Curry fan and who's a Crawford fan, do you?

And here I thought we were 95% BULLS fans here....


The point has been made before, but clearly it needs to be made again:

If Kirk is our best player, we are in for a world of hurt.

If we waited 6 years of dives and high draft picks to have Kirk Hinrich be our poster boy, we are, in a word, screwed.

Now, that being said, *Kirk is a good player, I like him*, he puts forth max effort every second he's on the court. He reminds me a lot of the guy that drafted him, in that he's all legs and hustle our there. He'll hardly EVER blow a game for you, and never blow it by not putting forth 100%.

But therein lies the rub... he's not going lose games, but he's not going to _Win_ a lot of games for you either. He might contribute, he may play a significant role... but Kirk Hinrich will never take a team on his back and win a playoff series. That's just not the type of player he is.

We have two of those type of player on this team. Everyone knows who they are, even if they only admit it to themselves. It's not a coincidence they are the two most ripped on players. Bulls fan expect more from thier best. If your a real Bulls fan, you better start hoping they are our best players, and soon. 

Cause Bird ain't walkin through that door. Tmac ain't walkin through that door. Pippen may hobble through that door. Jordan ain't walking through that door.

We aren't trading our crap for a star, and there ain't no LeBrons in this draft. We have what we have people, so you better start rooting for all 15 Bulls, not just 1 or 2 of them....

[rant transmission complete]


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> well maybe its because youve divided the board into factions
> ...


Yes we are suppose to be. But I don't think C Blizzy divided them up. You can tell by posting of some posters which fractions that they belong to. 

Personally I am pleased that Hinrich is our best player. Many people were surprised and disappointed with the pick. Some even to this day said it was a mistake by John to draft him. I love his defense. His shooting could improve and it should over ttime. He could and should work on his t/o. 

And C Blizzy? I think reason why no one has said anything is, all day long we have had threads in here about Hinrich Vs. Crawford, AGAIN! That never dies. 

Intersting this came out today! On some bulls boards that I browse on, one poster in particular did start a thread saying Hinrich was the best player on the bulls, hands down. Needless to say the he took it on the chin from JC advocates. But he put up a good arguement for this opinion. And the threads we have had on here, at this site is about the same! Interesting on the timing of such an article. It is almost as if they read the bulls boards sometimes to get ideas.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> You have an accurate list of who's a JYD fan, who's a Curry fan and who's a Crawford fan, do you?
> ...



:allhail: :worship: :clap:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> You have an accurate list of who's a JYD fan, who's a Curry fan and who's a Crawford fan, do you?
> ...



I must have written the exact same post about Brand two years ago. I hope I have learned.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> well maybe its because youve divided the board into factions
> ...


Bulls fans first and foremost, I agree. But lets talk about divisiveness for a moment. This thread was started as a lot of threads are...as a notification of the most recent Tribune Bulls article by KC Johnson. It was an article acknowledging the respect Hinrich has earned from his coach, his teammates and Bulls fans. Somehow, someway, Jamal Crawford's name got brought into this thread. Why? 

My point in mentioning the names of a few other current Bulls players should be obvious. Why did Crawford's name need to be mentioned at all? And if his name is going to be dragged into a thread about Kirk Hinrich, then why not include the names of a few more of his teammates as well?

When I started this thread I had no intention of casting any form of disparagement, implied or otherwise, in the direction of any of Hinrich's teammates. Unfortunately there will always be those who presume that any compliment directed towards Hinrich automatically implies a criticizm of JC. Its just not the case.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> I'm surprised at the number of people who seem upset about the news that Skiles, most of his teammates and the majority of fans all think so highly of the Bulls' first round pick. Couldn't similar things be said about James, Anthony and even Wade? Why the sour grapes when one of our own gets paid such an honor?
> 
> All things being equal, if Paxson can fill this roster with players who consistently put it on the line at both ends of the floor like Hinrich does, we'd have a very successful team (think Kirilenko as an example).


JAF seems upset, I don't understand:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=674089#post674089

note: I am fair game to pot shots for doing this. I have made more then my share of stupid posts--check Darius Miles if you guys want a start...It's just JAF's response was so negative to my early post that I felt compelled to bring this up.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Kirk is a sollid player, and a fan favorite. But his value isnt nearly as high as Jamal, Curry, or Chandler around the NBA. So it depends who you ask


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Bulls fans first and foremost, I agree. But lets talk about divisiveness for a moment. This thread was started as a lot of threads are...as a notification of the most recent Tribune Bulls article by KC Johnson. It was an article acknowledging the respect Hinrich has earned from his coach, his teammates and Bulls fans. Somehow, someway, Jamal Crawford's name got brought into this thread. Why?
> ...


Well when I read SKILES SETTLES IT I thought it could be only referring to the latest kirk/jamal battle royale on who is the Bulls best player.

Was there some other meaning of SKILES SETTLES IT that I missed ?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Well when I read SKILES SETTLES IT I thought it could be only referring to the latest kirk/jamal battle royale on who is the Bulls best player.
> ...


All season long we've heard about the importance of building around the Three C's. All season long we've heard about how Paxson views Chandler and Curry as his only two _untouchables_. We heard about how Paxson should have moved up in the draft to take Wade. We even heard that Paxson should have chosen Hayes or Pietrus or Ford over Hinrich.

Well, looky here! The kid that almost everyone ripped for his performance at the RMR has worked his way into the starting lineup and has earned the respect of everyone associated with the organization including his coach, teammates and the majority of Bulls fans. 

So you see, on several levels, Skiles' remarks "settles" many of the debates that have swirled around the very selection of Kirk Hinrich and his steady development from his first summer league game to last night's game. And yeah, perhaps it should settle some of the Kirk vs. Jamal debates as well, at least for the time being. Keep in mind, KH was called the team's best player by Scot Skiles. The article suggests that most of his players concur with his evaluation.

Hinrich has arrived. He's no longer a bad draft choice as he was labeled during the summer. If you want to view the word "settle" in a very narrow sense and conclude that it only pertains to some concocted "who's better" debate, that's your absolute right. But I think I've honestly described to you that this article supports the notion that Hinrich has settled, resolved, answered (take your pick) many of the questions and issues that surrounded his very selection in the draft and his earlier season performances.

Have I answered your question?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> All season long we've heard about the importance of building around the Three C's. All season long we've heard about how Paxson views Chandler and Curry as his only two _untouchables_. We heard about how Paxson should have moved up in the draft to take Wade. We even heard that Paxson should have chosen Hayes or Pietrus or Ford over Hinrich.
> ...


Ok he settled many of the questions from JULY that had just been on everyones mind for months :yes: O......KKKKKKK and we all should know this was your intent in posting this how ?

Youre right how narrow minded could I be Skiles couldnt possibily be using this artcile to piss off Curry and Crawford just as a hs or college coach claims his freshmen is better then his seniors just to get them mad enough to go out and prove him wrong .

But again this thread is so expansive and thought provoking in its ability to stimulate the mind that Ive been left speechless to an extent .

Kirk is the best player on a 11 win team and thats a fact.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This article says absolutely nothing, and I really hope it's not indicative of Skiles' thought process.

What were all of his teammates going to say in front of Skiles and Kirk? That Kirk sucks and should be on the bench?? Uh, no.

Saying that would be like telling a girl she looked fat on her wedding day. It'd be pretty much unthinkable.

I DO think Kirk has been very good, but I'm alarmed by this thought process I see from Skiles. It's got a Mr. Burns-esque quality that can't be understated. No one is gonna challenge him to his face and tell him the power plant is polluting, but one of these days someone's going to invite him over and serve him up a 3-eyed fish. He needs to show enough elementary psychological knowledge to know when you can trust that people are sincere and when not to.


----------



## Bullwhip (Feb 26, 2003)

I don't know what you guys are making such a fuss over. Kirk, over the course of this season, has played better than any other Bull. How can some of you say that he can't take charge and lead us into the playoffs? How do YOU know? First off, he's a Rookie. A pretty good one at that. At the hardest position to play, especially as a rookie. You haters might not want to admit this, but he may very well still be our best player in 3 or four years.

Three years after Curry and Tyson? Curry is still a baby, with no desire. No basketball smarts. And still getting excused because he's 'still young.'
The guy COULD be something great. But you got to want it and so far he doesn't. I won't be sorrry to see him traded, but I would love to see the light bulb turn on in his head. I hope it's here.

Tyson? Lots of fire, bad back, who knows. Could be a fragile leader. 

Crawford? He also has plenty excuses(didn't play a lot of college, on the bench during Floyd era, injured knee, Roses' influence). When exactly does this guy become accountable??! 

Kirk IS the best player on this misfit of Bulls players. He is here to stay, while I see either JC or EC or both traded eventually.

Yes, it's a sad state. But guess what, your pals Jamal and Eddy had it in their power, if not before, then certainly now, to dominate and show us that they're special players. So far, they've been a huge friggin' DUD and I'll thank those two personally for this piece of dogszhit they're feeding us this season.:upset:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Kirk IS our best player. Do I want him to be? NO!!!! I'd rather one of the 3 C's be the best players, or the ones that I've put the most stock in for that matter. But for now it's Kirk puttin it in night in night out.

He's helping my fantasy team out too w/ all those 3 pointers! :yes:


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> This article says absolutely nothing, and I really hope it's not indicative of Skiles' thought process.
> 
> What were all of his teammates going to say in front of Skiles and Kirk? That Kirk sucks and should be on the bench?? Uh, no.
> ...


Political Correctness? :sour:

Old School? :greatjob:

Opinions? They're like noses...everybody has one! :grinning:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> Kirk IS our best player. Do I want him to be? NO!!!! I'd rather one of the 3 C's be the best players, or the ones that I've put the most stock in for that matter. But for now it's Kirk puttin it in night in night out.
> 
> He's helping my fantasy team out too w/ all those 3 pointers! :yes:


Yet, a well diversified portfolio is a key requirement for any investor 

Nice to see ya Slim


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Political Correctness? :sour:
> ...


Political correctness on who's part?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

You guys are missing the main point, which is this: why doesn't Kirk ever pass Jamal the ball?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> If your a real Bulls fan, you better start hoping they are our best players, and soon.
> 
> Cause Bird ain't walkin through that door. Tmac ain't walkin through that door. Pippen may hobble through that door. Jordan ain't walking through that door.
> ...


I haven't read through the posts after this one. But damn folks. He's 100 percent right. If you aren't thinking in this general direction you may want to ask yourself, "what are you thinking?"


And no. I don't have any problem with the KC Johnson article or Skiles calling Hinrich our best player right now. It's a good boost to the rookie. And it's good motivation for the other guys on our team.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Bulls fans first and foremost, I agree. But lets talk about divisiveness for a moment. This thread was started as a lot of threads are...as a notification of the most recent Tribune Bulls article by KC Johnson. It was an article acknowledging the respect Hinrich has earned from his coach, his teammates and Bulls fans. Somehow, someway, Jamal Crawford's name got brought into this thread. Why?
> ...



hmm...you're either very naive about what's been going on on the board today...or you're lying.

I don't think you're naive.

And this isn't just a compliment to Hinrich. SKiles said he is the best player on our team. Better than Pippen, better than Chandler, better than Crawford, better than Antonio Davis, better than JYD, better than Brunson....BETTER THAN BRUNSON!? WTF Skiles? WTF??! How you gonna do your boy like that?

I bet no one asked Rick Brunson if he wanted to play out his career in Hinrich's shadow.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

KH is a lottery player who has performed and earned his pay. All you haters need to give him his due. I love both KH and JC and they'll develop into a great back court. 
Anyone who says he woudn't start elsewhere is a damn fool.
ESPN's player rater....

1 Baron Davis, NO PG -2.27 -1.68 3.62 -0.78 3.46 3.21 -0.61 1.82 6.77 
2 Jason Kidd, NJ PG -1.44 0.78 1.09 0.05 4.07 1.42 -0.99 0.25 5.24 
3 Stephon Marbury, NY PG -0.33 0.55 0.44 -1.16 3.50 1.67 -1.16 1.20 4.72 
4 Sam Cassell, Min PG 2.13 0.49 0.15 -1.30 2.65 0.06 -1.21 0.90 3.87 
5 Chauncey Billups, Det PG -1.65 1.98 1.74 -1.03 1.48 0.25 -1.27 0.83 2.32 
6 Andre Miller, Den PG -0.15 1.35 -1.00 -0.70 2.06 1.11 -0.99 0.16 1.85 
7 Jamal Crawford, Chi PG -1.38 0.51 1.64 -1.32 1.41 0.99 -0.83 0.23 1.25 
8 Steve Nash, Dal PG -0.35 1.34 1.09 -1.36 3.00 -0.86 -1.38 -0.26 1.23 
9 Mike Bibby, Sac PG 0.11 0.89 0.94 -1.32 1.20 -0.43 -0.88 0.13 0.65 
10 Steve Francis, Hou PG -1.57 0.03 0.15 -0.23 1.50 0.50 -0.66 0.28 -0.01 
11 Damon Stoudamire, Por PG -0.81 0.69 1.14 -1.22 1.60 0.06 -1.16 -0.55 -0.24 
12 Charlie Ward, Pho PG 0.02 0.01 1.54 -1.44 1.18 0.62 -0.99 -1.20 -0.26 
13 Mike James, Bos PG -0.88 0.28 1.69 -1.23 1.18 0.50 -1.32 -0.66 -0.44 
14 Darrell Armstrong, NO PG -0.34 0.09 1.24 -1.48 -0.03 1.73 -1.21 -1.06 -1.06 
15 Gary Payton, LAL PG 0.63 -0.54 -0.80 -1.34 1.66 0.62 -0.99 -0.51 -1.26 
16 David Wesley, NO PG -0.83 -0.15 1.64 -1.82 -0.28 0.56 -0.83 0.28 -1.43 
17 Larry Hughes, Was PG -1.57 0.74 0.79 -0.60 -0.78 0.06 -0.88 0.40 -1.83 
18 Eric Snow, Phi PG -0.92 0.09 -1.34 -1.10 2.69 0.50 -1.32 -0.78 -2.19 
19 Jeff McInnis, Por PG 0.62 -0.11 -0.85 -1.68 1.35 -0.24 -1.32 -0.72 -2.95 
20 Ronald Murray, Sea PG -0.93 -0.59 0.64 -1.52 -0.43 0.31 -0.61 0.06 -3.05 
21 Kirk Hinrich, Chi PG -0.65 -0.13 0.69 -1.60 0.91 -0.24 -0.94 -1.24 -3.19 

For a rookie on a crappy losing team he has been phenomenal. Give him his props. Skiles may have made that statement to motivate other inconsistent lottery players on this team. To sit there and say he wouldn't start elsewhere is idiotic.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I thought this thread was a joke all the way up until I clicked on the link in the first post.

Great minds think like...mine...


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Skiles was praising Hinrich all night on his radio show, about how his bball fundamentals due to college experience. He went on further and said Jamal needed college experience (even though he had one year under his belt) to run without the ball on plays and that JC hasn't learned that yet and that "JC doesn't have the skills to be a PG". and that "JC has always been an off-guard"

However I think Skiles will change his mind when Chandler starts playing or at least those two will be his favorite players. Skiles seems real excited about his athleticism and enthusiasm he brings to the court night in and night out. 

Everyone needs to hear Skiles' show. He's very frank and he tells it like it is. He doesn't bash on his players too harshly but you can tell on the back of his mind what he's thinking and that he's holding back. Some other stuff he has said tonight: 

AD isn't a center but a forward but we have to play him. Because Eddy doesn't have a post game. Fizer is too small to guard other PF's and too slow to guard SF's

I'm sorry I turned this thread into Kirk vs JC. I guess I can't help falling into that trap.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> And apparently, Skiles isn't the only one who holds Hinrich in such high regard:
> 
> *Skiles shared an anecdote from the Dec. 30 loss in Minnesota that shows how far Hinrich has come.
> ...


I would gloat and post I told you so links if weren't so modest. 

Future and Rlucas:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> I like him because he reminds me of myself in a lot of ways


You should call Pax...


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

And Vincent Vega...

Maybe Hinrich has been coached to go inside out...maybe not. Do you know?

Further, As a Bulls Fan, I am sick and tired of this rivalry crap between JC and whoever. These players are young and learning.
Skyles made Crawford accountable for his inconsistent play vs. Pheonix. He benched him. Crawford(maturing...) will bounce back and light it up for 30-40 again. These two will compliment each other very nicely. 

I agree with Jim Ian. We need to be positive with what the Bulls now have. I say give them this year and next with a full camp under Skyles/Pax. I believe this current roster could make the playoffs. Unless we can somehow acquire Kobe like talent we have to train the pups.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> I'm surprised at the number of people who seem upset about the news that Skiles, most of his teammates and the majority of fans all think so highly of the Bulls' first round pick. Couldn't similar things be said about James, Anthony and even Wade? Why the sour grapes when one of our own gets paid such an honor?
> 
> All things being equal, if Paxson can fill this roster with players who consistently put it on the line at both ends of the floor like Hinrich does, we'd have a very successful team (think Kirilenko as an example).


Being serious...me too. I'm actually surprised at the (watch the backpedeling start) *dislike* thats surfaced for Kirk---and I wonder if it's really about him or (misplaced) sympathy for Jamal.

I'll read the rest of the thread with interest.

You're a good post Blizz. I never said it before, but welcome and keep up the good work.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> All season long we've heard about the importance of building around the Three C's. All season long we've heard about how Paxson views Chandler and Curry as his only two _untouchables_. We heard about how Paxson should have moved up in the draft to take Wade. We even heard that Paxson should have chosen Hayes or Pietrus or Ford over Hinrich.
> ...


You da man (or woman)!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> BETTER THAN BRUNSON!? WTF Skiles? WTF??! How you gonna do your boy like that?
> 
> I bet no one asked Rick Brunson if he wanted to play out his career in Hinrich's shadow.


LOL!
:laugh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> Skiles was praising Hinrich all night on his radio show, about how his bball fundamentals due to college experience.


Interesting thought... 



> He went on further and said Jamal needed college experience (even though he had one year under his belt) to run without the ball on plays and that JC hasn't learned that yet and that "JC doesn't have the skills to be a PG". and that "JC has always been an off-guard"


Even more interesting... and even more interesting... 



> Everyone needs to hear Skiles' show.


When is it on?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Yawn.

Best player does not mean "Most Talented".


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

LOL i love it all the JC nutt hugers are F****** pissed.




> So far, they've been a huge friggin' DUD and I'll thank those two personally for this piece of dogszhit they're feeding us this season.


LOL you get a 4 star for dat


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> And Vincent Vega...


What? My previous post was doused with sarcasm, as it was an inside joke.



> Maybe Hinrich has been coached to go inside out...maybe not. Do you know?


He has, all his life, like all point guards in legit systems are.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

"JC doesn't have the skills to be a PG...JC has always been an off-guard." -- Scott Skiles

Wonder how MichaelOFAZ feels about this comment.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

Krik Hinrich is the best player on the bulls now. That's a fact and its really SAD!

Start counting your ping pong balls.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I predict this thread will grow at least another three pages tomorrow.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> You guys are missing the main point, which is this: why doesn't Kirk ever pass Jamal the ball?


This is so true!

Seriously, after that discussion, I tried to count how many times Kirk passed to Jamal just to see if there was any validity to it. I gave up because it was getting ridiculous. Jamal and Kirk were passing to each other more than enough that I felt it didn't warrant measurement.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> "JC doesn't have the skills to be a PG...JC has always been an off-guard." -- Scott Skiles
> 
> Wonder how MichaelOFAZ feels about this comment.


Well I'm glad Skiles feels that way...

I'm glad our starting PG for the Clips next year will be #1...

And I'm not talking about Keyon Dooling.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i have to agree with Skiles on this one. Kirk is the best player

And I also liked Skiles comment sort of poking fun at the only reason they compare him to skiles is cause of racial lines. Nice to see Skiles recognize that. 

The Bulls have a keeper. But its imperative for this club that Kirk isnt the best player on the club at this time next year. As nice as it is to have him, you dont get very far if he is numero uno. I still think he is more complementary then franchise and that is ok. You can do far worse then having him be your 3 or 4 guy.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

I think there's a perception issue floating around that might need to be addressed. On a number of occasions people have referred to some sort of Jamal vs Kirk debate that has allegedly raged across this board in perpetuum. Frankly, I haven't seen much of that sort of stuff for some time now. What I have seen is criticism of JC based on his performance from game to game, but not in relation to Hinrich's performances. If Crawford gets ripped its been based on things like shot selection, penetration (or the lack of same), defensive effort, etc. I don't see points being made that are based on what he does or doesn't do in comparision to what Hinrich does or doesn't do.

Wasn't most of that stuff laid to rest when the two of them became the Bulls starting backcourt? Sure, Crawford gets a lot of attention on this board, good and bad. But I don't believe there's too much comparative analysis between the two players going on anymore. That's why I'm having difficulty understanding all the acrimony contained in some of the posts in this thread. If Hinrich does well and is recognized for it, he does so on his own merit and not because Crawford may have had a bad game. The reverse is true as well. When Crawford receives kudos for his accomplishments its been because of what he's done well on a given night or over a period of time and not because he outplayed Hinrich. 

Its been noted on this board that basketball minds like Rick Carlisle and Isiah Thomas have said some pretty nice things about Crawford this season. When threads were generated for the purpose of publicizing those remarks I don't recall reading posts about Hinrich within those threads. Yet when a thread is started because someone complimented Hinrich, the next thing you know we're talking more about Crawford than we are about the guy the thread was about in the first place. And it isn't Crawford's detractors who inject his name either. How 'bout from this time forward we let both guys live or die based on their own merits and not because of any differences or similarities that exist between the two? Sound fair??


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> i have to agree with Skiles on this one. Kirk is the best player
> 
> And I also liked Skiles comment sort of poking fun at the only reason they compare him to skiles is cause of racial lines. Nice to see Skiles recognize that.
> ...


I absolutely and completely agree with this entire statement. And if you asked Skiles and/or Paxson what they really thought, they'd tell you the same thing as well.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

I just read this and I think its important to note what Jamal himself thinks about this whole issue:

"He's been more vocal, but more importantly, he leads by example,'' Jamal Crawford said. "He doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. He has leadership qualities.'' 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-bull07.html

So can we once and for all put an end to all this "who's better" stuff? If Crawford supports the accolades that have been accorded his teammate why can't some of the people on this board do so as well?


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Sorry to interrupt the love fest but, does it bother anyone that Skiles said that Curry has no post game ? At least according to spongyfungy on Skiles radio show. My friends that is more distrubing news than the fact that KH is our best player.



Either Skiles is an idiot or Eddy has no post game either way that is sad.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> Sorry to interrupt the love fest but, does it bother anyone that Skiles said that Curry has no post game ? At least according to spongyfungy on Skiles radio show. My friends that is more distrubing news than the fact that KH is our best player.
> 
> 
> ...


I found that a little odd as well. I think its one of those kinds of statements that needs an explanation of the context in which it was given. As a stand alone remark its subject to all kinds of interpretation, including the most literal one as you suggest.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Maybe he was referring to post defense or the ability to keep the ball up high and not T/O the ball everytime he puts the ball on the floor who knows?


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> I found that a little odd as well. I think its one of those kinds of statements that needs an explanation of the context in which it was given. As a stand alone remark its subject to all kinds of interpretation, including the most literal one as you suggest.


Eddy Curry has no post game at all! He doesn’t even know how to fight for spot on the court! Either he is push out or he is making offensive fouls. Eddy is always late. If you have no position you have no game. Curry also is one of our leading TO makers…


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I like Kirk Hinrich, he is developing into a fine player. But, if he is the Bulls best player then we are screwed for the forseeable future. Personally I find it very hard to believe that he is better than Pippen, Williams, Chandler, and yes Crawford. 

I was also alarmed at Skiles comments reported on this thread. He says Jamal's game is all off guard and he doesn't have the necessary pg skills? Thats simply incorrect. In fact I would be willing to bet that if Jamal goes to another team via trade or free agency he will go there as a pg and will probably excel.

Also, Curry has no post game? WTF? Curry has an amazing array of post moves. He still has some trouble holding onto the ball but he has some of the best footwork in the post I have seen for a man his size.

This really worries me because now I have to question what Skiles is thinking. Hopefully some of these comments were made more as a motivator than anything else.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think the key thing to consider here is how you define "Best Player".


For me that is the guy that you can count on night in and night out to give 110%, is consistent in terms of production whether it be points,boards,assists,whatever. Each player has something they are better at. But everyone can bring consistent effort. Problem is not every Bull is doing this. Kirk is. Motivation is a big thing going on here but make no question for a little while now Kirk has been the one guy that we know is going to bring it every night.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I've read every single post of a 5-page subject and I've got to say I'm disappointed in quite a few folks. Kirk Hinrich, as of this moment in time, is the best ALL-AROUND player on the bulls. Skiles is correct. I also get something of a chuckle on those that bemoan the fact that if Kirk is the best player on an 11-23 team, that we are in a load of hurt. Who's to say that 2 or 3 years from now, Hinrich might not be considered one of the top 5 PG's in the league? Has he already reached his ceiling? Is there no more room for growth in his game?

Personally, I'm glad to see him doing well. I'm glad he's getting some well-deserved recognition from his coach, his teammates, the local media and even national media.

Maybe Skiles should have rephrashed his assesment of Kirk as saying he's the most complete player on the team. He plays hard on both sides of the floor. He'll take a charge. Harrass a player. Drive to the hoop (and usually not finish). Shoot a quick shot off a curl. He doesn't get down on himself if his shot isn't falling and he'll try to effect the game in other ways. He understands what needs to be done to get a win.

I can't attest to the fact that he'll be able to put the team on his back and get us some wins, but I'll all but guarantee that there will be a few games this season and even more next season where he will be the reason we get a win.

Crawford, Curry and Chandler all have the potential to be the best players on this team. They've had that potential for 4 and 3 years respectively. Only Chandler has come close to laying claim to actually realizing that potential. All 4 of these guys are young. With the exception of Hinrich, they've all been in the NBA for two full years (or more), so they know what it's like and yet to this day we make excuses for them.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Kirk Hinrich is a damn good NBA guard and that, in all likelyhood, he's only going to get better? Be happy for the guy. Be happy for the Bulls. They've finally got a player that has actually lived up to his draft position and is realizing his potential and it hasn't taken 4+ years to do it. For once in the last 4 drafts we may actually have a keeper. I don't know if the three C's will make it past their rookie contracts. I hope they do because I still hold a lot of hope that they will turn out well. I'm pretty sure, barring some unforseen circumstance, that Kirk Hinrich is going to be wearing the red-and-black for a good many years.

Deal with it folks. Kirk Hinrich plays the game as it should be played. With intensity and effort. If Crawford and Curry in particular played with the same mindset, we wouldn't even be having this conversation and instead we'd be talking about possible home-court advantage in the first round of the playoffs.

Yes, Kirk Hinrich is the best player on this team. No, he shouldn't be and for many of you, that seems a travesty. The question that should be asked is, isn't it an even greater travesty that none of our supposed franchise players have acquired the moniker of "best player"?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Ace saw your article on the bulls web news page cool. I think what skiles is really saying has to due with consistency. It is not that curry does not have a low post game (because he surely does) it is you never know when he is going to bring it. Same for JC, when he is on he is our best player but also inconsistent. Gill and robinson. Great one night and lost the next.

While there are many to blame BC is most at fault here. He should have really laid down the law but instread let rose do what ever he wanted and the young guys watched and followed.

One thing if for sure if i have to watch a 4th quarter lineup like i did monday night i will need another bottle of scottch to relax and make it asleep.

david


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> i have to agree with Skiles on this one. Kirk is the best player
> 
> And I also liked Skiles comment sort of poking fun at the only reason they compare him to skiles is cause of racial lines. Nice to see Skiles recognize that.
> ...


You know, I'm not sure we'd be bad if Kirk Hinrich is our best player in years to come. Just because he went to college for 4 years doesn't mean he can't improve. Kenyon Martin has certainly improved since his rookie year, and he was a 4 year guy. 

Kirk has great form on his shot, but his fg % is low. I genuinely think he will shoot a much higher % for his career from the field. He also has the run jump athleticism to throw down on people, but thus far he hasn't really gained comfort driving the lane and finishing. What if he not only improves finishing around the hoop but starts putting down some Marv Albert facials? 

What if he learns to shoot at all the right times and stop being too passive? What if he hits a game winning shot or two (something NOBODY on this team has done in a long time)? What if he improves his handle and cuts down his turnovers? How about if he becomes even better at defense?

A person with inner fire and competitiveness of the highest order never shirks the responsibility of improving his game. I actually think that Jay Williams had that same kind of passion for the game, and although he struggled more than Kirk has his rookie year, I thought he too would wind up a mighty player. 

Look back at the athletic tests and look past his color: Kirk Hinrich has the athleticism to improve and be a star in this league. Will he? No one knows. But at least I believe he knows and is capable of the type of work required to get there.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Ace saw your article on the bulls web news page cool. I think what skiles is really saying has to due with consistency. It is not that curry does not have a low post game (because he surely does) it is you never know when he is going to bring it. Same for JC, when he is on he is our best player but also inconsistent. Gill and robinson. Great one night and lost the next.
> 
> While there are many to blame BC is most at fault here. He should have really laid down the law but instread let rose do what ever he wanted and the young guys watched and followed.
> ...


Thanks I am glad you liked my article. Yeah, Kirk is definitley the Bulls most consistent player and I can't argue that at all. And that 4th quarter lineup against Phoenix had me nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I'm sorry, but I HAVE to believe the Bulls would have been better off with Crawford over Brunson and it looked like AD could have used a breather himself. Bottom line is we pulled it out but if we hadn't SKiles would have caught a lot of flack for his moves. 


On Hinrich, to address some of the other posters comments, I don't think Hinrich is going to get much better. I think he has come close to peaking. Sure, he will probably improve his fg% some, he may become slightly more effective. But Kirk fulfilled most of his potential at Kansas. He's not the kind of player that you bring in because he has much upside. His ceiling isn't that far. He's definitley much lower on the upside scale than any of the other young Bulls IMO. If people are expecting drastic imporvements from his game they will be dissappointed.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> "If I really wanted to break it all down, Kirk's our best player," Scott Skiles said matter-of-factly. "So he stays on the court the most. All around, top to bottom, with all the things he does for the team, he has been our most consistent and best player.
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,5724915.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


That explains our record.

*sorry if that was already said. I didn't read any of the posts in this thread. I can already imagine what they all say.*


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks I am glad you liked my article. Yeah, Kirk is definitley the Bulls most consistent player and I can't argue that at all. And that 4th quarter lineup against Phoenix had me nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I'm sorry, but I HAVE to believe the Bulls would have been better off with Crawford over Brunson and it looked like AD could have used a breather himself. Bottom line is we pulled it out but if we hadn't SKiles would have caught a lot of flack for his moves.
> ...


I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you on Hinrichs ceiling. I think he's got a ways to go. I think he's got the desire to be a whole lot better than he is. He'll add strength this offseason. I'll bet that he will be the player in the best shape come the opening of training camp. That's gonna help with his shot because it seems like he just doesn't have his legs under him right now and that's why he's not hitting above 40%. The strength is gonna help him with his dribble penetration and finishing in the lane and his ability to absorb contact.

He's come a long way just this season. His first couple of games he outright stunk. He's learned from them and adjusted his game accordingly. He doesn't turn the ball over nearly as much and he's beginning to figure out NBA sets.

I'm pleasantly content with Hinrich. I'm more disappointed in certain other players.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I still think he is more complementary then franchise and that is ok. You can do far worse then having him be your 3 or 4 guy.


I've always said the Mike Bibby role seems like what he's destined for.

Question: was stockton a franchise PG?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't know what hinrich ceiling is but i do know that PG is the hardest transition for a player to make from college to the pro's and i think he will make a jump in his quality of play as he matures and learns the differences between the college and pro games. And as i recall most of the best PG in the league struggled their first year. I also agree that he will increasing his jump shot % as well as playing better D, and limiting his TO. Since he is averaging about 15 pts and 7 assts and shooting 40% and 36% (in the last 5 games) i think that would make him a excellent PG for this team. We really don't need much scoring from him since (IMO) curry, JC, and to a lesser extent chandler and our SF of the future should be putting up more shots than hinrich. We do need tough D and good court management from the PG position as well as forcing spacing which he should excellent at with his 3 point shot. Especally when combined with JC 3 point range.

The one place i do think he will markedly improve is his move driving to the basket, he still looks unsure, and needs to take another dribble and collect himself prior to jumping to the hoop.

david


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://www.82games.com/0304CHI.HTM

This may give some credence to the fact that <i>this season</i> Hinrich has been our best player and most valuable contributor to wins and losses.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I think what skiles is really saying has to due with consistency. It is not that curry does not have a low post game (because he surely does) it is you never know when he is going to bring it.


Yeah I too think that's what Skiles meant. Curry needs to bring it night in night out and rebound the ball better. Certainly Curry has the skills to be a low post player. On his show, which i think airs tuesdays 7-8 on am 1000, he was talking about shaq's rookie year when he just wanted to rip the rim off the backboard but with hard work he developed a hookshot. 

about JC though not having the skills of a PG, i'm not sure if he means the mental aspect or physical but because it's coming from a former PG, I trust his instincts.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> http://www.82games.com/0304CHI.HTM
> 
> This may give some credence to the fact that <i>this season</i> Hinrich has been our best player and most valuable contributor to wins and losses.


ts hard to take seriously a stat that says chris jeffries is the 3rd best player on the team ..and blount is #2


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Props to everyone who has posted on this thread. Very nice reading! I am glad for Kirk being named the best player on the team. That is great! And I agree with posters who say, Finally we have a draft pick that has played! No more, "just think at what he might be able to do in two or three years!" He is a bull and I am very happy about that! I also agree with the posters who defend Kirk when some posters say he has low ceiling. I disagree. To me that statement comes from all of the you g players we have drafted in recent years. A college player can improve and some do. I look for Hinrich to be a hell of a player for years to come. He will improve on his 39.8% shooting. He will improve on defense. He will learn when to take more shots! To me one of his flaws is he doesn't shoot enough! Some may argue,well he took 19 the last game? True, but since the trade, he has taken only 193 shot attempts. That is 10 a game. With Chandler and Pippen hurt. And Blount and Curry hurt some last month, we could have used more than 10 shot attempts a game from kirk. But he will learn in time, when to shoot less and to shoot more. I am not going to compare him to JC this thread. This is about Kirk. And please notice, I am aware of his shortcomings. As for his t/o? He is averaging just over 3 a game since the trade. Kidd averages, 3.39 t/o a game for his career! Many times a pt guard takes chances and it fails. But you know what? They make more plays where they succeed in the play! Kirk will be fine as far as t/o. 

As far as this team being doomed with Kirk as its best player? Then that tells you what the other players are and are not doing in skiles eyes. 

Is Kirk the most talented? No. But what good does talent do when it is only done on one side of the court? Or is shows up once every 5 games? What good is talent and potential if it never gets reached? 

As for Curry? I think that deserves a thread of its own.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> As for Curry? I think that deserves a thread of its own.


Please do TBF. That would be a very interesting thread. I know I am nowhere near as high on Curry as I once was.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Props to everyone who has posted on this thread. Very nice reading! I am glad for Kirk being named the best player on the team. That is great! And I agree with posters who say, Finally we have a draft pick that has played! No more, "just think at what he might be able to do in two or three years!" He is a bull and I am very happy about that! I also agree with the posters who defend Kirk when some posters say he has low ceiling. I disagree. To me that statement comes from all of the you g players we have drafted in recent years. A college player can improve and some do. I look for Hinrich to be a hell of a player for years to come. He will improve on his 39.8% shooting. He will improve on defense. He will learn when to take more shots! To me one of his flaws is he doesn't shoot enough! Some may argue,well he took 19 the last game? True, but since the trade, he has taken only 193 shot attempts. That is 10 a game. With Chandler and Pippen hurt. And Blount and Curry hurt some last month, we could have used more than 10 shot attempts a game from kirk. But he will learn in time, when to shoot less and to shoot more. I am not going to compare him to JC this thread. This is about Kirk. And please notice, I am aware of his shortcomings. As for his t/o? He is averaging just over 3 a game since the trade. Kidd averages, 3.39 t/o a game for his career! Many times a pt guard takes chances and it fails. But you know what? They make more plays where they succeed in the play! Kirk will be fine as far as t/o.
> 
> As far as this team being doomed with Kirk as its best player? Then that tells you what the other players are and are not doing in skiles eyes.
> ...


kirk is a good player and he's going to get better , i'm not sure i buy that skiles is on the level with this kirk is our best player stuff but hey he did say it so i'll take it at its value

he is one of a group of very talented players on the bulls who i hope will with consistency rule the nba


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I agree that there is quite a bit of upside in Hinrich, and I agree with whoever compared him to Bibby. To become a Bibby-like player, he would need to become a much more efficient shooter and a little better ball handler. I think his passing is already similar to Bibby and his defense is better.

To become of star in this League, he would need to improve his shooting and passing to the level of John Stockton, who in his career was simply amazing with how well he was able to shoot the ball. In terms of being off the charts in shooting percentage, he was like the Michael Jordan of point guards. Can Hinrich become that efficient of a shooter. Probably not, but that is one of the things it would take to have a Stocton-like presence on the court.

The second is, of course, that he would need to become a more efficient passer/floor leader. In a lot of ways I think he is closer to Stockton on these dimensions that he on the shooting dimension, but it hard to tell with us having no Malone to pair him up with. I am very eager to see how Hinrich plays with Curry and Chandler, as they become more effective offensive options. It is surprising that Hinrich was not able to do for Fizer what he done for Robinson and Gill, i.e. make them effective offensive options. (Crawford has also helped with this.)

But all in all, I think that Hinrich can get a lot better. And I still stand by my statement that in the games that I have seen of Hinrich and Brunson, there does not seem to be a huge drop-off between the two. But I think in the games I have not seen, Brunson has not been able to hit a shot, leaving the Bulls one less offensive option out there on the floor.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> ts hard to take seriously a stat that says chris jeffries is the 3rd best player on the team ..and blount is #2


okay madgrinch, how does Hinrich rank in +/- amongst NBA players who've played a minimum of 750 minutes? <b>15th overall</b> 

http://www.82games.com/rolandratings0304.htm

FYI, Jamal just missed top 30. So should these two be playing major minutes together? YES.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> And I still stand by my statement that in the games that I have seen of Hinrich and Brunson, there does not seem to be a huge drop-off between the two. But I think in the games I have not seen, Brunson has not been able to hit a shot, leaving the Bulls one less offensive option out there on the floor.


In the games I've seen of Brunson, he looks like the slowest player in the NBA. How we are even comparing these two, I don't know.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

By, "best player" Scott meant the most consistent and well-rounded, not the player of most impact. Scott saying that directly arises out of Jamal being one dimensional on offense with his on/off shot. Despite consistency in assists and better performance in other areas, the team really loses out when he's not scoring. Jamal is easily one of the most frustrating players in the NBA even though he does seem to try.

But anyway,

Here are the bests in everything to satisfy people of every dogma:

Most Potential Talent - Eddy Curry

Most Impact - Jamal Crawford

Most Leadership - Tyson Chandler

Kirky just so happens to be the best synthesis of those 3 things, albeit to a lesser degree than the bests in each of those categories. But is he a franchise player ?

A franchise player in my opinion can ALONE (meaning no other all-star, although an exception can be made for those who play in the West) lead his team to the playoffs (e.g. Shaq, KG, T-Mac (in other years), JKidd, AI, Paul Pierce, Ben Wallace, and Carmelo's making quite a case) 

How do franchise players do it ? 

1) Leadership, 2) the ability to provide what isn't there, 3) the ability to actually concretely rally teams to a win (i.e. make big defensive plays, go on wild streaks). That seems easy enough, but what I don't mention is that it usually takes an immense, not just great deal of talent to "provide what isn't there" and "rally teams to a win." And usually they have a reliable niche or two which defines their games (Shaq - Scoring and rebounding KG - scoring inside and rebounding, JKidd - dishing and scoring, AI - scoring albeit with the team obviously geared around him, Paul Pierce - scoring, Ben Wallace - D-FENSE !, Carmelo - scoring)

And is Kirk a franchise player ?

People don't like him as a franchise player for now because he has no defined niche on the court - doesn't like to shoot, on/off defense. For me (at least for now), he doesn't spark enough momentum in the way that Jamal can do to bring us to a win, which is why I hold back from calling him a franchise player. But his constants are an ability to not screw up and the ability to occasionally to fix those screw ups. He's as solid as solid can be. But solid doesn't mean special relative to the rest of the NBA.

Can he ever be a franchise player ?

Without a niche it's tough. I think he's got quite of an uphill battle if he ever tried to go that route. But I think he'll be happy, doing the scrappy (lame, yeah . , reminds me of the time I came up with the tag line for this board).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> I agree that there is quite a bit of upside in Hinrich, and I agree with whoever compared him to Bibby. To become a Bibby-like player, he would need to become a much more efficient shooter and a little better ball handler. I think his passing is already similar to Bibby and his defense is better.
> 
> To become of star in this League, he would need to improve his shooting and passing to the level of John Stockton, who in his career was simply amazing with how well he was able to shoot the ball. In terms of being off the charts in shooting percentage, he was like the Michael Jordan of point guards. Can Hinrich become that efficient of a shooter. Probably not, but that is one of the things it would take to have a Stocton-like presence on the court.
> ...


That was me.

You know what I'm most interested in seeing?

What he has for us after a off-season worth of work. I'll bet he'll be noticably bigger and stronger, and so will his jumper.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

wow.

So the rookie gets some nice props from the
coach and suddenly it's a SAD day for the bulls? Yes, i have slogged through this entire thread. And yes, while he may not be the most "talented" player on the Bulls - IMHO he is the one who, on any given night, actually TRIES the hardest. Does he make mistakes? Yes. Does Jamal make mistakes? Yes. Eddy? I could go on but that isn't the point. 


IMO Kirk Hinrich will improve. Alot. And he seems to me to be the type of player who will make his teamates BETTER. The type of player who actually knows HOW to do that. 

You just have to give him a chance! Seems like the Bulls are more than happy to do that. I think Skiles knows EXACTLY what he's doing.

Way to go Kirk! 




:grinning:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> okay madgrinch, how does Hinrich rank in +/- amongst NBA players who've played a minimum of 750 minutes? <b>15th overall</b>
> ...


its a nice stat and all but +/- rating have very little place in basketball because the factors can be swayed by so many things, i mean for instance fred hoiberg was far and away the best on the bulls in +/- last season and in general the bench players fared better than the starters ...it didn't mean they were better players or even more impactful ones 

c'mon trent hassell was like the worst guy on the bulls in +/- last season and now he rates higher than kobe bryant , tim duncan and tracy mcgrady .

its a stat i find means very little about the individual player and moreso about grander things associated with the team he is on. 

just my opinion


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> its a nice stat and all but +/- rating have very little place in basketball because the factors can be swayed by so many things, i mean for instance fred hoiberg was far and away the best on the bulls in +/- last season and in general the bench players fared better than the starters ...it didn't mean they were better players or even more impactful ones
> ...


I was waiting for you to discount the Roland Rating all together 

Well Crawford was the top dog last season not Hoiberg:

http://www.82games.com/0203CHI.HTM

Per Hassell, you have to take the rating w/in the same season, so it is a bit unfair to compare two years and two different teams. But its your call to do so. Again, the site reads: <b>These ratings represent a player's value to a particular team and are not intended to be an accurate gauge of the ability and talent of the player away from the specific team. </b> So yeah, I'd say Hinrich is pretty valuable to this team, as is Crawford.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Again, the site reads:  <b>These ratings represent a player's value to a particular team and are not intended to be an accurate gauge of the ability and talent of the player away from the specific team. </b>  So yeah, I'd say Hinrich is pretty valuable to this team, as is Crawford.


Nice stats.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I was waiting for you to discount the Roland Rating all together
> ...


its not that i discount it but i just think it has a lot more to do with the team ,than the player , i completely discount brunson and bags because combined they didn't really play much combined maybe they were on the active roster for maybe a month last year .

and barring them hoiberg is the only player with a positive rating though JC had the biggest differential

it gives no indication of roles being used by the player and how that effects the player rating 

for instance rose raked #12 last year on the team ...what does that say about him?

nothing becuase he was by far the most important and impactful player on the team and he was the best player on the team ...but the rating for positive influence has him 12th and thats not fair and its numerically accurate but not in any other way accurate, because all of the bulls ratings would have been alot worse if he had not played a minute all year because he was a very good player last year

so i stand by what i say , its more of a rating about the team than any individual player 

the bulls ratings say that last year the bulls had a sub-par starting unit and a decent bench for most of the year 

as for hassell he is exactly what i mean , i've seen him this year he has played well but not that much better he is simply benefitting from the minny sys. wheras in chi-town he suffered from the way things were done here and the fact that the bulls were defensively challenged so he had a much larger burden placed on him than he is capable of carrying


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

If Kirk's the best player on a 11-23 team, we're screwed, right?

Don't tell the Cavs that! Their rookie is the best player on their team, and they're, uh, 11-23.

I know, I know, I'll be hanged for blasphemy. How dare I mention Kirk Hinrich and Lebron James in the same sentence?!

Why the heck not? Apply the same logic, see what you come up with, and realize how silly the logic is.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> If Kirk's the best player on a 11-23 team, we're screwed, right?
> 
> Don't tell the Cavs that! Their rookie is the best player on their team, and they're, uh, 11-23.
> ...


Zeos, you know I have nothing but respect for you man but that is really comparing apples and oranges IMO.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Oh my-the Bulls havent had a decent coach sense PJ


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> If Kirk's the best player on a 11-23 team, we're screwed, right?
> 
> Don't tell the Cavs that! Their rookie is the best player on their team, and they're, uh, 11-23.
> ...


Yeah. There ya go. Kirk is carrying the Bulls like Lebron is.
  
   
   
 

The problem isn't that a rookie is our best player. It's that Kirk Hinrich is our best player. Kirk is not a franchise savior like Lebron. He is a guy who on most teams would be still coming off the bench, and who would be best suited as a 3rd option.

Our best player should be Eddy Curry.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> The problem isn't that a rookie is our best player. It's that Kirk Hinrich is our best player. Kirk is not a franchise savior like Lebron. He is a guy who on most teams would be still coming off the bench, and who would be best suited as a 3rd option.
> ...


Agree, and this takes nothing away from Hinrich...he's a helluva player.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> You know, I'm not sure we'd be bad if Kirk Hinrich is our best player in years to come. Just because he went to college for 4 years doesn't mean he can't improve. Kenyon Martin has certainly improved since his rookie year, and he was a 4 year guy.
> ...


Money post.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I've read every single post of a 5-page subject and I've got to say I'm disappointed in quite a few folks. Kirk Hinrich, as of this moment in time, is the best ALL-AROUND player on the bulls. Skiles is correct. I also get something of a chuckle on those that bemoan the fact that if Kirk is the best player on an 11-23 team, that we are in a load of hurt. Who's to say that 2 or 3 years from now, Hinrich might not be considered one of the top 5 PG's in the league? Has he already reached his ceiling? Is there no more room for growth in his game?


Great post. Agreed 100%.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Yeah. There ya go. Kirk is carrying the Bulls like Lebron is.


Lebron's carrying the Bulls? That must be why they suck! Come on, don't be silly.

Eddy should be the Bulls best player. Yep, just like the Cavs best player should be Zydrunas Ilgauskas. He's not.

I'm sorry if I don't worship the ground that Lebron James walks on. I apologize if offends hoops fans if I care more about wins and results than hype and potential. And if I'm blinded to James' enormous potential because I'm a raving Bulls fan, sue me.

I am a Bulls fan, and I am sick of talking and hearing about potential. I want to see players bust their butts and give it 100% of what they have. I want to see effort, toughness, fight. I long for seeing Tyson on the floor again because he's going to give you that. Even if Tyson's nowhere near his "potential" he gives you 100% effort and toughness, and I admire that.

In contrast, Eddy and Jamal SHOULD be better players than Kirk. They're not. They're soft. They settle. They're not exactly known for their defense, hustle, heart, fight, or toughness. I'm sick of that. Give me someone with some fight. Give me something to cheer about!

Hoorah, we drafted a player with all those wonderful attributes. About the only thing he lacks is a 42" vertical and a 7-foot wingspan. Of course, if he had that, he wouldn't have fallen to #7.

No, Kirk is not going to go around a screen at the 3 point line, take one dribble, take off from the free throw line, and dunk over 3 defenders.

So? Isn't there more to basketball than that? From a point guard?

Kirk has a ton of potential. It's just not a high flying, dunking kind of potential. It's quick feet, physical and mental toughness, good jump shot, and terrific basketball IQ. I see a whole lot of John Stockton in him. If Stockton is his ceiling, I'll take that potential in a heartbeat!

Skiles was raving about Kirk, not just because he's the Bulls best player, but because he is _right now_ one of the best defensive guards in the east. He has _all star_ potential. And he's well on his way to realizing that potential.

Lebron James? I like him. I suppose I would have taken him ahead of Kirk if he fell to #7.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> On Hinrich, to address some of the other posters comments, I don't think Hinrich is going to get much better. I think he has come close to peaking. Sure, he will probably improve his fg% some, he may become slightly more effective. But Kirk fulfilled most of his potential at Kansas. He's not the kind of player that you bring in because he has much upside. His ceiling isn't that far. He's definitley much lower on the upside scale than any of the other young Bulls IMO. If people are expecting drastic imporvements from his game they will be dissappointed.


This is the type of mindset that I just don't get. When Hinrich first came to Kansas, it was thought that he would be a solid, if unspectacular, college player at the high-major level, with not much potential for stardom. After he thoroughly demolished that "prognostication" and became a full-fledged star on the verge of becoming a professional player, he was smattered with labels of "not athletic enough", "bust of the draft", "will struggle to compete with pro guards", and "Paxson clone" upon entering the League. Now that he has thoroughly demolished these hilariously false criticisms, many doubters now believe Hinrich has maxed out his potential, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I see a pattern here.

I've watched the kid for a long time now. He hasn't shown many of the things he can do yet, as he's still adapting to the pro game. His FG% will go up -- this is inevitable (you don't set Kansas and Big XII records and not be a great shooter). His defense will certainly improve -- he has the mindset and the athleticism right now, and will continue to gather experience (especially on an individual-by-individual basis) with every game in the future. His finishing will improve as he learns better attack angles and gains strength and confidence. His playmaking will undoubtedly improve as he gains knowledge and experience with both his teammates and various opponents. I simply fail to see how people cannot quantify this as significant "upside".

The opinion that Kirk Hinrich is has a low ceiling is more than a bit silly, considering everything KH has done to prove the critics wrong at every juncture in the past. KH _surprised_ scouts and coaches at predraft camps -- seriously, HOW does this happen? Do they even watch the games? Don't they have any context of the player going into the camps above and beyond general (uninformed) opinion?

ace, in what ways did Kirk fulfill most of his potential at Kansas? Don't you know that he played in a very selective system, which focused almost entirely on transition and the secondary break, and rarely allowed anyone on the team much of a chance in the halfcourt, the predominant offensive set in the NBA? Do you know that due to team personnel, Kirk only played his natural position of point guard for 1 1/2 years at Kansas, and had to play out of position his final two years? Don't you think that because of this, there is comparatively more room for him to improve at that position than a rookie who was 3- or 4-year college player at one position (as the vast majority are)? Also, hypothetically speaking, since Jamal is the same age as Kirk and has been in the League for a while now, does he have a similarly low ceiling?

Personally, I think all this talk of "upside" and "ceiling" talk is hugely overrated. E-Rob surely has monumental upside, but what the hell has he done with it? I like results. I like improvement. And I think there's a lot of misinformation and unwarranted hype and un-hype (aka, "low ceiling") floating around out there.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> This is the type of mindset that I just don't get. When Hinrich first came to Kansas, it was thought that he would be a solid, if unspectacular, college player at the high-major level, with not much potential for stardom. After he thoroughly demolished that "prognostication" and became a full-fledged star on the verge of becoming a professional player, he was smattered with labels of "not athletic enough", "bust of the draft", "will struggle to compete with pro guards", and "Paxson clone" upon entering the League. Now that he has thoroughly demolished these hilariously false criticisms, many doubters now believe Hinrich has maxed out his potential, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I see a pattern here.
> ...



Great post. Agreed 100%


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> 
> 
> Lebron's carrying the Bulls? That must be why they suck! Come on, don't be silly.
> ...


The Cavs are actually winning. Now that Ricky Davis is gone and Lebron has taken over the team. They were worse than the Bulls last year, now they have the same record and on the fast track for the 8th seed.

The Cavs don't suck. But this is a common misconception.

Maybe Jamal is our Ricky Davis???


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> okay madgrinch, how does Hinrich rank in +/- amongst NBA players who've played a minimum of 750 minutes? <b>15th overall</b>
> ...


That's one vicious stat. Telling, too.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> If Kirk's the best player on a 11-23 team, we're screwed, right?
> 
> Don't tell the Cavs that! Their rookie is the best player on their team, and they're, uh, 11-23.
> ...


I was about ready to say the same thing.

Logic kills.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> That's one *vicious* stat. Telling, too.


you called? oh oops.

All this talk of potential and upside seriously makes me want to vomit. After 29 years, I mean 6 years, of rebuilding, I've just had enough. I'm tired of waiting for Curry to "break out". I'm tired of waiting for Jamal to be a top-5 point guard. I'm tired of waiting for Fizer to be the league's best 6th man. I'm tired of waiting for Chandler to put on enough weight, develop a money 15-footer, and learn to catch post entry passes. Have circumstances conspired to prevent all these things from happening? Sure, to some extent, but I'm tired of the reasons/excuses too.

because of all this, Kirk Hinrich is a breath of fresh air. It took him, what, 10 games to become not only a competent NBA player, but someone who the team is already starting to rely upon for direction and energy. Kirk's ceiling is low? Poppycock, but I don't care anymore. he can play NOW. He WILL get better with experience, but he doesn't need to be spoon-fed every single freaking aspect of "how to play the game" the way all our other young bucks have. He knows how to play quality basketball. After 3+ years, Jamal still doesn't know. After 2+ years, Curry doesn't know. Tyson might know, but he still has flaws.

In my mind, THIS is what distinguishes Kirk from the rest of the squad. Enough blather about potential. At some point you have to start wondering if guys are ever going to fulfill it. That time is quickly arriving for the 3Cs and Fizer. I still have hope, but it's a mere sliver compared to last season. After all this "patience", I'm a fairly risk-averse person. Give me the sure thing over the 50/50 big payoff. If this team doesn't seriously gel when the injury bug lets up and everyone gets used to each other and Skiles, I won't shed a tear over moving some of the "building blocks" out of here while they still have value.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Draft day "low ceiling": Steve Nash
Draft day "high ceiling": Chris Jefferies


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i didnt mean to imply that Kirk cant be a star. It has nothing to do with skin color or what not. But you cant win a ring with him as your number one guy. He will get a lot better, but he is never going to be a #1 guy on a championship team. He would even say that. 

And lets drop the Stockton comparisons. they arent even close. He has a long way to go to get to that level. Those comparisons are driven by racial reasons, not actual comparisons. his game shouldnt remind anyone of Stockton. Stockton looked most comfortable with the ball in his hands. kirk looks more comfortable off the ball to me.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

rlucas,

Agreed i don't think hinrich's game is anything like stocktons at all. I think his game is more like mo cheeks. Dribbles the ball low to the ground and has a very upright jump shot. I also agree that you can't build a team around a point guard but i also think you have to have excellent guard play to be a succesfull team in the nba. Yo still watching for peitrus. They should let me get some minutes. Their bench is not so great he shouldn't get at least ten minutes.

david


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> rlucas,
> 
> Agreed i don't think hinrich's game is anything like stocktons at all. I think his game is more like mo cheeks. Dribbles the ball low to the ground and has a very upright jump shot. I also agree that you can't build a team around a point guard but i also think you have to have excellent guard play to be a succesfull team in the nba. Yo still watching for peitrus. They should let me get some minutes. Their bench is not so great he shouldn't get at least ten minutes.
> ...


Mo Cheeks is a very intelligent comparison. Good defensively, gets all the loose balls, makes unselfish plays. A little bit bigger. But that is a damn good comparison. Very good post

Pietrus put himself in Muss's doghouse. That is the only reason to explain it. Even Murphy isnt playing that much. He had a 2 week stretch where he was just playing great ball. And then suddenly, with no explanation, he went to DNP-CD or garbage time. And with GS not playing well, it doesnt make any sense. I still beg Pax to trade for him. He fits out 2-3 problems very well.

Edit By the way, i agree with skiles to an extent. Kirk has been the best player on the bulls. he is easily the most complete player on the Bulls. Though i think id still take JC for this season. Next year, id take Kirk for sure. My only thinking is that JC can win you a game by himself. But the downside is he can loose you games as well. With a guy like Kirk, you know that he is good enough to keep you competitive


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think I saw the thread you were talking about. What a mess that has turned into. I saw one of the more respected posters over there lump Kirk in company with Corie Blount and Rick Brunson because he feels he's a player who gives effort. Basically he said we've had effort players like him in the past (Willoughby, Blount, etc) who have given good effort but that hasn't been enough to elevate us over 20 wins. I percieved it as a slap in Kirk's face, I could be wrong.

There was a little of everything in the thread. Unfortunately, the last 4 pages turned into a race debate. Our very own RLucas even got his name thrown into the fray. Oh well, I want to commend the posters on this site. Things do get heated, but at least posters here can communicate in a mature manner. I think the mods here deserve props for keeping things under control too. Keep it up guys!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Did someone call me a racist? I didnt read that. Must have been Songcycle.  

If I made any kind of racial insinuation, I apologize. Though I cant see where I did

The thing about kirk is that he gets compared to 2 guys all the time. Those guys are Stockton and Nash. But he plays nothing like Stockton. That comparison is made because both are white. And that is a slight to Stockton and a slight to Kirk. I like the Cheeks comparison some. VV said he thought Kirk played like Payton. That was the best comparison. I just cant stand comparisons of players made on racial tones. When was the last time a white player was compared to a black player and vice versa? It just makes me sick.

Anyway, this is a good thread. your right dkg


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

that "respected poster" on the other board has a looooonnnngggg history of defending the guy in his avatar who shall remain nameless at the merciless expense of either his "competition" or the coach. And just because he never actually says, "____ is my boy", he claims not to play favorites, too! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  Needless to say he got called out for that in a big way in that thread.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ahhh dkg, i misunderstood. So people on realgm were calling me a racist?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Did someone call me a racist? I didnt read that. Must have been Songcycle.
> 
> If I made any kind of racial insinuation, I apologize. Though I cant see where I did
> ...


not to fuel the racial element of this conversation, but I much prefer the comparisons to Nash as opposed to Stockton. Difference is that Kirk is a more explosive athlete than either guy and a much better defender than Nash already. Stockton's court vision and ability to deliver the perfect pass are one of a kind, and as good as Kirk is, he doesn't have that gift. He also doesn't (yet) have Nash's ability to maintain control of his dribble in heavy traffic to make the circus shot or interior feed, but that's something I think he might be able to develop more so.

How about comparing Kirk somewhat to Joe Dumars, but with a point-guard mentality? Both fearless rugged defenders, good but deferential shooters/scorers, ultimate team guy/winners. Kirk passes better and Joe did a lot of other things better (so far at least), but there are some similarities there.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> ahhh dkg, i misunderstood. So people on realgm were calling me a racist?


no, no. sorry if i created any confusion, Rlucas. One of the posters mentioned something about you accusing another poster of being a "covert racist" or something to that effect. It turned into a very strange thread to say the least. Again, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> not to fuel the racial element of this conversation, but I much prefer the comparisons to Nash as opposed to Stockton. Difference is that Kirk is a more explosive athlete than either guy and a much better defender than Nash already. Stockton's court vision and ability to deliver the perfect pass are one of a kind, and as good as Kirk is, he doesn't have that gift. He also doesn't (yet) have Nash's ability to maintain control of his dribble in heavy traffic to make the circus shot or interior feed, but that's something I think he might be able to develop more so.
> ...


Joe Dumars is a very realistic comparison. Dumars was a little stronger, better shooter, but I think Kirk might be quicker. But a ton of similarities there. And Dumars was a winner. Kirk is too

Nash is a shoot first player, kirk is a pass first player. And kirk plays D. Thats not to say Kirk will be as good as Nash (he isnt right now and may never be) but I just dont see that. But atleast your comparison has an argument. When people call Kirk the next Stockton, they ought to back it up with something. And there really is no comparison there. the sad thing is that our own GM and former coach were stupid enough to make that comparion

Good post VFlogging.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> no, no. sorry if i created any confusion, Rlucas. One of the posters mentioned something about you accusing another poster of being a "covert racist" or something to that effect. It turned into a very strange thread to say the least. Again, sorry for the confusion.


That guy referred to every black player (minus Wade, James and Anthony) mentioned as " another project, who dont have basketball IQs and are just athletes" I called him out on it. And the guy had no defense. Even Coldchi thought it was racist. As did others. But its nice to see that I still have their attention over there. Too bad a couple of bad apples can ruin a great place. The Mods here deserve an absolute ton of credit for keeping the trash out.


----------



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

hinrich is a very good all around player but is he the bull's best player? r u kidding me? skiles should instead tell hinrich to shoot ton of jumpshots n layups in practice. for every 1 good shooting game, he follows it up w 3-4 bad shooting games.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> "If I really wanted to break it all down, Kirk's our best player," Scott Skiles said matter-of-factly. "So he stays on the court the most. All around, top to bottom, with all the things he does for the team, he has been our most consistent and best player.
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,5724915.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


Up until that statement, I actually thought Skiles had a clue. I am just hoping that his antics of late are merely to motivate JC and Eddy. I'm sorry, there's no way that someone like Crawford, Curry, or Chandler will ever believe that Hinrich is better than them. Especially coming from a white coach. I'm white and I'm not trying to play the race card, but Skiles better tread lightly in this area, otherwise he might have a mutiny on his hands or at least a divided camp. 

I'm sorry, but sitting your leading scorer and a guy who is capable of scoring 25 points in a half for the entire 2nd half in winnable back-to-back games is simply dumb. You make a point by making him run suicides in practice, you bench him for half of a quarter, maybe even a quarter, you fine him (either monetarily or by taking away playing minutes - for example benched 5 minutes for every ill-advised shot). But you don't put your team at a competitive disadvantage in a very winnable game when the team is so desparate to find it's confidence and hardup for winning games. Not in the diluted Eastern Conference. I'm sorry, it's just plain dumb or ego-mania. Mark this game on your calendar and when the Bulls turn things around a make a rush to make the playoffs at the end of the season only to come up a game short ... you'll know why. 

I agree that JC needs to learn how to harness his talent and how to play with more discipline. But benching him for an entire half only sends two messages; 1. The organization is more concern about being right and not concerned about winning. 2. The organization doesn't value JC. When JC is allowed to play his natural position and is given the green to light to score and to get his team involved, he has proven himself time and time again. That is not to say that he doesn't take bad shots or that he has had poor shooting nights. It is to say that when he allowed to create off the dribble, the Bulls have their best chance to win. Skiles can talk about Hinrich being the Bulls best player, but make no mistake the Bulls are not going to win without Crawford and/or Curry.

I still think Skiles is the right man for the Bulls coaching job, I just want him to not to alienate the Bulls real best player.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> Up until that statement, I actually thought Skiles had a clue. I am just hoping that his antics of late are merely to motivate JC and Eddy. I'm sorry, there's no way that someone like Crawford, Curry, or Chandler will ever believe that Hinrich is better than them. Especially coming from a white coach. I'm white and I'm not trying to play the race card, but Skiles better tread lightly in this area, otherwise he might have a mutiny on his hands or at least a divided camp.
> ...


I am in agreement. Well put.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71319&forumid=27


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> Up until that statement, I actually thought Skiles had a clue. I am just hoping that his antics of late are merely to motivate JC and Eddy. I'm sorry, there's no way that someone like Crawford, Curry, or Chandler will ever believe that Hinrich is better than them. Especially coming from a white coach. I'm white and I'm not trying to play the race card, but Skiles better tread lightly in this area, otherwise he might have a mutiny on his hands or at least a divided camp.


Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but this is just dumb.

Also, do you agree or disagree with Skiles' comment that JC is a SG, not a PG?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> I'm sorry, but sitting your leading scorer and a guy who is capable of scoring 25 points in a half for the entire 2nd half in winnable back-to-back games is simply dumb. You make a point by making him run suicides in practice, you bench him for half of a quarter, maybe even a quarter, you fine him (either monetarily or by taking away playing minutes - for example benched 5 minutes for every ill-advised shot). But you don't put your team at a competitive disadvantage in a very winnable game when the team is so desparate to find it's confidence and hardup for winning games. Not in the diluted Eastern Conference. I'm sorry, it's just plain dumb or ego-mania. Mark this game on your calendar and when the Bulls turn things around a make a rush to make the playoffs at the end of the season only to come up a game short ... you'll know why.



Wow I was thinking the same thing its funny how everyone has dropped he no excuse slogan for skiles .I thought the only thing that mattered was to ge the win no matter what .

These are winnable freaking games get the win sort out the rest later as Crawford goes so goes this team .As a player its the 4th quarter and you see Brunsons fumbling the ball up the court and Crawford on the bench can you even think of anything else besides what the hell ?

I like Skiles but I want wins .


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but this is just dumb.
> ...


You're entitled to your opinion and I can't believe you're asking me if I agree with Skiles that JC is a PG or SG. To tell you the truth I didn't notice Skiles comment that JC was a SG, but make no mistake I think JC's natural position is a PG. Although he can play both positions.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> Up until that statement, I actually thought Skiles had a clue. I am just hoping that his antics of late are merely to motivate JC and Eddy. I'm sorry, there's no way that someone like Crawford, Curry, or Chandler will ever believe that Hinrich is better than them. Especially coming from a white coach. I'm white and I'm not trying to play the race card, but Skiles better tread lightly in this area, otherwise he might have a mutiny on his hands or at least a divided camp.



Oh for the love of God. Like the whiteness has anything to do with it. First of all, take Tyson out of this, b/c Skiles has never really had him as a player and I'm sure his comments aren't talking about him. It is obvious likes players that ACTUALLY TRY HARD. At this point, this does not seem to include Curry or Crawford on a consistent basis. 



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I'm sorry, but sitting your leading scorer and a guy who is capable of scoring 25 points in a half for the entire 2nd half in winnable back-to-back games is simply dumb.



Capable? Sure, he's capable. But don't hold your breath on any given day. In fact, getting him to realize his capabilities and actually assert himself seems to be like pulling teeth.



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> You make a point by making him run suicides in practice, you bench him for half of a quarter, maybe even a quarter, you fine him (either monetarily or by taking away playing minutes - for example benched 5 minutes for every ill-advised shot). But you don't put your team at a competitive disadvantage in a very winnable game when the team is so desparate to find it's confidence and hardup for winning games. Not in the diluted Eastern Conference. I'm sorry, it's just plain dumb or ego-mania.



First, if you noticed, Curry fouled out, so it's not like there were lots of extra minutes available for him. 

Second, a competitive disadvantage? I want JC to be successful on this team. But today, other than one instance I can remember, he absolutely seemed to refuse to penetrate and create for himself or his teammates. I'm not in favor of sitting JC for Brunson (more or less ever), but if you have a Brunson-free lineup, I can see it being a necessary move when he doesn't push the ball and do what he is capable of doing. When a player is capable of certain things, he needs to live up to those capabilities, especially when the problem seems to be mental. I'll let JC shoot all day if he's getting good looks and the shot isn't falling, but he needs to work hard on both ends of the floor and TAKE THE BALL TO THE RIM.



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I agree that JC needs to learn how to harness his talent and how to play with more discipline. But benching him for an entire half only sends two messages; 1. The organization is more concern about being right and not concerned about winning.



No. Benching a player who isn't playing well demonstrates wanting to win in addition punishing a lack of effort. I believe Skiles is doing what he thinks will lead to wins. Also, while you must try to win each individual game as you play them, you don't want to damage your team for the future by making a player's lackluster effort seem acceptable.



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 2. The organization doesn't value JC.



No. I don't think benching him shows the organization doesn't value him. I think they value him, and hope to value him more, but JC must EARN this. He is not merely entitled to it without living up to his end of the bargain.



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> When JC is allowed to play his natural position and is given the green to light to score and to get his team involved, he has proven himself time and time again. That is not to say that he doesn't take bad shots or that he has had poor shooting nights. It is to say that when he allowed to create off the dribble, the Bulls have their best chance to win.



Natural position? I presume you mean the 1. So, you want him to be the primary scorer and the point? It seems to me that it'll work better for JC to be able to concentrate on scoring from the 2. As far as I can tell, JC completely has the green light to score RIGHT NOW. Skiles doesn't bench him for a bad shot here and there, only when his performances are bad over protracted periods of time. We all heard Skiles say that scorers are going to take bad shots here and there. He has let Crawford shoot and shoot even through long cold spells. So, since Crawford does have the green light right now, are his problems merely attributable to the fact that he plays at the 2 position more than the 1? i doubt it.



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> Skiles can talk about Hinrich being the Bulls best player, but make no mistake the Bulls are not going to win without Crawford and/or Curry.



Agreed. I think Hinrich is the best player right now, but he shouldn't be. EC and JC clearly have higher ceilings theoretically than KH, but they aren't bringing it with the consistency KH is right now. I eagerly look forward to the time that Kirk is no longer the "best" player on the team, assuming it is b/c JC and/or EC pan out.



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I still think Skiles is the right man for the Bulls coaching job, I just want him to not to alienate the Bulls real best player.


I don't want him to alienate him either. However, I don't think anyone is the "real" best player until they ACTUALLY BECOME the best player. You are not the "real" best player on a team merely because you have the potential to be the best player at some time in the future.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!


 


> Oh for the love of God. Like the whiteness has anything to do with it. First of all, take Tyson out of this, b/c Skiles has never really had him as a player and I'm sure his comments aren't talking about him. It is obvious likes players that ACTUALLY TRY HARD. At this point, this does not seem to include Curry or Crawford on a consistent basis.


I would expect nothing less from an Illini Fan. Afterall, Illini fans are used to medocrity and of course coming up short. 

You're right whiteness doesn't have anything to do with Skiles' comments. However that is not to say that there isn't a chance that one or more players could read into his comments as him playing favorites to the team's lone white player. Saying that Hinrich is teams best player is not favoring a race, it's just plain wrong. To say that Hinrich plays the smartest ... perhaps. To say that he plays the best fundamental defense ... probably. To say that he gets the most out of his ability ... very likely. But to say that he's the best is just wrong. 

I don't believe for a moment that Skiles is (playing favorites), but its not important what I think, it's what Crawford, Curry, and the other players think.





> Capable? Sure, he's capable. But don't hold your breath on any given day. In fact, getting him to realize his capabilities and actually assert himself seems to be like pulling teeth.


I'm not holding my breath for JC to play consistently any more than I am holding my breath for Kirk, Brunson, Gill, or anyone else on the Bulls to play well on a consistent basis. I just believe that the Bulls have their best chance to win with Crawford on the court. I respectfully disagree that JC does not realize his capabilities and I don't understand for the life of me why you would say that he doesn't assert himself. One stretch the guy's playing 45 minutes a night, and the next stretch he's benched for the entire 2nd half. A guy who leads the team in scoring and assists and scores 42 points in a game doesn't have a problem asserting himself. Playing with discipline, yes. Asserting himself ..not hardly.






> First, if you noticed, Curry fouled out, so it's not like there were lots of extra minutes available for him.


Curry fouled out at the end of the game. Last time I checked their was 45+ plus prior to Curry fouling out and yet he only played 21 minutes (under 1/2 for a player still learning the game). You could argue that he might have fouled out in the first half if he had played more or perhaps he might have played foul-free ball. 



> Second, a competitive disadvantage? I want JC to be successful on this team. But today, other than one instance I can remember, he absolutely seemed to refuse to penetrate and create for himself or his teammates. I'm not in favor of sitting JC for Brunson (more or less ever), but if you have a Brunson-free lineup, I can see it being a necessary move when he doesn't push the ball and do what he is capable of doing. When a player is capable of certain things, he needs to live up to those capabilities, especially when the problem seems to be mental. I'll let JC shoot all day if he's getting good looks and the shot isn't falling, but he needs to work hard on both ends of the floor and TAKE THE BALL TO THE RIM.


I've watched every game for the past three years. And I've seen Crawford penetrate quite a bit. As much as I'd like to see him penetrate? No. But he has. Also, I don't necessarily think that it's the end of the world if he doesn't. Ray Allen, Allan Houston, Michael Redd and a lot of players do not penetrate on a regular basis. But as a PG that he should look to find the best scoring opportunity for his teammates and himself. If that means an uncontested 3-pointer, I'd rather have him take that shot that take the ball into the land of the giants and get it blocked. 




> No. Benching a player who isn't playing well demonstrates wanting to win in addition punishing a lack of effort. I believe Skiles is doing what he thinks will lead to wins. Also, while you must try to win each individual game as you play them, you don't want to damage your team for the future by making a player's lackluster effort seem acceptable.


As I stated, I don't have a problem with him being benched. I just think that and entire half is quite excessive and doesn't really accomplish anything but another loss. 



> No. I don't think benching him shows the organization doesn't value him. I think they value him, and hope to value him more, but JC must EARN this. He is not merely entitled to it without living up to his end of the bargain.


So benching him shows that him that they value him? Interesting logic. By your logic, does cutting him show him that they really really care? I do agree that he, like everyone else, must earn it. Again I just think the Bulls are taking the wrong approach with this kid.



> Natural position? I presume you mean the 1. So, you want him to be the primary scorer and the point? It seems to me that it'll work better for JC to be able to concentrate on scoring from the 2. As far as I can tell, JC completely has the green light to score RIGHT NOW. Skiles doesn't bench him for a bad shot here and there, only when his performances are bad over protracted periods of time. We all heard Skiles say that scorers are going to take bad shots here and there. He has let Crawford shoot and shoot even through long cold spells. So, since Crawford does have the green light right now, are his problems merely attributable to the fact that he plays at the 2 position more than the 1? i doubt it.


Yes, I've said it before that I believe that JC's natural position is PG. Although he can play both, he's naturally a scoring PG. His passing is better than Kirk, he sees the court better, he has better handles, creates off the dribble better, and shoots the best from the top of the key (as opposed to the baseline). So, yes I think he's best at the PG position. If you would like a case example, check out the game tape against the Wizards where he ran the point for 3/4ers of the Bulls possessions. 



> Agreed. I think Hinrich is the best player right now, but he shouldn't be. EC and JC clearly have higher ceilings theoretically than KH, but they aren't bringing it with the consistency KH is right now. I eagerly look forward to the time that Kirk is no longer the "best" player on the team, assuming it is b/c JC and/or EC pan out.


This much we agree on at least. Maybe it's semantics, but I think Hinrich is playing the smartest player. Not the best.



> I don't want him to alienate him either. However, I don't think anyone is the "real" best player until they ACTUALLY BECOME the best player. You are not the "real" best player on a team merely because you have the potential to be the best player at some time in the future.


I guess only time will tell how this will all play out.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow! It's refreshing to see someone else that shares my opinion of JC and how the Bulls are dealing with him. I think that a lot of the people that dislike Crawford simply do not realize that if you start Crawford at the point and let him play he gets focused in on the game and plays his best ball. You play him off of the ball he never seems to be able to get into the flow of the game.

JC did penetrate twice last night and he penetrated both times when he was allowed to play the point in the second quarter. He also, I believe, dished out his only assist of the game and got his only rebound of the game! 

I thought Skiles probably should have pulled Jamal when he took that horrible 3 pt shot. In JC's defense I have seen Jamal hit that same shot umpteen times. But Skiles should have pulled him and explained to him why that was a bad shot, let him get his breath and then stick him back in the game. This war of wills between Skiles & JC just doesn't make any sense to me. The bad thing is that Bulls fans will be the ones who will lose if the Bulls trade JC. I think a lot of the people calling for that right now have no clue just what the Bulls have in JC. I'd wager a guess that if he goes to another team he will be the starting pg and he will be the next Miller, Artest, Brand...a good player that the Bulls let get away because they didn't know how to deal with him or bccause the grass is greener on the other side.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

The excuses continue. The race card? Absolutely uncalled for. Any sentence that starts with <i>I'm white and I'm not trying to play the race card.....</i> is doomed for failure. Is this really relevant in this discussion?

Red Auerbach himself could coach this team and it would still be the coach's fault that Jamal isn't playing consistently well.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

It is always someone else to blame for JC. The man needs to step up, be a professional, and take responsibility for his play.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I would expect nothing less from an Illini Fan. Afterall, Illini fans are used to medocrity and of course coming up short.


MikeOF, you show a pattern of turning to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you and/or destroys your argument. I went to U of I, am an Illini fan, and find no truth in your argument.

Really the maturity level here from our veteran posters is sometimes truly astonishing.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MichaelOFAZ still has yet to address the statement made last night in which Skiles says that Crawford is a SG, not a PG.

Mike gave me the what-for a few weeks ago when I made that comment...............


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

Heated debates are a good thing. When they get personal, they become a worthless waste of electrons.

I brought up the Stockton comparison, and not because Stockton is white. But since race has come up, I'm not afriad to talk about it. One reason I compare to Stockton as opposed to, say, Kidd or Payton, is the type of athlete that they are. Stockton wasn't going to jump over anyone. He was never explosive, and I don't know if he ever dunked in his life. But he was a heck of an athlete. If you watched Stockton play, he sure didn't look like much of an athlete, but he sure as heck was.

Hinrich is that type of athlete. Very quick feet. Not explosive, not extremely fast, but quick. Much like Artest. He's not going to beat you in a sprint, but you'll have a heck of a time trying to get around him.

The other reason I compare the two is the mental toughness. Stockton sure didn't physically intimidate anyone, but I don't know of anyone tougher, pound for pound. Kirk has that.

Gary Payton? Nah, he's a much longer body and more explosive athlete. Different set of tools. Nash? Yeah, that's a pretty good comparison too. Similar kind of athlete, similar set of tools. Dumars or Cheeks -- I have to plead ignorance. My NBA basketball knowledge doesn't go that far back.

Why is it, though, that white guys get compared to white guys and black guys to black guys? Is it racial? I have to say there's probably an element of that. Some of it is just purely natural. When you look at a guy playing basketball, he literally looks like a certain player in some of his moves and things he does on the court. If you don't look at the face and look at the body in a jersey, some guys literally look a lot like other guys.

Now, does a white guy look like a black guy? No. People are good at seeing black and white skin tones. Does it mean they're prejudice? No, not necessarily. It could be, and there's enough race history to make me think that it is with plenty of people. But I really think with some honest-to-God well meaning, race-neutral people, they see a white PG in a basketball uniform from the back and he literally looks like another white PG, and so they make the comparison.

Given the racial history of this country, I DO think we should work extra hard to counter these natural, innocent tendencies. I think we should look hard for comparisons that don't match skin color. I think saying "quick feet like Artest" and "Dumars-like in his approach to the game" is a good thing.

I read somewhere on this board imply that Skiles needs to be careful about praising his white PG. If that's not playing the race card, I don't know what is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Good points.*



> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> Heated debates are a good thing. When they get personal, they become a worthless waste of electrons.
> 
> I brought up the Stockton comparison, and not because Stockton is white. But since race has come up, I'm not afriad to talk about it. One reason I compare to Stockton as opposed to, say, Kidd or Payton, is the type of athlete that they are. Stockton wasn't going to jump over anyone. He was never explosive, and I don't know if he ever dunked in his life. But he was a heck of an athlete. If you watched Stockton play, he sure didn't look like much of an athlete, but he sure as heck was.
> ...


Good points, though I don't agree 100%. I'd say Hinrich is very fast and quick, but not exactly explosive. He'd beat a lot of people in a sprint (including TJ Ford  ). 



> The other reason I compare the two is the mental toughness. Stockton sure didn't physically intimidate anyone, but I don't know of anyone tougher, pound for pound. Kirk has that.


Exactly. Also, the simplicity of their games are similar.



> Gary Payton? Nah, he's a much longer body and more explosive athlete. Different set of tools. Nash? Yeah, that's a pretty good comparison too. Similar kind of athlete, similar set of tools. Dumars or Cheeks -- I have to plead ignorance. My NBA basketball knowledge doesn't go that far back.


I made the Payton comparison because GP's a gritty, efficient, defensive-minded guard with good offensive skills. Hinrich is much the same. GP is 6'4", 180 (probably heavier now), KH is 6'3", 190 (sopping wet). Their styles are different, for sure -- GP has more flair and has a post-up game, KH is more reserved and has a more perimeter-oriented game. Nash is a good comparison, I think. Same with Dumars (especially when you think about rlucas' observations on Hinrich being "just a guard", which I think is an astute observation). Cheeks as well. Throw in Sam Cassell too (minus the post-up game).



> Why is it, though, that white guys get compared to white guys and black guys to black guys? Is it racial? I have to say there's probably an element of that. Some of it is just purely natural. When you look at a guy playing basketball, he literally looks like a certain player in some of his moves and things he does on the court. If you don't look at the face and look at the body in a jersey, some guys literally look a lot like other guys.


Very true.



> I read somewhere on this board imply that Skiles needs to be careful about praising his white PG. If that's not playing the race card, I don't know what is.


Agreed. Great points all around.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> Heated debates are a good thing. When they get personal, they become a worthless waste of electrons.
> 
> I brought up the Stockton comparison, and not because Stockton is white. But since race has come up, I'm not afriad to talk about it. One reason I compare to Stockton as opposed to, say, Kidd or Payton, is the type of athlete that they are. Stockton wasn't going to jump over anyone. He was never explosive, and I don't know if he ever dunked in his life. But he was a heck of an athlete. If you watched Stockton play, he sure didn't look like much of an athlete, but he sure as heck was.
> ...


whites get compared to whites and black to black for a variety of reasons looks obviously but 2ndary is movements 

have you seen a white basketball player who moves with a basketball like Dr.J...the way he cuffs it and tries to dunk and you go "that looked like Dr.J."

chances are you haven't 

i have a friend who is half white and black so he basically looks of hispanic heritage but when he plays basketball he moves like vlade divac ...he didn't know who vlade was when he started playing so it wasn't by choice 

this friend also just happened to be born in eastern europe

so i think he is just an example of people sometimes just move a certain way so they remind you of certain people when they do things

now sure there are people who try to use characteristics to form a comparison like "quick feet" or having a good jumpshot despite what it looks like

i'm not saying either is better but doing one doesn't make you a racist and doing the others doesn't make you martin luther king jr. either


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> have you seen a white basketball player who moves with a basketball like Dr.J...the way he cuffs it and tries to dunk and you go "that looked like Dr.J."
> 
> chances are you haven't


Doctor J was pretty much one of a kind. But Rex Chapman(?) had some wicked ups.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles Settles It: Kirk Is Our Best Player*



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> MikeOF, you show a pattern of turning to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you and/or destroys your argument. I went to U of I, am an Illini fan, and find no truth in your argument.
> ...


"You show a pattern of turning to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you and/or destroys your argument?" I'm sorry, but that is funny to me. Are all Illini fans so sensitive? Easy now, I am joking. My sister is an Illini grad and I tease her about the mediocrity and frustration of being an Illini fan/alum. Fortunately she's secure enough with herself that she just laughs or teases me back. Regardless, I don't think that saying "I would expect nothing less from an Illini Fan. Afterall, Illini fans are used to medocrity and of course coming up short." is a personal attack on your character. If he took it as such, I apologize wholeheartedly.

As far as him or anyone destroying my argument goes ... I will just laugh. Because they way I see it, some people disagree with my assessment and others agree.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> MichaelOFAZ still has yet to address the statement made last night in which Skiles says that Crawford is a SG, not a PG.
> 
> Mike gave me the what-for a few weeks ago when I made that comment...............


I'm not sure what you want me to address. I mentioned that didn't read Skile's quote stating that .. but I believe you none the less. My answer is simply this ... as a head coach of a team who clearly doesn't have a capable SG to play 35+ minutes a night, it is not surprising that he has publicly called Crawford a SG. He sure as heck can't call Kirk one. When he plays JC as a SG, it makes sense that he would call him that. However that is not to say that he consider him as his PG if the circumstances were different (e.g. if the Bulls had a quality SG to complement JC).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you want me to address. I mentioned that didn't read Skile's quote stating that .. but I believe you none the less. My answer is simply this ... as a head coach of a team who clearly doesn't have a capable SG to play 35+ minutes a night, it is not surprising that he has publicly called Crawford a SG. He sure as heck can't call Kirk one. When he plays JC as a SG, it makes sense that he would call him that. However that is not to say that he consider him as his PG if the circumstances were different (e.g. if the Bulls had a quality SG to complement JC).


Yeah and let us not forget that Isaiah Thomas said the other day that Jamal Crawford was one of the best pg's in the league!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah and let us not forget that Isaiah Thomas said the other day that Jamal Crawford was one of the best pg's in the league!


That is, Eastern Conference. That was the context of his quote.

Coming from a guy who almost single handedly destroyed the CBA, failed as a GM in Toronto, failed as a coach in Indy w/ the best talent in the East, and will likely fail as a GM in NY... hmm... I'd say the jury is still out on his player evals.

Same can be said for MJ's supposed blessing. Jamal, DMiles, Kwame, Rodney White, etc.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> That is, Eastern Conference. That was the context of his quote.
> ...


Ditto.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> That is, Eastern Conference. That was the context of his quote.
> ...


Ok, Eastern conference, lets not forget that Isaih is responsible for drafting Mcgrady too. SO he clearly knows talent evalutaion.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Ok, Eastern conference, lets not forget that Isaih is responsible for drafting Mcgrady too. SO he clearly knows talent evalutaion.


Isiah Thomas left Toronto in 1996. McGrady was drafted in 1997 by Glen Grunwald.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/44267.htm



> Raptors GM Glen Grunwald worked for Thomas for three years in Toronto as his assistant GM. When Thomas left the Raptors in 1996, Grunwald got the GM job


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Isiah Thomas left Toronto in 1996. McGrady was drafted in 1997 by Glen Grunwald.
> ...


well he did draft a rookie of the year w/ stoudamire


----------

