# Dr Jack Ramsey gives the Bulls a housecall



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

And surprisingly enough he mostly agrees with what I said the other day...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ramsay_drjack&id=1664827

Next, he needs to establish a starting lineup and stick with it. That lineup must include the five most talented players who play together best at both ends of the floor. Crawford and Rose should be among them, although both need to upgrade their games. Pippen should come off the bench. Scottie is a great player to settle the team, but he is no longer capable of starting or playing extended minutes. Hinrich isn't ready to start in the NBA. It's difficult for the offense to function properly when the point guard commits more turnovers than assists, as Hinrich has. 


:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> And surprisingly enough he mostly agrees with what I said the other day...
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like he needs a new nickname. How about "Dr. Blowout?"

:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Dr Jack Ramsey gives the Bulls a housecall*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds like he needs a new nickname. How about "Dr. Blowout?"
> ...


The guy lives eat and breathes basketball. He understands that this team was off chemistry wise to start the season. THAT is the reason the Bulls got off to a slow start...not Jamal...no matter how much you hate him.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I respect Dr. Jack when he's making comments during a broadcast, but this guy hasn't done his homework in decades tkae this nugget:



> Chicago needs to tighten its game at both ends of the floor. While there is good overall size and speed on the roster, the defense is loose and the offense is inefficient. There are too many transition scores allowed and not enough gained. Ball-handling is casual and results in wasted opportunities to score.
> 
> The defense appears to lack a definite team objective. Players involved in screening situations on the baseline, side-court and top of the circle are inconsistent in their adjustments. Opposing penetrators drive the middle, post players get deep position freely and high-percentage opportunities result. Off-the-ball helpers often arrive too late to stop scores at the hoop.


Translation: I have not seen any Bulls games this year, but there stats are bad--I'll use some fuzzy, indescriminate words that make me sound like I have grasp on the situation.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> I respect Dr. Jack when he's making comments during a broadcast, but this guy hasn't done his homework in decades tkae this nugget:
> 
> 
> ...


I've watched all the games and his analysis was spot on. I don't see anything fuzzy or indescriminate about his comments.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Dr Jack Ramsey gives the Bulls a housecall*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy lives eat and breathes basketball. He understands that this team was off chemistry wise to start the season. THAT is the reason the Bulls got off to a slow start...not Jamal...no matter how much you hate him.


His prescription is what Cartwright's plan was for the start of the season. Blowouts.

Dr. Blowout appears oblivious to our injury problems that forced Cartwright to juggle his lineup as much as he has. He complains we've started 10 different starters.

Opening lineup made 5 of those. Marshall should start and now is. That's 6. Dr. Blowout complains about our defense, and BC's moved Rose to SF and inserted Gill in the lineup to improve our defense. That's 7. Chandler's back recovers and he starts. That's 8. Jamal played himself out of a starting job and has done nothing to suggest he should regain it. That's 9. ERob played for Rose for 2 games after the Bulls got blown out 3 of 4 games. That's the 10.

Dr. Blowout says we should start Crawford and Rose. Well, Rose shot 10-15 in his first game on the 2nd unit and has shot 48% (55% 3pt) with 4.8 rebounds and 4.2 assists since. Crawford has taken his football and gone home, aside from his injury.

I don't hate Jamal Crawford. I like our chances better without him, given the way he's played. Once you understand that difference, you'll understand a lot of things.

Peace!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Easy there ace, we all watch the games--unless they are banished to NBATV like the game tonight--I'm not attacking you committment.

Ill be more specific:

Chicago needs to tighten its game at both ends of the floor. 

What does this mean?

While there is good overall size and speed on the roster, the defense is loose and the offense is inefficient. 

Defense is loose--offense inefficient. Too many specifics in this sentence.

ere are too many transition scores allowed and not enough gained.

Thank god for the intern who looked up the stats.

Ball-handling is casual and results in wasted opportunities to score.

 their stats say they have a lot of turnovers 


The defense appears to lack a definite team objective.

 what does this mean? 

Players involved in screening situations on the baseline, side-court and top of the circle are inconsistent in their adjustments. 

 More fancy talk, for players arent making their rotatins--but cloacked in BS, so if this actually weren't the case he couldn't be held to it 

Opposing penetrators drive the middle, post players get deep position freely and high-percentage opportunities result.

 opposing players score 

Off-the-ball helpers often arrive too late to stop scores at the hoop.

 more fancy talk for the Bulls being bad on defense without saying anything 

Ace we know whats wrong with this team. Our point guard is either a rookie who turns the ball over every other play, a 40% gunner from the field, or a legend who just doesn't have it any more. Our perimiter defense sucks--Rose, Craw, Hinrich, pippen...whomever. Were missing our only inside presence. Bad game time decisions, and general loosing attitude that hovers over our francise. 

When you see something wrong, you don't shy from naming names. Ramsey is afraid to write anything he can be held accountable for.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I'm with Ace. I think Dr. Jack is right on with his analysis.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Dr Jack is right about one thing we do need to set a rotation and stick with it. Tonight with Fizer back will be a very nice rotation for us, without Crawford!


Hinrich 28 Pippen 20
Gill 28 Rose 20
Rose 16 Robinson 18 Marshall 14
Chandler 22 Fizer 18 Marshall 8
Curry 30 Blount 10 Chandler 8


That is a nice clean 9 man rotation.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Man I'm not finished...

look at this topic sentence:

*Cartwright must develop an improved defense.*

how about this one highlightened in bold...

* An improved team defense and stronger rebounding will result in more opportunities for transition offense, which needs to be a bigger part of the Bulls' offense. *

If the Bulls are better at getting steals and rebounding they will have more fast break opportunities.  no, crap sherlock.

*A couple of wins will do a lot for their confidence -- in each other and their coach.*

Jesus. Wake me up when he says something.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I guess he could have said...

"Why is Bill Cartwright playing different guys every night? If Tyson gets hurt - start Donyell. Don't start Lonny Baxter...ever. Benching Rose to prove a point is stupid. It only looked good b/c you benched him against the worst team in the league. You're holding back Jamal who I picked to be the break-out player from his draft this year. Instead he's sitting and scared to death to shoot. You choose to play 47 year old Kendall Gill instead of someone who may or may not be a white-hot shooting guard if given the chance. How come Marshall plays 8 minutes one game and 40 the next? Don't play zone when the opposing team is taking 3 point shots on every possesion and making them. Didn't your mom ever tell you that if you make faces they might freeze that way?"


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> I guess he could have said...
> 
> "Why is Bill Cartwright playing different guys every night? If Tyson gets hurt - start Donyell. Don't start Lonny Baxter...ever. Benching Rose to prove a point is stupid. It only looked good b/c you benched him against the worst team in the league. You're holding back Jamal who I picked to be the break-out player from his draft this year. Instead he's sitting and scared to death to shoot. You choose to play 47 year old Kendall Gill instead of someone who may or may not be a white-hot shooting guard if given the chance. How come Marshall plays 8 minutes one game and 40 the next? Don't play zone when the opposing team is taking 3 point shots on every possesion and making them. Didn't your mom ever tell you that if you make faces they might freeze that way?"


He could have if he had seen the games... this is why you and Ace should be writing for ESPN.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

He's right. Having a starting PG average more turnovers than assists is laughable.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

I agree with Dr Jack as well, nice breakdown. But what does he know compared to some fans that overreact after a few games?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Even if you don't like Crawford, Dr. Jack is spot on. Especially substitution patterns and starting lineup. You can't win in this league juggling your players keeping them in the dark about what their role is.

Even if Crawford isn't a part of an 8 man rotation, we'd still be better off. At least Hinrich could adjust and find a rhythm. A true floor general needs to be out on the floor as much as anyone else on the team. You need a guy out their who is always in the flow of the game. And when you sit him for no reason for long 8-10 minute stretches, you're just asking for him to make rusty mistakes when he comes back on the floor.

Decide once and for all who our starting Point Guard is, and stick with who ever it is for 35-38 minutes a game for the rest of the season. This splitting up of the point guard minutes at 20 minutes a piece has got to go.

If you decide on Hinrich, trade Crawford for somebody useful and sign a true backup point guard. If you don't know where to find a good backup point, go make a phonecall to greg popovich. He probably knows somebody over in europe or south america, or australia that Paxson has never seen, that would be perfect.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Quote from Dr Jack
------------------------------------------
The defense appears to lack a definite team objective. Players involved in screening situations on the baseline, side-court and top of the circle are inconsistent in their adjustments. Opposing penetrators drive the middle, post players get deep position freely and high-percentage opportunities result. Off-the-ball helpers often arrive too late to stop scores at the hoop.
-----------------------------------


Sorry, but i dont think box scores or just looking at stats will give you much insight into this particular analysis


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

THis isn't analyasis--this is just saying the defense is bad. I feel like he's compensating.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Benching Rose to prove a point is stupid. It only looked good b/c you benched him against the worst team in the league.


New Orleans is the worst team in the league?  

otherwise I more or less agree with your post...but my disgust isn't quite as vigorous.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Hey Guys: I found next weeks article



> This week's team: Orlando.
> 
> The Symptoms
> 
> ...


You get the point.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Lue is underrated by alot of people who criticize him here. He was underrated for the Wizards as well, ask any Wizards fan. He's alot like Derek Fisher is for the Lakers. In fact he was probably the only Magic player that played well when T-Mac was slumping.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

Give up CCCP.

The battle lines have been drawn, yes, even inadvertently by the Doctor himself.

Forget that he used more generalities and "coined" terms than specifics in order to get his point across.

You know whats important, and the point that is subconsciously emphasized?

Pro Jamal, or "not pro-Jamal."

Thats it, thats all... No one is yet to rebut your posts with examples of Ramsey providing specifics. They have simply questioned your observation because it, in a strange way, lessens the importance of what the Doctor said, and what did he say again?

Play Jamal= Pro Jamal

I am not FOR or AGAINST Jamal, I am still, however, FOR the BULLS and AGAINST them losing...If Jamal gives us the best chance to WIN, then play him. If he does not make his teammates better and give a better chance to WIN, dont play him.

Its really that simple, and I really cant believe this is still the overwhelmingly transparent issue on this board a full 14 months later.

Jay, Jamal, Kirk, Pippen.....Yes, the Bulls have created this controversy themselves, but as fans, we MUST let it go, and simply root for the team to win.......whichever way, and with whichever players that could be.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Same question...14 months later.. I feel like my life is less exciting then it was 30 seconds ago.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I've watched all the games and his analysis was spot on. I don't see anything fuzzy or indescriminate about his comments.


Well I've watched all but one of them and I've been to a number of the home games. Let me respond to a number of Ramsey's statements based on my *first hand observations.* 



> Chicago needs to tighten its game at both ends of the floor.
> 
> There are too many transition scores allowed and not enough gained.
> 
> ...


With the exception of his remarks about post defense, Crawford is guilty of every other defensive transgression on Ramsey's list. Crawford plays passing lanes well, that much I'll grant him. But his one on one defense, his help defense, and his ability to remove himself from the offensive set and become our first line of defense when a shot goes up is absolutely atrocious. There is no other way to describe it. And you have to actually be there to see some of what I'm talking about, particularly his ability to transition from offense to defense and slow down the other team's attempts to run the break.



> Chicago's often questionable shot selection is mostly responsible for its low-percentage shooting from the field. Rose and Crawford, the leading shot-takers on the team, both shoot low field-goal percentages (.408 and .402, respectively).


No difference of opinion here for the most part. Although I will say this about Jamal. There have been games where its been apparent even to a blind man that JC is trying to comply with Cartwright's wishes and think "pass first." The problem with that is he immediately looks like a fish out of water. On those occasions you and everyone else have seen him actually pass up shots he should have taken. When he thinks "pass first" he loses his natural basketball instincts. Jamal has a "shoot first" mentality. And no matter how hard he tries (and he really has tried) he'll never acquire the necessary decision making skills to know instinctively when to shoot and when to pass. He comes from the same basketball school that most of us did: "When the ball's in your hands you're a threat to score, first and foremost. You look to pass only when a defender takes your shot away." That's his mentality. That's what makes him such an exciting player. But he is not and never will be a "pass first" point guard.



> Part of Ramsey's solution: He (Cartwright) needs to establish a starting lineup and stick with it. That lineup must include the five most talented players who play together best at both ends of the floor. *Crawford and Rose should be among them, although both need to upgrade their games.*


In effect, Ramsey tosses us a conundrum: How do we lock down our defense and improve our shot selection with Crawford on the floor? Was this what they meant by "Catch-22?" 

Don't call me a Crawford hater because first and foremost that's become an all too common copout used by people who either don't want to or aren't capable of debating the issues. Let me make this clear once and forall: I don't care who starts or finishes as long as the Bulls win more games than they lose. That's all I care about at this moment. I am tired of seeing Crawford make the same dumb a$$ mistakes on defense year after year. I am tired of watching him force up shots that have less than a one in three chance of going in a mere 10 seconds into an offensive set.

I hope the lightbulb goes on someday soon and Crawford becomes a complete player...not a PG mind you, because that just ain't in the cards. But if he can become a multi-dimensional player who achieves at both ends of the floor then I'd like nothing better than to see him light it up _as a shooting guard_ for the rest of the decade right here in Chicago. That does not make me a hater by any means. A realist maybe, but not a hater!


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

well Kismet i wouldnt call you a hater, and there are other people critical of Crawford i wouldnt call a hater either. I have no problem with people criticizing Crawford, but when it reaches the point where its obvious some people are trying their best to paint Crawford as worse than he is, or the sole reason why the Bulls lost or were blown out the first few games, those people i'd call haters. And thats more about hating than being realistic about the losses or if he can play in the NBA.

But its kinda like those who support Cartwright hate Crawford anyways. Partly for him saying what he said, and partly to justify Cartwright's benching of him as Cartwright being a good coach. 

There is a reason why Crawford has any fans to begin with. I wouldnt like Crawford if i didnt see something i liked in him. If he had never carried the Bulls during that stretch run last year that gave the Bulls such high hopes for this year, i would probably be favoring Jay-Will to come back and take the job. Fact is that Crawford won some fans over including me last season through his play, so he must've been doing something right.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> Fact is that Crawford won some fans over including me last season through his play, so he must've been doing something right.


:topic:

this is unrelated, but a funny thing about Jamal is that he developed a fiercely loyal fanbase LONG before he strung together those good games late last season. He's had loyal fans since his debut at the RMR when he got into a fight with Floyd for not giving the ball to Fizer every time. Since then it's been a long stream of "Jamal isn't being treated fairly" laments from his supporters, some of which I agree with and some I don't. I've always thought it was interesting that such an unproven player had such a loyal fanbase, sometimes to the point of preferring the player to the team, almost from day 1, when it took him close to 2 (excusing the year to injury) full years to prove worthy of any of it. edit: man, that's one hell of a run-on sentence I strung together there. I rule.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

kismet, i think your a realist, not a hater. just my 2 cents. your opinions on JCs game are valid. Let me just point a couple of things our or just reiterate

JC sucks on D. But there is some elements to his D that are very good. he is great at defending the post pass. and his long arms are of good use in the passing lane. 

The Bad is really bad. He simply loses his man on the perimeter and we often get torched from 3 point land cause of it. For a guy with all the shake and bake in the world, he simply doesnt have the lateral quickness to guard the high octane penetrating guards of the nba. he then uses his reach as a last resort and picks up some cheap calls. he isnt particularly strong so does struggle against the bigger 1s in the NBA. I think he does have the skills to be a good defender in the NBA however. But his lack of understanding and desire on that end of the court really hurt him


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

But couldnt you say that about any NBA player when they first came in, either through being a college star or a star somewhere else? I mean dont tell me more people were cheering for Jamal than they were Jay-Will to win the job last year because thats not true. Even after Jamal clearly beat him out, there were still people cheering for Jay. Right now people are still cheering for Jay :grinning: 

I dont know about that, Jamal seemed to come into the NBA with less respect, press, or acclaim than most players. It seemed like he was in Jay-Will's shadow until he won the starting job.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Wait. Did I miss something in the Dr. Jack piece? I didn't think it was Pro-Crawford at all. In fact he said Crawford and Rose both need to get better.

I thought his analysis was more about the Bulls as a team. But I maybe wrong.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Happy, there is some truth to that. But Jamal, whom i am a fan of by the way, has brought alot of pressure on himself with some of his immature comments and antics. I doubt Kirk would ever say or do the things Jamal has done. He seems to be pretty self centered. But his last 30 games last year were spectacular. And he should be allowed to play the way that is right for him cause he is a heck of a player. And he shouldnt lose his starting job to a kid who isnt ready yet and who looks totally lost out there with the ball. So he has been mistreated. But suck it up and play through it. Jay would have been the man this year though. I dont think Jamal beat Jay out last year so much as Jay just gave it up. And Jamal took the opportunity to be great. Now he needs to find himself an organization, GM, coach, and teammates who are willing to let him be him. I dont think he will find that in Chicago and I believe Pax and BC will rue the day they see him in another uniform. Just like us bulls fans cringe whenever we see Artest, Miller and Brand contributing to good teams.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> kismet, i think your a realist, not a hater. just my 2 cents. your opinions on JCs game are valid. Let me just point a couple of things our or just reiterate
> 
> JC sucks on D. But there is some elements to his D that are very good. he is great at defending the post pass. and his long arms are of good use in the passing lane.
> ...


i very rarely see him get beat off the dribble ...i see it happen to kirk more often ...but he is the good defender

if you disagree watch tonights game i say stephon takes him 2 times at least in the 1st quarter off the dribble without use of a pick


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i very rarely see him get beat off the dribble ...i see it happen to kirk more often ...but he is the good defender
> ...



Huh, do you just like to argue? where did i ever say anything about Kirk or his D? I think Kirk is overrated defensively by this board. But he is still better then Jamal on that end of the court. oh and by the way, Marbury takes EVERYONE off the dribble, not just Kirk, or Jamal, but Iverson, Kobe, Artest, whomever. So way to stand out on the limb on that one.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Happy, there is some truth to that. But Jamal, whom i am a fan of by the way, has brought alot of pressure on himself with some of his immature comments and antics. I doubt Kirk would ever say or do the things Jamal has done. He seems to be pretty self centered. But his last 30 games last year were spectacular. And he should be allowed to play the way that is right for him cause he is a heck of a player. And he shouldnt lose his starting job to a kid who isnt ready yet and who looks totally lost out there with the ball. So he has been mistreated. But suck it up and play through it. Jay would have been the man this year though. I dont think Jamal beat Jay out last year so much as Jay just gave it up. And Jamal took the opportunity to be great. Now he needs to find himself an organization, GM, coach, and teammates who are willing to let him be him. I dont think he will find that in Chicago and I believe Pax and BC will rue the day they see him in another uniform. Just like us bulls fans cringe whenever we see Artest, Miller and Brand contributing to good teams.


jays best month starting he put up 12 and 6 and the worst pg defense since craig hodges 

people forget pretty quick how jay didn't give the job away ...it was taken because while jay was playing poorly jamal was playing well ...it wasn't a case of lesser of 2 evils but more one guy is playing well and the other isn't


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> But couldnt you say that about any NBA player when they first came in, either through being a college star or a star somewhere else? I mean dont tell me more people were cheering for Jamal than they were Jay-Will to win the job last year because thats not true. Even after Jamal clearly beat him out, there were still people cheering for Jay. Right now people are still cheering for Jay :grinning:
> 
> I dont know about that, Jamal seemed to come into the NBA with less respect, press, or acclaim than most players. It seemed like he was in Jay-Will's shadow until he won the starting job.


well in the greater sense, he did enter the league with very little acclaim, but from the beginning he had a very vocal contingent in his corner on every webboard I've visited. Never seen anything quite like it for a player who was so unready at first and took nearly 3 (calendar) years to really string together good performances. No matter how little or badly he played, his fans never wavered and always thought his breakout was right around the corner if he just "got his chance".

and I would say, on the realgm board, that there were just as many people cheering for Jamal to win the starting job as opposed to Jay. Or maybe they were just THAT vocal about it, it's hard to tell sometimes. There were plenty of conspiracy theories floated about why Jay began as the starter - when else has that happened in a situation where two players performed to a virtual dead-heat in the preseason? 

Like I said, I can't think of another player who had a diehard fan club before they showed anything at all but potential in NBA games. 

I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just an interesting phenomenon that happened with Jamal. and it definitely happened.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

again, did i ever say Jay was better then Jamal? No. What i said was that Jay was being groomed for the job. And he probably would have been much better this year. Look at PGs. none of them do it in their first couple of years in the league. Gary Payton, John Stockton, Kevin Johnson etc. all took a couple of years. Jay would have had that as well. But i disagree. jay was starting until he said that BC was going to lose the team. they put him on the IR with what Rose termed being a baby more or less and he never got the job back cause Jamal played great. If Jay kept his mouth shut would he have lost the job? I doubt it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, do you just like to argue? where did i ever say anything about Kirk or his D? I think Kirk is overrated defensively by this board. But he is still better then Jamal on that end of the court. oh and by the way, Marbury takes EVERYONE off the dribble, not just Kirk, or Jamal, but Iverson, Kobe, Artest, whomever. So way to stand out on the limb on that one.


most pg's worth their salt take opposing point pgs off the dribble occasionally ...but people are acting like kirk sticks to people like crazy glue 

but you specifically pointed out its a flaw in jamals' game when in fact it isn't because he really doesn't get taken one on one that often

kirk does get taken more often however

go back and read a game thread of lets say the rockets game or even re watch the game marbury and francis are pretty similar in their penetrating ability 

i'm pretty sure kirk gets taken more tonight one on one than crawford did that night

the only difference really is that people look at it as a glaring weakness for jamal(this being you) yet somehow overlook it in kirk's case

i'll agree in most defensive fundamentals kirk is better ....but on this you are as wrong as can be


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> well in the greater sense, he did enter the league with very little acclaim, but from the beginning he had a very vocal contingent in his corner on every webboard I've visited. Never seen anything quite like it for a player who was so unready at first and took nearly 3 (calendar) years to really string together good performances. No matter how little or badly he played, his fans never wavered and always thought his breakout was right around the corner if he just "got his chance".
> ...


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

i thought Jamal outplayed Jay in like 95% of the games last season, even when they were splitting time 50-50. I followed it pretty closely because it was interesting, and i can say without a doubt Jamal won that job.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> jays best month starting he put up 12 and 6 and the worst pg defense since craig hodges
> ...


from the limited sample of Bulls games I saw last year, Jay's defense was no worse, and maybe slightly better than Jamal's. He tried a little harder to fight through picks and played the passing lanes much better (though he got burned some too). They were both pretty bad overall, though. It didn't help that their "veteran leader" wasn't much of an example on most nights.

and when Jamal got the starting nod, Jay was playing horribly, but Jamal was only emerging from a stretch that was just as putrid as anything Jay put together. Jamal assumed the starting role not too long after his 3-84873 shooting stretch if I remember correctly.

To his credit, Jamal grabbed the starting role with both hands and ran with it - which is more than can be said for Jay, who never took the bull by the horns (on pun intended) when he had the job.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> most pg's worth their salt take opposing point pgs off the dribble occasionally ...but people are acting like kirk sticks to people like crazy glue
> ...


First Point, I agree on, kirk is overrated defensively
Second Point-jamal has those flaws. That cant be argued
Third Point-Kirk does get taken to the rim, but he gives more effort, which is half the battle
fourth point-Francis and marbury take everyone off the dribble, depends on the flow of the game
Fifth Point-read my posts, im not a kirk fan, i am a JC fan. but he still sucks on D. Sorry. and its not cause he cant be good, its cause he doesnt try to be good on that end of the court


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> again, did i ever say Jay was better then Jamal? No. What i said was that Jay was being groomed for the job. And he probably would have been much better this year. Look at PGs. none of them do it in their first couple of years in the league. Gary Payton, John Stockton, Kevin Johnson etc. all took a couple of years. Jay would have had that as well. But i disagree. jay was starting until he said that BC was going to lose the team. they put him on the IR with what Rose termed being a baby more or less and he never got the job back cause Jamal played great. If Jay kept his mouth shut would he have lost the job? I doubt it.


actually after jay came back off IL he played on the bench for approx. 6 games ...he then got the starting spot and held it for about a month ...then he lost it for good 

that jay acting like a baby stuff(according to rose) was forgotten by march as it was over a month later

he lost the team because he played bad so cartwright for the last couple of weeks in feb. was forced to split their minutes equally.

then jay blew up after a very bad game(on 3/1 i believe) and BC benched him from then on JC avg. 18.7 and 6.5

i find it hard to believe it was close after a few games into jay's benching that he was a threat to get his job back not because he spoke up (cartwright tends to forgive and forget) but because he was outplayed


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> most pg's worth their salt take opposing point pgs off the dribble occasionally ...but people are acting like kirk sticks to people like crazy glue
> ...


like I've said, I don't get to watch Bulls games at all this season, but from everything I've read, you are pretty much the only person who is trying to argue that Jamal's on-ball defense is better than Kirk's. If this was clearly the case, someone like ace would have your back, but even he says repeatedly that Jamal's defense is in need of improvement.

I don't think many people are saying Kirk is god's gift to perimeter defense, but at least a 90% majority think he's a substantially better defender than Crawford. (PS that doesn't mean he's GOOD, just that he's not QUITE as BAD)

you're arguing with a JC supporter in rlucas. he's just calling it how he sees it, and not with an anti-jamal vendetta.

edit: fyi rlucas, I'm kbf on realgm


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> First Point, I agree on, kirk is overrated defensively
> ...


i never said crawford doesn't have flaws defensively ...because its obvious to everyone he does 

lateral quickness in my opinion is not one of them because he stays with players who try to beat him off the dribble better than most


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> like I've said, I don't get to watch Bulls games at all this season, but from everything I've read, you are pretty much the only person who is trying to argue that Jamal's on-ball defense is better than Kirk's. If this was clearly the case, someone like ace would have your back, but even he says repeatedly that Jamal's defense is in need of improvement.
> ...


VF, I knew I knew you from somewhere. The Keith Booth fan club. How are things going? Great post as usual. Hope to see you here more often. I agree with your post 95%. The only disagreemnt i can say is that we seem to have a large amount of KU alumni here who think Kirk is the second coming of Gary Payton or something. So happy is not responding so much to me, I HOPE, then he is responding to some on the board who basically insinuate Kirk is all NBA First Team D, which is wrong. Happy is technically right that Kirk is not a good defender, which you said VF. But to say Jamal is better isnt right either. Jamal just doesnt show interest in it. jamal could be a great defender, but is more concerned with going behind his back then shutting his man down. kirk atleast gives a solid effort, though he doesnt have Jamals unique physical gifts. 

Good to have you around again KBF.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i never said crawford doesn't have flaws defensively ...because its obvious to everyone he does
> ...


Everyone blows by JC. But you know what gets me even more Happy, its how we get blown away, year after year, by little guards and their 3 point shooting. Here are some of the biggest thorns in our side

David Wesley
Sam Cassell
Allen Iverson
Veshon Lenard
Alvin Williams
and the list goes on and on

jason Terry even. 

what do these guys have in common? Jamal has guarded all of them more then any bull over the last 3 years.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

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


are there battle lines drawn ...? oh my bad am i on he side of Jamal whoops it must mean i'm a benidict arnold.

but enough of this silliness i couldn't care less who roots for who we all supposedly are bulls fans and though there will be those who try to paint people into corners on to which side of the fence of the civil war, um i mean point guard debate you may be on 

i'm for the better player and if someone walk off the street wins a tryout and beats the pants off of kirk, jamal, roger jr and wheels jay in and beats him too , do you know what ? he'll be my choice at pg as quick as a ball can bounce

right now the guy who gives the bulls the best chance to win imo is Jamal because he is the best player at that spot, its up to the coaching staff to make it work


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Everyone blows by JC. But you know what gets me even more Happy, its how we get blown away, year after year, by little guards and their 3 point shooting. Here are some of the biggest thorns in our side
> ...


has any other guard even been on the team 3 years?

seems like a question for our last 2 GM's


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> are there battle lines drawn ...? oh my bad am i on he side of Jamal whoops it must mean i'm a benidict arnold.
> ...


And if you read any of my posts, youll know that i 100% agree with you that Jamal gives us the best chance to win by far. In fact, I still dont think Kirk should have been the pick and even playing in front of Roger Mason


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> has any other guard even been on the team 3 years?
> ...


There is a constant, and his name is Jamal crawford. Even when Jamal played great last year, we were getting lit up on the perimeter. I seem to recall Chauncey Billups having a career game against us. And Jamal was guarding him. His lack of closing out the shooter and getting lost on D is inexcusable. For all his physical attributes and skills, he, as everyone would agree, just doesnt take the time to understand that end of the court. Half of D is simply effort. and he doesnt exude it


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> And if you read any of my posts, youll know that i 100% agree with you that Jamal gives us the best chance to win by far. In fact, I still dont think Kirk should have been the pick and even playing in front of Roger Mason


the thing is I was responding to a post that seemed to imply i shouldn't disagree with you because i agree with you on who should be the bulls starting PG 

to me thats stupid ,this isn't the U.S. vs. afganistan its a playing time issue between two players who probably get along just fine and want no trouble whatsoever

the world would be a much better place if this is all people disagreed about


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> the thing is I was responding to a post that seemed to imply i shouldn't disagree with you because i agree with you on who should be the bulls starting PG
> ...


There you go again. Its a conversation, not an argument. You think Jamal is a better defender then the board gives him credit for. I dont. I agree with the board that Kirk is better defensively. I dont agree, and agree with you, that Kirk is a "stopper". But he does give more effort then Jamal. You can argue that but its fairly obvious. and inspite of all that, Jamal should still start, and Jamal has still be victimized in all of this.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There is a constant, and his name is Jamal crawford. Even when Jamal played great last year, we were getting lit up on the perimeter. I seem to recall Chauncey Billups having a career game against us. And Jamal was guarding him. His lack of closing out the shooter and getting lost on D is inexcusable. For all his physical attributes and skills, he, as everyone would agree, just doesnt take the time to understand that end of the court. Half of D is simply effort. and he doesnt exude it


i actually have that game on tape but chauncy was avg in the mid 20s that month in truth he did that to anyone who made the mistake of getting in front of him 

when the stars of the league get off i generally accept it if they are playing well (not if they aren't being guarded and then get hot)

its when the kevein ollies and malik allens of the world that bother me when they get off because they shouldn't go off if things are going normally


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There is a constant, and his name is Jamal crawford. Even when Jamal played great last year, we were getting lit up on the perimeter. I seem to recall Chauncey Billups having a career game against us. And Jamal was guarding him. His lack of closing out the shooter and getting lost on D is inexcusable. For all his physical attributes and skills, he, as everyone would agree, just doesnt take the time to understand that end of the court. Half of D is simply effort. and he doesnt exude it


First of all, over the last three years HALF the players in the friggin league have lit us up. At all 5 positions.

Second of all, Crawford is not a constant over the last 3 years. At PG, there hasn't even been a constant.

Last year:

JC and Jwill split time

01-02

JC was injured for all but 2 months of the season, Best was the starter. Along with experiments such as Khalid Elamin(sp?) and AJ Guyton

00-01

I can't even remember who the PG was. JC was a rook and hardly played.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There you go again. Its a conversation, not an argument. You think Jamal is a better defender then the board gives him credit for. I dont. I agree with the board that Kirk is better defensively. I dont agree, and agree with you, that Kirk is a "stopper". But he does give more effort then Jamal. You can argue that but its fairly obvious. and inspite of all that, Jamal should still start, and Jamal has still be victimized in all of this.


i never said JC was a better defender than kirk i said in one aspect of defense, JC is better (one on one defense)

i agree kirk is better at defense 

i just believe its not a grand canyon of difference


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LuCane</b>!
> I am not FOR or AGAINST Jamal, I am still, however, FOR the BULLS and AGAINST them losing...If Jamal gives us the best chance to WIN, then play him. If he does not make his teammates better and give a better chance to WIN, dont play him.


BINGO!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I don't buy this malarky that a player as talented as Jamal should be a hinderance to winning. Winning is generally speaking a team effort. And right now, whether it's hinrich or Crawford our TEAM doesn't do enough of it.

I don't recall Crawford being at the Seattle game where the Sonics were getting wide open 3's all game--because 1) defensive stupidity and 2) BC sticking to a zone.

I'm sorry, but the problems with this team obviously go a lot deeper than Jamal Crawford's defense. Nobody on our team really is a good defender, either one on one or as a team defender.

We don't rebound(offensively or defensively). We leave 3 point shooters wide open. We give up penetration no matter what 5 is out there. We don't know how to take advantage of a player that is hot. Similiarly we don't know what to do about a player that gets hot on another team. Our players as a whole have the basketball IQ of a high school cheerleading squad...if that.

And I saw all of this in a game without Jamal Crawford even in the building.

So don't try and scapegoat crawford for what is so obviously a team problem.

It was a brilliant move on BC's part to make Rose and Crawford scapegoats. But like I sait then, it's only a short term solution. Eventually BC is going to have to get this team playing much better on both ends otherwise he's out. If Paxson won't fire him, I'm sure Michael Jordan can be brought on to do it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

for the record, im not scapegoating JC for all of our problems. But JC is still not a good Defensive PG. And to be honest, Kirk isnt either. But their is more effort from Kirk, and that is one reason he is starting and playing more. But I do think jamal gives us the best chance to win. anyone who disagrees with that hasnt seen the lack of ballhandling that Kirk has displayed this year


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i very rarely see him get beat off the dribble ...i see it happen to kirk more often ...but he is the good defender
> ...


The Bulls announcers have commented over and over how Hinrich has consistently cut Marbury off from the basket.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Hinrich and Pippen, Chandler is another, are the only ones who give any effort at all on D


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Hinrich again demonstrated tonight that he's not ready for a starting role.

Dr. Jack is right regarding his assessment of Kirk


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i very rarely see him get beat off the dribble ...i see it happen to kirk more often ...but he is the good defender
> ...


Marbury was 4-12 FG tonight, and Hinrich was in his shirt the whole night, pretty much.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury was 4-12 FG tonight, and Hinrich was in his shirt the whole night, pretty much.


Didn't seem to get us the W though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't seem to get us the W though.


No, but the game didn't turn into a route in the middle of the 2nd Q and then we get to watch Jamal shoot and miss and shoot and miss and shoot and miss, and the rest of the team just stand around with their heads down.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Like i said before, its all Jamals fault


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> Hinrich again demonstrated tonight that he's not ready for a starting role.
> 
> Dr. Jack is right regarding his assessment of Kirk


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Nothing like a little levity to make the most of another depressing situation. You're a stitch, man! But just for the hell of it, why don't you expand on that thought of yours. I'd sure like to know what it is you saw that proved KH isn't ready. Oh, and while you're at it, who would you replace him with?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> No, but the game didn't turn into a route in the middle of the 2nd Q and then we get to watch Jamal shoot and miss and shoot and miss and shoot and miss, and the rest of the team just stand around with their heads down.


I don't know, the coverage they showed on ESPN showed the bulls with their heads very much down.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Hinrich averages more turnovers then assists. How can any sane person not see anything wrong with this? This guy has trouble bringing the ball up against a basic half court press. How can anybody consider him ready to start? Name one starting PG in the league who averages AT LEAST two turnovers per game w/o passing half court? How many times have we seen Hinrich make stupid offensive fouls while bringing the ball up? Wats up with all the double dribbles? continuously getting his pocket picked from behind? the ill advised passes when trapped? I believe he was even called for palming the ball tonight. This kid just ain't ready to start, PERIOD. 4 TOs per game in the limited minutes he plays is a flat out joke. Its one thing to blindly hate Crawford and continue to pull for Kirk, but at least be man enough to come out and say he has SUCKED as a starter so far. I believe we've only won 1 game since he was moved to the starting lineup. And he has zilch to do with that only win. Just look at our offensive struggles in the 4th qtr with Kirk on the floor. We need Jamal now, and we need him to be a starter logging in 30+ a night. 

Dr. Jack is spot-on on everything he said. Now that we have lost 3 in a row, the haters should at least come out and admit Crawford has been the least of our problems. He is IMO the 2nd most valuable player on this team behind a healthy Chandler.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Nothing like a little levity to make the most of another depressing situation. You're a stitch, man! But just for the hell of it, why don't you expand on that thought of yours. I'd sure like to know what it is you saw that proved KH isn't ready. Oh, and while you're at it, who would you replace him with?


-Not being able to handle the press leading to turnovers.
-Poor decisions with the ball resulting in numerous turnovers
-Poor ball handling leading to turnovers

plus Poor shooting and on defense he over commits on 
double teams without the capability to recover and prevent wide open looks


Obviously Pippen is getting more run at the point as Kirk's deficiencies are making the Bulls less and less competitive.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> Hinrich averages more turnovers then assists. How can any sane person not see anything wrong with this? This guy has trouble bringing the ball up against a basic half court press. How can anybody consider him ready to start? Name one starting PG in the league who averages AT LEAST two turnovers per game w/o passing half court? How many times have we seen Hinrich make stupid offensive fouls while bringing the ball up? Wats up with all the double dribbles? continuously getting his pocket picked from behind? the ill advised passes when trapped? I believe he was even called for palming the ball tonight. This kid just ain't ready to start, PERIOD. 4 TOs per game in the limited minutes he plays is a flat out joke. Its one thing to blindly hate Crawford and continue to pull for Kirk, but at least be man enough to come out and say he has SUCKED as a starter so far. I believe we've only won 1 game since he was moved to the starting lineup. And he has zilch to do with that only win. Just look at our offensive struggles in the 4th qtr with Kirk on the floor. We need Jamal now, and we need him to be a starter logging in 30+ a night.
> 
> Dr. Jack is spot-on on everything he said. Now that we have lost 3 in a row, the haters should at least come out and admit Crawford has been the least of our problems. He is IMO the 2nd most valuable player on this team behind a healthy Chandler.


Well put.

that offensive foul in the backcourt against defensive pressure was embarrassing.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

2-4 with Hinrich as the starter.
2-4 with Crawford as the starter.

So are we done blaming Crawford? Maybe it's time to start putting the entire team under the same scrutiny we put our PG's under. Starting with our Coach.


----------



## Parabull (Nov 4, 2003)

I think that all of the focus on Jamal's defense vs. Kirk's defense is obscuring the fact that the team is probably only going to win right now if we score more. And since the inside game isn't really getting it done, we need a good shooter who can create to make more points. I'd rather take my chances shooting more threes and shooting from more one-on-one situations than die this slow inside-outside death. If Jamal doesn't get minutes when he comes back, and not just in the pass-first capacity, we're just going to keep losing, IMO. He makes bad decisions, he doesn't feed the post enough, he should penetrate more... but still. We need a Scorer - our D obviously isn't going to cut it, and neither is the idea of having a team of all tough, hustling defenders.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> No, but the game didn't turn into a route in the middle of the 2nd Q and then we get to watch Jamal shoot and miss and shoot and miss and shoot and miss, and the rest of the team just stand around with their heads down.



oh.. like Jalen? 3-16 and 4 turnovers? ouch


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> Hinrich averages more turnovers then assists. How can any sane person not see anything wrong with this?


...not any more. After tonight's game Kirk is breaking even. And if you take that one game away back on the 8th when he had 4/9, he's really not doing all that badly. At least he's playing solid defense and he's trying to get his teammates involved offensively. As a PG I like his upside.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury was 4-12 FG tonight, and Hinrich was in his shirt the whole night, pretty much.


Please he was 5 ft off of him and Marbury was off tonight. Still marbury had 12 assist and 2 to because all that pressured by Hinrich. Plus everytime Hinrich was about to get beat a double and triple team would come. We were never in the game. Peace.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Wait. Did I miss something in the Dr. Jack piece? I didn't think it was Pro-Crawford at all. In fact he said Crawford and Rose both need to get better.
> 
> I thought his analysis was more about the Bulls as a team. But I maybe wrong.


I guess its "pro-crawford" because he said we should play him. Silly Jack. Playing an ultra-talented player. Foolish.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> well in the greater sense, he did enter the league with very little acclaim, but from the beginning he had a very vocal contingent in his corner on every webboard I've visited. Never seen anything quite like it for a player who was so unready at first and took nearly 3 (calendar) years to really string together good performances. No matter how little or badly he played, his fans never wavered and always thought his breakout was right around the corner if he just "got his chance".


The thing is that he never "got his chance."

Year 1 -- not ready, dog house
Year 2 -- injury
Year 3 -- JWil (then all-star level play)
Year 4 -- I don't even know what to call it. Control freak GM and coach?

Anyway.... its always been obvious to me that the kid can play. I felt the same way about Artest the first time I saw him. It does not make sense for a team this bad to not play their talented players.

Jamal has improved greatly from year 1 until now on D. His first year in the league, he could not say in front of his man to save his life. 

He's still not good... but dear god... don't we think he can improve to at least an average defender if given playing time? Isn't it worth having his sick offense game to at least give it a shot?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Hinrich and Pippen, Chandler is another, are the only ones who give any effort at all on D


And that's one of the things people (including me) like about Hinrich. It looks like he's trying really hard. I like the scrappy play. I love the elbows and the rebounds in traffic. 

He's not better than Jamal though, and should not be playing. I also don't see the upside in Kirk that I see in Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> No, but the game didn't turn into a route in the middle of the 2nd Q and then we get to watch Jamal shoot and miss and shoot and miss and shoot and miss, and the rest of the team just stand around with their heads down.


Hinrich shot 2-8. Seems like some serious shooting and missing.
6 assists and 4 turnovers. Better... but 4 turnovers is just too much.

How can the team develop an offensive rhythm when we're afraid if the PG is going to make it up the floor without turning it over?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> Hinrich averages more turnovers then assists. How can any sane person not see anything wrong with this? This guy has trouble bringing the ball up against a basic half court press. How can anybody consider him ready to start? Name one starting PG in the league who averages AT LEAST two turnovers per game w/o passing half court? How many times have we seen Hinrich make stupid offensive fouls while bringing the ball up? Wats up with all the double dribbles? continuously getting his pocket picked from behind? the ill advised passes when trapped? I believe he was even called for palming the ball tonight. This kid just ain't ready to start, PERIOD. 4 TOs per game in the limited minutes he plays is a flat out joke. Its one thing to blindly hate Crawford and continue to pull for Kirk, but at least be man enough to come out and say he has SUCKED as a starter so far. I believe we've only won 1 game since he was moved to the starting lineup. And he has zilch to do with that only win. Just look at our offensive struggles in the 4th qtr with Kirk on the floor. We need Jamal now, and we need him to be a starter logging in 30+ a night.
> 
> Dr. Jack is spot-on on everything he said. Now that we have lost 3 in a row, the haters should at least come out and admit Crawford has been the least of our problems. He is IMO the 2nd most valuable player on this team behind a healthy Chandler.


respect.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Nice to see the Crawford whining still in full-throat, what - 14 months later you say?

The Bulls to a man suck. Get over it. Each one deserves their fair share of the blame. NOBODY on this team deserves to be defended by anybody on this board, much less to have the same non-sensical garbage still being spewed for over three years now. If I'm the coach I'm gonna start from square one. You give me 110% or you park your lazy azzz on the pines and I'll find somebody else. If Cartwright can't inspire those who "should be starting" to play with the intensity and desire required, then Paxson better find his replacement before the season is totally lost. 

I've got news for you. It hasn't made a damn bit of difference whether Crawford or Hinrich is in the game. This team still sucks. Last check, the powers that be in the NBA were pretty much on the same page - no check that - they were "spot on" with regard to Crawfords abilities and it doesn't look like they're sipping the same kool-aid so prevalent around here. Apparently theres never a shortage of Crawford kool-aid even if the Bull kool-aid ran out years ago.

Wanna be a bonehead and suggest I'm a Crawford hater? Go for it. I could care less. I'm tired of all of that Jamal whining. I'd almost welcome a trade just to put an end to all the whining. Look. Heres the reality. If Crawford gets his **** {edited for masking} together and becomes a force on this team I say Go Bulls. If Hinrich becomes the next Stockton I say Go Bulls. I could care less who the point guard of the future is or who has the keys to the franchise. I care a lot more about making the playoffs and fielding a competitive and entertaining team. 

NEW FLASH: Watching the Bulls is painful. Watching the Bulls is not entertainment. Watching the Bulls is a waste of time. The Bulls suck.

I don't know what you all are watching, but I'm watching crap thats less entertaining than high school ball. This team sucks and whether or not Hinrich or Crawford is playing should be the least of anyones worries right now.

If that "awesome" insight by Dr. Jack is so "spot on" maybe we ought to lure him back to the sidelines to take brother Cartwright's job so he can have that "come to Jesus" speech with Jamal so he can become the second coming of David Thompson and all the kool-aid drinkers here can come together and sing kumbaya and tell us all they told us so.{edited for masking} {edited for masking}


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Nice to see the Crawford whining still in full-throat, what - 14 months later you say?
> 
> The Bulls to a man suck. Get over it. Each one deserves their fair share of the blame. NOBODY on this team deserves to be defended by anybody on this board, much less to have the same non-sensical garbage still being spewed for over three years now. If I'm the coach I'm gonna start from square one. You give me 110% or you park your lazy azzz on the pines and I'll find somebody else. If Cartwright can't inspire those who "should be starting" to play with the intensity and desire required, then Paxson better find his replacement before the season is totally lost.
> ...


A reality check post. You are spot on!

The debate between Crawford and Hinrich is ridiculous. They both are not doing what is necessary for the team to win. Neither are any of the other players. The players have talent but lack heart. 

Players on the Bulls with heart:

Pippen - A warriors heart and mind, but the body of peanut brittle. 

Gill - Big heart, decent skill level, maybe not so cerebral

Hinrich - Lacks skill and brain, but does want it and goes hard

Chandler - I hedge with this guy. He has heart, but I still don't see him as this great defender. He still stands around and gets burned an awful lot. I would still keep him on the court because he does have fire in his belly.

Baxter - He does play hard on both ends. May screw up loads, but not because of effort.

Marshall and Fizer are losers. I say that because despite putting up decent numbers at times it seems they rarely help a team win. 

Crawford and Curry are the worst in terms of heart and brains. It hurts with these two because their potential is what we all are counting on.

The rest (including our best player Rose) are a bunch of ironing boards and bowling pins. Paxson I am sure realizes this, NOW, and is looking at what can be done. Everyone wanted him to keep the young 3 C's and bring in some veterans. A trade of Curry, Chandler, or Crawford this past offseason would of driven a few on this board to suicide! 

Paxson has not had any time to sort this out yet. He will sort it out, but it is such a mess Krause left him with it won't be easy and won't be overnight.

It is very dissapointing, as this was the first year in a long time there was anticipation of success. It hurts to see it the same as it has been the past 5 seasons.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I really probably shouldn't have quoted the part about Jamal and Jalen starting. The more salient points IMO deal with Bill's rotations and people knowing their roles. The Bulls have looked very disorganized offensively AND defensively regardless of whether Jamal or Kirk are in the game. Even if the Bulls don't want to start Crawford, or even play him for that matter, they need to establish a rotation and try to stick with it only adjusting for injuries and matchups. Players need to know their roles.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I would like to thank all those posters who saw fit to hijack Ace's tread about Jack Ramsey's analysis of the Bulls and turn it into yet another Kirk vs. Jamal thread.

C.C.C.P. is spot on-- Dr. Jack has been mailing in his stuff for at least a couple of years now, and I have no reason to believe he has watched any more than 1 or 2 Bulls games all season. His column reminds me of one of those psychics who dupe people by "predicting" only stuff that is so general or ambiguous in nature that no matter what happens it can appear that he or she is right.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

The jaded guy that just posted above doesnt know what hes talkinig about. The Bulls have enough talent to win in this league. Anybody here that knows anything about talent lvl in the NBA in general knows the Bulls have enough of it to win some of these games. The problem is lack of coaching, or rather lack of good coaching. You practice until people understand and get things right. You play your best players, if they are in a funk, you let them play out of it, and maybe tell them not to take as many shots. It just doesnt seem like thats going on, and they all dont seem to understand or buy into what theyre supposed to do. Bad coaches or poorly coached teams can make their teams look like high school players. Good coaches can really make a big difference, especially if the players all buy into what hes feeding them. Just look at the Wizards and Eddie Jordan. The main reason why the Wizards have won some of those games they've won has to do with being very well coached this year, not their talent lvl. The Bulls have alot of talent, and i dare say they wont have this much talent sitting there next year or for years to come probably. 

Now dont go telling people not to talk about Crawford, or bring up how bad the Heinrich lovers look right now, when they were blaming everything bad that occured to start the season on Jamal. Alot of those Jamal supporters said "lets wait and see how great they are without Jamal, and how many games they win". You can definitely see how much they miss Jamals game, something hustle players with half talent arent going to give you. Part of it IS about Jamal vs Heinrich, because Jamal wasnt given a fair shake, and thats what alot of Jamal supporters have been saying all along. I could care less if your sick of hearing the Jamal whiners, there were more Jamal haters than whiners here crowing about how great Heinrich is for the offense and how unbelievable his defense is. Too many of you 'Bulls fans' overreacted to players being out of sync to start the season, and thought you'd be better without Jamal and a rookie that doesnt have a handle running point(yeah, i argued this with some of you in another thread about a week ago). Bottomline is alot of Jamal supporters werent in agreement with the current plan, and now they can rubb it in the faces of those that stated Jamal was the problem and how great Heinrich and Cartwright are. Where are the wins and great play now that the 'cancer'(Jamal) isnt playing?

Plus alot of you are over-focused on defense. Your like Pat Riley in his last few years, where the Heat have been ALL about defense to the point it hurts their offense. You NEED players that can create and score, not roleplayers that hustleDefense and cant score. Without the ability to score, defense doesnt amount to anything. The NBA is a scorers league. Thats what i was trying to tell that **** FJ, but he apparently thinks hustle half-talents win in the NBA :rollseyes:{edited for namecalling...thats NOT permitted}


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Quote:
-------------------
I would like to thank all those posters who saw fit to hijack Ace's tread about Jack Ramsey's analysis of the Bulls and turn it into yet another Kirk vs. Jamal thread.

C.C.C.P. is spot on-- Dr. Jack has been mailing in his stuff for at least a couple of years now, and I have no reason to believe he has watched any more than 1 or 2 Bulls games all season. His column reminds me of one of those psychics who dupe people by "predicting" only stuff that is so general or ambiguous in nature that no matter what happens it can appear that he or she is right.
-------------------


Wow, how can you say this after last night? If anything last night proved Dr Jack's insight was pretty damn accurate.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> The jaded guy that just posted above doesnt know what hes talkinig about.


Kneepad knows more about basketball and the Bulls than most people do. And he certainly does know what he's talking about.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

But there was no insight. He didn't say anything. I'm not arguing Jamal/Jay/Jalen/Jam/Jelly/jingoism/ whatever...

Go back to the article--substitute all the Bulls names with Magic names like I started doing, and the article works equally well. My whole point was that it was just a cookie cutter article written by someone who, although a brilliant basketball mind, is no longer minding his P's and Q's.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Dabullz, if you dont think the Bulls have enough talent to win now or this year on that roster, then i'd hate to see how long you wait and excuse the losses because of lack of talent until you think they do. Most teams dont have as much talent as the Bulls have on their roster, but seem to be doing better, probably because they utilize their talent correctly, unlike the Bulls.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

ERRRRR my bad, that post was to Sparticus Triumvate, not Sinking Ship, and definitely not Kneepad. But i'll address it to Sinking Ship too since he agreed with Sparticus's jaded post.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

CCCP, i even cut and pasted a portion of what Dr Jack said that was more precise than any generalities in terms of the Bulls problems. It was evident last night as well in their defense. Also, can you really deny his suggestion to play their most talented players? After last night where the Bulls clearly looked like they were outmatched in terms of talent?

Say what you want about Dr Jack, but i thought his analysis was justified by the Bulls loss to Phoenix last night.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Nice to see the Crawford whining still in full-throat, what - 14 months later you say?
> 
> The Bulls to a man suck. Get over it. Each one deserves their fair share of the blame. NOBODY on this team deserves to be defended by anybody on this board, much less to have the same non-sensical garbage still being spewed for over three years now. If I'm the coach I'm gonna start from square one. You give me 110% or you park your lazy azzz on the pines and I'll find somebody else. If Cartwright can't inspire those who "should be starting" to play with the intensity and desire required, then Paxson better find his replacement before the season is totally lost.
> ...


No offense, but since I used NO vulgarity exactly why was I edited for masking? And why do you have edited for masking twice in blue at the bottom where I didn't even have anything? Conspiracy theorists might surmise you - as a rabid Jamal supporter - intended to make it look as though my post was over the top and needed your "skillful moderating touch" to get me in line. :laugh: 

You've got to be joking me to say that "*****"{again, edited for masking} needs to be edited on here even when its "masked". Yeah, thats a word nobodies ever heard before. I got news for you, would you like to see a list of the most popular words being thrown around on primetime tv these days? 

You know what I always say. If the truth hurts, edit the posters post.{again edited for masking}


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense, but since I used NO vulgarity exactly why was I edited for masking? And why do you have edited for masking twice in blue at the bottom where I didn't even have anything? Conspiracy theorists might surmise you - as a rabid Jamal supporter - intended to make it look as though my post was over the top and needed your "skillful moderating touch" to get me in line. :laugh:
> ...


I just do like I am told and we have been told that masking is to be edited. Thats the policy for this site and since we all enjoy posting here we need to follow the policy as it is set. I don't neccessarily agree or disagree with it but thats the way it is!

And I doubt my editing of one word is going to shatter your  articulate argument. The edit message was posted twice because I am still a newbie at editing..sue me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> Dabullz, if you dont think the Bulls have enough talent to win now or this year on that roster, then i'd hate to see how long you wait and excuse the losses because of lack of talent until you think they do. Most teams dont have as much talent as the Bulls have on their roster, but seem to be doing better, probably because they utilize their talent correctly, unlike the Bulls.


I don't excuse the losing. Not in the least.

We've had numerous shots at the lotto wheel and come up with a bunch of blanks. Our talent has busted out rather than break out.

There is a lesson to be learned from Pink Floyd. Coaching the Bulls and lack of talent, he had the worst W/L record as a coach in history. Put him on a team with some real talent and he wins games.

Fine. Fire Cartwright. The result will be the same, no matter who you get to come in and coach these bums.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

if he is so worng then explain why you guys arent winning


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

I'm telling you theyre not as bad as they've looked. They can be so much better. I'm not saying a new coach will automatically turn things around, but i do think if anything a new coach can change the atmosphere and possibly play. Its alot like what Rivers said after he learned he was fired, something about how the team probably needs someone different to motivate them and turn things around. 

Dont lose hope just yet, i still think theres potential to be much better than they have been, its just a matter of making a few changes and seeing how things go from there. If they remain complacent, then i'd be abit worried.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't excuse the losing. Not in the least.
> ...


]

uhh, these aren't bums anymore dude. The Bulls have some serious vets now, Rose, Pippen, Marshall, Gill, and even Blount and NUMEROUS young developing lottery picks. This isn't the vetereanless built to lose teams that Floyd had.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense, but since I used NO vulgarity exactly why was I edited for masking? And why do you have edited for masking twice in blue at the bottom where I didn't even have anything? Conspiracy theorists might surmise you - as a rabid Jamal supporter - intended to make it look as though my post was over the top and needed your "skillful moderating touch" to get me in line. :laugh:
> ...


It appears as though the truth hurts you a lot and I'll let it go at that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> ]
> 
> uhh, these aren't bums anymore dude. The Bulls have some serious vets now, Rose, Pippen, Marshall, Gill, and even Blount and NUMEROUS young developing lottery picks. This isn't the vetereanless built to lose teams that Floyd had.


Floyd's team had vets, and they were bums, too.

Of the group you listed, only Rose is getting paid significant dollars. The rest are rent-a-bums who came for $$$cheap and not for their ability to win anymore.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> Wow, how can you say this after last night? If anything last night proved Dr Jack's insight was pretty damn accurate.


I'm not saying the Bulls don't have problems or even that Dr. Jack is wrong in everything he says-- just that his analysis is clearly superficial and largely based on stats and perhaps some small amount of actual observation. C.C.C.P. has aleardy done a very good job illustrating what he and I are talking about. Frankly, I trust the analysis of many die-hard posters here who I know have watched every minute of every Bulls game this season.

Dr. Jack offers up similar analysis for all 29 teams-- do you really think he watches every NBA game that's played? How many Bulls games do you honestly think he's watched, Happyface?

Here's what probably went down: a week or so ago ESPN honchos noticed the Bulls are off to a rough start and put a call into "Dr. Jack"... "Hey Doc, we need a 'How to fix the Bulls' column by next Tuesday." He did what anyone in such a position would do-- researched the stats to see where the Bulls are weak and maybe watched bits of their last couple of games. From that, he has conjured up the magic potion to cure all the Bulls woes? I think not. Dr. Jack simply isn't close enough to the team to have any true insight into what's going on, IMHO.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Priest</b>!
> if he is so worng then explain why you guys arent winning


The biggest problem, from what I've seen, this Bulls team is in major need of a desire transfusion. I watch them play, and, with a few exceptions, I can't help think I'm watching a bunch if pampered millionaires living the good life travelling the country playing hoops for a living-- damn, it can't get any better than that-- with no regard for whether the team finishes 82-0 or 0-82.

As for X's and O's, it's one of two things: either

a) BC is truly an inept coach, or

b) the players are either incapable or unwilling to listen to him and play the way they are being coached to play. In other words, they are simply not executing what they have been coached to do.

The question is, which is it?

I believe John Paxson is in the process of evaluating that as we all peck away.

From Dr. Jack's article:



> Players involved in screening situations on the baseline, side-court and top of the circle are inconsistent in their adjustments. Opposing penetrators drive the middle, post players get deep position freely and high-percentage opportunities result. Off-the-ball helpers often arrive too late to stop scores at the hoop.


I'm not saying BC is perfect, but I have a hard time believing he has not coached this team on how to do these things.



> Chicago's often questionable shot selection is mostly responsible for its low-percentage shooting from the field. Rose and Crawford, the leading shot-takers on the team, both shoot low field-goal percentages (.408 and .402, respectively).


Again, what has BC been preaching? Sharing the ball, take good shots within the offense. These two guys in particular didn't seem to be listening, so he benched them. Made scapegoats of them if you insist-- I don't care what you call it. But he tried to change it. I don't know how much of an affect it's had.



> Cartwright juggles his lineup frequently. It's hard for players to get a rhythm of play without establishing a definite lineup of starters


With the exception of the Rose and Crawford benching, I don't think there have been any significant lineup adjustments for reasons other than injury.



> I watch the Bulls now, Cartwright appears to have given in. He sits impassively as they commit careless turnovers, take bad shots and play soft defense.


What exactly should he do, Jack? Suit up himself and go out there and play? The only thing he can do is remove such players from the game. But oh yeah... he plays too many guys and juggles his lineup too much. Which is it?



> Cartwright must develop an improved defense. Assistant John Bach was the architect of the Bulls' defense during the team's turnaround when Phil Jackson took over for Doug Collins. He's on Cartwright's staff now and is an excellent resource for defensive teamwork. Mr. Bill should use him.


So the assumption is he's not using him now? Rediculous. Coaches can only do so much-- the players must be willing and able to execute.



> Among Curry, Chandler, Marshall and Blount, there is enough rebound potential for the Bulls to have a positive edge on the boards. Cartwright, a solid rebounder himself as a player, must demand more. Curry in particular (only 7.2 rebounds per game) needs greater focus on that part of his game.


I've been wondering why Cartwright hasn't waved his magic wand earlier to turn Curry into a ferocious rebounder.  _The coaches can only do so much._


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

I kind of begin to see what DaBullZ has been saying. When you look at it with cool head, Bulls may not have enough talent to be competitive in thie league. Curry and Crawford is useless at defense. And Curry and Chandler is not Duncan and Robinson and it looks more and more like they may never will be a force in NBA. Crawford is just another headcase that think he is so better than what people think he is when he is just a limited talented perimeter shooter. IT is too early to say about Hinrich. Rose is a ball hog and not team leader material.

Not a sigle superstar material on the horizon. I began to notice that all those great player showed theri brillaince about this time (3 years into the league) regardless of thier age and experience. I haven't seen none and all we are talking about is the POTENTIAL STILL. 

IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WILL BE AL THE THING TO TALK ABOUT FOR THE NEXT DECADE. 

BUMMER.

At this point, I don't care Paxon trade all of them. Cause it won't make much difference at all. You gather any bum player around the NBA, they will probably have same record as current BUlls. Yet we won't talk about the talent with them on the roster. THat will say a lot about current member of the bUlls.

We put so much hope and blind faith on them for Bulls' sake but in the end they all sucks. Some say there is a chance for them to make a playoff still. I say "DREAM ON".


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> I kind of begin to see what DaBullZ has been saying. When you look at it with cool head, Bulls may not have enough talent to be competitive in thie league. Curry and Crawford is useless at defense. And Curry and Chandler is not Duncan and Robinson and it looks more and more like they may never will be a force in NBA. Crawford is just another headcase that think he is so better than what people think he is when he is just a limited talented perimeter shooter. IT is too early to say about Hinrich. Rose is a ball hog and not team leader material.
> 
> Not a sigle superstar material on the horizon. I began to notice that all those great player showed theri brillaince about this time (3 years into the league) regardless of thier age and experience. I haven't seen none and all we are talking about is the POTENTIAL STILL.
> ...


Maybe you should try reading Dr. Jacks views instead.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Thing about potential is, they'll never reach it if you dont play them and let them learn for themself through their mistakes. Most players with potential that have reached all star status have been able to play through mistakes. I kinda look at Quentin Richardson whos having a great year. People have been waiting for him to take it to the next level for the last 3 years. At first when Gentry was there, he only used Q as a bench player but it was obvious he had alot of talent. He just showed brief flashes of it, although it wasnt consistent, in alot of ways like Jamal. Then Q got the starting job but played poorly or under expectations for a while, up until this year where hes came out of nowhere blowing up.

I dont understand how hard it is for Cartwright to tell Rose or Crawford not to shoot so much. Or at the very least not to take hard shots like they do, and if they do threaten to bench them. Maybe he did and thats why he benched them, but i just cant see them directly disobeying their coach considering most of the players have enough respect to listen to what he says regardless if they like it or not. Funny thing is they make those shots sometimes, and when they do nobody complains. Its alot like when Rose has great games everyone here praises him, and when he shoots the Bulls out of games, people want to trade him. I dont know what goes on behind the scenes, but i think a change of coaches can really change the play of a team more than just positional changes, because coaches bring in a new attitude and can give players a new outlook. Also, if Rose or Jamal arent taking those shots or creating for themself, then we have last night where it seems nobody is taking charge. At least Jamal attempted to do that at times, albeit when he was cold, instead of the offense just looking completely lost. 

I think they should fire Cartwright, grab Rivers. Rivers is at least respected enough to command more respect than Cartwright. He also probably has more of a desire to prove Orlando was wrong in firing him than hes ever had. I think he'll also come in with alot of energy and give them a new outlook. Hopefully, he'll put the 5 most talented players on the floor and let them grow from there regardless of the short-term wins or losses. In that fascet i completely agree with Dr Jack, because trying to win in the short-term with patch players who happen to be hot isnt goign to win in the longrun.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> I dont understand how hard it is for Cartwright to tell Rose or Crawford not to shoot so much. Or at the very least not to take hard shots like they do, and if they do threaten to bench them. Maybe he did and thats why he benched them, but i just cant see them directly disobeying their coach considering most of the players have enough respect to listen to what he says regardless if they like it or not.


I think Cartwright did just that so many time before and now totally frustarated becuase it just didn't seem they get the message. Do you really think that coaches would keep their mouth shut while prblem is so obvious?



> I think they should fire Cartwright, grab Rivers. Rivers is at least respected enough to command more respect than Cartwright. He also probably has more of a desire to prove Orlando was wrong in firing him than hes ever had. I think he'll also come in with alot of energy and give them a new outlook.


For this one, I have to agree with you. It just so obvious that status quo isn't working and NBA is essentially player's league. They can easily replace coaches but not the players. It seems that BC has lost the playes , especially one nucleus (so to speak) except Chandler. Mostly Crawford, Fizer, Curry, Robinson and Rose (when he should know better asa veteran). 

Since there is not much anyody can do about with this roster right now, I do think it's time to replace BC. I know it's not fair to him since that way he's not going to have one full season to be judged for. But We do need some change of scenery and Doc Rivers make a lot of senses.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls announcers have commented over and over how Hinrich has consistently cut Marbury off from the basket.


that they did in the 3rd quarter

they weren't saying it in he 1st half when starbury was in the lane at will(and the suns were running up a double digit lead)

and stephon was obviously doing enough to get 12 assists...who was guarding him


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> As for X's and O's, it's one of two things: either
> 
> ...


You forgot:

c) All of the above.

I'd be pretty darn happy if Pax knew for certain which of the two it was. Not sure he could know with the mess that we have.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> I think they should fire Cartwright, grab Rivers. Rivers is at least respected enough to command more respect than Cartwright. He also probably has more of a desire to prove Orlando was wrong in firing him than hes ever had. I think he'll also come in with alot of energy and give them a new outlook. Hopefully, he'll put the 5 most talented players on the floor and let them grow from there regardless of the short-term wins or losses. In that fascet i completely agree with Dr Jack, because trying to win in the short-term with patch players who happen to be hot isnt goign to win in the longrun.


How do you figure Rivers is more respected than Cartwright? I have them about even in this regard-- both former players, both first-time head coaches (well, Rivers will now be a second-time head coach I guess), neither one with any significant team success to this point. Other than Crawford's and Rose's pouting at being benched, I have not observed the players dissing BC at all. Pip is out in today's Trib as standing behind BC (with the caveat that it may be in part because he's loyal to a former teammate.) I believe BC has not "lost" the team.

I'm all for putting the 5 most talented players on the floor and letting them grow. But they have to play defense and they have to play as a team and not as 5 individuals. In the case of the Bulls, that means the 5 most talented players may not be the ones on the floor. You then either have to motivate the most talented players to play defense and smart offense, or your have to trade them and get equally talented players who do.

Cartwright needs a little more time to see if he can get this figured out. Teams on the road have a way of coming together.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

The only place Cartwright is respected is in Chicago. Rivers has taken the Magic to the playoff the last 3 years i believe. Rivers does get alot of respect around the league, he was coach of the year last year or 2 years ago from what i remember. He will get a job somewhere if he wants it, i wont say the same for Cartwright.

As for playing defense and playing as a team, i think defense is largely about motivation and effort. Jamal has the athletic ability to be a good defender imo, its just a matter of getting him motivated to do it. I also believe they will be more in sync as a team if they played together often(talking about the 5 best players), but Cartwright keeps flip flopping the lineups making some of the players worried about everything they do, where they dont feel comfortable playing their game. Its like theyre walking on eggshells at this point because of all the scrutiny that Cartwrights only excasterbated.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> The only place Cartwright is respected is in Chicago. Rivers has taken the Magic to the playoff the last 3 years i believe. Rivers does get alot of respect around the league, he was coach of the year last year or 2 years ago from what i remember. He will get a job somewhere if he wants it, i wont say the same for Cartwright.
> 
> As for playing defense and playing as a team, i think defense is largely about motivation and effort. Jamal has the athletic ability to be a good defender imo, its just a matter of getting him motivated to do it. I also believe they will be more in sync as a team if they played together often(talking about the 5 best players), but Cartwright keeps flip flopping the lineups making some of the players worried about everything they do, where they dont feel comfortable playing their game. Its like theyre walking on eggshells at this point because of all the scrutiny that Cartwrights only excasterbated.


in a world where tim floyd coaches again if cartwright is fired he will coach again


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I just do like I am told and we have been told that masking is to be edited. Thats the policy for this site and since we all enjoy posting here we need to follow the policy as it is set. I don't neccessarily agree or disagree with it but thats the way it is!
> ...


If your into "the rules"

You also might want to check your Jamal banner wavers , notably , Happyface , with baiting in deliberate misreps and namecalling.

I believe Page 6 is where you may want to look


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> The only place Cartwright is respected is in Chicago. Rivers has taken the Magic to the playoff the last 3 years i believe. Rivers does get alot of respect around the league, he was coach of the year last year or 2 years ago from what i remember.


Just found it curious what Magic fans were saying about Doc in his last days (from the Orlando board)... I swear you could plug in "Cartwright" for "Rivers" and "Bulls" for "Magic" and you'd be reading this board!



> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> How long do you think Doc will still be in Orlando? I like Doc, but I am beginning to think he is not the right coach for this team anymore. Him and his staff havent done a good job of developing young talent. And they seem to have lost the ability to motivate the team.





> Originally posted by <b>Wondah_Woman</b>!
> Yeah I think Doc is out if he doesn't produce this year. Even though no one other than Horace Grant and Darrell Armstrong have said anything negative against him, I really think that the team isn't fully behind him.





> Originally posted by <b>Wondah_Woman</b>!
> true...doc has lost his influence. I dont know who they could get to really push this team.





> Originally posted by <b>courtside</b>!
> Hopefully we lose the next game ONLY...so the management can see that Doc Rivers can't adjust his coaching and start thinking about it...if they aren't thinking about it yet... Too bad the sentinel doesn't say anything against doc





> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> If Orlando missed the playoffs, they really need a PG. Nelson, Gordon, Felton, Moore. A PG who knows how to run an offense.





> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> As for Doc Rivers, I say can him. He doesn't have T-Mac motivated, and doesn't discipline T-Mac for laughing on the bench while the team is getting killed. I don't think Doc has the players' respect. Magic need someone like Mike Fratello or PJ Carlissimo.





> Originally posted by <b>g_prince_4_lyfe</b>!
> Doc is just not the right coach for the Magic! I mean, what is his strategy? "Pass it to T-Mac and get out of the way?" That hardly worked last year and it sure ain't workin this time around! He doesn't know how to use the new guys on the Magic! This is just insulting! They hav T-Mac, Tyronn Lue, Juan Howard, Drew Gooden, and even Gordan Girchek, and they STILL can't win! I mean, i'm surprised they even won a game this season! They just got lucky that game! They're 0-6 at home, 1-4 on the road and ridin on a 10 game losin streak! What more is there to say? It's simple! They hav to fire Rivers! He's the one coaching this team! He's the one that's supposed to know how to use these guys and make the team gel together, and he hasn't been able to do that for the first 11 games! Who knows who the Magic will bring in as a replacement! Lenny Wilkens?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> that they did in the 3rd quarter
> ...


sounds like grasping at straws to me. How many points did Steph score? Ten. compared to his season average? 20.5 how did he shoot from the field? 4-12 = 33%

so the fact that Steph passed it to Marion and Amare and THEY made some shots means that Kirk was playing bad defense? Please. No defender can keep Steph out of the lane all the time, but it sounds like Kirk did a pretty credible job to me.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I had no problem whatsoever with KH's defense last night. I thought he played Marbury very tough. In fact, at one point in the game I thought I even detected Marbury giving Kirk some props for the way he was playing him (hard to tell for sure without audio, though).


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

I'm not arguing with you there Kneepad, i said i thought they both lost their teams. Which is why Rivers needed to be fired, and why i think Cartwright needs to as well. They could both probably benefit frrom a different motivator that does things abit differently imo.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> in a world where tim floyd coaches again if cartwright is fired he will coach again


I don't know about that. Floyd was a very successful college coach at a major program. That Bulls team wasn't talented unlike the current squad.

Floyd, most importantly, had connections in NO.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> sounds like grasping at straws to me. How many points did Steph score? Ten. compared to his season average? 20.5 how did he shoot from the field? 4-12 = 33%
> ...


did you watch the game ?

i know i did and marbury had 10 assists in the 1st half and drove when he wanted ...just far enough to draw help defense and pass off (ergo all the assists)

you say marbury shot 4-12 ...well kirk was 2-8 and missed his 1st 6 and didn't hit a shot until the game was basically decided because the bulls were losing by double digits for good by the time kirk was finally cutting off marbury in the 3rd period

the bottom line is there was just 1 pg in that game and he was wearing a suns uni

i'm not grasping at straws kirk was outplayed and stephon wasn't even really trying to shoot but he controlled the game


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. Floyd was a very successful college coach at a major program. That Bulls team wasn't talented unlike the current squad.
> ...


cartwright's only been in the nba for the last 24 years in some capacity ...I would think he has more nba connections than floyd who got his 1st nba job from his fishing buddy ...that fishing buddy also hired BC as his replacement


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

I think Floyd's a terrible coach, i used to scratch my head at some of the stuff he did with the Bulls. Regardless of the Hornets record, i still think hes bad. Besides, Baron has been playing incredible to start out the year and it really doesnt have much to do with Floyd, it has more to do with him feeling healthy.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> I think Floyd's a terrible coach, i used to scratch my head at some of the stuff he did with the Bulls. Regardless of the Hornets record, i still think hes bad. Besides, Baron has been playing incredible to start out the year and it really doesnt have much to do with Floyd, it has more to do with him feeling healthy.


So, is the coach to blame only when the team plays bad and when the team plays good it's the players? Looks to me like Floyd is doing what many here would ask of Cartwright. Ride the hot hand. Stop with the goofy substitutions. Floyd finally has a decently talented team and he's doing what he's supposed to - win. I can say this much about the floyd-era bulls: At least they hustled for 48 minutes. They knew pretty much going in that they were going to lose but at least they tried. I can't say the same about this years edition.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Actually i just gave you my opinion on the matter, i still dislike Floyd as a coach from his stint with the Bulls, and its going to be very difficult to change that opinion. 

But yeah, the Coach does usually get the credit when teams win, and when they lose. Floyd is getting alot of credit for the Hornets good start by the general media, just not me :no:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> If your into "the rules"
> ...


I'm not as much into "rules" as I should be as moderator. I like reading posts and talking about the Bulls and I'm pretty bad about editing and I am trying to get better. Thanks for pointing out Happy's post, I can't catch everything. It has been edited for namecalling. And just for the record, my duties as moderator have nothing to do with whether your a Jamal supporter or not. I try to catch what I can and be fair to all.


----------

