# Chandler, Curry Are Killing the Bulls



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Rebounding and interior defense...the Bulls have neither, and it's killing them. How do fastbreaks begin? With rebounds, usually...forcing the opposition into a one and done scenario over and over. That doesn't happen with the Bulls and it never will, at least as long as Chicago counts on Chandler and Curry to defend the paint and control the boards.

Tonight against the Cavs the Bulls were outrebounded by 15!!! Utah collected 14 more boards than the Bulls on Wednesday. The Bulls rank 17th in team rebounds and 24th in opponents rebounds yielded. That's pitiful when you consider that Chicago has started two seven footers for most of the season.

Against Cleveland, Curry got mauled on the boards by Ilgauskas and Traylor. They literally took rebounds away from him by reaching over the top of his head _because he won't jump!_ Chandler collected nearly all of his rebounds in garbage time. I don't want to hear about Tyson Chandler, the rebounder and shot blocker. Maybe at one time he had something to offer in those categories, but not anymore. He is simply not the same player he was prior to his back injury. 

And here's another interesting set of numbers to consider: Chicago is averaging 2.7 blocks per game while their opponents average 5.0 blocks per contest. Hell, Andres Kirilenko, Shaq, Marcus Camby, Kelvin Cato and Ben Wallace *individually* average more blocked shots per game than the entire Bulls team. BTW, even with what's generally termed a pair of "twin towers" running the floor for the Bulls, their 2.7 blocks per game average ranks Chicago 30th (dead last) in that category league-wide.

The Bulls rank 29th overall defensively, giving up an average of 101.3ppg.

Winning basketball games starts with team defense. Just like winning baseball teams are usually strongest defensively up the middle, its a basketball team's interior defense that normally dictates the amount of success a basketball team will have.

When you boil it all down, much of this team's failures can be directly attributed to Chandler's and Curry's inability to do the "dirty work" portions of their jobs. As a duo and the team's most prominent "power players," the truth is that Chandler and Curry, both four year veterans, are failures at their positions.

There are reasons the two of them got dropped from the starting lineup. The sooner they're both dealt and replaced by physical post players who provide tough interior defense and rebounding, the better off the Chicago Bulls will be.


----------



## notbeat (Jul 13, 2002)

lonny baxter and michael ruffin anyone?

ugh.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Rebounding and interior defense...the Bulls have neither, and it's killing them. How do fastbreaks begin? With rebounds, usually...forcing the opposition into a one and done scenario over and over. That doesn't happen with the Bulls and it never will, at least as long as Chicago counts on Chandler and Curry to defend the paint and control the boards.
> 
> Tonight against the Cavs the Bulls were outrebounded by 15!!! Utah collected 14 more boards than the Bulls on Wednesday. The Bulls rank 17th in team rebounds and 24th in opponents rebounds yielded. That's pitiful when you consider that Chicago has started two seven footers for most of the season.
> ...


That's the reason they were demoted Kismet-it's painfully obvious.

Also,John Paxson can learn a few tricks from his brother,Jim,who pulled a Miles for McInnis swap and left everybody else wondering.

*VETERANS* 

That's what this team needs.The win we got the previous night was out of pure luck IMO-we played a rather in the slump Utah Jazz team.

Tyson and eddy last night at one moment after a lot of minutes had
*0 rebounds and 0 blocks* 

It was unBULLIEVABLE 

Damn,Tyson especially hasn't improved at all.

What should we expect now??Lot's of penetration from the opposing guards cause the Hinrich,Duhon,Gordon backcourt has been stinking up the place too.

Maybe Vince Carter ??


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

If Curry and Chandler are still in Chicago by the new year, I'll be though with the Bulls. Thick and thin. Whatever. You couldn't keep a job at McDonald's with that glib excuse.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i knew this is the way curry was going to pan out from day one and ive been on the boards sayin so for the past 3 seasons,but i had high hopes for TC and on up to the back prob he was livin up to them..he has played like crap so far and i think he's just tired of being here so lets show him the door,shall we?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Great post/thread Kismet, i agree wholeheartly with what you are saying.

The so-called twin-towers not being able to consistently do the most basic basketball thing called rebounding has killed this team. What i wouldnt do for a glass eater for this team. 

For anyone that caught a lot of Milwaukee Bucks games like i did, it was amazing to watch last years team. Joe Smith and a combonation of Daniel Santiago/Gadzuric/Skinner would hit the boards hard and start the break. Teams were always on their heels trying to get back on defense. I think next to Michael Redd, Joe Smith was the MVP of that Bucks team for his play on defense. 

Sadly the Bulls dont have anyone realiable downlow for the longterm. Hopefully Paxson can move Chandler and Curry and we can shed the anchors of the potential of a brighter tomorrow w/ eddy and tyson. Enough of fantasyland where people believe that Curry and Chandler will lead us to the promise land.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Curry & Chandler are BUSTS in EVERY sense of the word. I don't think it's even a question anymore. Both are supposed to be in the BEST shape of their career's but are having their WORST season as NBA players. They are indeed the worst at their positions also. Hell the BOBCATS center is 2x the player Curry is and Dwight Howard is fresh outta highschool and is more consistent than BOTH of em, ALREADY!

I'm PRETTY sure john paxson sees this also and is hopefully looking to trade both before the deadline.


----------



## Herdof (Nov 14, 2004)

Who do you all think we can get for the two busts?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Good post. Some people have said that they would forgive Curry for being a horrible rebounder if he could score 20PPG, but I disagree. You give up more points than that by allowing an offense to snag boards at will. Add to the fact that he doesn't play a lick of defense and he'd have to score at least 30PPG to make up for that.

The defense and rebounding of those two definitely is your main weakness.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Kismet, its a good post. But there is one thing missing, in terms of the team defense aspect, and that is that the bulls cant stop anyone on the perimeter. Period. Chandler and Curry usually have to step up and leave their man to stop opposing guards and SFs. Deng is probably the best Bulls perimeter defender and he is slightly average at best. Nocioni came in with the rep as a bruiser. But being a bruiser doesnt mean you can stop anyone. Gordon cant play D and regularly gets posted up. And Kirk, by far, has been the biggest disappointment on the defensive end. He routinely reaches, gets himself into foul trouble, and then routinely plays matador defense because its imperative he stays on the floor. While its easy to blame the Bulls big guys for everything, I see perimeter D as a much, much bigger worry. Outside of Amare, who is killing everyone, it has been the wing players who have beaten us this year. 

Kismet, please clean out your inbox.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Kismet, its a good post. But there is one thing missing, in terms of the team defense aspect, and that is that the bulls cant stop anyone on the perimeter. Period. Chandler and Curry usually have to step up and leave their man to stop opposing guards and SFs. Deng is probably the best Bulls perimeter defender and he is slightly average at best. Nocioni came in with the rep as a bruiser. But being a bruiser doesnt mean you can stop anyone. Gordon cant play D and regularly gets posted up. And Kirk, by far, has been the biggest disappointment on the defensive end. He routinely reaches, gets himself into foul trouble, and then routinely plays matador defense because its imperative he stays on the floor. While its easy to blame the Bulls big guys for everything, I see perimeter D as a much, much bigger worry. Outside of Amare, who is killing everyone, it has been the wing players who have beaten us this year.
> 
> Kismet, please clean out your inbox.


Yes rlucas...our perimeter defense is a concern.We won't go far enough with such a short backcourt.

In my mind Paxson has some tradeable assets after december 15.Curry,Tyson,Davis,Pike and Ben Gordon.

He must try to get some players in their prime at age 26,27,28.Can you get Vince Carter?Do it.

We can't let these guys(Kirk,Luol,Andres) suffer the same way Brand and Artest did.

Basically this team is built not to win now.Surley,Pxson will have this summer and the summer of 2006 to fix this team with the available cap space but can he wait that long and watch the Bulls suffer from all these losses?

I don't think so.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Herdof</b>!
> Who do you all think we can get for the two busts?


Well I truly believe that if we can create a good package of Gordon,Curry and davis we might get something good.

The difficult part is which team will take a chance on curry knowing that he is going to get a new contract this summer.

Other than Vince cArter and Abdur Rahim there isn't much out there but Tyson for Radmanovic could be a possibility since Pax likes him very much.


----------



## Xantos (Jan 8, 2003)

It's hard to see Clevland railroad us like last night. Well, I guess what goes aroung comes around....MJ killed them for years, I guess it payback time with LB:no: 

There is no hope for Curry and Chandler...I personally think it's due to the way they were brought into the league. Krause drafted them, and we had no verteran leadership on the team at all....I also think the burdun of bringing this franchise out of the ashes has taken it's toll, the burdan should have been on the entire team, to play and win as a team. Not 2 young teenagers....4 years of loosing has taken it's toll mentally, no matter how much of a positive spin they try to put on it. They are cooked and done!! 

I personally think if they were drafted into a different situtation, with veteran players, and veteran coaches, they would have came out alot better. 

Tim Floyd and Bill Cartwright [who I think was the best for them still..] were first year coaches...Bill had been in the league, and I honestly don't think he was give much of a chance...It seemed they did play better at times under him to me.....

Skiles is too late...the boat is at the bottom of the ocean. It's up to Pax to fix this thing.....The bad thing is who will trade for Curry and Chander??? There stock has got to be worth dirt right now.....

I still think, if the guys are traded to the right situtation with Veterans, and repected coaches, they will turn there careers around....They are still only 21 years of age....Allot of years left in them.

and I still think Ben Gordan is going to be a bust...The guy is like a "black hole"...pass the ball to him, and it's gone!  His game to me is UGLY!

Hirch and Deng are by far the best young players we have.. Unless it's a knockout deal, you keep these guys and work from there...


Whats worse for me......I live in Charlotte, NC...To see the Bobcats better than us right now sucks!! You ask yourself, how can a expansion team with players and coaches that has never played/worked together do what has taken the Bulls 6+ years to try an accomplish??? Just to be competative and do all you can to win! This Bocats team plays hard! They do the simple things, and play defense...and this is a team the didn't exsist last year! That's a bunch of BULL$h*t!!!!!! :upset:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Yea, on a very young team, let's put all the blame on the 2nd and 3rd youngest guys.

Yea, a team shooting 41% from the floor (28th in the league), let's put all the blame on two guys that are shooting 46% and 52% 

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

This is what I've noticed with this teams horrible defense. Skiles allows the guards & forwards to depend on his big guys for help D. The perimeter defenders basically don't get up on their guys and play D. They let them drive right by them and the big guys are forced to help. And once the opponent has driven into the perimeter, it opens up so many possibilities. It opens up another player for a three pointer (which has happened a lot), it opens up a pass to someone in the post, etc.....


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

These guys need to be sent packing ASAP. 

Curry will end up being another in the long line of players that were vastly overpaid based on something other than production.

Chandler... Jeez... I wouldn't even offer him the minimum. 

People need to stop lying to themselves and saying that these two are going to become anything. 

For Godsakes, just watch them play. THEY ARE HORRIBLE. 

Not mediocre. HORRIBLE. 

If I was Pax I'm doing anything I can to get expriring contracts for them while dumping Davis' contract as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> These guys need to be sent packing ASAP.
> 
> Curry will end up being another in the long line of players that were vastly overpaid based on something other than production.
> ...


After showing signs of productivity over the years... Chander and Curry have never played worse than they have this season.

Why? If they have regressed, why have they regressed?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Are you guys telling me that Zeke would have to be nuts to trade Naz and Sweets for Curry and filler??

I am getting a sininking feeling in my stomach knowing Zeke is in LOVE with Curry..

BTW,post ramadan,Naz is having HUGE games


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> Are you guys telling me that Zeke would have to be nuts to trade Naz and Sweets for Curry and filler??
> 
> I am getting a sininking feeling in my stomach knowing Zeke is in LOVE with Curry..
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me you know.

Isaiah probably thinks that Curry needs a change of scenery and he might take that gamble.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!The Bulls rank 17th in team rebounds and 24th in opponents rebounds yielded. That's pitiful when you consider that Chicago has started two seven footers for most of the season.


These numbers are still better than our terrible shooting percentage (28th in the league).

In fact, our terrible shooting percentage is contributing to our poor rebounding numbers.

a.) More missed shots equals more rebounds

b.) Each rebound is far more likely to go to the defense - our opponent.

c.) Thus, our poor shooting is making the opposing team's rebounding numbers look better than it actually is.

The percentage of rebounds is a better way to look at it.

On O, we snag 28% of the rebounds - 
20th out of 30 teams.

On D, we snag 72% of the rebounds - 12th out of 30 teams.

So defensive rebounds is actually a major team strength.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

worse than that,I dont think Zeke is one to wait 2 years for all our excessive contracts to expire.And Zeke is not in this to be a .500 team..he wants to get to the finals and thinks Curry may be the final piece to the puzzle...

I just hope it doesnt become an 80 million dollar gamble,not too mention naz is really playing well


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

*Re: Re: Chandler, Curry Are Killing the Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> These numbers are still better than our terrible shooting percentage (28th in the league).
> ...


Curry: 6RPG
Chandler: 7RPG

There is no dancing around that. Those are both horrible rebounding numbers. When your two post players are combining for only 13 rebounds a game, that's just horrible.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Chandler, Curry Are Killing the Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Curry: 6RPG
> ...


I guess that's why they are coming off the bench.

Funny... we still got destroyed last night by the Cavs.

Where was the highest paid guy on the team and "right way" champion AD?

Where was the great Kirk Hinrich?

Jeez...if Curry didn't score 20 the game could have been even more out of reach.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

As much as Curry has struggled he is still getting roughly 14 pts 7 rebs 1 ast on .459 shooting. That is not a bust to me. If we had anyone that could make a shot from the peremiter with consistency, Curry would have bloated assist numbers. Eddy is still the only player on our team that consistently is drawing double teams, and even triple teams at times. No one else on this team has consistently drawn a double team unless they are being trapped such as Hinrich at half court, or Gordon. Curry will become the star when his teammates start playing decent ball. Duncan would do dick squat with what Eddy has to work with because the other people don't do their jobs. Parker and Manu's mans don't leave for the double or triple team because they know that those guys can hit the outside shot. With the Bulls they just go over a triple up Eddy because they know the Bull's best oppurtunity to score is with Eddy shooting out of a triple team because our perimeter shooting is that bad. Look at Lebron/Z. Lebron draws the double teams which opens it up for the other players, and he also has McGinnis, and himself that can drain outside shots. Every good team will be able to make an outside shot with consistency and have 2 players that can consistently draw double teams. 

Eddy is also our best man to man interior defender. Davis just gets shot over, and Chandler gets owned completely when trying to man up a guy in the post. Eddy due to his heavy weight and height/long arms is not an easy guy to score on. He is a piss poor help defender because he has poor footwork. A good help guy like Duncan can draw the charge and stop the guy. Eddy just doesn't have the footwork yet. He either moves his feet when trying to draw a charge, or gives his guy the baseline, or the hoop. He isn't a good rebounder either but he is not awful. His main problem is not jumping for them which he has been doing more but boxing out. Him and Chandler think just attacking the ball gets a rebound, but their failure to box out gives other teams offense rebounds. Elton Brand was great at boxing out and he is the best rebounder in the league.

What should we do to solve this problem??? I say package Kirk Hinrich and Tyson Chandler with a contract such as Othella's for Vince Carter. We have Gordon to take Hinrich's place and either Nocioni can play the 4 and Pike at the 2 or, Davis plays the 4. Carter gives us a good shooter, that can draw a double team.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Chandler, Curry Are Killing the Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess that's why they are coming off the bench.
> ...


Curry got half of his points in GARBAGE TIME!

So let' s not cream our pants about it 

Hinrich is really in a slump like the whole team.

this team has some major problems and our bigs can't rebound at all.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Curry will become the star when his teammates start playing decent ball. Duncan would do dick squat with what Eddy has to work with because the other people don't do their jobs.


Why do people say this? It makes no senses. 

Curry will become a star when his teammates start playing better? Okay...

But it has nothing to do with Curry himself, right?

I must be watching different games than you. 

Curry looks like a retard out there.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> If we had anyone that could make a shot from the peremiter with consistency, Curry would have bloated assist numbers.


No he wouldn't. he couldn't pass his way out of a wet paper bag.



> Curry will become the star when his teammates start playing decent ball. Duncan would do dick squat with what Eddy has to work with because the other people don't do their jobs.


I agree with madox.


> Eddy is also our best man to man interior defender. Davis just gets shot over, and Chandler gets owned completely when trying to man up a guy in the post.


No. AD is. then Tyson. then Othella. then Nocioni, then Eddy.

And Othella is our best post scorer.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The point is that Eddy will not be double teamed as much if the other teams knew that our guys could make a perimeter shot but that is not the case here. They are confident that we won't make shots so they just double or triple Eddy up and then he gets caught up downlow or the guy that takes the shot misses. If someone else was able to draw a double team then that would really open up the offense. 

But a positive of last night is that Eddy was dunking last night. A complaint of many is the way that he lays it off the glass and misses. He is beginning to throw the ball down. On fast breaks are the only time he has been laying it up. If he just throws everything down he will be getting an extra 4-6 points a game. 

The negative is that on his post moves he moves back away from the basket instead of closer. He gets good position then does a fall away. I'm afraid that might be his new move he got over the summer. He just needs to do a hook jumping straight up or move inside for the power dunk.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*cavs game*

i think we would be better served to focus on the play of our 3 main guards than the two big guys we have coming off the bench.

duhon, hinrich, gordon... truly horrible.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

17.63 ppg 11.18 APG 4.09 RPG on .35% Shooting in 57 minutes

or

20.3 ppg 1.6 APG 14.3 RPG on .48% shooting in 54 minutes


Otherwise

Our starting backcourt

vs. 

Our backup frontcourt


Curry and Chandler aren't the problem.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> Curry and Chandler aren't the problem.


yea, keep telling yourself that...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

the problem isnt the players, its the coach. Their is talent, whether it fits or not remains, but this team isnt a 1-10 team. And that is on the coach. Smart posters bring up shooting and they are absolutely correct. Its easy to blame Chandler and Curry for everything. However, my informal stat of the night, the Bulls first pass in half court sets came with 13.7 seconds on the clock. Clevelands first pass came with 16.1 seconds. Who do you think is going to get the better shot? Is that on Duhon and Kirk, or is it on the coach? Well, the same thing happened in Phoenix, so its the coach. And before anyone has delusions of grandeur, which alot of people had this summer, Kirk and Duhon are not Kidd and KJ, not even close


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 17.63 ppg 11.18 APG 4.09 RPG on .35% Shooting in 57 minutes
> 
> or
> ...


Well they are.. but they aren't the ONLY problem.

Whole team stinks. Thanks Pax....


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We need to keep Eddy Curry. Things can fall in place really fast with Eddy on a team. If we trade him, I know he will be the last piece to a puzzle for most teams and put them over the top. We just can't keep him. He has passed out of the post relatively good this year, besides the first 2 games. He is a good scoring center too. If we get a coach that starts teaching spacing better involving the post players will be in the right spot, making it easier to get the offense flowing through Eddy. If we get guys that can hit the peremiter shot on this team then we got it ding ding playoffs. Once to perimeter shots start falling that will make Eddy the ultimate weapon and make him into a star. He will not get doubled and triple teamed as much which will allow him to focus on scoring, rather then not turning the ball over. If a team decides to double Eddy we will have great shooting and will not be hurt by the other teams double teaming. Everything can fall in place really nicely with Eddy if the shots are falling.

Now what do we have that fits around Eddy. Well I'll start with Luol Deng. He is a truly great player and he does everything good. A guy like that is good on any team. Grant Hill maybe? Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich both fit Eddy but the problem is we only need one of them. Andres Nocioni won't be needed in the starting lineup, but he is the ideal 6th man for a team so we should keep him. Tyson Chandler is really a nonfactor with Eddy so we can get rid of him. What do we do now. Make a trade

Ben Gordon/Kirk Hinrich+Tyson Chandler+Filler for Vince Carter. Carter is perfect to complete this team up. He can slash and draw a double team, and he is one of the best shooters in the league. He will also fill the seats with high flying adrenaline filling dunks. 

Now we need a powerforward to go along with Eddy. He needs to be a guy that will BOX OUT, something that Tyson Chandler never does. He can't just be a guy that jumps up for rebounds he needs to box out. We can't do anything now, so Antonio Davis will be the short term filler. We then need to wait until free agency or the draft.

Now considering the trade for Vince would probaly take place at the trade deadline if done we might still get a high draft pick. Chris Taft anyone? The guy is a beast and might be the answer to power forward. If not him we can get a solid powerforward with the Midlevel exception.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> After showing signs of productivity over the years... Chander and Curry have never played worse than they have this season.
> ...


Just my opinion, but teams develop "books" on every player in the league. Habits, tendencies, preferences, etc., everybody eventually knows everyone else's pet moves on offense and figures out ways to counter them.

Now, as a player you've either got a killer move that's litterally unstopable, or its up to you to add a few new arrows to your offensive quiver every single season. You'd better develop enough of an offensive repertoire to keep defenses guessing or you'll be stopped consistently.

Chandler and Curry haven't regressed so much as the league has figured them out. Neither player has expanded his game to the point where defenses can't cheat. In effect, Chandler and Curry are both one trick ponies. For the most part they've been doing the same things year after year. The league as a whole knows them better than they know themselves.

In the end its the players' responsibility to broaden their games, add a variety of offensive moves, improve their footwork, strengthen their fundamental base, and in general, remain one step ahead of the opposition. From where I sit, that hasn't happened with either player. But that's just my opinion.

Look, I'm not puting everything on their shoulders. I've said it before: there's plenty of blame to go around. But to some extent this team has been constructed around these two players. Plain and simple, not only have they failed to live up to the expectations that others have set for them, but based on their own rhetoric they've also failed to measure up to the expectations they set for themselves. C'est la vie. Time to move on.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Nice thread. Yes their is plenty of blame to go around but Curry and Chandler both were going to be counted on heavily. They are not delivering. Last year at this time, both Cleveland and Phoenix were battling with us as cellar dwellers. Both teams are off and running this year and left us far, far behind. Even Charlotte has 2 or three wins. We have one. Our bigs are not tuff enough. Period. That is killing us. 

I have said it before. By deadline at least one of them will be gone, if not both of them.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> the problem isnt the players, its the coach. Their is talent, whether it fits or not remains, but this team isnt a 1-10 team. And that is on the coach. Smart posters bring up shooting and they are absolutely correct. Its easy to blame Chandler and Curry for everything. However, my informal stat of the night, the Bulls first pass in half court sets came with 13.7 seconds on the clock. Clevelands first pass came with 16.1 seconds. Who do you think is going to get the better shot? Is that on Duhon and Kirk, or is it on the coach? Well, the same thing happened in Phoenix, so its the coach. And before anyone has delusions of grandeur, which alot of people had this summer, Kirk and Duhon are not Kidd and KJ, not even close


Rlucas, with all due respect, this isn't an either/or situation. You can't assign blame exclusively to the players anymore than you can only point your finger at the coaching staff and nowhere else. Your stats are interesting. However, hypothetically I can place the blame on our wing players for failing to execute their V-cuts to get open just as easily as I can blame Skiles' schemes. In other words, is it the schemes or is it the players' execution of those schemes? Or are both parts culpable?


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

I believe we would be better without them.. I used to be a huge Curry supporter but enoughis enough. We need rebounds. We get manhandled by teams that can rebound effectively. Chandler is useless and Curry can score erradically. Time to cut our losses with this one boys, and move on.


> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Nice thread. Yes their is plenty of blame to go around but Curry and Chandler both were going to be counted on heavily. They are not delivering. Last year at this time, both Cleveland and Phoenix were battling with us as cellar dwellers. Both teams are off and running this year and left us far, far behind. Even Charlotte has 2 or three wins. We have one. Our bigs are not tuff enough. Period. That is killing us.
> 
> I have said it before. By deadline at least one of them will be gone, if not both of them.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas, with all due respect, this isn't an either/or situation. You can't assign blame exclusively to the players anymore than you can only point your finger at the coaching staff and nowhere else. Your stats are interesting. However, hypothetically I can place the blame on our wing players for failing to execute their V-cuts to get open just as easily as I can blame Skiles' schemes. In other words, is it the schemes or is it the players' execution of those schemes? Or are both parts culpable?


Yet none of this is a problem caused by Eddy. Eddy's only problem right now is the turnovers and the rebounds. He is playing good defense so far. If he starts boxing out and jumping he will have the rebounding problem done. The turnovers should go down with time as he gets more comfortable.

I am ready to cut my losses with Tyson but not Eddy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Just my opinion, but teams develop "books" on every player in the league. Habits, tendencies, preferences, etc., everybody eventually knows everyone else's pet moves on offense and figures out ways to counter them.
> ...


Makes sense.

If you feel that its time to move on, and that development falls on the shoulders of the high school basketball player, not the organization, then I would anticipate that you would think that Chandler and Curry will end up busts. (yes, I know that Curry.Chander are in their 4th year… but a team that drafts high school players *is* responsible for their development… that is if they want to be successful.)

Since the onus falls on them, not the Bulls, to develop themselves, then they are doomed. Whatever new team they end up on... they will be failures... they will continue to "kill their team."

Its just funny... because I remember the same attitude regarding Jalen Rose and *especially* during the gleeful posts of Crawford’s exit from the team this summer. And... especially in the case of Crawford, who is thriving in New York, that attitude was very, very wrong IMO.

So... we'll see. As Elton Brand, Ron Artest and Brad Miller frame their all-star game jerseys in their dens... and Crawford yet again shows improvement on a year to year basis and becomes a star in New York.... the organization is the entity to blame IMO... not the player… especially when the player does well on their new squad.

Guys like Hinrich won't get us out of this hole. Large 7 foot tall freakishly athletic men will. Paxson seems to afraid to draft the players we’re going to need to get out of this mess.


----------



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

> Chandler and Curry haven't regressed so much as the league has figured them out. Neither player has expanded his game to the point where defenses can't cheat. In effect, Chandler and Curry are both one trick ponies. For the most part they've been doing the same things year after year. The league as a whole knows them better than they know themselves.


It seems as though they haven't progressed because they've been handed their offensive opportunities.

Recall what Jalen Rose was supposed to do ? Accelerate their development ?

I never really understood (no matter how much I wanted to buy into it) that because his job was to make offense easier for them. And for a while the crew of Jamal, Jalen, Donyell, all did that for them. The focus wasn't on them. Accelerate their development ?

I guess they accelerated their development in the sense that they produced better numbers, but not in creating their own opportunities.



> In the end its the players' responsibility to broaden their games, add a variety of offensive moves, improve their footwork, strengthen their fundamental base, and in general, remain one step ahead of the opposition. From where I sit, that hasn't happened with either player. But that's just my opinion.


If you're trying to come up from the NBDL. 

In this league or even this game in general, it's the organization's fault for taking the risk, it's the organization's responsibility to make sure that they get a team together, and if they do even decently elsewhere, it's us who is going to get burned.

It seems like they worked their asses off this summer whatever their motivation, but again, as Trenton Hassell proved 2 years ago, there's a way to actually regress working hard with the Bulls (and now he's just fine with the Wolves)

As for the future of this team, I would try to build up value with both and see what's there by trading deadline.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

> Guys like Hinrich won't get us out of this hole. Large 7 foot tall freakishly athletic men will. Paxson seems to afraid to draft the players we’re going to need to get out of this mess.


You mean like Curry and Chandler? :uhoh:

They are terrible on defense and rebounding, and this is the main reason we stink. The Bulls in the glory days use to have terrible shooting nights but win because of their awesome D. Curry and chandler couldnt sniff Longley's jock strap.

I think one of them will end up traded, probably Curry. Curry might have some value because he can score. Chandler doesn't seem to do anything well. Chandler will go next off season.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> ...


If Crawford is thriving in NY, then he was thriving here as well. His PPG is virtually the same. His shooting percentage is a smidge higher and his assists are down a bit.

Also, I seem to remember this team winning 6 championships without any of these "7 foot tall freakishly athletic men" that you think are required to turn this thing around. IMHO, the draft is by far the area where Pax has done the best to date.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>! Curry and chandler couldnt sniff Longley's jock strap.


Did you ever watch Luc? I don't think so.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

IN all fairness to pax, he hasnt had a chance to make a splash in the FA market yet. He did not come in to a good situation at all.


> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> If Crawford is thriving in NY, then he was thriving here as well. His PPG is virtually the same. His shooting percentage is a smidge higher and his assists are down a bit.
> ...


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

chandler is averaging 7.5 rebounds in 25 minutes. if he were playing 35 minutes a game he'd be averaging a double double. were the expectations such that he should be further along by now? perhaps, but a player capable of averaging double digits in rebounds is not "killing us" on the boards. admittedly his shot blocking should be far better but we're not looking at anywhere near a full season's worth of games yet.

curry has been a definite plus offensively. 14 ppg on an offensively challenged team without any other major inside scoring threat is valuable. whether or not his rebounding and defensive problems outweigh that value is a worthwhile question. again though, it is still early and curry has had several games where he's been much stronger on the boards than in the past.

chandler and curry in particular certainly aren't doing a ton to pull this team out of it's rut but to put all the blame on them in a league lacking strong inside play is a bit extreme in my opinion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> If Crawford is thriving in NY, then he was thriving here as well. His PPG is virtually the same. His shooting percentage is a smidge higher and his assists are down a bit.
> ...


Who on the Bulls, other than Deng who its well documented that Paxson didn't expect to get at #7... do you think will be a "special" player... one that will help turn this team around.

I don't see it. Hinrich is OK. Gordon looks like he'll be OK... maybe better... hard to say. Duhon looks like a nice player for a 2nd round pick, but not a difference maker.

You are right... Pax's only successes have been in the draft... but they are only mild successes... that only really look good when compared to the dismal failures.

I'll let Paxson's record speak for itself. After this season it will be "hey, he's only been given 2 years." Its not going to get better anytime soon IMO. Paxson needs to sign a key, superstar FA (which i don't think will happen) or he needs to convert Curry/Chandler into some bonafide NBA star talent (pax is bad at this). 

At the end of next year it will be "hey, he's only been given 3 seasons." After that he's Tim Floyd.

Its sad that the best part of being a Bulls fan as of late is watching our ex-players succeed. Paxson is making the team worse off.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> 
> 
> You mean like Curry and Chandler? :uhoh:
> ...


Last reason Crawford was the "main reason we stunk." Now look at the Knicks. Respectable.

This year, as predicted, the "scapegoat of the year" will be a dual winner... Curry and Chandler. This is a nice contest to win for these guys. They are going to be richer and they are going to most likely going to be on teams where they can succeed. Good for them.

EDIT: BTW, I thought Crawford was developing into a nice player here... but many here seemed to disagree. Our loss is the Knicks gain. Go Othella go!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> If Crawford is thriving in NY, then he was thriving here as well. His PPG is virtually the same. His shooting percentage is a smidge higher and his assists are down a bit.
> ...


The key is that Crawford is a main player on a winning team. Its nice to see... and confirms many people's belief in him. Good for Jamal.

Jordon and Pippen were freakish... they were the total package. IMO, you need pass that barrier to entry to be a special player... yah there are a couple of exceptions... but the Pax guys... other than Deng... don't seem to have it.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Last reason Crawford was the "main reason we stunk." Now look at the Knicks. Respectable.



The Knicks were 25-21 after they got Marbury last year. They were going to be "respectable" this year without Jamal. But keep pushing your agenda. You're doing a *wonderful* job.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I was actually at the Cleveland Game:

Have to say Curry actually looks OK on the offensive end of the court. He's more aggresive then what I remember from last year. On defense, the problem is not his one to one post defense which is bad but not horrible it's his defensive rebounding. Doesn't seem to know how to box out people. Z, Gooden, and Traylor really took it to him down low on the boards.

Chandler was the biggest dissappointment by far, however. The dude looked even more lost then Curry because he was lost on both the offensive and defensive end. Only really had two oppurtunites to score and he ended up taking two long jump shots.

But I have to say Othella and Davis looked worse: They both looked very washed up out there. If I you were you guys I would hope Skiles just playes the young guys because atleast these two vets don't bring anything to the table.

Cheer up though, I thought both Gordon and Deng looked pretty good out there. You're management is going to have to figure out which of the wing players to move (I include Nocioni in this group) because Skiles doesn't seem to have a good rotation where the wing players can develop a good rhythm. Hinrich would make a shot for example and then be sent to the bench for another five minutes to cool off. :no:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Who on the Bulls, other than Deng who its well documented that Paxson didn't expect to get at #7... do you think will be a "special" player... one that will help turn this team around.
> ...



Who are the people that were still available on the board that are superstars that Pax should have drafted instead? That's the important question. Deng looks awesome. Make whatever arguments you want, but he is on our team. Kirk is a very good, but not great, player. Gordon seems to be catching on. Remember, he's played 11 games, so I don't think you can say whether or not he will be special. Getting Duhon in the 2nd round was a success just b/c he made the team, which many of our 2nd round picks don't. 

Also, this stuff about Pax being bad at developing Curry and Chandler is ridiculous. That is the coach's job, not the GM. 

Also, the best part of being a Bulls fan is not watching our ex-players succeed. I think you'd find many people who think just the opposite.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

So far, I rate Paxsons picks in the draft as an A. There are some trades that he made that I dont like but what can you do.


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


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Jordon and Pippen were freakish... they were the total package. IMO, you need pass that barrier to entry to be a special player... yah there are a couple of exceptions... but the Pax guys... other than Deng... don't seem to have it.


If you think Deng will be a "special" player, then Pax is doing a fantastic job. How many of those players did the dynasty Bulls have? Two. How many do most teams have? Maybe one, if any. If Deng fits into this category, then we're making good progress.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> Also, this stuff about Pax being bad at developing Curry and Chandler is ridiculous. That is the coach's job, not the GM.


Paxson hired Skiles. That's his guy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The Knicks were 25-21 after they got Marbury last year. They were going to be "respectable" this year without Jamal. But keep pushing your agenda. You're doing a *wonderful* job.


But Jamal was a cancer... a loser... what happened?

1-10

Worst record for a GM ever? Maybe.

That's your guy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!


I generally agree with this, but I'd state it entirely differently. 

Chandler and Curry haven't killed the Bulls, the Bulls have killed the Bulls.

By the Bulls, you're darn right I mean the organization. 

In large measure Chandler and Curry are deserving scapegoats, but talking about their failures setting us back has struck me for a long time now as pretty damning of the Bulls organization itself.

I mean you'd think these guys (Reinsdorf, Paxson, etc.) are just now waking up to the fact that these guys haven't improved their game a lick since coming into the league. You'd think it comes as an utter shock to Paxson that putting together a team of guys >= 34 and <=24 will result in massive losing. You'd think, even after six years of this, that these guys would get a clue that losing demolishes players' will to win and play hard.

And most of all, you'd think they'd figure out that the reason we're getting killed isn't because of the players we have, but because of the players we don't have.

We aren't getting killed because we have Curry and Chandler, two 22 year olds who might fit in quite well on other teams. We're getting killed because we don't have a Ben Wallace, a Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Donyell Marshall, a Brad Miller, or a (younger) PJ Brown or two to pair up with the other guys.

We weren't getting killed because we had Jamal shooting too much, we were getting killed because we had Jamal playing next to Linton Johnson rather than a Luol Deng or a Shawn Marion. Now we're getting killed not because of what Kirk Hinrich does or doesn't do, but because he doesn't have the luxury of playing next to a decent player like Crawford. 

I don't get where that argument comes from. The guys we have aren't killing us, they're playing as well as they can. In many cases, that's not very well and in many cases they deserve criticism for not making the most of themselves. But how about some accountability for the guys running this team, who've put together two squads in a row now (starting with the trade and the extended NBDL tryout period) that wouldn't get anywhere even if the players they got had performed to reasonable expections? How about some accountability for the fact that the guy running the show has had two offseasons to see the players failing to develop and failing to meet expectations and let what value they had erode?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> But Jamal was a cancer... a loser... what happened?
> ...


I don't think anybody in this thread is saying Jamal was a cancer. Don't put words unfairly into other peoples' mouths.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> If you think Deng will be a "special" player, then Pax is doing a fantastic job. How many of those players did the dynasty Bulls have? Two. How many do most teams have? Maybe one, if any. If Deng fits into this category, then we're making good progress.


I agree. Deng is really the only bright spot on this team... especially since Pax will likely get nothing for Curry/Chandler.

The other guys? I'll give Gordon some time... but damn... i just don't see how Pax fell in love with the dude.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

Who would you have picked instead of Gordon?


> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. Deng is really the only bright spot on this team... especially since Pax will likely get nothing for Curry/Chandler.
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>YearofDaBulls</b>!
> Who would you have picked instead of Gordon?


At this point, I would have drafted Deng and not traded the future pick.

Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> But Jamal was a cancer... a loser... what happened?
> ...



Enough with the Jamal/Jalen was a cancer BS already. There was a thread about this a while ago, probably started by you, where basically everyone here agreed they were not cancers. They're just chuckers who don't play any defense and not the kind of players that a lot of people want on their basketball teams. But again, keep pushing that agenda. :greatjob: 

I'm not saying Pax is the perfect GM. He has made his mistakes but has some nice moves also. But I don't blame him for trading Jamal and Jalen. I'm not sold on Pax, but I am not completely against him either.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> But Jamal was a cancer... a loser... what happened?
> ...


We were 14-36 with Jamal from Janurary through mid April. 

Let me get this right, jamal makes the Knicks respectable? They were already "respectable before they got him. They added Jamal to the rotation and yes he does help them somewhat. 

The Bulls however are a new team. Only 5 guys play for us from last years team and we play 4 rookies heavy minutes. Do the Knicks do that? That is why we are 1-10. 

I am not degrading Jamal, but I will not build him up neither. Truth is, he is somwhere in between.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not degrading Jamal, but I will not build him up neither. Truth is, he is somwhere in between.


I think I would agree with you.

I would call him an asset. We could use Jamal Crawford on this team.

EDIT: It takes several competent ballers to field a respectable team. We keep letting ours go one by one when they are young... only after picking a new individual or in this year's case two individuals to blame. Its the same cycle over and over and over and over again.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I would call him an asset. We could use Jamal Crawford on this team.


Maybe so. However, we'd suck with him just like we suck without him. That's the problem with the situation we're in. The whole Jamal Crawford situation is really small potatoes in comparison to the real problems this team has.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think I would agree with you.
> ...


Yes we could. I was on board for wanting to keep him. But it didn't happen.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> We were 14-36 with Jamal from Janurary through mid April.
> ...



Nice post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe so. However, we'd suck with him just like we suck without him. That's the problem with the situation we're in. The whole Jamal Crawford situation is really small potatoes in comparison to the real problems this team has.


And I would say that how we dealt with Jamal Crawford, and now Curry and Chander, is the embodiment of the real problem this team has.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Pax is the perfect GM.


Bold statement. 

It would be interesting to hear someone try to argue that Paxson is the perfect GM.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Bold statement.
> ...



Interesting, but ill-advised. I would call it akin to saying Crawford is the perfect player, Curry is the perfect player, or Skiles is the perfect coach.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> But I don't blame him for trading Jamal and Jalen.


Why not?


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

I wnated us to draft gordon. I wasnt so high on Deng. Glad we picked both, and glad I was wrong about Deng.


> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> At this point, I would have drafted Deng and not traded the future pick.
> ...


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Why not?


Because they're chuckers and don't play any defense.  

Seriously, I had enough of Jalen by the time he left. I was fine getting rid of him for anything. Though I didn't like Donyell being included. 

With Jamal, I was actually for keeping him but not close to the deal he got. I thought it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if we just cut off negotiations with New York and maybe just upped our offer a bit from the MLE. Something like 40-41 million over 6 years. If he was going to take the Q offer though instead, I would have just dealt him. But I don't blame Pax for dealing him b/c otherwise he's stuck financially with last year's team for years and Jamal is such an off and on player, it's tough for anyone to say it's an easy decision toa make. I _really_ was sick of JYD so I'm happy him and his salary are gone. Jamal is a nice player to have as a 3rd option IMO but I don't think he'd ever accept such a role. Jamal has some serious questions in his game and I'm not sure he'll ever snap out of some of them. If the Bulls had re-signed him, I could only hope he would have.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The Knicks were 25-21 after they got Marbury last year. They were going to be "respectable" this year without Jamal. But keep pushing your agenda. You're doing a *wonderful* job.


they did have allan houston last year ...i think he helped that record , they dont have that luxury as of yet this season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

paxson is killing the bulls.

not curry , not chandler , not crawford , rose marshall , artest or any other player.

no player signed scottie pippen to a deal that is worthless now.

no player hired a coach who cant coach anyone who isn't a guard .

no player traded the team's best vets(one of whom was its star player) for 2 players who were not good enough to start on a 23 win team .

no player has drafted players that will undoublebly cause another point guard controversy yet again.

no player made a trade over the summer that basically stands today as jamal crawford and jerome williams for adrian griffin ,frank williams, eric pitkowski and othella harrington.

no player put together a team that has won exactly 1 game this month.

no player put a team together with 6 rookies , 3 in in the starting line up and with its starting post players combining for 11 points 5 rebounds on 4-9 shooting in 36 minutes in its last game , a blowout loss to a division rival.

no player passed over a chance to use his vet exception despite the obvious youth of the team or made his proud and storied franchise look bush league by cutting corie blount a day too late to be taken in by any other team for the playoffs, or left his team without more than 3 active guards for weeks last season (with that 3rd guard being rick brunson).I have a very hard time beliving there was no player in the world out there that could not have been brought in that was better than Jared reiner.

*No player killed this team.*


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Makes sense.
> 
> If you feel that its time to move on, and that development falls on the shoulders of the high school basketball player, not the organization, then I would anticipate that you would think that Chandler and Curry will end up busts. (yes, I know that Curry.Chander are in their 4th year… but a team that drafts high school players *is* responsible for their development… that is if they want to be successful.)
> ...


First of all, it doesn't matter if they're high school players, college players or foreign players. The moment they accept a paycheck they become responsible for expanding their individual games. During the regular season there's little practice time available. And when there is time for practice it's spent on improving the execution of offensive and defensive sets and preparation for the next opponent.

For the most part, individual development takes place in the offseason. That puts the onus directly on the player. All the organization can do is make its coaching staff available for its players. For example, it was well documented that in addition to his conditioning program at Hoops, Paxson encouraged Curry to augment his workouts with Grover with regular sessions at Berto for the specific purpose of working on his game skills with Skiles and the coaching staff. As was his right, Curry chose not to do so. Other than improving his conditioning, in your opinion did Curry report to camp a better all-around basketball player? Compared to last season... 

Is he a better shooter from the field?
Has he cut down on his turnovers?
Is he a better rebounder?
Is he blocking more shots?
Is he dealing out more assists?
Is he doing a better job of remaining on the floor by staying out of foul trouble?
Is he a better free throw shooter?

Here's your answer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/statistics?statsId=3514

And just as you pointed out, we're talking about a player entering his 4th pro season. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, it doesn't matter if they're high school players, college players or foreign players. The moment they accept a paycheck they become responsible for expanding their individual games. During the regular season there's little practice time available. And when there is time for practice it's spent on improving the execution of offensive and defensive sets and preparation for the next opponent.
> ...


i agree with you that once you decide to garner a paycheck for basketball you are the one ultimately responsible for your own performance.

but that doesn't absolve the team whom that player plays for , they after all have a significant amount to lose in the sense a 2nd pick and a 4th pick in the draft were invested in curry and chandler.

they are an investment and its also a team's role to look after them to try to ensure they make good on their promise and potential.

for instance if curry and chandler right their respective ships in a couple of years , and have extremely productive careers , but not for the bulls and the bulls got nothing of use for them it will be whomever misused them , not the players themselves who will be held responsible, and rightfully so , i am of the belief the bulls are misusing curry badly and even moreso with chandler whom they apparently seem on a mission to marginalize.

there was an old saying about waiting until a draft class was 3 years old before making judgement . this was made when players were 22 when entering the draft, and 25 when it was decided they could be judged, after their skills and bodies matured.In curry and chandler's case the same rules really should apply as with any big man , big men simply develop slower in most cases as a rule.

after 4 years the biggest failing with curry isn't that he weighs too much , its that he weighs too little, he has not seemingly gained and ounce of muscle in 4 years , for a center its inexcusable, most college centers are about 20 pounds heavier after 2 years in the pro's to handle the pounding, curry was supposed to be some pound it in post up center yet , he gets no bigger and i dont think he is really that much stronger either. I agree he should be in shape , but the harder he has to fight for position because he isn't as strong as he should be , it will also tire him easily unnecassarily, He was drafted to wear down opponents , not to be worn down by other stronger centers.

Tyson has been basically treated as though he were keon clark by the bulls , told to be a weakside shotblocker and rebounder and to get his shots off of hustle and rebounding.

that is a waste, he is way to big and althletic for that , he is bigger than most power forwards by 3-4 inches and while gangly and awkward he is also very quick and jumps high , he should be used as a post up option as he was at times during his bulls career, but the bulls have seemingly moved away from that , and it hurts not just tyson's development , but the bulls as well. whats the point of having 2 guys who really have no equal pyhsically as aduo in the post and then only post one of them, leaving the other the stay outside where he is essentially useless, save for a jumpshot or 2 which may or may not go in.

In the end they may be better off on other teams away from the imo lack of coaching and leadership, as they are being used now they are just being scapegoated for a team that if they weren't on it would be using the likes of jared reiner in their regular rotation, not exactly a reason the inspire confidence.

my real only criteria i have ever had for the duo was to work hard on their games and bodies and the results will come, i believe in time.

they are clearly stagnating , Tyson plays with no confidence forcing himself to get hyped off of mundane things , and curry is simply being misused and being set up to fail.

there is alot of blame to go around , but i wouldn't close the book on them just yet at all, and i tend to believe their problems are more with organizational direction than their own lack ability.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, it doesn't matter if they're high school players, college players or foreign players. The moment they accept a paycheck they become responsible for expanding their individual games. During the regular season there's little practice time available. And when there is time for practice it's spent on improving the execution of offensive and defensive sets and preparation for the next opponent.
> ...


No, of course Curry is off to a slightly worse start this season. I'm not the biggest Curry fan around... but if the Bulls are going to become good again through the draft, as the NBA currently stands, they are going to have to draft raw, promising players and develop them. The towers were coming along nicely from year 1 to year 2. Its been a holding pattern ever since. What changed? Seems like you contend it is “the book.” Maybe.

Drafting a guy like Hinrich is a lot safer than drafting a guy like Shaun Livingston. Livingston has more upside though. If you don’t think that there is a difference… and that the organization does not play a HUGE role… then you and I are just going to have to disagree.

Paxson is failing in developing Curry... and he is failing in making him look good for a potential trade. How he performs on his next team will be the determining factor in my mind as to just how bad a job PaxSkiles have done.

The thing you have to take into account is that Curry is not playing as many minutes.



> Is he a better shooter from the field?
> Has he cut down on his turnovers?


No and no.



> Is he a better rebounder?


Surprisingly yes!

2004 Offensive Rebounds per minute
0.080139373
2003 Offensive Rebounds per minute
0.06779661

2004 Defensive Rebounds per minute
0.146341463
2003 Defensive Rebounds per minute
0.142372881



> Is he blocking more shots?


No.... and this year he's sad.



> Is he dealing out more assists?


Yes!

2004 Assists per minute
0.031358885
2003 Assists per minute
0.030508475



> Is he doing a better job of remaining on the floor by staying out of foul trouble?
> Is he a better free throw shooter?


nono


> Here's your answer:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/statistics?statsId=3514
> 
> And just as you pointed out, we're talking about a player entering his 4th pro season. Draw your own conclusions.


Uh thanks... 

So... Curry is worse so far this season in blocks, fouls, TOs and %
He's better this season in rebounds and assists. 
He's also in shape this season.
Points are about the same... and I'll be willing to bet that he finishes with a fg% higher than 45.9... especially if our wretched guard play shapes up.

The funny thing is... in terms of fg%.... out of players that get more than 20 minutes on the Bulls.... Chandler and Curry are #1 and #2. 

Nocioni, Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon are shooting 38.5%, 38%, 35.6% and 27.5%. The “right way” guys are really sucking. Sad.

Sometimes the hate can be blinding. Just like it was with Jamal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chandler AND Curry on the court at the same time are hurting us. They always have.

They're a 2-headed center. Cartwright figured that out, started Chandler, and the Bulls ended up winning 30 games.

It is hard to believe that we've traded away all the good players we've had and kept the crap. 

Elton Brand's Clippers are 8-6
Ron Artest's Pacers are 10-4
Brad Miller's Kings are 8-5
Jamal Crawford's Knicks are 6-6 (1st place)
Jalen Rose's Raptors are 6-9 (9th slot in the playoffs)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Ron Artest's Pacers are 10-4


In all fairness, once he was suspended for the season, it ceased being Ron Artest's Pacers if it ever was in the first place.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> In all fairness, once he was suspended for the season, it ceased being Ron Artest's Pacers if it ever was in the first place.


What was the Pacers' record last season when he wasn't suspended?


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> there was an old saying about waiting until a draft class was 3 years old before making judgement . this was made when players were 22 when entering the draft, and 25 when it was decided they could be judged, after their skills and bodies matured.In curry and chandler's case the same rules really should apply as with any big man , big men simply develop slower in most cases as a rule.


You're a smart guy and a real knowledgable poster, but I'm really going to have to disagree with you on this point. By their fourth year, with rare exceptions, what you see is pretty much what you're going to get (scrub, solid starter, star) regardless of the age a guy is drafted at. It's simply not at all common for a fifth-year (or longer tenure) NBA player to then take a great leap forward. I'm not saying guys can't improve until ages 24-25 (and beyond), but it tends to be incremental. Garnett, Kobe, McGrady, Al Harrington, Jonathan Bender, DeShawn Stevenson, Darius Miles...only Jermaine O'Neal qualifies as a 'late-blooming' high-school player. And if you have real star-quality it's usually apparent by the 2nd or 3rd year. 

One can play the 'what if' game and say "if we rewind the tape and TC and EC were drafted by someone else would they have developed differently?", which is of course unknowable. 

And i'm certainly not saying they can't play at all or that they don't have value or can't contribute to a team. But I'd say the chance (risk?) they blow-up for the Bulls or anyone else at this point is pretty slim.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kawika</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> And i'm certainly not saying they can't play at all or that they don't have value or can't contribute to a team. But I'd say the chance (risk?) they blow-up for the Bulls or anyone else at this point is pretty slim.


I agree. 

None of these guys are the magic bullet. Brand was not, nor was Artest, Rose, Miller, Crawford, Marshall, Barry.. and Chandler and Curry won't be either.

But a collection of 4-5 of them would be a decent team... and one that has a shot at doing something.

Last year at this time... a team of Billups, Hamilton, Prince, R Wallace, B Wallace would be seen as decent...but not great... and there is not one magic bullet guy on the roster.... but as a collection of above average players they can accomplish something.

Take any one of them and surround them with rookies... and they won't look good. Take any one of them @ age 22 and surround them with rookies and they will look even worse.

The Bulls have to hang onto their talent... and we have to stop having the "scapegoat of the year."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kawika</b>!
> Garnett, Kobe, McGrady, Al Harrington, Jonathan Bender, DeShawn Stevenson, Darius Miles...only Jermaine O'Neal qualifies as a 'late-blooming' high-school player. And if you have real star-quality it's usually apparent by the 2nd or 3rd year.


This isn't a large enough sample size for my taste.

Garnett is a freak. So the only great big man comparision is O'Neal. And the Trailblazers basically gave up on him at the end of his 4th year.

Scary, ain't it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Check out this site...

http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/boxscore.cgi?date=20041127&game=CHICLE

So Curry and Chandler...

With the best +/- and the best efficiency scores against Cleveland on the entire squad.

These guys are really killing us.

p.s. That boxscore is awesome. It does show that C&C got most of their efficiency score during the 4th. Still, they were better than the team for the game.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What was the Pacers' record last season when he wasn't suspended?


You're right. We should fire the guy who traded him away. Oh wait.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right. We should fire the guy who traded him away. Oh wait.


If you miss him, just look up at the banner floating from the UC rafters for comfort.


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This isn't a large enough sample size for my taste.
> ...


Point well taken about the sample size. The entry of teen-agers into the league is a recent enough thing that it can be questionable to extrapolate too much. And yes, Portland gave up on him too early.

But OTOH, O'Neal was getting ten minutes a game for a good team with guys in front of him. Curry and Chandler have got reasonable amounts of playing time. Enough, I think, to get a fair estimation of their abilities. Again, I'm not saying that the Bulls situation/organization hasn't hindered (to be generous?) their development, but O'Neal isn't a particularly good comp either. At this point JO is more like a wish for what they possibly might become, not an expectation.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Wow, this is a very good thread. I can tell that Eddy and Tyson suck by watching them play but just looking at their season stats makes me fell even worse about each of them. I didn't think that was possible, but it is.

0.2 bpg........that 0.2 BLOCKS PER GAME.... he's 6'11 and in the best shape of his career. That's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. He's rebounds are pathetic but averaging 0.2 blocks a game is disturbing. It makes me cry.


And Tyson isn't much better. For a guy who has supposedly devoted himself to the defensive end, his performances and stats are laughable. He averages 1 more rebound than Eddy and about 0.6 more blocks. Tyson was drafted to be Kevin Garnett or at worst Rasheed Wallace type. 

I don't blame him 100% for not living up to those expectations, but have some value at one end of the floor. He's even said he wants to be a great defender but he's not at all. He's just a very tall man taking up space on a NBA roster. Sorry.

Words can't describe how terribly dissapointing Eddy and Tyson are. How is it even possible for someone that tall, athletic, and experienced (4years in league) to be that bad blocking shots and rebounding the ball. How?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> paxson is killing the bulls...
> 
> *No player killed this team.*


Agree on 100%.

Yes, Pax is “killing” the Bulls and Skiles does assist him in that.
But, IMO, JR is one who puts Pax in that position by limiting his
financial freedom.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> 
> 
> Agree on 100%.
> ...


Culpability, in some sense, does go all the way to the top. However, if it's all JR's fault at the end of the day, then we are certainly in a dark situation. There appears to be absolutely no reason to believe ownership will change in the future. If you ever see interviews with him, he seems very emphatic about remaining the owner.

It's tough to know what goes on behind the scenes and to know what kind of leeway JR gives Pax. He certainly had no problem throwing (especially for the time) insane amounts of money at the dynasty Bulls (and most notably Mike). Is the reason we have hired cheap coaches since Phil that JR holds the pursestrings? Is it what the GMs really wanted in the first place? Tough to know, unless we were to get a high priced coach sometime soon.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> Culpability, in some sense, does go all the way to the top. However, if it's all JR's fault at the end of the day, then we are certainly in a dark situation. There appears to be absolutely no reason to believe ownership will change in the future. If you ever see interviews with him, he seems very emphatic about remaining the owner.
> ...


Yes I agree that, // he certainly had no problem throwing (especially for the time) insane amounts of money at the dynasty Bulls (and most notably Mike).//, but he made twice more $$$ before he did that. 

IMO, the problem is that he doesn’t want to “cut his share” of the profits in favor to investment. So, he is happy with that entire rebuilding “BS”, until he will start getting financial or public pressure. Then he will have two options to chose from: 1. Sale the team or invest in the team’s future.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kawika</b>!
> 
> 
> You're a smart guy and a real knowledgable poster, but I'm really going to have to disagree with you on this point. By their fourth year, with rare exceptions, what you see is pretty much what you're going to get (scrub, solid starter, star) regardless of the age a guy is drafted at. It's simply not at all common for a fifth-year (or longer tenure) NBA player to then take a great leap forward. I'm not saying guys can't improve until ages 24-25 (and beyond), but it tends to be incremental. Garnett, Kobe, McGrady, Al Harrington, Jonathan Bender, DeShawn Stevenson, Darius Miles...only Jermaine O'Neal qualifies as a 'late-blooming' high-school player. And if you have real star-quality it's usually apparent by the 2nd or 3rd year.
> ...


thanks for the kind words.

i do agree with you actually to an extent , but i feel curry and chandler have for extended stretches shown they can be dominant, so faith in them is justified to the point of waiting on them and continuing to develop them, plus post players aren't the same kind of players as perimeter players , it takes years for them to be strong enough to really be on a level playing field until then they have to get by on other skills.

if you plug in and take a stretch of a scrubs career and give him all the playing time he can use , there is pretty much a certainty they wont accomplish in 15 years or ever what curry and chandler accomplished in their 1st 3 as underdeveloped post players .

curry has shown he can be as good a finisher as there is in the league when he led the league in field goal %, chandler has shown that he is capable of being an elite rebounder.

their failings are in the way that they have not shown capable of taking that extra step as complete players on the ability they tease with.

tyson has failed to be the kind of dominant defender we hoped he would be , its not his body or his desire its the impact of his actions , other teams dont fear him ...if he blocks their shot he does it or occasionally disrupts their shot , but he hasn't shown himself to be a disrupter on the level of a garnett , davis robinson , ewing or any other great shotblocker /post defender, and sadly at one point he was showing signs of being that player.

curry cannot run an offense out of the post , he cant pass , he still gets bothered by double teams to the point the bulls have to go away from him when the other team applies pressure, and he gets tunnel vision allowing the defense to dictate his offense , going almost exclusively to the jump hook until the defense so completely takes it away it destroys his confidence for the game .

i am not playing a game with what ifs , i want the bulls to make what they have work instead of trading for something of less value , instead of giving away potentially good players before they hit their prime to hit it big with other teams. but if they cant commit or are not willing to commit to what it will take to make them winners with these 2 players they should move on, every day they will get less for them , as they come closer to being free agent.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Bump.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Bump.


It's one game.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> It's one game.


how long should have waited?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> how long should have waited?


Butler, Odom, Mihm, Cook and Jones...not exactly what you'd call a solid rebounding, interior defensive-minded frontline.

Miami's Haslem and O'Neal should offer TC and EC a little more competition in the paint and on the boards. Better yet, lets see if they can redeem themselves from their previous performance against the Cavs when they host Ilgauskas, Gooden and Traylor next Wednesday.

I'm as happy as anyone to see both players make significant contributions against the Lakers. But it won't mean much if they don't start to string these kinds of performances together on a week in, week out basis.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Can we just take it one game at a time and give them the credit they deserve for yesterdays performance. Chandler needs to play like that consistently (EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT) but lets just take it a game at a time and give them some praise for once!

Everybody played great yesterday, lets respect the fact that the bulls came to their home court and gave the crowd and fans the performance that we need.

Great game bulls players/coaches. Skiles did a great job of subbing in/out and the players responded (great game by AD yesterday as well!!!)


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>popeye12</b>!
> Can we just take it one game at a time and give them the credit they deserve for yesterdays performance. Chandler needs to play like that consistently (EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT) but lets just take it a game at a time and give them some praise for once!
> 
> Everybody played great yesterday, lets respect the fact that the bulls came to their home court and gave the crowd and fans the performance that we need.
> ...


Good stuff.

Performances like these are very encouraging.

I think BOTH of them are at least going to be as good as Brad Miller in terms of impact.

But I don't know if that's saying much because it seems like Benoit Benjamin would be able to do the same amount of damage these days.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> It's one game.


Not really....

We have won two out of our last three.

Chandler and Curry have been keys to both wins.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Does 1 excellent game outweigh 10 abysmal games?

I read that Curry was TOO TIRED to play in the fourth quarter against the Lakeshow. Wow.

Good thing he is in "the best shape of his life."


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Madox, 

Do you want the bulls to play bad? Do you look for Curry and Chandler to play bad? Is that what you want to happen? Whats the point of posting negative post after negative post? What does that prove?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If we as a fan base, blast Chandler and Curry, it is only fair we praise them when both play the way we want them to. I blasted Crawford last season but I praised him when he played well. 

LA was 9-6 and an average road team. We beat them. Not only did we beat them but we answered every rally and challenge they threw at us. Curry and especially Chandler was a big part of that. 

Yes we have won 2 of the last 3 games. 

Miami will be a test. In the past Curry has played well against Shaq. The real question will be who will stop Wade?


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Miami is a very tough game, hopefully the bulls can perform like they did last night, we definitely need curry and ad to not get in foul trouble because if they do we will be in for a long night. Looks like kirk will start on wade, hopefully he can keep his fouls to a minimum, but i wouldnt mind putting deng on wade due to his long arms and tough defense.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Butler, Odom, Mihm, Cook and Jones...not exactly what you'd call a solid rebounding, interior defensive-minded frontline.
> ...


but it is a good frontline , and thats the bottom line , who cares how they are good , and they have been better rebounders than the bulls this season, while holding opposing teams to .428 shooting , compared to the bulls .451, so in my opinion thats good enough , it was a good team from out west we beat, on the stregnth of our own players and their play.

a win is a win, I'm not into hearing excuses when we lose i'm even less interested in hearing excuses when we win.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Butler, Odom, Mihm, Cook and Jones...not exactly what you'd call a solid rebounding, interior defensive-minded frontline.


Doesn't this statement show how size is a tremendous advantage in the NBA due to its scarcity?


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>popeye12</b>!
> Madox,
> 
> Do you want the bulls to play bad? Do you look for Curry and Chandler to play bad? Is that what you want to happen? Whats the point of posting negative post after negative post? What does that prove?


Not at all. My preference as a Bulls fan is to see them become great players. But this is the same thing we have been seeing for years, and I simply cannot figure these guys out. 

So there, I admitted it. Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler are total enigmas to me. 

And unless they do something AMAZING in the next couple of months they will no longer be Chicago Bulls. 

Plus, I don't like supporting players that have track records of laziness (Curry). I'm not being negative just for the sake of being negative, I was making a point that E-City was 'too tired' to play in the fourth quarter while supposedly being in the best shape of his life. Personally, I hear that and it blows my mind. 

It just baffles me. 

What the hell, let's just give Eddy the max and hope he comes around. I'm passed the point of caring, and if you listen carfeully, that is the mood of the majority of the fanbase. All you can do anymore is laugh at this sideshow. 

GIVE CURRY THE MAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO IT JERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Doesn't this statement show how size is a tremendous advantage in the NBA due to its scarcity?


Certainly.

However, what good does it do you to have a voice like Luciano Pavarotti if the only thing you ever do with it is hawk ice cream up and down the aisles of the United Center?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Certainly.
> ...


Kismet, is he still working the 300 level at the UC?

Noooooooooooo!!!!!! :devil:


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

I did hear that curry was tired in the 4th, but i dont buy it. The lineup that was in the game was producing and AD was playing a heck of a game as was Chandler. Curry had a great game but its a team and if the team that is on the court is doing the job, let them stay out there.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>popeye12</b>!
> I did hear that curry was tired in the 4th, but i dont buy it. The lineup that was in the game was producing and AD was playing a heck of a game as was Chandler. Curry had a great game but its a team and if the team that is on the court is doing the job, let them stay out there.


I agree. Curry didn't look tired jumping up and down and screaming from the bench. I think Skiles pulled him because of a couple of turnovers, unfortunately these particular turnovers were more the passers fault than the passee.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Certainly.
> ...


Why U Hating on Ice Cream Guy!??!?!?


----------

