# Jamal's drive for big contract



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

In his last 5 games, Jamal:

34, 40, 43, 40, 39 minutes (39.2/game)
33.3%, 41.2%, 29.4%, 30.4%, 25.9% FG (31.3% in 5 games)
That's:
4-12
7-17
5-17
7-23
7-27
(30-96 total)

19.6% 3Pt shooting

4 RPG
6.2 APG
2.4 SPG
15.4 PPG


For the season:
40% FG, 32.8% 3PT, 3.1 RPG, 5.4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 16.8 PPG

Brutal


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

He won't be getting Arenas type money if he keeps this up.

Injuries aren't helping him. He is attempting to carry the team offensively when I don't think he is capable of doing this. He is now the guy teams are focusing on. 

I'm willing to give him time to adjust. Realistically, do we have any other option?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*Jamal Crawford=Wesley Person "Light"*

Like it or not, Jamal Crawford is evolving into something akin to Wes Person, although he'll have to go some to match Person's numbers as a career 46%, 41% shooter. Crawford's career numbers so far shake out at 40% and 37%.

As a matter of fact, Person becomes an unrestricted free agent this summer. I imagine the Bulls could replace JC with Person without skipping an offensive beat, and probably for a lot less money, too.

*"I was not real happy with his (Crawford's) shot selection,'' Skiles said. "I'll leave it at that.''*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull212.html

Jamal doesn't seem to be cut out to be a catch and shoot wingman. I've seldom seen a player that receives a pass in an open area and then proceed to dribble into traffic before shooting like Jamal. It's got to be extremely frustrating for Skiles to watch a much less gifted player like Gill benefit from Hinrich's well-timed passes as he comes off screens while Crawford continues to insist on diddling with the ball before launching his shot.

The concept of swapping JC and later signing a player like Person as his replacement is looking less far-fetched by the day. Since the playoffs are becoming a faded memory with each narrow defeat, maybe Pax will start thinking about packaging JC before the trade deadline for a swing player with the ability to penetrate and create or nail a jumper or two as well. I don't know why, but I keep thinking that a Jerry Stackhouse type of player would be a great asset to this team. I just wonder if there's someone like him that's gettable out there.


----------



## MirageRon (Feb 10, 2003)

It's hard to change someone, but this guy won't be worth it in the end. He's a streetball player with no regard for patience when playing. Continuing to throw up double digit three's a game when you aren't hitting them is past stupid. Crawford may occasionally WOW you with a spectacular play, but don't be fooled by that. He isn't good for this team and I hope he doesn't come back to this team next year!:upset:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Acutally Jamal is good for the team. He has helped in the scoring a lot. He still gives out assist. He is like 23 years old. At 25 years old he will be entering his prime. Dont give up on Him !!!!!!


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Jamal Crawford=Wesley Person "Light"*



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Jamal doesn't seem to be cut out to be a catch and shoot wingman. I've seldom seen a player that receives a pass in an open area and then proceed to dribble into traffic before shooting like Jamal. It's got to be extremely frustrating for Skiles to watch a much less gifted player like Gill benefit from Hinrich's well-timed passes as he comes off screens while Crawford continues to insist on diddling with the ball before launching his shot.
> 
> The concept of swapping JC and later signing a player like Person as his replacement is looking less far-fetched by the day. Since the playoffs are becoming a faded memory with each narrow defeat, maybe Pax will start thinking about packaging JC before the trade deadline for a swing player with the ability to penetrate and create or nail a jumper or two as well. I don't know why, but I keep thinking that a Jerry Stackhouse type of player would be a great asset to this team. I just wonder if there's someone like him that's gettable out there.


I think it is hard to adjust to being a catch and shoot straight away. Crawford probably needs more time to get better at this.

The problem with getting a true SG is who is available. Plus what could JC get us? Crawford's ultimate value could be if teams think of him as a tall PG. There aren't many of them. Could JC get us a very good SF? I'm still not certain as to what JC's future in Chicago is, but I think he can get better.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

some JC backers will cry foul with the premise of this thread, but they will have to cry. JC shot selection and his refusal to take it to the basket hurts this team. Sure, sometimes he makes a shot out of his efforts, but most of the time it is not within the offense of the team. We are losing more games than we are winning. If we were winning more games, he would get some credit for the wins, but we are losing, so in fairness he gets some of the blame for those.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

How much money do the Bulls have to spend this offseason. 

Let's say Paxson lets Fizer, Crawford, Gill, Blount, and Brunson walk. We settle out of Jay's contract and Pippen retires. 

Seems to me we would have a lot of cap space to pursue a big name FA. Anybody know if that's the case?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> How much money do the Bulls have to spend this offseason.
> 
> Let's say Paxson lets Fizer, Crawford, Gill, Blount, and Brunson walk. We settle out of Jay's contract and Pippen retires.
> ...



Seems like a good question for NCBullsFan. Why not start this as a seperate thread?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sometimes the numbers are misleading, but having watched almost all of these games... in this case they're right on target.

The only thing that disturbs me is the concept of Wes Person as the "solution" to the problem. If he's the solution, we need to get ourselves a new equation.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Sometimes the numbers are misleading, but having watched almost all of these games... in this case they're right on target.
> 
> The only thing that disturbs me is the concept of Wes Person as the "solution" to the problem. If he's the solution, we need to get ourselves a new equation.


So true! We have a number of things wrong with this team. Jamal is only one of them(at times). One person will not come in and right the wrongs. Too many worngs. 

What I do like is their effort. We didn't get that all of the time before the trade. . But moral victories are not good anymore.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

True Person as a solution is bad but if we sign Gill and Person and let them split the time at SG much like Denver does with Lenard and Barry then we should be okay. Then either trade JC for a SF or hope you can get Deng in the draft.

Hinrich,Brunson
Person,Gill
SF(?),Robinson
Chandler,JYD
Curry,Davis

Looks good to me.


----------



## Potatoe (Jun 17, 2002)

There are 3 things that lead to a high scoring average: Ability, playing time, and number of shots.

That's really all there is to it, a player with ability that plays a lot and takes a lot of shots will have a high scoring average.

Truth be told I missed the first few games that Jamal played under Skiled, but in the games I have seen since, I have not seen an improved Jamal Crawford, I have see the same guy playing more and shooting more.

Think about it and answer honestly....

Is JC really playing better under Skiles or is he just playing more and shooting more?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Potatoe</b>!
> There are 3 things that lead to a high scoring average: Ability, playing time, and number of shots.
> 
> That's really all there is to it, a player with ability that plays a lot and takes a lot of shots will have a high scoring average.
> ...


It's almost as if there are two Crawfords. When the Bulls play solid D and run the fast break at every chance, Crawford is simply dazzling. You can see the heart go out of other teams. When the Bulls play their half-court set, none of our players look terrific, including/especially Crawford.

I cannot tell the difference between this team running the triangle offense and whatever offense it is supposedly running now. The lack of motion off the ball (except for Gill) leads to Jamal's poor shot selection - frankly his shots are as good as anyone's taking within their stagnant offense.

My favorite play run by the Bulls is the one where they get it to Linton Johnson in the corner for an open 3 look. Johnson is shooting 12.5% from behind the 3pt line.

The scary thing is that we're playing Gill, AD, Blount, Brunson, and JYD and hanging in ball games until near the end. Imagine if we had quality vets instead of these castoffs.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Good grief. You guys flip your opinions far too much.

Wesley Person? Did someone just seriously suggest that we replace our only offensive threat with Wesley Person? Yeah that's great. I'm saving that one. It'll go right next to the Jamal for Othella Harrington deal.

Jamal goes through a slump and you all jump ship. Good job guys. Good job. He's changing the way he's playing. He is playing with more intensity under Skiles by all indications. His defense has gotten better. But he goes through a little 5 game shooting slump while he's trying to become a catch and shoot shooter on the fly and suddenly he's no better than Wes Person.

Well let me tell you this. As good a shooter as Person is/was. He can't create his own shot. Jamal can create his own shot. And when it's going down he looks like he's on the path to superstardom.

And also, Wes Person, is not even half the passer that Crawford is.

Give him some more games. I have a feeling that in 5 more games, Jamal will have adjusted to the changes that Skiles wants, and will be several times the player he was before he started the change. If Jamal can start using those screens and making the catch and shoot shot, he's going to be very hard to stop, if not unstoppable if he also starts going to the basket.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Just another perspective: we're now what, eight, nine games into the Skiles era? And maybe six or seven games into the Jamal-the-full-time-SG era?

I think there is a difference when you are shooting as a scoring PG, because you know EXACTLY how and when your shot is going to come up, and you also have some awareness of how your teammates are spaced on the floor. Crawford is a very decent passer, and can blow up for a few high assist nights sometimes.

Having another PG is great, and he says he plays off of Kirk well. I don't doubt that to be true, but it takes time to really get used to it.

Plainly put, he's never really been a SG or understand what that means. Apparently it's in his head that he has to take a LOT of shots. That might be true, but he also has to learn how to score in a LOT of different ways.

Tracy McGrady, the man I believe to be the best SG in the league, took 27 shots only once in the past week, and doesn't really shoot less than 42% very often from the field (usually much higher). More importantly, he gets to the line 6 times a game and he has a complete-package game (tons of boards, tons of assists, and a few steals and blocks).

Crawford has to understand that he's not yet McGrady (probably never will be close), and yet he's trying to do more than McGrady does.

But hey, he just picked it up. It's a different story when your first option now really is to score points. As a SG, that's how it plays out.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite play run by the Bulls is the one where they get it to Linton Johnson in the corner for an open 3 look. Johnson is shooting 12.5% from behind the 3pt line.


:laugh: Mine too. I always get my hopes up, like Linton is going to make this one. But it never fails. He always blows it. I think I actually saw the three-pointer he made.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It's almost as if there are two Crawfords. When the Bulls play solid D and run the fast break at every chance, Crawford is simply dazzling. You can see the heart go out of other teams. When the Bulls play their half-court set, none of our players look terrific, including/especially Crawford.
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing.

Jamal Crawford is not used to having others players get shots for him it will take more than 7-8 games to develop that type of trust with Hinrich. Hes used to creating for himself and whn he doesnt touch the ball for 5-6 minutes he reverts back to some old habits.

The bets way to teahc a young player to stay within the offense is to keep them included in the offense .

The first 4 games under Skiles Crawford moved between pg and sg but just about all the offense went through whether it was setting up himself or someone else and most of it was from the top of the circle .

The last 5 games hes had to rely on the offense to get him shots and hes been at sg the majority of the time.Hes been relying on Hinrich to find him on offense and most of the time its in the corner or on the wings .

This isnt to make excuses just to trying to say its gonna take more than 9 games to completly change Crawfords game.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Sometimes the numbers are misleading, but having watched almost all of these games... in this case they're right on target.
> 
> The only thing that disturbs me is the concept of Wes Person as the "solution" to the problem. If he's the solution, we need to get ourselves a new equation.


The analogy was intended to suggest that Wesley Person can probably deliver everything Crawford can as a SG. But in no way was I trying to suggest that Person makes the Bulls any better than they are now. And chances are, Person would cost a lot less next summer than a resigned Crawford for similar productivity.

In other words, Crawford's really not much more than a "specialist," just like Person is. He's one dimensional. He only plays at one end of the court. And he's incredibly soft.

On offense if the jumper isn't falling he doesn't have the inner toughness to take it to the hole, maybe draw a few fouls and at least help make each offensive set more productive, even if all it results in is a couple of free throws. Instead, he'll stay outside and continue firing up long bombs.

As for defense, all you need to know is that when it came down to the 4th quarter last night it was Brunson and Hinrich trying to handle James while Crawford followed Ira Newble around the floor. That was no tactical error on Skiles' part. That was an acknowledgement by the head coach that his tallest guard plays defense like a marshmellow...sort of the same way Person plays defense. Catch my drift??


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Man, you get a comment or two from the coach about asking a guy to be able to catch and shoot and it becomes a catch-all excuse.

I think a small amount of the problem has to do with playing Jamal at the 2 and asking him to do slightly different things.

I think the overwhelming majority of the problem stems from Jamal getting major attention from defenders as other teams become increasingly aware that if you stop him, you stop the Bulls. If you watch a Washington Wizards game, you'll see EXACTLY the same sort of thing occuring with Larry Hughes. Hughes is a good 3rd or 4th option on a team, and he was a good fit with Arenas and Stackhouse. Without those guys though, his numbers will go up because he's called on to do more, but the Wiz aren't winning much because he's not ABLE to do a lot more very productively. To top that off, he's in a horrible shooting slump. Air-balling wide-open jumpers is just bad.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> The analogy was intended to suggest that Wesley Person can probably deliver everything Crawford can as a SG. But in no way was I trying to suggest that Person makes the Bulls any better than they are now. And chances are, Person would cost a lot less next summer than a resigned Crawford for similar productivity.
> ...


Yeah...


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I was thinking the exact same thing.
> ...


Are you kidding? I can teach a 12 year old kid to catch and shoot in less than 30 minutes and you know it. The problem for Crawford is that there's no flash in simply rising up and shooting. He's got "Showtime" so deeply imbedded in his brain that the chances of him functioning effectively on offense without being in control of the ball are slim. Oh sure, he'll have stretches like most pure shooters have where he'll hit everything in sight. And he'll also have stretches where he can't throw the ball in the ocean. The difference is that his game will never change. 

A good pitcher in baseball makes adjustments from game to game when a particular pitch isn't working. Crawford makes no such adjustments. He'll continue launching the same long range bombs whether they're going in or not. 

Nobody's asking him to "completely change" his game as you put it. All he's got to do is run off a few screens, catch the ball and shoot it. A 12 year old can do it. Why can't Crawford?


----------



## Potatoe (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Good grief. You guys flip your opinions far too much.
> 
> Wesley Person? Did someone just seriously suggest that we replace our only offensive threat with Wesley Person? Yeah that's great. I'm saving that one. It'll go right next to the Jamal for Othella Harrington deal.
> ...




I agree futuristxen, this board does "flip" way too quickly.

But it goes both way's,,,,

5 games ago folks were saying that Crawford was going to average 22ppg for the rest of the season and that he was as good as Ray Allen.

I'm not exaggerating either, folks actually stated that he was as good as Ray Allen.

While comparisons to Wes Person are ridiculous, they are no more ridiculous than the comparisons that were made but a few games ago.

My opinion on Crawford is about the same as it was coming into the season. He is a player that could be very good if he learns how to play basketball...

Yes he can shoot, yes he can pass, and yes he can even play a little defense,,,,

But the court savy, the team ball, and the attitude are simply not there.

He simply does not do the right things at the right times that help teams win.

His motion in the half court is dreadful,,,

His shot selection and ability to score within the team concept is very poor.

And his biggest deficiency is and has always been his inability to drive the lane and create contact in the paint.

He's a soft player IMO and that more than any other thing, will keep him separated from the leagues upper echelon scoring guards.

JC could be a very good player if he improves in all of these areas, but I don't see him as an All Star level player, he may have the talent but the mental make up simply isn't there.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Potatoe</b>!
> My opinion on Crawford is about the same as it was coming into the season. He is a player that could be very good if he learns how to play basketball...
> 
> JC could be a very good player if he improves in all of these areas, but I don't see him as an All Star level player, he may have the talent but the mental make up simply isn't there.


How much more time do you suggest the Bulls give him?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> How much more time do you suggest the Bulls give him?


More than 5 games. He bought himself more than 5 games with his little string of games before Curry went down and his role changed where he looked like a world beater.

And just in case you missed it the first time, Crawford brings a lot more to the table than Person. Crawford is not a "specialist". He creates for his teammates, handles the ball, rebounds--these are things that Wes Person cannot do. You're never going to catch Wes Person hitting Curry or Davis with a bullet pass from the top of the key. Person couldn't even see that play. So stop kidding yourself and everyone here with such a ridiculous comparison. The only way they are similiar is that both are good shooters, with Person being a better spot shooter.

I just don't understand why all of you are back to panicking about Crawford again. Worse than old ladies wondering if it'll rain on tuesday. He's extremely talented, and Skiles is working with him to actualize that talent. Something that BC never did. This is probably the first time in Crawford's life that someone has offered him any usefull coaching. Skiles will have him turned into quite the player. And I think it'll be sooner rather than later.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> How much more time do you suggest the Bulls give him?


that question can be directed to C Unit in general. thus far tyson, eddy, and jamal have all shown glimpses of greatness which is usually followed up by a slump or other setback (injury). time is quickly coming to extend these guys, yet they haven't shown much reason to extend them to a longterm high priced contract. a lot of our fans horribly overrate our players' worth with the worth of C Unit being the most notable case. what can we obtain in a trade? would curry and chandler net us zach randolph? all three C's for marion and amare? truth is, altho some on this board would make the argument that we are giving up far too much, no way in hell would the other teams even think about these trades. "Potential" isn't being traded for sure things. Just for fun, see if we could trade Chandler again for Brand. What kind of reaction would you expect from the majority of the league, least of all the Clips?

sorry, went off on a tangent a lil.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> that question can be directed to C Unit in general. thus far tyson, eddy, and jamal have all shown glimpses of greatness which is usually followed up by a slump or other setback (injury). time is quickly coming to extend these guys, yet they haven't shown much reason to extend them to a longterm high priced contract. a lot of our fans horribly overrate our players' worth with the worth of C Unit being the most notable case. what can we obtain in a trade? would curry and chandler net us zach randolph? all three C's for marion and amare? truth is, altho some on this board would make the argument that we are giving up far too much, no way in hell would the other teams even think about these trades. "Potential" isn't being traded for sure things. Just for fun, see if we could trade Chandler again for Brand. What kind of reaction would you expect from the majority of the league, least of all the Clips?
> ...


It's not fair to lump Jamal in with Tyson and Eddy. Jamal has proven far more than either of those guys. Even though he's slumping for these 5 games, he's playing better than Eddy has played. And who knows about Tyson. He hasn't hardly played this year.

I think Kirk and Jamal have proven themselves worthy of being kept on for the future. Eddy and Tyson haven't proven anything however.


----------



## Potatoe (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> How much more time do you suggest the Bulls give him?



Give him to do what?

That really is the question isn't it?

Like I said I think he could be a really good player if he starts to play "the right way" but I personally do not see an All Star.

Then again I have been wrong before.

If your expectations for Crawford are that he becomes "a nice piece" rather than the focal point, I think you should pay him as such, and then give him all the time he needs.

If your expectations are "Ray Allen" forget it, that is unless banging your head against the wall is your idea of fun.

Lets face it the Bulls do not have their "franchise" player yet and therefore they can take 1 of 2 paths IMO.

They can either lay in the weeds until the right player comes along like Cleveland or Houston did, or they can build a team that is Deep and talented like the Grizzlies or Kings did.

Either way Crawford fits. You can never have enough "good players" as long as they can play together and play with in the team concept.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not fair to lump Jamal in with Tyson and Eddy. Jamal has proven far more than either of those guys. Even though he's slumping for these 5 games, he's playing better than Eddy has played. And who knows about Tyson. He hasn't hardly played this year.
> ...


Can't agree with this. What has JC shown that you can take to the bank if you put him on a winning team? A decent 3rd guard? Maybe?

Chandler has shown himself to be an effective post player in this league. 

It hardly matters anyway as TC and EC have another year b/f their contracts are up. Bulls will need to make a major decision on JC in the next 7 months.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I agree, Jamal is a lil different from Tyson and Eddy, but nonetheless the future of this franchise is dependant on what becomes of all 3. But as far as proving more than Tyson and Eddy to this point - that's up for debate. Given how Jamal does have one more year on the HSers, more should be expected of him. And of course the argument will be made that Jamal was out for a year, but regardless, he was in the NBA. 

It's a lil interesting when you compare C Unit's numbers to those of Jermaine O'Neal, the biggest excuse we use when preaching patience. As I've mentioned before, O'Neal never received consistent playing time with the Blazers. He was on a stacked team that was trying to compete for a championship. In fact, I think he averaged less that 15 minutes a game in his 4 seasons there. When he was finally traded to Indie in his 5th season the finally received consistent playing time and averaged ~13ppg. His next season (6th) he boosted that up to about 18 and has been great ever since. Point of this? His "slow" development is often taken out of context. He got consistent PT and quickly made the jump. Our guys have been receiving consistent PT (with the exception of the Floyd era). They should not be lumped into the "special circumstances" basket as we do with O'Neal. There really is no reason for them to not be developing at the 4 year pace that people expect.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> And just in case you missed it the first time, Crawford brings a lot more to the table than Person. Crawford is not a "specialist". He creates for his teammates, handles the ball, rebounds--these are things that Wes Person cannot do. You're never going to catch Wes Person hitting Curry or Davis with a bullet pass from the top of the key. Person couldn't even see that play. So stop kidding yourself and everyone here with such a ridiculous comparison. The only way they are similiar is that both are good shooters, with Person being a better spot shooter.


Fact is, I tend to agree with you. I won't argue that he's a much more skilled player than Person. But I'll also tell you this:

Much has been said and written over the years about Chicago being a blue collar town who appreciate players who bring it every damn game. I'm one of those fans. Last night when I watched Skiles try to control James with Hinrich and Brunson while Crawford skated by guarding Newble...well I'd seen enough. 

Crawford won't do the hard stuff. Forget all the catch and shoot stuff for a moment. He won't go to the basket. He won't give up his body..._at all!_ He's a gifted athlete but he won't defend. Skiles hides him on defense as much as he can because he needs Crawford's points. 

If the Bulls ever acquire some other offensive weapons Crawford might be done as a member of the Bulls. And more than anything else it will be his defense that betrays him. Have you noticed that Skiles doesn't play very much zone at all? I don't think he likes zones. As effective as our zone was the first time we beat Orlando Skiles chose to go man the second time around. And against Cleveland with a 6'8", 240 pound PG that was killing us, you'd think that a zone might be a viable option. But Skiles again stuck with a man defense most of the time.

Defense is clearly an important aspect of the game for Skiles. At this time Crawford is just about the Bulls first and only offensive weapon. So Skiles tollerates Crawford's defensive inadequacies. If the Bulls can get to the point where they don't have to depend so much on Crawford for points...well, you get the idea.

Say whatever you want, but there's no way to spin the fact that Skiles thinks more of Hinrich's, Brunson's and even Johnson's defense than Crawford's. He demonstrated that last night after Gill went down. Under those circumstances how can anyone view Crawford as a potentially top tier player?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? I can teach a 12 year old kid to catch and shoot in less than 30 minutes and you know it. The problem for Crawford is that there's no flash in simply rising up and shooting. He's got "Showtime" so deeply imbedded in his brain that the chances of him functioning effectively on offense without being in control of the ball are slim. Oh sure, he'll have stretches like most pure shooters have where he'll hit everything in sight. And he'll also have stretches where he can't throw the ball in the ocean. The difference is that his game will never change.
> ...


It takes practice and repetition to get good at coming of of screens and being able to just catch and shoot claiming you can teach a 12 year old to catch and that I know is a joke ....right :laugh: 

You seem to be so biased against a player having a playground game that it seeps into everything you post .

Crawford is a create his own shot type of player with the ball so asking him to not only become a better stand still shooter but allow someone else to set him up is changing his game.It can be done but not in 3 weeks.

I think its foolish of anyone to ask a player to make huge adjustments to their game without any help and then expect the changes to come over night .

Another thing is that driving that lane has a lot to do with confidence Crawford drove the lane hard a few times last night without getting a call I think that has to effect him .

I do think skiles will talk to him and we will see a better shot selection from Crawford.He might even have to allow a couple of offensive fouls and a few close misses ..


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Fact is, I tend to agree with you. I won't argue that he's a much more skilled player than Person. But I'll also tell you this:
> ...


I can't believe your upset about Skiles doing the smart thing, and blaming that on Jamal. Kirk and Brunson, but especially Kirk is a much better defender than Jamal. Kirk is the best defender on our team. So I don't understand why you would say it's a slap in Jamal's face that Skiles doesn't "trust" him enough to guard James.

No one in this league, except for Damon Stoudamire, have shown that they can stop James. He's too quick and too strong and knows too well what he's doing. Especially post-Ricky Davis trade. Even Ron Artest can't stop the kid. And you expect Skiles to play anyone but our best defender on him?

Jamal has improved on defense since Skiles came aboard. But I would be shocked if he was ever considered a top 5 defender in this league. Which is what Kirk could easily become.

It's not an issue of Skiles not putting Jamal on Lebron. It's an issue of Skiles putting his best defenders on the best offenders.

And considering that Lebron was the PG and Jamal was the SG, why would Jamal be guarding the PG?

Oh well. You're a good poster. Even if you do have a fundemental problem with the way my favorite player plays. Merry Holidays.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

If one thing Jamal has shown the last 4 years, it's the fact that he won't changes that much. For better or for worse.

I think it's this his lack of change (improvement) on his game more than anything else is why so may people got frustrated and begining to jump the ship. I for one had seen enough long time ago and all but gave up on him being a better player than he is now.

I don't think he deserve MAX extension (are you kidding?) and I am not even sure if we should match other bid for that matter. That is why I am still thinking trade can't be bad idea.

I know alot of people will say this is rather ridiculous but if he doesn't change his game for better, is it really good decision to keep him as Bulls only to have this same problem for another years to come?

I think Jamal now is as good as he gets wether his fans agree or not and the best Jamal can bring to the team isn't just good enough to be the franchise player or THE MAN for the team in the long plan.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I just posted the below quote in TBF's "After 9 Games thread, but I see it belongs in this conversation as well:

------------------

Observation. We have 2 starter quality point guards. One can't play NBA shooting guard and the other isn't used to doing it. Hopefully this will even out in the backcourt. Jamal and Kirk are both outstanding talents in their own way and I'd hate to lose either. If the backcourt does not gel, however, something has to give and neither Kirk nor Jamal should feel safe. We could trade Jamal for a true off guard or move Kirk for a 2 and move Jamal back to point, where he is more comfortable, can exploit his size and is where he honestly wants to be.

If this backcourt doesn't gell (and I'm not saying it won't) I could see Pax doing either trade, depending on who he could get in return.

----

That being said, C Blizzy is absolutely correct about Jamal's fear of contact. I'd hoped he would have developed a bit of toughness by now, but it hasn't happened. Putting aside his shooting slump, I think that is the most valid knock on Jamal's game.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I can't believe your upset about Skiles doing the smart thing, and blaming that on Jamal. Kirk and Brunson, but especially Kirk is a much better defender than Jamal. Kirk is the best defender on our team. So I don't understand why you would say it's a slap in Jamal's face that Skiles doesn't "trust" him enough to guard James.


I think you're overlooking what to me is an obvious point. Kirk is the best defender on our team, but so what? Does that mean we should put him on Shaq too?

In this case, Jamal's extra length would have made some difference if only it could be utilized effectively. The problem isn't just that he's not as good a defender, but that he's a gaping hole of a liability on defense.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

C Blizzy, another nice reply!! I agree with all of it. JC defense is hurting the team and add to it shot selection. (not the amount of shots) but selection. And his lack of FTA and unwillingness to get to the line hurts this team. We shoot 38% as a team. We are shooting 80% in free throws since the trade!! Jamal is 19-23. How many games could we have won if he doubled or tripled his free throw attempts??? Instead of being 3-6 since the trade, we could have been a lot better!! I am surprised that Scott doesn't try and get him to do that. James, had like 6 assists in the first quarter. They were scoring with ease, Why? He penetrated the defense. Despite his slump, if JC had gotten to the line more, he could be averaging 25, 26 pts a game!!


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> C Blizzy, another nice reply!! I agree with all of it. JC defense is hurting the team and add to it shot selection. (not the amount of shots) but selection. And his lack of FTA and unwillingness to get to the line hurts this team. We shoot 38% as a team. We are shooting 80% in free throws since the trade!! Jamal is 19-23. How many games could we have won if he doubled or tripled his free throw attempts??? Instead of being 3-6 since the trade, we could have been a lot better!! I am surprised that Scott doesn't try and get him to do that. James, had like 6 assists in the first quarter. They were scoring with ease, Why? He penetrated the defense. Despite his slump, if JC had gotten to the line more, he could be averaging 25, 26 pts a game!!


That's the thing. We fans here were almost yelling at him to penetrate more for good two years now. And he hasn't done it. Do you think Flyod din't aski him to do that? Cartwright? Skiles? 

To me that part of game is simply not in his nature. No amound of talking won't help it. Either he doesn't get it or he won't do it.

And I am not even starting on his being liablity on defense.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Somebody mentioned Larry Hughes, who is in the same situation in Washington, but is handling it MUCH better. Hughes actually slashes to the hoop and is averaging 21 ppg in December. The only games Washington wins have been from Hughes taking over with 20 point 4th quarters. Hughes's season stats are also better than Crawfish.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Larry Hughes is also much older than Jamal. He's been around the wheel a lot longer.

And I agree that Jamal needs to go the line more. I've said that before. But to say this is this huge tragic flaw that Jamal has is kind of blowing things out of proportion. Just because Jamal isn't going to the basket doesn't make him a CBA player who we should cut right now. Or replace with Wes Person.

It was only 5 games ago that this board had finally come around to seeing that Jamal is indeed a talent in this league. It saddens me to see so many of you so quick to put the blinders back on.

He's going through a slump right now. Just chill for a minute. He could drop 30, 8, 8 in his next game for all we know. It's all about his shot falling. Right now, it's not only not falling, it's missing at an atrocious rate. But I think Crawford has the work ethic that he will work his way through this slump and come out as the player Skiles is molding him to be. He seems to want to learn from Skiles very much.

I think it's fine and dandy to look at Jamal's weakenesses and say he needs to improve this or that, but to take that to the extremes that it gets taken to, is a bit much. If Crawford shoots like this for the rest of the season, I would be shocked. If he shoots poorly for another 5 games, I would be shocked even then. I simply think he's too good of a shooter to stay in this slump forever. I think he can be a number 1 option on offense. But right now he's growing into the role. You have to exercise a little bit of patience(more than 5 games).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Somebody mentioned Larry Hughes, who is in the same situation in Washington, but is handling it MUCH better. Hughes actually slashes to the hoop and is averaging 21 ppg in December. The only games Washington wins have been from Hughes taking over with 20 point 4th quarters. Hughes's season stats are also better than Crawfish.


The point is, I don't think he really is handling it much better. I mean, Washington isn't winning unless he just busts out and goes crazy, but the overall message is that against most teams, he can be limited. Just like Jamal. 

The overall message is that he's not a number one guy. 



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Larry Hughes is also much older than Jamal. He's been around the wheel a lot longer.
> 
> .... I think he can be a number 1 option on offense. But right now he's growing into the role. You have to exercise a little bit of patience(more than 5 games).


But the problem isn't a matter of patience, it's a matter of consistency. I'm certain at some point Jamal will drop another 30 point game. Probably a few of them. I'm certain Larry Hughes will too, but that doesn't mean he's growing into the roll of a #1 scorer. It just means that he's a streaky guy who got on a hot streak where he couldn't be stopped on a given night.

That's a great thing to have, but with Hughes it's something like 2 out of every 10 games, and the rest are pretty so-so. In most of those games, he can be controlled pretty easily. The exact same thing is true of Jamal. He can occasionally be overpowering, but when he's not, he's usually overpowered.

I made the comparison to Toni Kukoc before, and I still think it's a good one. Toni could be a very good player in the right circumstances, but in the wrong circumstances he could be pretty consistently abused. By being the sixth man on a super-talented team, it was possible to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. With Jamal, we have nothing even approaching that luxury.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

In my earlier thds., I was willing to wait until the so-called “test of potentiality” is over (hopefully not later than coming summer), and I predicted that two or three of our “potentials” will be trade or released. Jamal already failed and will never pass it. Eddy is failing almost on 80%, and probably will never be a player that JK promised to us. (I hate JK, he wasted a lot of opportunities, for the past six years) 

The truth is, that JC and EC are playing exclusively for their statistics and contracts , and I think it is direct influence of their agent. They even played hard at the end of the last season, just in order for Bulls to avoid top three picks and get a competitor -real franchise player.

They are extremely comfortable where they are right now, getting top dollars for shaking their asses for the couple months during the entire year and are enjoying the celebrity status.

Hopefully, we are not going to hear about them after that summer.


:sour:


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i think mikedc's comparison to toni is a reasonable and realistic expectation. and it's totally why we should hang onto him until we get our team back at full strength. 

at the begining of the season curry and chandler were pegged to be our best players. kirk looks like he'll quickly become a top flight player as well. so i'm thinking once this team is back at full strength it'll take a lot of the burden off of jamal.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

This whole thread is ridiculous...

Love the board, but it doesn't take much for you guys to change your opinions of players.

I'm a big JC fan, he's slumping, his shot selection was poor last night, he'll get it together, and the Bulls will be fine, especially when we can be healthy. 

My #1 team is the Clippers, so I know how to be patient and not freak out after every game.

Maybe next time Q Rich has a 2 pt game like he did against Milwaukee a few nights ago, I'll call Elgin and demand a trade, but then I'll send flowers to Q after he has a 25 pts 13 rebs game like he did last night.

That's EXACTLY the kind of fans a lot of you are, I'll stand behind the team, and the players regardless.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Bulls fans have seen the best of times and the worst of times. In the past half decade, its been nothing but the worst of times. The fact that we've been so long suffering and still are so passionate should count for something as fans.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Larry Hughes is one year older than Jamal Crawford. 

But your right, him and Craw are in the exact same posistion. The difference is that the Wizards have Arenas and Stackhouse coming back soon, and the Bulls don't. 

Arenas/Hughes/Stack= best 1-2-3 combo in the East.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

ya, and don't forget you have Jarvis Hayes coming off the bench.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Larry Hughes is one year older than Jamal Crawford.
> 
> But your right, him and Craw are in the exact same posistion. The difference is that the Wizards have Arenas and Stackhouse coming back soon, and the Bulls don't.
> ...


But they don't have Chandler, Curry, and Pippen coming back either. 

Question is, I wonder how those three will mesh (at least, Chandler and Curry both) now that we've added JYD and AD. I'm very curious to see if the Curry, AD, Tyson lineup proposed by Skiles ever sees the light of day or any success. Personally, I think it'll be tough to score and space the floor with those three, but I guess it's worth a try.

Even with that concern, it's still two double-digit average scorers we're missing as well as Pip.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> ... I'm very curious to see if the Curry, AD, Tyson lineup proposed by Skiles ever sees the light of day or any success. Personally, I think it'll be tough to score and space the floor with those three, but I guess it's worth a try...


Kirk, Tyson and AD will do "girty" work, and two (JC and EC) of our "potentials" will score for the statistics... Yep it may work, from the prospective to encrease their trade values. 
I like that !

:yes:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I read the thread title to quickly and I thought it said "Jamal's drive for big contact."

I was like "the hell"--No way that is happening!

DaBullz, always enjoy your posting and I'm glad you're back.

Potato,

I don't know that the board flips back and forth as much as that we each have our guys--and when our guys are playing like crap, we shutup. I remain president of the Jamal hate club, but when he was lighting it up the first couple games under Skiles, it wouldn't be appropriate to start a "JC needs to drive to the hoop" thread. I still hope he proves me wrong, and the Jamal crew is able to laugh in my face and bump threads like this to show how foolishe we all were...just don't see it happening, though.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But they don't have Chandler, Curry, and Pippen coming back either.
> ...


I do believe we will see this in a game sometime this year.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'll be bumping this thread within a week, I believe. This is all just shortsighted flipflopping. And it makes you look foolish to be jumping all over the place every other week.

And then he'll slump for 3 games in Febuary around the all-star break, and the TRADE JAMAL for 2nd round crap threads will be back.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

futur, is it really necessary to dis all over people just because they disagree with you?

i mean, i don't jump all over your $#!+ because you think Jamal is the Second Coming and i think he's an ESPN junkie who's fallen in love with the three-pointer. 

oh, wait... 

seriously...like C.C.C.P., i hope i'm wrong and that the light goes on for JC, he gets it, and becomes the next Gary Payton instead of a 6'5" Joe Barry Carroll.

i'll believe it when i see it. and i haven't seen anything but intermittent flashes yet.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I'll be bumping this thread within a week, I believe. This is all just shortsighted flipflopping. And it makes you look foolish to be jumping all over the place every other week.
> 
> And then he'll slump for 3 games in Febuary around the all-star break, and the TRADE JAMAL for 2nd round crap threads will be back.


It is much more than just being in a slump. His defense, shot shot selection his unwillingness to take it to the hoop. Eve Skiles is saying all of the very same things we are. Jamal CAN be a superstar, but HE MUST do the things in question and do them well to reach superstar level. If he doesn't make the effort to do that, then he is robbing the fans of something we desperately need. A complete Jamal Crawford. 

I am on board to the fact that Jamal MAY get traded by deadline if the right offer comes along.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> futur, is it really necessary to dis all over people just because they disagree with you?


I'm not really trying to disrespect anyone. But obviously it's frustrating to see people one week discussing Jamal as the best of the three C's and then the next week those same people are running him down again.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the posters on here. I have problems with some of their opinions and views. But you should understand that I view those as seperate from the actual people. I have nothing but respect for all the people in the bulls family. We're all Bulls fans and want to see our team do well. So in a larger sense we're all in this together.

So I hope anyone who was offended, stops being so. And understands I wish you a happy holidays.

Golly Gee Wiz. And such.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> They even played hard at the end of the last season, just in order for Bulls to avoid top three picks and get a competitor -real franchise player.


Come on now, thats absurd. So, they're only concerned about making money, so they'd play hard in order to sabotage the team, but then not play hard the next year when they have a chance to play for big money contracts?

People go too far into extremes when talking about Crawford. After Skiles' first two games even the likes of DaBullz was talking about how he was sold on the idea of Crawford as a star. 

Now, he's in a shooting slump, and people are proposing the Bulls should just drop him.

I think at this point, Jamal has proved at the very least that he isn't ready to be a #1 guy, and that he might not ever be on that level. Does that mean that the Bulls should necessarily get rid of him? I think not, unless by getting rid of him we somehow make our team better, and I really don't see that happening. 

Does Crawford have enough trade value that we could get someone in return that is as good or even better than him? I doubt it.

If we just let him walk, is that gonna free up enough cap space that will allow us to get someone better? I don't believe so.

He ain't the star that some of us wanted or expected or hoped him to be, but that doesn't mean we'd be better of without him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> I read the thread title to quickly and I thought it said "Jamal's drive for big contact."
> 
> I was like "the hell"--No way that is happening!
> ...


You got it. The idea of this thread was "Should Jamal be paid top dollars, considering his stats?" Basically.

I tried to point out his stats aren't that good. It's not a slap against him. I tried to point out that the offense in the half court just isn't very good - nobody seems to be thriving in it.

It was inspired by two things: the drive for the contract, and the notions people have about the triangle somehow being responsible for the players' poor performance. Well, no triangle, and the results are pretty much the same.

The bottom line, regarding the contract, is that I have my doubts he's going to get it from the Bulls if the team continues to go 3-6 (or worse) over the long haul. I'm _really_ sure that Paxson has said he wants to pay, but pay for WINS, not for stats. And like I said, even if he did want to pay for stats, why pay top dollar for a 40% FG shooting, 16 or 17 PPG player?

BTW, I wonder how good Corie Blount's stats would be if he got 27 FGA in a game. Probably surprisingly good.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> People go too far into extremes when talking about Crawford. After Skiles' first two games even the likes of DaBullz was talking about how he was sold on the idea of Crawford as a star.


Truthfully, it was after one game, and that was a win where we fast breaked our opponents to death. It was a thing of beauty, and Crawford was the star.

But it is unfair to accuse me of going to any extremes here. I've not projected his stats to be anything beyond what they are in ACTUALITY. I've merely presented his stats as they are, and the trend of the last 5 games.

My view is that the team needs FOUR solid defenders on the court with him at all times, and they need to run the fast break at every opportunity. The half court offense is miserable. He also needs some serious help on the wing, and as nice a player as Hinrich has turned out to be for us, he's nothing close to that kind of player yet.

I haven't changed my view that Crawford can't be or shouldn't be our star player. I see him as a wild stallion that if tamed can pull the wagon a long ways. He's not tamed. And, FWIW, the old Bulls would never have won championships if Jordan wasn't tamed in the same way. I think this is high praise for Crawford.

I'm consistent in my view that Jamal isn't taking too many shots, even at 27 per game. Who else is there to take them? The only thing that bothers me is that he made just 7 and made 0 trips to the FT line.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Truthfully, it was after one game, and that was a win where we fast breaked our opponents to death. It was a thing of beauty, and Crawford was the star.
> ...


Oh, I wasn't accusing YOU of going to extremes, at least not in this thread. I just mentioned you by name to illustrate the fact that recently even Crawford's harshest critics, such as yourself, were high on Crawford, and now many peopel are saying pretty much "dump him".

I do however think you in particular have been an example of going to extremes both in critiquing and praising Crawford. You went from saying that the Bulls would be better off with guys like Charlie Ward and Derek Fisher and saying that playing Crawford big minutes=blowout losses, to saying that you were sold on the idea of Crawford as our team's star.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, I wasn't accusing YOU of going to extremes, at least not in this thread. I just mentioned you by name to illustrate the fact that recently even Crawford's harshest critics, such as yourself, were high on Crawford, and now many peopel are saying pretty much "dump him".
> ...


We WOULD be better with a guy like Charlie Ward at PG. That doesn't mean that Crawford wouldn't still be the star at SG, which is where he belongs, IMO.

Also, I NEVER said "dump" crawford. I proposed two trades involving Jamal: Jamal+Fizer (last season) for Kukoc and Cassell, and Jamal+Fizer+Filler for Antoine Walker. Both of those trades would have filled out our lineup in better ways than having guys like AD, JYD, Blount, and Brunson.

Cassell is shooting 49.8% FG, 38.1% 3Pt, 3.4 reb, 7.5 assists, and 19.7 PPG. SOLID.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Also, I NEVER said "dump" crawford.


Again, wasn't talkin' bout you. My original post in this thread wasn't directed towards you, but the people who had posted in this thread who were essentially saying dump Crawford.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I'll be bumping this thread within a week, I believe. This is all just shortsighted flipflopping. And it makes you look foolish to be jumping all over the place every other week.
> 
> And then he'll slump for 3 games in Febuary around the all-star break, and the TRADE JAMAL for 2nd round crap threads will be back.


Well, if you truly view the kind of criticism that's been leveled at Crawford in this thread as "shortsighted flip-flopping," you might have to accuse Skiles of being optically challenged as well.

* "He knows that it's thrust upon him to look to score," Skiles said. "We just have to help him as to what's a good shot and what isn't. What's a good shot with five seconds on the shot clock isn't a good shot with 20 seconds left on the shot clock. He has to have a feel for that."

I'm less concerned about his shots than I am about his transition defense and overall defensive effort," Skiles said. "That's what concerns me the most."*

To which K. C. Johnson, another flip-flopping naysayer according to your standards, adds his own observation: _ Earlier this season, Crawford began exhibiting an ability to break down defenders off the dribble and penetrate the lane to shoot or pass. Lately, Crawford has begun to settle strictly for the perimeter shot. His 27 shots, remarkably, featured not one trip to the free-throw line._

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1bulls,1,5135089.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Either Skiles and Johnson are avid basketballboards.net readers, or by some shear act of coincidence they both just summed up the gist of most of the criticism leveled at Crawford in this thread. Pretty foolish of them, too, I suppose?


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Either Skiles and Johnson are avid basketballboards.net readers, or by some shear act of coincidence they both just summed up the gist of most of the criticism leveled at Crawford in this thread. Pretty foolish of them, too, I suppose?


They made legit criticisms of Crawford, but they didn't follow up those criticisms by then stating that Crawford will never learn or get better, or Crawford is a bad person, or Crawford needs to be traded/released. They just said that he's played poorly recently, which is true.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> They made legit criticisms of Crawford, but they didn't follow up those criticisms by then stating that Crawford will never learn or get better, or Crawford is a bad person, or Crawford needs to be traded/released. They just said that he's played poorly recently, which is true.


I'm sure he'll get better and his 3 and a half year defensive slump is just a temporary thing


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> They made legit criticisms of Crawford, but they didn't follow up those criticisms by then stating that Crawford will never learn or get better, or Crawford is a bad person, or Crawford needs to be traded/released. They just said that he's played poorly recently, which is true.


Exactly. There's a diffrence between criticism and proposing roster changes on this team. A lot of you take it too far. Just because a player has some ups and downs and has things to improve upon, then he is suddenly a lost cause? Too many of you seem to want to cast out the good with the bad, when it seems to me that it might be possible to just get rid of the bad.

I think Skiles has improved Crawford already, and I think his understanding of what Crawford's problems are and how to solve them far surpass anybody who has been involved with Crawford to this point.

And you guys keep bringing up defense. But oddly never mention the fact that this is one area in particular that Skiles has already begun massive reforms on Jamal's game. Prior to his ankle injury, his defensive effort was much improved. He was getting steals. blocking the occasional shot. And just in general playing defense with a lot more effort than he had under Cartwright. You complain that Crawford will never get it, but you blind yourselves to things that he is clearly getting better and better at. I doubt he's going to all of a sudden become all-nba defensive team, but he's already gone a long ways to not being a defensive liablity, which given the other defenders we have is a lot.

I mean, I think I agree with most of the criticisms that have been levied against Crawford right now. But I don't think they are as huge as some make them out to be. They are things that need to be addressed, but they are not things to trade Crawford for Othella Harrington for.

I think Paxson knows better than a lot of us on this board know. Paxson knew all along that Crawford would eventually get moved to the two. And his hiring of Skiles seems like the perfect hire in retrospect, because I think Pax has realized that the talent on the team is in the backcourt, and Crawford was starved for coaching. Obviously Curry and Chandler didn't respond to coaching all that well, but Crawford seems very receptive, and I think it's significant to note the kind of communication that is going on between Crawford and Skiles. Crawford has never had someone in his corner like Skiles is in his corner. And I think it has already made a huge diffrence, and will continue to do so in the future. Right now it's a shooting slump. All slumps eventually come to an end. And when that happens, Crawford will be an even better player for it. It's all part of the road to consistency.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> And you guys keep bringing up defense. But oddly never mention the fact that this is one area in particular that Skiles has already begun massive reforms on Jamal's game. Prior to his ankle injury, his defensive effort was much improved. He was getting steals. blocking the occasional shot. And just in general playing defense with a lot more effort than he had under Cartwright. You complain that Crawford will never get it, but you blind yourselves to things that he is clearly getting better and better at. I doubt he's going to all of a sudden become all-nba defensive team, but he's already gone a long ways to not being a defensive liablity, which given the other defenders we have is a lot.


_"I'm less concerned about his shots than I am about his transition defense and overall defensive effort,'' Skiles said. "That's what concerns me the most. What I've found about him already is that when he's tuned in on the defensive end, he makes shots. Those things tend to go hand-in-hand with every player.''_ If it's taken Skiles less than 10 games to figure this out about Crawford, why then hasn't Crawford, in three and a half years, come to this same conclusion on his own? And please don't tell me he needs to have _everything_ pointed out to him by someone else. When Skiles says that "those things tend to go hand in hand with every player," my guess is that unless Skiles is some kind of basketball messiah, Crawford has heard this before from other coaches too.



> I think Paxson knows better than a lot of us on this board know. Paxson knew all along that Crawford would eventually get moved to the two.


Do you honestly believe it was some kind of act of brilliance on Paxson's part to recognize Crawford was better suited as a SG? Haven't you been reading the many posts on this board for over two years that have made the very same observation?



> Right now it's a shooting slump. All slumps eventually come to an end. And when that happens, Crawford will be an even better player for it. It's all part of the road to consistency.


We seem to be going in circles, here. Yes he's in a shooting slump. But the end of that slump won't make Crawford a better, more consistent player for having lived through it. According to Skiles, what will make him a better, more consistent player will be when he realizes "...that when he's tuned in on the defensive end, he makes shots."

You see, it all comes down to defense. I'll say it again: forget all this crap right now about learning how to catch and shoot, etc., etc. All the boy has to do is make a balls out, courageous effort on the defensive end of the floor and the consistency in all other aspects of his game will evolve. However, in over three years, according to many basketballboards.net experts, he's never made that committment. What makes you think he will now? Of course, with it being the Christmas season and all, I guess we should remember that miracles _can happen_. And if it's not divine intervention that opens his mind to the concept of doing his job at both ends of the floor, maybe his impending free agent status will do the trick. One can only hope.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Wow. With Jalen gone it's time to pile on Jamal!

As long as you all have someone to hate Bulls basketball is fun, right?

:hurl:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Jamal will be just fine. He has had a shooting slump for a few games so it's time for everyone to pile on him. He will come out of his little "slump" here in the next few games and people will forget that they wanted to trade him for Othella Harrington or Wesley Person until he had another "slump".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Jamal will be just fine. He has had a shooting slump for a few games so it's time for everyone to pile on him. He will come out of his little "slump" here in the next few games and people will forget that they wanted to trade him for Othella Harrington or Wesley Person until he had another "slump".


Are those guys in a 3.5 year defensive "slump" too?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Wow. With Jalen gone it's time to pile on Jamal!
> 
> As long as you all have someone to hate Bulls basketball is fun, right?
> ...


Wait a minute!!! Wasn't that why Paxson traded for Chris Jefferies?










I mean, what's not to love??? Notice the intense look of determination etched into his face and honed by his experiences at that bastion of character development at Fresno State!
:groucho:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Are those guys in a 3.5 year defensive "slump" too?


Jamal isn't a great defender but he is getting better.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Trade Jamal. Anything to get you overeactors to shutup already, and stop changing your tunes after every damn game. Go ahead, trade Jamal for Wesley Person so everyone else can laugh at how stupid you all are. Except this time it'll be every NBA fan on BB.net, not just Toronto fans 

ITs not worth the time anymore addressing the constant overeacting that occurs here every single day after every single game. Just trade Jamal for Wesley Person and lets get the 2nd dumbest trade of the year over with, the 1st being the earlier trade to Toronto. Then you guys can talk about how much Wesley Person sucks everyday he has a bad game, or how great he is affter he has a good one  

Its clear some of you dont have the patience for developing young talent, so instead of hearing you cry everyday, i'm all for trading Jamal for washed up veterans that are on the decline :sour:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly. There's a diffrence between criticism and proposing roster changes on this team. A lot of you take it too far. Just because a player has some ups and downs and has things to improve upon, then he is suddenly a lost cause? Too many of you seem to want to cast out the good with the bad, when it seems to me that it might be possible to just get rid of the bad.
> ...


It is more than a shooting slump, he is still doing a jalen Rose imatation and jacking up bad shots. Not the amount, but BAD shots. Blocks? He has three in 9 games. His defense did improve but he needs to bring it every night. He was He didn't get any. Ankle? Maybe, but elite players don't play on one side of the ball and coast on the other. They don't settle for jump shots and do not take free throws. Elite players find ways to score! Find ways to get other players involved that do not include street basketball dribble for seconds then shoot. Skiles being quoted by Johnson and the other writer, agree with some of us on here. When Crawford does these things every game, then he will have arrived. But in the meantime, look at our record. Some of us are a little anxious. 

As for us shipping him out, thats what bulls fans do.  we are good at it. We don't just get rid of players for the sake of getting rid of them. We talk about and covet other players. The grass is always greener. I know you are a staunch defender of Jamal. You were and have been all season. But make no mistake about, as recent as last week, Crawfords name was being talked about in the media as being in trade talks. (NY) If you get upset with us then why aren't you upset with the media? Where there is smoke there is fire. John is listening to offers, I guarantee!

Now on a side note, you mentioned that Chandler didn't repond to coaching all that well. He hasn't even played for Skiles yet and from what I saw earlier in the season he was the only one who came with energy at both ends of the floor. Curry and Crawford did not. (I am talking about both ends, defense and offense. )So what did you mean by including chandler in among all three?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> Trade Jamal. Anything to get you overeactors to shutup already, and stop changing your tunes after every damn game. Go ahead, trade Jamal for Wesley Person so everyone else can laugh at how stupid you all are. Except this time it'll be every NBA fan on BB.net, not just Toronto fans
> 
> ITs not worth the time anymore addressing the constant overeacting that occurs here every single day after every single game. Just trade Jamal for Wesley Person and lets get the 2nd dumbest trade of the year over with, the 1st being the earlier trade to Toronto. Then you guys can talk about how much Wesley Person sucks everyday he has a bad game, or how great he is affter he has a good one
> ...


Patience for developing young talent? Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it management who said no excuses? Was it management that has talked about playoffs? Seems to me they thought that the young players were far enough along, has arrived and no need for more development. Well that was before all three came into camp with bad conditioning! And add Rose to the mix. He wasn't ready either. Excuse some of us for believing management. 

Look, I can see both sides of the arguement. But when I see weaknesses in his game, anyones game that is hurting the Bulls, I will bring it up. I did about Jalens game. Weeks before he was traded I brought up a lot of things how his game was hurtung the bulls. After he was traded has his game improved? He he did his nice run but after a 5-0 start they are 1-5 now. I read about Defense and bad shots in Toronto media, same ole same ole. Now, that being said, do I think Jamal will improve? I hope so. He is much younger than Jalen. But Jalen got to a point and settled. Will Jamal? I don't know. It might even be unfair to go to war with just him and him not havong any help at the three or even eddy in scoring. But that's our team right now. We are losing more than winning. If it had not been for Gills hot hand in the Magic game we would be 2-7 since the trade. Jamal was still in his "slump" and on the flip side during his slump, he could have scored a lot more if he had just taken it to the basket and not just the points but we could have a better record than 3-6! But he won't. So yes his slump is hurting us but it is much more than his slump, the team rests on his shoulders right now with Eddy out. We win or lose by what he does and does not do! Pardon some of us if we see a player that could be doing better but for some reason is not. I want Jamal to be elite. I think he can, but it will take total effort, both ends of the court, every game, all four quarters to do that.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure he'll get better and his 3 and a half year defensive slump is just a temporary thing


Thats weak.

What does that have do with the post you quoted from me?


When in that post did I say anything rearding his defense or lack thereof in?

There's a difference between saying "Jamal is playing poorly", and going to the extremes people have in this thread, such as suggesting the Bulls release him.

Its one thing to expect better from a guy. But dumping him for that fact would be somewhat myopic unless in doing so you manage to make the team better. Now, if there's a way to get rid of Crawford and improve the team, I say go for it. Until then, I think he's more of an asset than a problem.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> Its clear some of you dont have the patience for developing young talent, so instead of hearing you cry everyday, i'm all for trading Jamal for washed up veterans that are on the decline :sour:


This is not a matter of patience. People are waiting almost 6 years right now for something to happen. I’m sick and tired of quotes like this: “But we have so much potential, so much talent…” and we suck! Our “best offensive player” keeps missing everything except the floor, but his supporters will say: “this is temporary slump, give him 5 more seasons and he will find his shooting touch…”. Our “next Shaq” is laughing from the bench when the Bulls are loosing, but his supporters will say: “he is so young he needs more time to mature, maybe 10 years or so…”- this is paranoia people! Bulls are 7-18! This is year 6 in rebuilding process and we still suck! There will be no playoffs for the Bulls! Let’s faced we are just bad team! Except maybe Hinrich and Chandler we have to start all over again! Who is going to play for us, ask yourself? Undersized Fizer, “glass man” Robinson, “underachiever” Curry, “straight shooter” Crawford, “broken knees” Pipen and “I’m 25 years old” Gill? This is our team. 2003-04 Chicago Bulls. Bunch of dudes from the street with few tired veterans. Yeah, playoff contenders with 7 wins in 25 games! Whooohaaaa! But we have a great potential…


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

good grief. Have you not ever heard of a shoot slump. 5 games. Not 5 seasons. He'll be out of his slump within 5 games, probably sooner. Every player goes through cold spells. This is Jamal's first major cold spell of the season. And it corresponds with an ankle injury, a new role and the loss of Eddy Curry in the post. You've waited 5 years, what is 5 more games.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> good grief. Have you not ever heard of a shoot slump. 5 games. Not 5 seasons. He'll be out of his slump within 5 games, probably sooner. Every player goes through cold spells. This is Jamal's first major cold spell of the season. And it corresponds with an ankle injury, a new role and the loss of Eddy Curry in the post. You've waited 5 years, what is 5 more games.


If you think Jamal has EVER been consistent, you may want to go back and look at his game log for the last two months of last season. That's the period of games people seem to point to as proof of any of the 3C's pending greatness. I think you will find he was quite sporadic at being a "good" shooter.

Of course, we can ignore the first 2/3 of last season, when he shot something like 37%. There's some other excuse besides "shooting slump" for those games.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

what's your explanation for his shooting to such a drastic downturn--if not shooting slump then what


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> what's your explanation for his shooting to such a drastic downturn--if not shooting slump then what


I think what most people criticize about is not about his shooting slump per se. It's more about what he didn't do when he realize he is in slump. You got to admit some of this frustration when he kept jacking up threes like the last 3 games when he was dead cold. 

Only if he tried to draw some foul instead, I don't think you would see this many frustrated people on this thread. Yet he didn't change any of his game regardless. So here we are. Another JC controversy. Same old story.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> I think what most people criticize about is not about his shooting slump per se. It's more about what he didn't do when he realize he is in slump. You got to admit some of this frustration when he kept jacking up threes like the last 3 games when he was dead cold.
> 
> Only if he tried to draw some foul instead, I don't think you would see this many frustrated people on this thread. Yet he didn't change any of his game regardless. So here we are. Another JC controversy. Same old story.


Bingo!!! :greatjob:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> I think what most people criticize about is not about his shooting slump per se. It's more about what he didn't do when he realize he is in slump. You got to admit some of this frustration when he kept jacking up threes like the last 3 games when he was dead cold.
> 
> Only if he tried to draw some foul instead, I don't think you would see this many frustrated people on this thread. Yet he didn't change any of his game regardless. So here we are. Another JC controversy. Same old story.


yes. however, none of that would have been a problem if he wasn't missing the shots in the first place. That's why it's important also to factor in the poor shooting and what caused it. Was it his ankle. Was it just a normal shooting slump. Was it adjusting to his new role. Was he wearing the wrong pair of socks. Was he high.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> I think what most people criticize about is not about his shooting slump per se. It's more about what he didn't do when he realize he is in slump. You got to admit some of this frustration when he kept jacking up threes like the last 3 games when he was dead cold.
> 
> Only if he tried to draw some foul instead, I don't think you would see this many frustrated people on this thread. Yet he didn't change any of his game regardless. So here we are. Another JC controversy. Same old story.


This, and the fact that this slump comes on the heels of his complaints that he doesn't need to do drills or stay after practice to work on his game.

And the criticism from Skiles regarding his lack of defense.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> This, and the fact that this slump comes on the heels of his complaints that he doesn't need to do drills or stay after practice to work on his game.
> ...



Thats erob :laugh:

D'Oh! you're right! Time for my medication...TB#1


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

before trade. 

ok before the trade, jamal played in 14 games of the 16. he was 76-182. 42%. That is very average if not below average! All four top scorers on the Utah Jazz all shoot a hell of a lot better pct than that. Threes? he was 21-50 42%. Not bad. 

After the trade? 38% and 27% in threes. 

Before the trade, he averaged, 5.4-13. FGM/FGA
Threes? 1.5-3.6 3GM/3GA

After:

8.3-20.9 FGM/FGA
*-9.3 3gm/3ga*

He is hurting the team with his threes. Hurting the team with his shooting pct. All he has to do is cut back on some threes. He is making 1-6 in his increase shooting since the trade. Why not turn some of those attempts into free throws? Get closer! Take it to the hoop!! I dare say we might have had a couple more wins had he done so!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> yes. however, none of that would have been a problem if he wasn't missing the shots in the first place. That's why it's important also to factor in the poor shooting and what caused it. Was it his ankle. Was it just a normal shooting slump. Was it adjusting to his new role. Was he wearing the wrong pair of socks. Was he high.


But his ankle was just one game. I do think his ankle caused the defense he played, in the last game. He normally gets over 2.6 steals a game. He didn't get any last game, but at the same time he did get 7 rebounds and 6 assists, so the ankle can't be blamed for those can it? I don't know.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> before trade.
> 
> ok before the trade, jamal played in 14 games of the 16. he was 76-182. 42%. That is very average if not below average! All four top scorers on the Utah Jazz all shoot a hell of a lot better pct than that. Threes? he was 21-50 42%. Not bad.
> ...


well add up the numbers of before he moved over to sg fulltime in the Bucks game and you will see a different story .And prior to the trade Jamal was raising his shooting averages but then his role changed and then he settled in again and his role changed again now.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> well add up the numbers of before he moved over to sg fulltime in the Bucks game and you will see a different story .And prior to the trade Jamal was raising his shooting averages but then his role changed and then he settled in again and his role changed again now.


I will go and check! Thanks.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> But his ankle was just one game. I do think his ankle caused the defense he played, in the last game. He normally gets over 2.6 steals a game. He didn't get any last game, but at the same time he did get 7 rebounds and 6 assists, so the ankle can't be blamed for those can it? I don't know.


Just as a note, to my eyes Jamal is still not such a great man defender, but he is becoming MUCH better at hopping in passings lanes and getting steals this way. Whereas man defense is more important (I think it is more important to lock down your man for a whole game Artest style as opposed to jump in passing lanes and grab stray balls Iverson style), this improvement must be noted, and it has lead to some fast break points in games we have won.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> what's your explanation for his shooting to such a drastic downturn--if not shooting slump then what


I think he's streaky is all. And it doesn't help that he's the #1 goto guy on a team without a clear #2 who can take over the scoring burden on nights when he doesn't have it.

Statistically, Jamal's stats suffer from a sort of reverse padding. When he doesn't have his shot, he should defer to someone else. There is nobody else, so he shoots. Shooting 27 times when you're off is going to make your FG% go way down. Shooting 12 times when you're off isn't going to have nearly the effect.

People do have a valid point that when his shot is off, he needs to contribute in every other way possible. Getting to the FT line is one way, stepping up the defense is another. Moving without the ball is yet another.


----------



## Parabull (Nov 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> yes. however, none of that would have been a problem if he wasn't missing the shots in the first place. That's why it's important also to factor in the poor shooting and what caused it. Was it his ankle. Was it just a normal shooting slump. Was it adjusting to his new role. Was he wearing the wrong pair of socks. Was he high.


I think it's adjusting to his new role. Skiles is telling him that he's the go-to scorer, and Jamal has taken that freedom and run with it a little too much. Whether or not he's in a shooting slump, he's taking a few too many shots, especially threes. He needs to move the ball more, even if he is our primary option on offense.

It's like a kid leaving home for college for the first time: intoxicated with freedom, running around doing too much cause there are way less rules. Skiles kills the triangle and gives Jamal the green light, and Jamal is trying too hard to get 30 ppg.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> well add up the numbers of before he moved over to sg fulltime in the Bucks game and you will see a different story .And prior to the trade Jamal was raising his shooting averages but then his role changed and then he settled in again and his role changed again now.


As our starter at pg. And I m talking about shooting pct only. And I will add fts. But will not point out assists, steals , t/o. Nor defense. ( the person who he guarded)

Starting pg before the trade:

First five games until the NO game. 

41% 43% in threes. 18.2 pts a game. 13-16 from free throw line! 
We were 2-3. Jamal averaged: 7.8-19....he took 19 attempts!! In threes, 2-4.6. Nice! He should do that now instead of what he is doing! 

Losses of 25, 32, 30, 21. Only one of those teams were a playoff team from last year and they are struggling this year. Offensively he was getting his numbers, but he was not stopping anyone. Period. Neither was Rose. 


After benching:

might want to note, after his benching we were 2-1 first three games. NO and Boston wins. And we barely lost the minny game! The game he was hurt in. So we could have been 3-1. PIPPEN was the starting pg. 

Ok, I see your point and I will show the posters what you mean, but on the flip side of your point is the fact that as JC was "settling in" with his new role off of the bench, we had allowed, over 100pts a game in EVERY good scoring game he had. 

Jamal-23, lakers 101
jamal 19, kings 110
jamal 16 mavs 124
jamal 12, Spurs, 109. 

before those last four games off of the bench jamal had games of 6, 5, 5 then he was hurt. 

FG pct in this stretch. 43%! As a starter in five games he was 39-95. Coming off of the bench in 8 games he was 37-87. 
Threes? 12-33 as a bench player, 36%. So his three point shot has been getting worse every since the first five games he started!. 

FTs? 14-15. He had three games w/o a ft attempt. Less than 2 fta a game. 

So settling? That is up for the rest to decide. 

*Jamal is a career 41% shooter. 36% in threes. Looks like that is holding true to form. Those stats are counting what he has done up until now. And does everyone remember when he came off of the IR? He shot, 48% in those 23 games. What happened?*

As I said many times before. JC can be an elite player. I want him to be. So far, he is not.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats weak.
> ...


It has to do with the fact that you seemed to be saying legitimate criticisms were related to his "recent" play.

I'd argue that unless you consider recent his entire tenure with the Bulls, he's always played bad defense. I'd add to that that he's generally had poor shot selection, not taken it to the hold, shown a fear of contact, and suffered through a lot of poor shooting performances.

The point is, these aren't just "recent" criticisms. They're continuing criticisms that people have been harping on for three freakin years.


When in that post did I say anything rearding his defense or lack thereof in?



> There's a difference between saying "Jamal is playing poorly", and going to the extremes people have in this thread, such as suggesting the Bulls release him.


Who suggested that... maybe I missed it. I heard people suggest that we let him walk and use the money we would spend on him elsewhere, but that's a far cry from releasing him.

I also think the Wes Person comment has been taken WAY out of context (and purposefully) as has the Othella Harrington and 2nd round pick stuff.

Just because at varying times people have offered Harrington or a second round pick for Jamal doesn't suggest that anyone here has seriously argued those offers should be accepted. Likewise, C Blizzy clearly pointed out that he thinks Crawford has way more talent than Person, but given the current circumstances is not showing it. He's 100% right though... right now what we're getting from Jamal... we could get from Person. That doesn't mean they're equally productive in all circumstances, but it's clear that in this circumstance Jamal isn't being very productive.

Frankly, I'm sick of seeing people defending Jamal by using these three particular lines of thought. It's the same kind of thing you see all the time in politics... people repeat something enough to themselves and it becomes "the truth" even when in historical fact it never occured. It's a myth. And in this case, it is quite clear bull**** and the truth is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Jamal supporters make it out to be when they argue what's said here is an example of unfairness to him.

*Myth:* Jamal supporters say it's an example of people here's underappreciation for his talent that they'd trade him for a second round pick.

*Truth:* While another GM apparently thought so little of Crawford that he only offered a second round pick, I don't recall a poster here suggesting that offer should be accepted.

*Myth:* Jamal supporters say it's an example of people here's underappreciation for his talent that they'd trade him for a second round pick.

*Truth:* While another GM apparently thought so little of Crawford that he only offered Othella Harrington, I don't recall a poster here suggesting that offer should be accepted.

*Myth:* Jamal supporters say it's an example of people here's underappreciation for his talent that they compare him to Wes Person.

*Truth:* It's not that Jamal isn't more talented than Wes Person, but he's making such poor use of his talents and is so overmatched in the role of #1 (and only) option and as a defender that he's producing at about the level we might expect from Wes Person. Either he's got to make better use of his talents or he's got to be placed on a team that can make him the 2nd or 3rd option on offense and completely mask his defensive inadequacies... and there aren't many teams like that out there (it's certainly not the Bulls right now). Given the appropriate environment, he could thrive a la Toni Kukoc... or disapoint... a la Toni Kukoc. Right now, he's in a bad fit and it's showing.



> Its one thing to expect better from a guy. But dumping him for that fact would be somewhat myopic unless in doing so you manage to make the team better. Now, if there's a way to get rid of Crawford and improve the team, I say go for it. Until then, I think he's more of an asset than a problem.


I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> As our starter at pg. And I m talking about shooting pct only. And I will add fts. But will not point out assists, steals , t/o. Nor defense. ( the person who he guarded)
> ...


Prior to the trade Jamal was shooting 43% from and 38% from 3 

His first 4 games under skiles starting as a PG 

45% from 2 39% from 3 2.25 stls 3 rebs. 5,25 assists 3t/o's a game 


his last 5 starting as a SG 


31% from 2 19% from 3 2.4 stls 3.8 boards 6.2 assists 


teaching him how to be a sg is gonna take some time and some coaching its not gonna happen overnight.Clearly the numbers show that the changing of his role again has effected his play give him some time to adjust his game will pick up and his percentages and shot selection shall improve .


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> It has to do with the fact that you seemed to be saying legitimate criticisms were related to his "recent" play.
> ...


Where in my post did I say those were just recent criticisms?

My original post was about people in the time frame of about a week going from saying that the team shoul be built around Jamal and Kirk to saying we should get rid of him.

I guess nobody outright used the word "release", at least not in this thread. Even so, saying the Bulls should just let him go without compensation is nearly as dumb, unless you qualify it by saying that we should do so if he's offered some ridiculous number. It also shows that people don't know what they're talking about in that regard, because if we don't sign Crawford, its not gonna open up cap space. Sign and trade is a reasonable option, but again, what would we get for him?

I understand people losing patience, but what can you do? We have no real tradeable assets, and we have no cap space. If we traded one of the big C's, we'd be running the risk ofbeing left with a void in the middle, which seems to be the most difficult problem to contend with leaguewide. If we traded Crawford, what would we get? Since he's still on rookie wages, we won't get a player as good or better than him, so best case would probably be a draft pick. 

As I see it, we either have to wait it out a bit longer, or else if we make moves, they're probably going to be ones that result in us being even further away from the promised land than we already are.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I hope we can keep him with a 4-6 mil 5 year contract.

if it gets higher then that i'm not sure.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> Where in my post did I say those were just recent criticisms?


You didn't... my bad. I was mainly just taking off from that point onto some of the larger points in the thread... not just those mentioned by you... I should have been more careful


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Crawford needs to develop slashing capabilities before he is worth big money IMO... I think Gill is our best slasher on our team... how do you improve slashing skills? Isn't it instinct? I doubt Jamal will be able to develop them any better...

can anyone think of a player who had no slashing skills but then later developed them?


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> can anyone think of a player who had no slashing skills but then later developed them?


Allan Houston improved in that area over time.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The thing is, Jamal came into this league as a slasher. Then he blew out his knee and got a jump shot.

Kind of wonder if he's not protecting himself until he gets that first secure contract.

But there's really no profound reason why Jamal can't get to the bucket whenever he wants to. He's got the ball handling skills and quickness to do it. And the long arms to finish around the bucket over people. 7 Foot wingspan and all.

Allan Houston never really had these things going for him.

I think it's just a symptom of too much time in the triangle and the knee injury. The Triangle doesn't encourage penetration.(Especially the way we were running it). It encourages camping out on the perimeter and knocking down the open 3.

Skiles will get him fixed proper.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

We all say we want Jamal to penetrate, and we do. What we really DON'T say is that we want Jamal to penetrate and dunk the ball over someone's grill. Unfortunately, Jamal is simply not strong enough to do that consistently without risking serious injury. Thats one of the reasons I don't like the idea of him being a permanent sg this season. He doesn't have the physical strength to do it properly full time. I'd rather give him another offseason to add muscle before doing that. Once Jamal adds the strength he needs he should be dunking over people with some regularity and THAT is when we will see what he really is worth IMO.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Yeah that concept is nice ACE but what is to say that Jamal won't run off to Seattle or spend the whole summer at Rucker. He may say he will work hard this summer at adding strength but we have heard that before and look at what we have.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Yeah that concept is nice ACE but what is to say that Jamal won't run off to Seattle or spend the whole summer at Rucker. He may say he will work hard this summer at adding strength but we have heard that before and look at what we have.


He added 10lbs of muscle this offseason and was reportedly one of the ones who spent a lot of extra time in the Berto weight room. The Rucker games take a whole week out of an entire Summer. People place far too much signifigance on them. And when JC did "run off to Seattle" a couple of seasons ago it was to play with his mentor Gary Payton. Hardly a wasted offseason IMO.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

you know what i dont get? if jamal's mentor is GP, why is it that his defense isn't even a 1/4 of GP's D? I don't see how Craw's game even remotely resembles GP's game (before or after the Rose trade).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> you know what i dont get? if jamal's mentor is GP, why is it that his defense isn't even a 1/4 of GP's D? I don't see how Craw's game even remotely resembles GP's game (before or after the Rose trade).


I don't think JC's game DOES resemble GP's in any way. That still doesn't change the fact that GP has been a mentor to Jamal and they have worked out together since Jamal was in HS.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If he has worked out that much with GP then that means he must not listen to him either.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think JC's game DOES resemble GP's in any way. That still doesn't change the fact that GP has been a mentor to Jamal and they have worked out together since Jamal was in HS.


i'm not arguing that you did say that, simply noting the irony of it all. i know that jamal has worked out with GP, just like GP worked out with Kidd when he was younger.


----------

