# Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Not right now, anyway. Remembering the howling about Jamal missing the first half?

Here is the answer:



> "It's not about wins and losses right now,'' Skiles said. "It's about the level of effort and doing things the right way.
> 
> "I'm struggling to understand the last two efforts.''


So the question is, as JAF, and Rlucas and probably a few others said last night: *should a coach who isn't playing to win be allowed to keep his job?*

I await your answer.  

(reference:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=847087#post847087
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=847089#post847089


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Winning is the only thing.

In sports, that is.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

shoot, i say we extend his contract. these guys needed discipline back to the floyd days. cartwright was fired so we can bring in a disciplinarian. now that we have one youre gonna question his methods? the bulls need to learn to bust their asses and hustle. the wins will follow. and whoever doesnt buy into the gameplan needs to be traded.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Not right now, anyway. Remembering the howling about Jamal missing the first half?
> 
> Here is the answer:
> ...


absolutely not. and anyone who disagrees ought to get their head examined. He is paid lots of dollars to put a team on the floor capable of winning games. 17000 fans didnt pay good hard earned money to watch us teach lessons to a guy who made one mistake. they want to win. Would you go watch a game where you know that the coach was laying down? This isnt pro wrestling


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

how can we win, if the players are not executing the offense? Hap hazard, do your own thing? 

He needs to get their attention first. Then if they don't win doing what he says, then it is not their fault. They done what was expected. From what I get out of last nights game is the opposite is true.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> how can we win, if the players are not executing the offense? Hap hazard, do your own thing?
> 
> He needs to get their attention first. Then if they don't win doing what he says, then it is not their fault. They done what was expected. From what I get out of last nights game is the opposite is true.


Where we winning when they were playing Skiles way? No not really. The Bulls ought to give the 17000 fans last night there money back


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> absolutely not. and anyone who disagrees ought to get their head examined. He is paid lots of dollars to put a team on the floor capable of winning games. 17000 fans didnt pay good hard earned money to watch us teach lessons to a guy who made one mistake. they want to win. Would you go watch a game where you know that the coach was laying down? This isnt pro wrestling


rlucas, then what do you thin kabout teams that suspend their own palyers for violating team rules? should those be ignored as well? a pro organization has certain expectatinos for its players, and knowlege of plays is one of those expectations. how else is a coach supposed to do their job if he's not at liberty to bench his player for not executing????


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas, then what do you thin kabout teams that suspend their own palyers for violating team rules? should those be ignored as well? a pro organization has certain expectatinos for its players, and knowlege of plays is one of those expectations. how else is a coach supposed to do their job if he's not at liberty to bench his player for not executing????


if a player spits at a fan, then he should be suspended. But if a player runs one play wrong, should the paying fans be penalized? Like i said last night, what Skiles did was take a shot at JC. But was the blame all JCs? AD had 3 boards. 3 ****ing boards! Why wasnt he sitting? If your going to be a disclipinarian over one screwup, why not atleast be consistent about it?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I can't fault what SKiles did. Crawford looked like he was playing ok but if directly after a time out he wasn't doing what Skiles said then he deserved to take a seat. I do think perhaps leaving him out the whole first half was a bit excessive. But I trust that Skiles knows what he is doing. I do think Crawford's second half effort was pretty darn good though.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I fully agree with Skiles for sitting jamal .He looks at jamal as his "star " on his team now and he needs him tuned in for 48 minutes because when as much as people will hate this but as Jamal goes so goes the Bulls .

Right now Skiles and Pax have realized they dont have the neccessary weapons in place due to injuries but the attitude and the effort has to be there.He is essentially rebuilding this team from the ground up attitude wise and thus winning is not as important of going for that lose ball or running back on defense or execution .

Even though we are missing some serious talent from our roster Skiles and pax believes that if we focus on doing those things then the wins will take care of themselves.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

as far as we know, and from I personally observed, AD was still busting his ***. Yeah, he didn't have much in the stats to show for it, but he was still fighting for rebounds, setting picks, in position on plays, etc. Jamal and ERob got benched for failure to be prepared to play. It was a message obviously and one that rings loud and clear. Learn the plays, bust your ***, or youre gonna find your way out. At this level there is no excuse to not know your plays or be prepared for a game.

I'm out to lunch nwo.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

You win games by playing team ball and playing the game the right way. I guarantee you that Jamals benching 4 mins. into last nights game had very little to do with his missing his floor position on one play. That was simply the straw that broke the camels back. Cartwright saw the potential in Crawford and it appears as if Skiles does also. The problem here isn't the coach and for all you Crawford apologists you need to take a good look in the mirror because he's had three coaches who have all tried to make him into the player he's capable of and so far all three have failed. Is that a problem with the coaching? I don't think so. It seems to me the tune has been the same regardless of whether its been Floyd, Cartwright or Skiles. Play hard on both sides of the ball and play within the system.

I've read enough about Skiles to know that he wants to win above all else. I also believe he, like Cartwright and even Floyd before him, know what needs to be done in order to get the Win. You've got to get thru to your players somehow and if periodically benching Jamal because he loses focus and tends to leave the team structure from time to time is what needs to be done, then so be it. He doesn't really seem to respond to much of any other motivation.

Skiles is right. Winning isn't the important thing. It's HOW you win. I tell this to my employees and my customers: I'm not in business to make money. I'm in business to provide for my customers. If I can do that (provide a valuable service) to my customers, I don't have to worry about making money. You do the former, the latter just falls into place.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> as far as we know, and from I personally observed, AD was still busting his ***. Yeah, he didn't have much in the stats to show for it, but he was still fighting for rebounds, setting picks, in position on plays, etc. Jamal and ERob got benched for failure to be prepared to play. It was a message obviously and one that rings loud and clear. Learn the plays, bust your ***, or youre gonna find your way out. At this level there is no excuse to not know your plays or be prepared for a game.
> 
> I'm out to lunch nwo.


I think it was True Blue that pointed out that Mr Busting His *** has a grand Total of 7 rebounds in his last 2 games. I believe that is the number True Blue said. now, if we are being consistent, and guys who arent doing there jobs should sit because we are not in the business of winning, then why isnt AD sitting? Favoritism? probably. this is one reason that Skiles has not one fan from his days as a coach in Phoenix. And why it will be a miracle if he finishes his contract out with the Bulls


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Where we winning when they were playing Skiles way? No not really. The Bulls ought to give the 17000 fans last night there money back


REally??? You can't be serious can you? My, how sports has changed! Back in the day, a long time ago, the coach ran the team. He had a style he wanted played. He had plays he wanted players to learn and they busted their buts in practice. You didn't do what was expected? You sat until you got it. I witnesses a lot of this on the HS level and saw a lot of it in the ABA and NBA. You don't have it one night the coach puts in a player that does! you don't run the plays the way it is to be expected, you set. bob knight did this many times and he is just one example. At the height of his coaching you couldn't fault his approach. Fromwhat I am seeing is, JC pretty much does what JC wants to do. BC couldn't get through to him. Now Skiles in practice couldn't either. What do you expect a coach to do? What? You need organization! You need players who are coachable. Is JC coachable? So far I have my doubts!! 

No. He did the right thing last night. He wanted players who Had a clue on what to do. You see why he was pulled? The play he wanted ran was not ran. Quick T/o. They went back out and JC was in the wrong place! He didn't know the play! I am sure this was not the first time he had done this nor the first time Scott had talked to him about it! JC didn't know the play. Whose fault is that? Not Scotts! He needed to get his attention in a way JC could understand because it wasn't working before!! He sat him down! BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! I mean it was not like JC has to learn a ton of plays! Scotts offense is simple right now. Just a handful of plays! 

Fans get their money back? I am all for it! But not at the expense of Skiles!! The players need to fork it over!! I am serious! I am tired, tired, Tired! of seeing posters blame Floyd, JK, BC, Meyers, and now skiles. The players, don't get it. Some don't try!! I want players who get it. I want players who try. I want players who play in TEAM structure! To allow otherwise is robbing the fans and us!! 

Skiles was right on!! I hope if need be he does it again if he has to! As for the winning? If you shoot 38% you can't win. So we let the players play street ball???


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> You win games by playing team ball and playing the game the right way. I guarantee you that Jamals benching 4 mins. into last nights game had very little to do with his missing his floor position on one play. That was simply the straw that broke the camels back. Cartwright saw the potential in Crawford and it appears as if Skiles does also. The problem here isn't the coach and for all you Crawford apologists you need to take a good look in the mirror because he's had three coaches who have all tried to make him into the player he's capable of and so far all three have failed. Is that a problem with the coaching? I don't think so. It seems to me the tune has been the same regardless of whether its been Floyd, Cartwright or Skiles. Play hard on both sides of the ball and play within the system.
> 
> I've read enough about Skiles to know that he wants to win above all else. I also believe he, like Cartwright and even Floyd before him, know what needs to be done in order to get the Win. You've got to get thru to your players somehow and if periodically benching Jamal because he loses focus and tends to leave the team structure from time to time is what needs to be done, then so be it. He doesn't really seem to respond to much of any other motivation.
> ...


Thank you. You said it better than I could.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> REally??? You can't be serious can you? My, how sports has changed! Back in the day, a long time ago, the coach ran the team. He had a style he wanted played. He had plays he wanted players to learn and they busted their buts in practice. You didn't do what was expected? You sat until you got it. I witnesses a lot of this on the HS level and saw a lot of it in the ABA and NBA. You don't have it one night the coach puts in a player that does! you don't run the plays the way it is to be expected, you set. bob knight did this many times and he is just one example. At the height of his coaching you couldn't fault his approach. Fromwhat I am seeing is, JC pretty much does what JC wants to do. BC couldn't get through to him. Now Skiles in practice couldn't either. What do you expect a coach to do? What? You need organization! You need players who are coachable. Is JC coachable? So far I have my doubts!!
> ...


Are you telling me sitting out JC was the best way to win last nights game? please be real. The fans pay to watch competition. Problems like that get taken care of in house, not in front of everyone. I guarantee this board will not be riding Skiles jock at this time next year. The point that I have made is this, and yet has been proven, what did Jamal do that was so bad that AD hasnt done in the last 2 games?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i agree the common demoniator is Jamal. perhaps he should go. but dont tell me skiles is right either. it will be very interesting to see all the Jamal haters loving him the next time he gets 30.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*"winning isn't everything its the only thing."*

thats is the much ballyhood quote from lombardi

and it was him being misquoted 

what he meant was "the effort that goes into winning wasn't everything it was the only thing"

and he was right on that if the players are shirking their responsiblities then play someone who won't.

its that simple .

the players have an obligation to do thier best and if not well then there should be a problem, part of doing your best is preparation another part is effort and some of it is simply attempting to do things the way you are told to do them .

if robinson and crawford aren't adhering to it then skiles has the right to be a disiplinaian and i for one will cheer that on 

i dont want to just see my team win i want it to be enjoyable and i do want the games to be well played also.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> So the question is, as JAF, and Rlucas and probably a few others said last night: *should a coach who isn't playing to win be allowed to keep his job?*


Yes, at least initially.

Like it or not, Skiles was not brought into this organization to win games. Scott Skiles has an exempliary reputation of being a disciplinarian, motivator and having awesome preparation skills and work ethic. 

That is why Scott Skiles was brought into the Chicago Bull organization, and that was to teach our team something that Bill Cartwright could not. Had Cart had these capabilities, he would still be the coach of the Chicago Bulls today IMO.

Scott Skiles, like it or not, has probably a 2 season buffer zone to get his objectives accomplished with that being the rest of this season and the entire season next year. As stated by Sam Smith before his hiring, Skiles was considered to be a transitional coach for the Chicago Bulls. 

That's just my take on things.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Skiles stated in his post game press conference last night that his objective at this moment is to find out who has the ability to play ball in May and June. 

That tells me that he's clearly attempting to sort the wheat from the chaff as far as the roster's concerned. Just guessing here, but with the February trade deadline approaching I'd say he's trying to determine who's a keeper and who could and perhaps should be dealt.

I think Skiles considers winning a by-product of combining talent and effort with intelligent, diciplined play.

Its becoming clearer as time goes on that Skiles has certain standards of excellence he demands from his players. He's been trying hard not to ram those standards down anyone's throats so far. But I think we're beginning to see the subtle approach come to an end.

You know, its interesting. A number of people were very angry last night because Skiles benched Crawford and Robinson for failing to execute a play properly. A few fans on this board expressed their opinions of his coaching ability in some very harsh terms.

After the game, Fox Sports interviewed Jerry Sloan. He also talked a little bit about effort and dicipline. As an example of the kind of standards he applies to his team he stated that if he sees one of his players take the floor with his strings or shirt not tucked in properly he'll bench him because in his opinion that individual is not prepared to play.

Now I'm going to guess that most knowledgeable basketball fans have a great deal of respect for Jerry Sloan as an NBA coach. If he's prepared to bench a player for failure to dress out properly, why is it considered so outrageous for Skiles to have benched players for failing to properly execute a play that was described only moments before during a timeout?

The Bulls aren't good enough to take the floor and win games on pure talent. There has to be dicipline. There has to be effort. Until those things become second nature, expecting victory is almost like puting the cart before the horse. Maybe that's why he's searching for things other than just wins right now. To think he's not interested in winning every game is rediculous. But I think he knows that winning a few and losing a few isn't an acceptable standard. He wants to win and win consistently. And some things need to be handled before that goal can be achieved, that's all.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you telling me sitting out JC was the best way to win last nights game? please be real. The fans pay to watch competition. Problems like that get taken care of in house, not in front of everyone. I guarantee this board will not be riding Skiles jock at this time next year. The point that I have made is this, and yet has been proven, what did Jamal do that was so bad that AD hasnt done in the last 2 games?


I am real. Answer this? What good does it do for the team if JC does not play with the rest of them? Long term, what scott did last night was for the good of the team. We lose with JC doing his thing, why not lose without him! If JC is "excused" for not knowing the plays, for not running the plays, what about the rest of the players? Where is the discipline? 

He was not benched for poor shooting. He was playing his own game!! I refuse to blame Skiles for this. Rlucas this is the third coach! Third! That has had some type of problem getting through to JC. And what happens if we fire Skiles and another coach sits JC? Then what? Fire him? When does it matter to hold JC accountable? Team structure!! Comes first. Discipline! No JC. 

As for AD. He has had two bad games on rebounding. Could be somthing to watch. But as far as I know AD is where he was suppose to be in the offense! And that is what this was all about.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> You win games by playing team ball and playing the game the right way. I guarantee you that Jamals benching 4 mins. into last nights game had very little to do with his missing his floor position on one play. That was simply the straw that broke the camels back. Cartwright saw the potential in Crawford and it appears as if Skiles does also. The problem here isn't the coach and for all you Crawford apologists you need to take a good look in the mirror because he's had three coaches who have all tried to make him into the player he's capable of and so far all three have failed. Is that a problem with the coaching? I don't think so. It seems to me the tune has been the same regardless of whether its been Floyd, Cartwright or Skiles. Play hard on both sides of the ball and play within the system.
> 
> I've read enough about Skiles to know that he wants to win above all else. I also believe he, like Cartwright and even Floyd before him, know what needs to be done in order to get the Win. You've got to get thru to your players somehow and if periodically benching Jamal because he loses focus and tends to leave the team structure from time to time is what needs to be done, then so be it. He doesn't really seem to respond to much of any other motivation.
> ...


fl_flash is 100% correct. If benching JCraw last night cost us a few points, and perhaps the game (the way the team as a whole played, I don't have confidence we would have won anyway) but the benching contributes to finally getting through to Jamal that he has to play Skiles' way, it was completely worth it. Robinson needs to get the same message. And I hope Eddy Curry took notice as well.

The purpose behind bring Pip here was to show this team by example how to play like professionals -- hustling on both sides of the court, taking care of the body, playing all out in practice. Its too bad his knee gave out, because the kods could have learned a lot. Now its up to Skiles to beat the message in their heads. It is relatively easy to eek out a career as an OK player in the NBA. These guys all have size and talent. It takes a lot of extra work to be a _champion_ caliber NBA player.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, at least initially.
> ...


if Skiles wasnt brought in to win games, then why bring him in at all? heck, GB could come in and sit Jamal down. You dont pay a man millions to lose.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> if Skiles wasnt brought in to win games, then why bring him in at all? heck, GB could come in and sit Jamal down. You dont pay a man millions to lose.


Did you read a thing I said?

He was brough into to instill preparation, work ethic, effort and all of those other things ball players should be able to do on their own but can't because they've been pampered since their 4th grade AAU team.

This NBA isn't the NBA of the 80s where everyone on a team could flatout play... hell, this ain't the NBA of the 90s, either. Just a fact of NBA life.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I am real. Answer this? What good does it do for the team if JC does not play with the rest of them? Long term, what scott did last night was for the good of the team. We lose with JC doing his thing, why not lose without him! If JC is "excused" for not knowing the plays, for not running the plays, what about the rest of the players? Where is the discipline?
> ...


like i said, Jamal might have to go. i dont argue with that. but If Skiles is going to rant off some BS that everyone is starting with an even plate, then he better stick by it. he already has lied to the players on that. AD has had 7 rebounds in the last 2 games. kirk has more i bet. Maybe even Jamal. Lets see, Cleveland scored at will in the paint against us. CLEVELAND FOR GODS SAKE. When you get outhustled by Ostertag, you know you have trouble. So Skiles needs to be consistent. 

Im keeping a long list of comments on this thread and from last night. The next time JC goes off and scores a ton and leads the Bulls to a win, this board will change on a dime. i guarantee that. perhaps at that time ill remind some of you of the yin yang that goes on in life


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am being hard on JC because I think he can be special. But he has to listen and do the things required. He has to play within structure. He has to play disciplined. Benching him was not about one game and for Gods sake Scott is not to be fired over it. It was for the good of JC, long term if, he learns from it.

Actually JC was ok with this in a post game comment on ESPN1000. So if he was ok, (at least he said the right thing about it) then we as fans should not be calling for Scotts head at this time.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you read a thing I said?
> ...


and i dont agree. you bring in good coaches to win games. so are we saying Skiles cant coach, but he sure knows how to teach a kid a lesson? Well, get rid of the players if they are so bad. i have no problem with that. But know that we said the same thing about Artest and Miller before we dealt them away. And we are saying the same things about Curry and Crawford now. I dont see Phil Jackson taking this angle with a guy like Rodman. You fine a guy, you do it behind close doors. How many times did Phil sit Rodman out for a half? If Skiles doesnt want to win, then go and coach HS ball, please.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I am real. Answer this? What good does it do for the team if JC does not play with the rest of them? Long term, what scott did last night was for the good of the team. We lose with JC doing his thing, why not lose without him! If JC is "excused" for not knowing the plays, for not running the plays, what about the rest of the players? Where is the discipline?
> ...


everyone loves to blame floyd for JC's start in the nba 

i never bought it and i'll tell you why 

JC was playing at about 168lbs.

he was raw for someone coming out after 1 year and being a 1 and out guy the expectations are that he was going to be raw.

JC wasn't ready at least not as ready as el-amin guyton and bryce drew so he didn't play much. at the end of the season he started to play better and conversely more ...then blew out his knee .

after which he missed over 2/3 of the next season by which time he did start playing floyd wasn't the coach

he never really had a shot under floyd and to be honest he didn't deserve it.

as for carwright he had to play williams , but as the season came to a close it was obvious who was the bigger reason for optimism between jay and JC 

but mr.bill is gone now too and skiles is here and now people are making it out to be much bigger than it is 

with players you have to take the good with the bad and for JC some of the bad is that he needs to be coached , someone has to stay on him and help him define his role , i dont have a problem with that


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> The point that I have made is this, and yet has been proven, what did Jamal do that was so bad that AD hasnt done in the last 2 games?


After timeout Jamal was not in the correct spot on court. This get Skiles mad. According to David Shuster, Bulls are running around 6 plays. Let me ask you this, how hard it must be to memorized them? 6 simple plays!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> After timeout Jamal was not in the correct spot on court. This get Skiles mad. According to David Shuster, Bulls are running around 6 plays. Let me ask you this, how hard it must be to memorized them? 6 simple plays!


and he still must be doing something right cause he has about as many boards over the last 2 games as AD does. 10 boards vs 7. Not bad for a kid who cant do anything right and gives up 5 inches and 65 lbs. If your going to sit JC down, sit AD down as well. Be consistent.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Not right now, anyway. Remembering the howling about Jamal missing the first half?
> 
> Here is the answer:
> ...


My answer is that I hate simplistic questions.

I know it's really easy to think in linear patterns, but the world isn't linear. Sometimes the cost of a victory now would be two losses later. Sometimes it's entirely unclear. To creditably pose a question like the one above, you're already implying an answer.

To even seriously pose the question, you have to commit yourself to the belief that:
1) The actions changed the outcome last night
2) The actions will not (or will not favorably) change the outcomes in the future.

Answer
1) I think we lost last night with and without Jamal.
2) I think if there is any future effect, it will be favorable.
3) As long as what actually happens is in accord with 1 and 2, I could give a rat about what anyone says.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> like i said, Jamal might have to go. i dont argue with that. but If Skiles is going to rant off some BS that everyone is starting with an even plate, then he better stick by it. he already has lied to the players on that. AD has had 7 rebounds in the last 2 games. kirk has more i bet. Maybe even Jamal. Lets see, Cleveland scored at will in the paint against us. CLEVELAND FOR GODS SAKE. When you get outhustled by Ostertag, you know you have trouble. So Skiles needs to be consistent.
> ...


Lets focus here rlucas. This is about team play. Not 7 rebounds AD got. not about 7-27 shooting by JC the game before. As far as I know, antonio was in the proper place on offense. The reason for last night was JC was not in the place he was suppose to be!! This came right after a t/o! Right after it. He never listened and never did what was rquired of him. 

Keep account of the injury? So nothing we say is right? We are wrong to demand JC to listen to his coaches and do the things required to make him a complete player? It is ok for JC not to play team ball? Ok then! I want my bulls players to be as good as they can be. I wil, cheer when they do well. But I am tired of giving excuses and blaming everyone else when they don't. If they can be talked about in a good light, so can their shortcomings. Can't sugar coat it.

On the post game show last night. Jerry Sloans name came up. His practices are brutal. Always have been. What do you think Jerry would have done with JC last night if he was our coach? I cannot see Jerry letting players do their own thing. I cannot see Jerry telling JC in the huddle about what he did not do on the last play and what he expects him to do next and JC not doing it, to just let it go! He has structure, he demands D, he demands effort and I bet you better know your plays! If jerry would have sat JC last night would you be calling for his head? I know You don't think much of Scott as a coach and you might say he is no Jerry sloan, but if you do, you missed my point. When....when do we insist that our players listen to and do what a coach says. When do we blame them? Praise them when they do good! But don't blame others when they don't! And when they don't try! To me. not being in the proper place in an offense play is not trying. 

I have said all I am going to say on this. Keep a score if you must, but that does not change the fact that excuses have got to stop for all of our younger players. The coaches are not to blame. And even if you want to throw in AD, go ahead, I won't defend him anymore. 

Sure we ill cheer for him when he does well that is fans do!!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> My answer is that I hate simplistic questions.
> ...


who knows if we win last night or not. But didnt we have 35 points at half? There is your ball game folks. Probably lost the game cause there was no scoring out there. Brunson got a free pass even though Stevenson lighted him up. Jamal wouldnt have done worse. That game is a much closer game if Jamal plays.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you telling me sitting out JC was the best way to win last nights game? please be real. The fans pay to watch competition. Problems like that get taken care of in house, not in front of everyone. I guarantee this board will not be riding Skiles jock at this time next year. The point that I have made is this, and yet has been proven, what did Jamal do that was so bad that AD hasnt done in the last 2 games?


I think you're off the mark on this one, rlucas. Don't tell us you think that an unprepared, free-wheeling Jamal who doesn't know or run the plays gives the bulls the best chance to win. Jamal isn't Michael Jordan...he isn't good enough to win his own way, and he's not experienced enough to even know what "his way" is, anyway. Even Kobe Bryant isn't that good. The Lakers struggle (relatively speaking of course) when he starts breaking plays and freelancing.

How else was Skiles supposed to react other than to sit him down? You can't have a pow-wow with a player in the middle of a game as the head coach. Skiles did what he did and Jamal at least publicly claimed to understand the move - and his effort improved when he was brought back in!

Skiles's "it's not about wins" comment is being harped upon, but I think benching Jamal, given how he was playing, might have improved the team's chances to win, and long-term, maybe Jamal will be a better player and teammate as a result of this incident. I'm not counting on it, though. This is the 3rd coach that has grown frustrated with Jamal.

There's also a distinction between AD and Jamal's contributions. AD may not have been doing his best work on the boards, but I'll bet he was still running the plays, setting picks, playing solid post defense. There's a difference between AD's poor production and Jamal's...1-12 from 3pt? Cmon. I know shooters are supposed to shoot their way out of slumps, but that's just crazy. AD may be playing poorly, but he's not the one who basically can't remember Skiles's playbook on some nights.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Lets focus here rlucas. This is about team play. Not 7 rebounds AD got. not about 7-27 shooting by JC the game before. As far as I know, antonio was in the proper place on offense. The reason for last night was JC was not in the place he was suppose to be!! This came right after a t/o! Right after it. He never listened and never did what was rquired of him.
> ...


This is the best post ever! Bravo TrueBlueFan!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Lets focus here rlucas. This is about team play. Not 7 rebounds AD got. not about 7-27 shooting by JC the game before. As far as I know, antonio was in the proper place on offense. The reason for last night was JC was not in the place he was suppose to be!! This came right after a t/o! Right after it. He never listened and never did what was rquired of him.
> ...


We will see. If people are going to have jobs, then everyone is accountable. Was jamal wrong? ofcourse he was, perhaps. It sounded like he was 3 steps out of position if you ask me. But Jamals job is to score. They gave him that job. ADs job is to play defense and rebound. Lets see, has he done either? So focus on that for a second. This isnt about young players, this is about people being held accountable to their role. And if your going to start on an even slate, then AD should have been perched right next to Jamal on the bench last night. Let me remind people that the same things being said about Jamal and Eddy were being said about Ron and Brad. They left, got good coaching (well Isiah is soso), good guidance (Petrie and Walsh) and blossomed. Should Jamal go? maybe. he is the constant denominator. I agree. But be prepared to see him shine elsewhere.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> who knows if we win last night or not. But didnt we have 35 points at half? There is your ball game folks. Probably lost the game cause there was no scoring out there. Brunson got a free pass even though Stevenson lighted him up. Jamal wouldnt have done worse. That game is a much closer game if Jamal plays.


You have a good point. If Skiles needed to bench JC and explain what he did wrong, why leave him out an ENTIRE half? That seems a bit like overkill. I don't think Jamal intentionally disrespected what play his coach called. I would wager a guess that he simply misunderstood and went to the wrong spot. I think if he WILLFULLY and intentionally ran something other than what he was just told to run he would have sat on the bench and not gotten back up.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> You have a good point. If Skiles needed to bench JC and explain what he did wrong, why leave him out an ENTIRE half? That seems a bit like overkill. I don't think Jamal intentionally disrespected what play his coach called. I would wager a guess that he simply misunderstood and went to the wrong spot. I think if he WILLFULLY and intentionally ran something other than what he was just told to run he would have sat on the bench and not gotten back up.


jamal is a good kid who does nothing then praise Skiles. Do you think he intentionally screwed up? Good point Ace. and if he wasnt being malicious, why single him out? We will never know. But its interesting how everyone here blames Jamal for everything, when in fact we lost to Cleveland cause we have zero inside defense, even after paxs great trade, and we lost to Utah cause we cant rebound. Doesnt sound like Jamals fault to me. So why arent we picking on AD, or Fizer, or Blount, or anyone else for that matter?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Was Jamal's lesson harsh? Hell yeah it was. And it might have cost us the game. But if it lights a fire under ERob and Jamal and they get their heads our of their a$$es then all the better. I fail to understand why the move is being questioned. ERob and Jamal both came back in and looked alive. ERob was jumping at loose balls, Jamal was chasing thru screens, and above all, both players understood where they erred.

Sloan we can speculate would have put his foot in someone's a$$ for doing that. How would Riley, Nelson, Wilkens, Van Gundy, Bird, etc. react? The NBA has changed drastically in the alst decade and I can't believe that we're here arguing the right of a coach to bench his "star".


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Crawford messed up and was rightfully benched but lets not get outrageous with the claims.Skiles said he already frustrated with the TEAM on their lack of execution it just so happened that Crawford and to an extent Erob became the first victims of his wrath.Its not another Crawford vs coach thing some of you are implying it was coach making examples of 2 players at a certain time .

Could this move have cost us the game ? YES

Was it neccessary ? YES 

Crawford will be a better more focused player from this which is what Skiles is trying to do .Both sides of this argument are taking it to the extreme Crawford shouldve been benched but its not as big of a deal as some are making it either .


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> jamal is a good kid who does nothing then praise Skiles. Do you think he intentionally screwed up? Good point Ace. and if he wasnt being malicious, why single him out? We will never know. But its interesting how everyone here blames Jamal for everything, when in fact we lost to Cleveland cause we have zero inside defense, even after paxs great trade, and we lost to Utah cause we cant rebound. Doesnt sound like Jamals fault to me. So why arent we picking on AD, or Fizer, or Blount, or anyone else for that matter?


This board does its fair share of Fizer bashing and Blount is well, Blount. And I still maintain that AD didn't do anything wrong. He can step up, but he's in position, fighting for boards, and helping on D. Not sure why he's not grabbing boards.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> jamal is a good kid who does nothing then praise Skiles. Do you think he intentionally screwed up? Good point Ace. and if he wasnt being malicious, why single him out? We will never know. But its interesting how everyone here blames Jamal for everything, when in fact we lost to Cleveland cause we have zero inside defense, even after paxs great trade, and we lost to Utah cause we cant rebound. Doesnt sound like Jamals fault to me. So why arent we picking on AD, or Fizer, or Blount, or anyone else for that matter?


Thats a good topic for discussion. I think anytime that Jamal isn't "on his game" he is going to be the scapegoat no matter what anyone else does. So many posters on this board only think of Jamal as a "streetballer" all because he played in ONE Rucker park tourney and has great handles. A lot of people here just really dislike Jamal. I'm not sure why, he usually says the right things and he certainly isn't nearly as bad as certain people make him out to be. You would think from reading the posts that he never passed to a teamate, never ran the offense, and just jacked up a contested shot from three point land every possession. You would think that he never played ANY defense at all and in fact stopped off over at the bench for a quick spot of water when the the Bulls transition to defense. In fact Jamal is slowly getting better at defense and I think he had 2 steals last night and did a nice job on his man. Hinrich actually looked a step slow on Arroyo last night (except one post play that he handled beautifully). I think a lot of people just want to associate Jamal with "hip hop", "street ballin", "gangsta thug", and "Jay Z" type stuff because it makes things easier to understand for them. It gives them clear deliniation between who is a "good" player and who is a "bad" player.

Also, I said when we traded for Ad that AD is basically washed up. I think we are starting to see the honeymoon wear off and AD show his true colors now.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> This board does its fair share of Fizer bashing and Blount is well, Blount. And I still maintain that AD didn't do anything wrong. He can step up, but he's in position, fighting for boards, and helping on D. Not sure why he's not grabbing boards.


he is getting outplayed big time by scrubs. So if everyone is going to be held accountable, then why not AD? Is it cause he plays basketball and not streetball?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Interesting point about DeShawn Stevenson... he's a kid who's very similar to Jamal in a lot of ways. Basically straight out of high school, and has pretty much continuously been in Sloan's dog house for not playing smart.

Well, maybe it's finally sunk in... he looked pretty good last night.

Think he would look that good if Sloan just let him do whatever he helt like?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Interesting point about DeShawn Stevenson... he's a kid who's very similar to Jamal in a lot of ways. Basically straight out of high school, and has pretty much continuously been in Sloan's dog house for not playing smart.
> 
> Well, maybe it's finally sunk in... he looked pretty good last night.
> ...


Deshawn was another kid I thought the Bulls might have wanted to go after a couple of years ago. He sure looked to be getting things against us.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats a good topic for discussion. I think anytime that Jamal isn't "on his game" he is going to be the scapegoat no matter what anyone else does. So many posters on this board only think of Jamal as a "streetballer" all because he played in ONE Rucker park tourney and has great handles. A lot of people here just really dislike Jamal. I'm not sure why, he usually says the right things and he certainly isn't nearly as bad as certain people make him out to be. You would think from reading the posts that he never passed to a teamate, never ran the offense, and just jacked up a contested shot from three point land every possession. You would think that he never played ANY defense at all and in fact stopped off over at the bench for a quick spot of water when the the Bulls transition to defense. In fact Jamal is slowly getting better at defense and I think he had 2 steals last night and did a nice job on his man. Hinrich actually looked a step slow on Arroyo last night (except one post play that he handled beautifully). I think a lot of people just want to associate Jamal with "hip hop", "street ballin", "gangsta thug", and "Jay Z" type stuff because it makes things easier to understand for them. It gives them clear deliniation between who is a "good" player and who is a "bad" player.
> ...


I agree with you ace. he is ok for stretches. But we essentially have an over the hill max contract for 3 years who is going to produce sparingly. The genius of Pax. 

wasnt the first trade going to bring us JYD, MoPete and Alvin Williams? damn, can we get a re-do on that?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> jamal is a good kid who does nothing then praise Skiles. Do you think he intentionally screwed up? Good point Ace. and if he wasnt being malicious, why single him out? We will never know. But its interesting how everyone here blames Jamal for everything, when in fact we lost to Cleveland cause we have zero inside defense, even after paxs great trade, and we lost to Utah cause we cant rebound. Doesnt sound like Jamals fault to me. So why arent we picking on AD, or Fizer, or Blount, or anyone else for that matter?


Would you give it a rest? You keep harping on AD not getting any rebounds. How about the fact that as a team we've allowed the opposition to shoot better than 50% routinely? Not many rebound chances when the ball goes thru the hoop. What, exactly is Antonio Davis supposed to do when asked to stop the 7'3" Ilgauskas and then stop the 7'2" Ostertag. Those guys are huge and very good defensive rebounders. He gives it his best - that's what. You say you want to win - well what does sitting our only remaining inside rebounder do for ya? If Curry and Chandler play last night, the rebounding situation is completely different.

Folks here aren't necessarily blamining jamal for everything - as you put it. It seems pretty evident that the coach of the Bulls has gotten tired of Jamal not playing within the team structure. I'm pretty sure that had Davis gotten benched for something, we'd be all over it here. Why do you keep making excuses for the guy? This team has lots of problems right now but I assure you that Antonio Davis is not one of them.

You keep pontificating about playing the players that give you the best chance to win. Last time I checked, Curry, Chandler and Pippen were out.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you ace. he is ok for stretches. But we essentially have an over the hill max contract for 3 years who is going to produce sparingly. The genius of Pax.
> ...


Yeah, I agree. And I wasn't even so much worried about the Bulls giving up Rose. I, personally, would take Donyell Marshall over BOTH Ad & JYD about 99%of the time. ANd thats no knock on JYD because he is good at doing what he does...Marshall just does a whole lot more. 

If the trade had given us Mo Pete I wouldhave considered it a FAIR trade. My understanding is that Williams ankle problems meant that we lost interest in him and the complexion of the deal greatly changed after that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Interesting point about DeShawn Stevenson... he's a kid who's very similar to Jamal in a lot of ways. Basically straight out of high school, and has pretty much continuously been in Sloan's dog house for not playing smart.
> 
> Well, maybe it's finally sunk in... he looked pretty good last night.
> ...


First of all, just because your a disclipinarian (spelling), doesnt mean your the next Jerry Sloan. We are talking about one of the great basketball minds who has experience, longetivity and a high pain tolerance. he has thrown many guys off the floor but has come back. Skiles will probably forgive JC. But lets never utter the word Skiles and Sloan in the same sentence until SKiles proves something. So far, he hasnt. He quit on a team that was OVER 500 in Phoenix that had Jason Kidd. He doesnt have longetivity, or experience, or a high pain tolerance. And he hasnt proven that he has the X and Os yet. Sloan is the total package. But then again, the greatest coach of any of our generations is Phil Jackson. Ask yourself how he would have handled JC last night? Ill tell you one thing, JC wouldnt be sitting on the bench for 22 minutes. And JC would be better for it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

edit: this is in response to your post about how some people just don't like Jamal. I think there's truth to that, but...

I think the converse is also true, though, ace.

I think people defend Jamal and claim he was scapegoated sometimes when it was his own lack of effort or execution that got him there. On a young team that is still struggling to find any semblance of offensive rhythm, failing to run a diagrammed out of bounds play is simply inexcusable. Maybe benching Jamal for a whole half was overkill. Maybe Jamal has broken enough plays in the last couple games that Skiles just finally got fed up. I don't know - you'd have to ask Skiles, but making a point about that play is something that probably needed to be done. If Jamal hadn't botched it, he wouldn't have been benched. It's not a conspiracy.

Criticism of Jamal isn't automatically "hating". I don't think anyone would call truebluefan a Jamal-hater, but he is making many just criticisms of how Jamal has played. However, it's clear to almost everyone (KH and a few others excluded) that Jamal is extraordinarily talented, so why should he get a free pass for playing below expectations? Especially in his 4th year? It's becoming a long, tiresome cycle where he plays even better than we think he can for a stretch and then relapses again. When will it be steady?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Winning is the only thing.
> 
> In sports, that is.


This is all that needs to be said about this. Yes I like that Skiles wants to teach these guys to play a certain way. But at the end of the day that's the kool-aid we've been sold for the past 5 years. That winning wasn't important and player development was. I don't like the coach coming out and saying that winning isn't his primary focus.

Go look at Paul Silas' quotes with the Cavs. He has expected his team to win every night. He could give a flying **** about making Darius Miles rich. He was brought there to coach Lebron James and Lebron and Silas have one goal: to win. And if that means playing Ira Newble even after he gets in a shouting match with Silas, then that's what is going to be done.

We have what it takes to win basketball games right now. Jamal, Kirk, JYD, Davis and Gill is a good enough collection of players to win games like last night. Bottom line. We outscored them the second half. And would have likely won the game if we had played the best players in the first half.

Does Skiles need to sit Jamal for an entire half to get his message across? I doubt it. You sit him down, and yell at him. For 2 minutes. And then you put him right back in. You don't let your own ego get in the way of giving your team it's best chance to win. And if you think playing Rick Brunson, Chris Jeffries and Linton Johnson instead of Crawford is the way to victory, you need a reality check.

I think Skiles will right this ship. If he doesn't quit on us first. Waiving the white flag 2 minutes into the 1st quarter is pathetic. Skiles let his emotions get the best of him last night, and we see what happens when Skiles gets angry....He quits.

This job is as important to him as it is to our players. If Skiles quits on this job he will not get another head coaching job. He didn't really deserve this coaching job as there are plenty of assistants across the league, or former head coaches still involved in the game busting their ***, while Skiles was doing, what exactly? Paxson did Skiles a big favor. And it was because of his friendship with Cotton Fitzsimmons.(Anyone notice how Paxson likes to set up his friends a lot? It's a business John. You should have fired Cartwright in the offseason when we had a shot at a better coach. But you let friendship get in the way of doing your job properly.)

Anyhow. Bottom line. You play the games TO WIN. If that means playing a guy who doesn't practice very often(Eddie Robinson) or a guy like Marcus Fizer...then so be it.

I also don't think Skiles is being creative enough with the players we have. We need to start mixing up our lineups. Play 3 pg's if that's our 3 best peremiter players. Play 3 PF's. Do whatever. But WIN. That's all we care about as fans.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Would you give it a rest? You keep harping on AD not getting any rebounds. How about the fact that as a team we've allowed the opposition to shoot better than 50% routinely? Not many rebound chances when the ball goes thru the hoop. What, exactly is Antonio Davis supposed to do when asked to stop the 7'3" Ilgauskas and then stop the 7'2" Ostertag. Those guys are huge and very good defensive rebounders. He gives it his best - that's what. You say you want to win - well what does sitting our only remaining inside rebounder do for ya? If Curry and Chandler play last night, the rebounding situation is completely different.
> ...



and here we see a prime example of the double edge sword. You say why should we sit our remining inside rebounder do for us? i answer, what does siting the only guy who can get his own shot do for you? There is no excuses. read my posts. I said Jamal is part of the problem. But dont kid yourselves, Skiles didnt come here with an even slate. 

Oh and by the way, we could afford to lose AD far easier then Jamal. And since when have Ostertag and Z struck fear into anyone? Oh thats right, since AD started guarding them. He is getting killed by 2 stiffs essentially. THere is a reason teams are shooting 50% against us, and it is not all jamal. in the cleveland game it was our inside guys, and AD was the main culprit. where is the consistency?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> This is all that needs to be said about this. Yes I like that Skiles wants to teach these guys to play a certain way. But at the end of the day that's the kool-aid we've been sold for the past 5 years. That winning wasn't important and player development was. I don't like the coach coming out and saying that winning isn't his primary focus.
> ...


bingo!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Skiles 



> On pulling Jamal Crawford early:
> 
> *“I was just pretty frustrated. I told the guys that my patience was wearing thin on our lack of execution, and knowing our handful of simple plays. We blew a couple early and I called time out. We had a time out play and did not execute again. I started taking the guys out. I felt like we did not know what we were doing. That led to a poor 1st half. In the 2nd half, we played hard again. We really struggled to do it for a longer period. I've got to look at the big picture. At some point there are guys on the team that have to be able to play in May and June. The picture is we have to execute properly. I know it has only been three weeks, but there are some things we have gone over plenty in three weeks.” *


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/postgame_031222.html

Crawford response 



> *“I was in the wrong spot on offense. Coach told us his patience is wearing thin, and that is what happens when you are in the wrong spot.” *
> 
> _Is lack of practice affecting players' ability to know the offense?_
> 
> ...



I think people are blowing this out of proportion .Skiles was mad before the game over the lack of execution against the Cavs in the 4th that lost us the game and acted upon it this game .

It doesnt mean jamal is a rebel or cancer and it doesnt mean hes been scapegoated .


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Ok, so we lost the game yesterday because that idiot Skiles benched Crawford... Let's pretend he wasn't benched as long and we win the game. Are we now in prime position to have homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs? Are we in prime position to secure the number 8 spot in the playoffs? Don't you see, the only thing this team has to play for at this point are these moral victories. We're not going to the playoffs, we're trying to establish something here that might make the playoffs next year. This season is a wash. The Cavs thoroughly outplayed us the other night and TMac and the Magic look to be getting on track again. Arenas will be back for the Wiz soon. Guess where that leaves us? 

But on the plus side, I was completely impressed by Jamal's and ERob's reactions and post game comments. Jamal is a professional and good to see they both respect Skiles.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

2 hours, 4 pages. I'm stunned.

I'm going to enjoy reading this thread. Everyone stop posting till I catch-up.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

"The play that he drew up, I was supposed to go up to the top and I went to the wing," Crawford said. "It kind of ticked him off a little bit. It was frustrating to watch on the bench. But I respect Coach. He's only doing what he thinks is best for the team, so I'm not going to argue or whatever." 

"I've got love for him. I still like him as a person and as a coach. He's given me opportunities that no other coach has given me since I've been here, so I have to have respect." 

Crawford wasn't the only player punished Monday. Eddie Robinson also got a quick hook early in the second quarter. 

"Coach told us the good teams know the plays," Robinson said. "Rules are rules. If you don't know the plays, you sit out." 



(found this and thought it was relevant to the discussion. so basically Jamal was at the wing instead of top of the key)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Fans get their money back? I am all for it! But not at the expense of Skiles!! The players need to fork it over!! I am serious! I am tired, tired, Tired! of seeing posters blame Floyd, JK, BC, Meyers, and now skiles. The players, don't get it. Some don't try!! I want players who get it. I want players who try. I want players who play in TEAM structure! To allow otherwise is robbing the fans and us!!
> 
> Skiles was right on!! I hope if need be he does it again if he has to! As for the winning? If you shoot 38% you can't win. So we let the players play street ball???


Who are you and what did you do with Trueblue? 

Gotta love that passion...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> "I've got love for him. I still like him as a person and as a coach. He's given me opportunities that no other coach has given me since I've been here, so I have to have respect."


This says a lot to me. This is why I think people are getting out of hand with their blame of Jamal and talking about Skiles being really upset with just Crawford. I think they have a good relationship.

But how sad is that, that a coach that yanked Crawford like that for those reasons, is the best coach he's had since he's come to chicago.

You want to know why Jamal has had the problems he has had out their on the court, there is your answer.

Skiles will get him fixed up.

But just think of what could have been, if we had gotten a real head coach instead of staying in house with BC. BC was a good guy to have as an assistant working with our big guys, but it was a mistake to keep him on as coach. Paxson should have seen through his friendship long enough to realize that and fire Cartwright before the season started. By doing this in midseason he's cost us a ton of time.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Skiles stated in his post game press conference last night that his objective at this moment is to find out who has the ability to play ball in May and June.
> 
> That tells me that he's clearly attempting to sort the wheat from the chaff as far as the roster's concerned. Just guessing here, but with the February trade deadline approaching I'd say he's trying to determine who's a keeper and who could and perhaps should be dealt.
> ...


Post of the day.

I'm going to collect these and write a book.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> My answer is that I hate simplistic questions.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I would love to see Jerry Sloan get stuck with a superstar like Iverson.

My dream team for Sloan would be:
Iverson
Spreewell
Cassell
Rasheed Wallace
Shaq

That would be hilarious. With Ricky Davis as the 6th man.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Rlucas, your arguments about last night's game are very, very silly or at the very least, they need a little more nuance.

Taking the most short-term perspective of all, Skiles' job is to win as many games this season as is possible. If the Bulls can win more games by benching Crawford last night, then that is what he is being paid to do.

And it sounds like the problem with Crawford and Robinson is that they are not running the plays, and is certainly possible that instilling some discipline may result in more wins this season than doing everything to maximize the chances of winning last night. Davis, by comparison, might not be playing well, but it may very well be that he is running the plays.

One thing is clear. We can't even beat teams like Utah on talent alone, so until these guys accept some coaching, we are not going to win many games. So right now there is very, very little cost for making examples of certain players. Given that, games like last night are a perfect time to make it clear how the game is going to be played while Skiles is coach.

And yes, Skiles may not be around forever, but my guess is that if things don't go well, he will outlast at least two of the three Cs (Curry, Chandler, and Crawford).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> After the game, Fox Sports interviewed Jerry Sloan. He also talked a little bit about effort and dicipline. As an example of the kind of standards he applies to his team he stated that if he sees one of his players take the floor with his strings or shirt not tucked in properly he'll bench him because in his opinion that individual is not prepared to play.


Sloan gave a good interview. Right now Jerry Sloan is doing more with less than anyone else in the league, meaning he has taken a ragtag bunch that the preseason pundits predicted would finish last (especially after the loss of the two cornerstones of the franchise -- any Bulls fans know what THAT kind of loss can do to a team). Yet Sloan has them playing .500 ball in the much tougher Western Conference. How? He insists on intelligent, disciplined team play. He is 100% right in his philosophy and it is clear that Skiles is attempting to instill the same standards in this Bulls crew. Apparently, its going to take some tough love to get the message through to some of the thicker heads around here. I applaud his efforts. 

And yes, it helps Sloan that AK-47 is having a breakthrough season, but it is clear that he is willing and able to perform within Sloan's system.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

...I think one thing Sloan had going for him in Utah was that that team KNEW that they weren't stars. They know that they have to set every pick and make every cut like their future in the league depends on it if they want to win games and stay on the team.

For better or worse, people were talking about how good Eddy and Jamal and Tyson were all summer and they may very well have bought into that and subconsciously slacked off, thinking it would just _happen_. If people had been saying that the Bulls might challenge for worst record ever, like people were saying about the Jazz, their motivation/effort might have been different from the start.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*Telling quotes!*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> "The play that he drew up, I was supposed to go up to the top and I went to the wing," Crawford said. "It kind of ticked him off a little bit. It was frustrating to watch on the bench. But I respect Coach. He's only doing what he thinks is best for the team, so I'm not going to argue or whatever."
> 
> "I've got love for him. I still like him as a person and as a coach. He's given me opportunities that no other coach has given me since I've been here, so I have to have respect."
> ...


Thanks for the quotes. They are so telling about both Crawford and Robinson. These guys just REFUSE to acknowledge any truth by their coach or take personal responsibility for their own effort level. This is the third Chicago head coach who has sat them for their lack of effort on defense or lack of team focus on offense but somehow it is the coach's issue. Notice how they talk in general about coach's rules "If YOU dont make the plays.. YOU sit out" HEY ROBINSON!! THE "YOU" SHOULD BE TURNED TO AN "I"!! 

As for Crawford...what can I say. When asked about the benching, he mentions that even though he screwed up and got benched, and Coach "kinda got ticked", he STILL RESPECTS SKILES! Thanks Jamal, I for one was worried you would lose respect for Skiles b/c he benched you for your poor effort. I am sure Skiles is relieved also. .. 
As for the part of Skiles doing what HE THINKS is best for the team... What does Jamal think is best for the team?... him hoisting up 25 shots from half court per night and playing matador defense? What Jamal meant to say was " I am not going to whine to much b/c SKiles is letting me make like MJ every night. So if my play stinks and I get benched, I will let it slide...for now:sour: ". Ridiculous. This will never work with players being so self centered. I beleive Pax is looking at this and getting his @#[email protected] list together for the offseason. Count Crawford and Robinson on it.

Peace!


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*furthermore...*

Any Pschologists, or Psych majors in this forum? What do you make of the player comments? I think it is "passive/aggressive" stuff on the part of Crawford and Robinson.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> We will see. If people are going to have jobs, then everyone is accountable. Was jamal wrong? ofcourse he was, perhaps. It sounded like he was 3 steps out of position if you ask me. But Jamals job is to score. They gave him that job. ADs job is to play defense and rebound. Lets see, has he done either? So focus on that for a second. This isnt about young players, this is about people being held accountable to their role. And if your going to start on an even slate, then AD should have been perched right next to Jamal on the bench last night. Let me remind people that the same things being said about Jamal and Eddy were being said about Ron and Brad. They left, got good coaching (well Isiah is soso), good guidance (Petrie and Walsh) and blossomed. Should Jamal go? maybe. he is the constant denominator. I agree. But be prepared to see him shine elsewhere.


Lol dang you! i wasn't going to say any more because I have said all there is to say but quickly. 

1. Yes! JC job is to score. But not to Rove all over the place as he sees fit. Especially after a time out. 

2. Being held accountable for their roles! JC included! 

3. I am not calling for JC to go. Just play the way the coach wants.
Do you think Brad and Ron are playing outside of the offensive scheme of things? I mean if you are going to compare, answer that? Does Ron play just any old way he wants? Does Brad? I highly doubt it. JC should not be allowed to do that. If so, then why have a coach at all? Just hand five players the ball and say ok you four do this but watch JC. He can do whatever the hell he wants, just do your best to look for a pass if he passes it. Try not to run into him because I have no idea where he will be. 

Once again, praise him when need to be. Give him the credit when deserved, but do not blame everyone else when he does things like this. That is wrong. To call for Skiles head because of JC not listening to him? please....

It is sad it had to come in a game!! JC sure isn't listening in practice. 

I really am through with this this time. Really.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>genex</b>!
> Any Pschologists, or Psych majors in this forum? What do you make of the player comments? I think it is "passive/aggressive" stuff on the part of Crawford and Robinson.


I've thought the same thing.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

I find this almost ludicrous.

The Jazz win more games with less talent than the Bulls. Everyone knows this. The Bulls should be heading towards the playoffs, but aren't, and the Jazz should be struggling to win 5 games, but they're 2 games over .500.

How?

It's no secret. Everyone's been talking about it, talking around it, through it, or whatever.

Disciplined basketball and better effort.

The Jazz have it. The Bulls don't.

Sure, you can go off and talk about AD not getting rebounds. But it's irrelevant. Production is not the same thing as discipline and effort. Jamal, or anyone, can run the right play, take the right shot, and miss. That's different than running the wrong play, throwing up a bad shot, and hitting. Very different. You can win games playing the wrong way and you can loose games playing the right way. The thing is, over the long run, you will win more games playing the right way.

The Bulls are most certainly not a disciplined team. They've made great strides recently with the trade and new coach, but they're still not close to Utah.

How do the Bulls get there from here?

I know. Take a timeout, yell at the players that aren't getting it, bench 'em for 2 minutes, then stick 'em back in and try to win the game.

Ok, what happens when that doesn't work?

I know, yell at 'em in practice, make 'em run more wind sprints.

Ok, what happens whan that doesn't work?

I know, yell at 'em, and take 'em out for 5 minutes.

And what do you do when that doesn't work?

And when that doesn't work?

When that doesn't get their attention, then what?

At some point, you just gotta make a point. Harsh? Well, then what? And what if that doesn't work? And then what if that doesn't work? Eventually you have to get to something harsh.

We got there.

And if that doesn't work? Yep, it could get even more harsh. It is THAT important. Why? Look at Utah's talent and record and then look at the Bulls. That's why.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Who are you and what did you do with Trueblue?
> ...


I have him held hostage. He is too passive!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>genex</b>!
> Any Pschologists, or Psych majors in this forum? What do you make of the player comments? I think it is "passive/aggressive" stuff on the part of Crawford and Robinson.


Don't you dare lump Crawford with Eddie Robinson. Eddie Robinson doesn't give a damn. So I doubt he's being aggressive with his comments. Has Eddie ever really minded sitting on the bench? NO.

And I guess you could take the angle that Crawford is being passive agressive towards Skiles. But I think everything I've seen and heard about the interactions between the two, would make me think they have a good relationship and that Crawford IS trying for Skiles.

Last time he got benched by Cartwright he was mad at BC. This time he is taking the coaching. It is significant for Crawford to say he respects Skiles. Otherwise people like yourself would be crying about how Crawford didn't say anything good about the coach.

Yeah it really sucks that Crawford respects his coach and understands that he messed up...lord knows we all want a player who calls his coach out in the media, and doesn't take any responsiblity for what happened.

Under Bill Cartwright this would have been :"I don't really know why I got benched. Do you? He never told me."

Under Skiles there is PROGRESS.

I guess you will all have to just see the finished project. But I am seeing a lot of positive indicators coming from Crawford and Skiles(I really hope Skiles doesn't quit on us, his comments are the one's that you need to be pyscho-analyzing. I've been getting a quitting vibe the last couple of games.). I still have high hopes. We're not out of this by a long shot. And it starts tonight against New Jersey. It's the first game of the rest of the season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> I find this almost ludicrous.
> 
> The Jazz win more games with less talent than the Bulls. Everyone knows this. The Bulls should be heading towards the playoffs, but aren't, and the Jazz should be struggling to win 5 games, but they're 2 games over .500.
> ...


:yes: :clap: :yes: :groucho: :yes: :clap: :yes:


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't you dare lump Crawford with Eddie Robinson. Eddie Robinson doesn't give a damn. So I doubt he's being aggressive with his comments. Has Eddie ever really minded sitting on the bench? NO.
> ...


Progress? Crawford is a 4th year player, isnt he? Is he still blaming Floyd for not playing him his rookie year? Is he still blaming Cartwright for forcing him to compete with J.Williams?

Is that what this is all about? Let me say this...Floyd, Cartwright and Skiles have all benched Crawford for the same reasons and Crawford wont even acknowledge these reasons. Somehow in Crawford's head it is all a question of misperception on the part of the coach (whoever it is). It is never his responsibility. Taking coaching? what is this?...preschool? How many times does Crawford get benched before the "gets it"? Does the coach need to go hold his hand and tell him how great he is before Carwford accepts coaching. This is the NBA!! I thought guys like Crawford wanted to be treated like men. Well, men are held accountable for their actions, bad and good... in all facets of life. Men WANT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE. How many more times does he have to get benched before some guys in this forum stop defending him?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>genex</b>!
> 
> 
> Progress? Crawford is a 4th year player, isnt he? Is he still blaming Floyd for not playing him his rookie year? Is he still blaming Cartwright for forcing him to compete with J.Williams?
> ...


If I weren't a guy, I'd kiss you. 5 star post.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>genex</b>!
> 
> 
> Progress? Crawford is a 4th year player, isnt he? Is he still blaming Floyd for not playing him his rookie year? Is he still blaming Cartwright for forcing him to compete with J.Williams?
> ...


Crawford is barely a 4 year player. Why didn't Floyd play him his rookie year? Lord knows they were losing anyways. Couldn't have hurt. Why did Cartwright choose JWill over Crawford even though Crawford proved himself to be the better player.

And that's that. Once you bring in the present situation with Scott Skiles. If you don't see that the Skiles-Crawford relationship is not the same as the BC relationship, then I can't argue with you because you simply do not see things anywhere close to how I do. If you don't understand and see how Crawford has improved since Skiles came(disregarding a shooting slump, we're talking about playing defense better, taking accountability, playing within the offense--he is learning and doing all of these things better. He is a better player right now than what he was under Cartwright. And if you can't see this, then it's pretty obvious why you are saying the things you are saying.)

Jamal's my favorite player on the Bulls and I'll defend him so long as people like you keep going overboard in your criticism of him.

Right now the only person who is being totally sensible on Crawford right now is Dabullz. Dabullz is hitting upon his weaknesses, but he also is seeing his strengths and why the bulls need him. The rest of us are just caught up too much in the emotion of the wins and losses. Too emotionally charged. Holiday stress, and being a bulls fan....a dangerous combination.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> ...I think one thing Sloan had going for him in Utah was that that team KNEW that they weren't stars. They know that they have to set every pick and make every cut like their future in the league depends on it if they want to win games and stay on the team.
> 
> For better or worse, people were talking about how good Eddy and Jamal and Tyson were all summer and they may very well have bought into that and subconsciously slacked off, thinking it would just _happen_. If people had been saying that the Bulls might challenge for worst record ever, like people were saying about the Jazz, their motivation/effort might have been different from the start.


games aren't won with expectations they are won with results 

is there anyone the bulls that has had near the season of AK-47?

not by a long shot and that more than anything explains why the bulls lost yesterday and why for the season the jazz have been a better team.

i assure you and everyone on this board if TC were healthy and curry was a consistent offensive threat JC and kirk would be having better seasons ,they would be getting more shots and better shots and no one would even care who was running the small forward position because it would be a small matter that wouldn't really affect wins or losses

results or lact therof is why cartwright isn't the coach and why people are now putting skiles coaching under scrutiny.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Lol dang you! i wasn't going to say any more because I have said all there is to say but quickly.
> ...


I doubt it trueblue, youll be back

When Ron and Brad were traded, they were labeled as malcontents, psychos (in the case of Ron), uncoachable. as well as just plain a bad influence on the team. As JC is now. But they went elsewhere and found their games. Miller and Ron got better with Isiah and have blown up with Adelman and Carlisle. Good coaching got these results out of these kids. But something even more so is at play there and that is guidance from above. Not God. But Donnie Walsh and Geoff Petrie have had huge influences on these kids. HUGE. Its Paxson and Skiles job to get results out of our talent. If you think this is a way to do it, then by all means think that. But how many times did you see Phil Jackson publicly embarass a player? Or Isiah publicly embarrass Miller or Artest? Or carlisle or adelman? The answer is zero. That, my friend, is the difference between doing things the right way and doing things the wrong way. What JC did yesterday was wrong, but it was no more wrong then what 4 or 5 other guys have done and didnt get called on it. Thats a fact. What Skiles did was embarrass a player. Maybe that is what needed to be done to light a fire under JC. But hear me when I say this, JC is not to blame for the Bulls problems. And he being singled out by the front office, coaching staff, and fans is going to hurt his relationship with this club. He is a contract year and has to say the right thing. But when he is gone, and it looks more and more like a situation that will occur, he will find a team that will allow him to be a star, and you and I will talk about the one we let get away, AGAIN. The players rule the system. have for the last 20 years (when magic and bird essentially got rid of their coaches). Its up to pax to either change the players or find a coach who will find a system right for those players. Cause if the right system was put into place in Chicago, we wouldnt be arguably the laughingstock of the NBA, again, we would have front line that has 3 allstars on it and a talented guard. There is no lying down in games to make a point when hard earned money was spent on tickets. And its been 3 weeks, and its far too early to tell, but Skiles might actually be doing worse then BC did after he took over. Not a great sign now is it?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> games aren't won with expectations they are won with results
> ...


hey, I'm not arguing with that at all. I just think one of the root causes for our floundering start and inability to turn it around (though injuries are killing us under Skiles) is that the young guys believed their own hype. The lack of intensity early on in the blowouts suggests it. Tyson plays with intensity all the time. It's funny that he was "the forgotten member" of the 3Cs. Also a problem was that Jalen Rose himself exuded a sense of entitlement because he's "a veteran starter in this league" and since he had some great games in Indiana, it'll just _happen_ in the future as well because he's Jalen Rose...well, outside of a few great games, that hasn't been the case since 2000-01. I don't think it was a conscious thing, but I think that kind of mentality sunk into this team, to where they thought they were more talented and more prepared than they really were and got lazy in their effort. 

The Jazz were the opposite. They took the reverse predictions - that they would be a bottom-feeder - as motivation to play at 100% effort all the time and prove people wrong. It's a reflection on Jerry Sloan but also the players that they get so much production out of a very modest supply of natural talent. Only AK47 is a remarkable talent on that team.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> hey, I'm not arguing with that at all. I just think one of the root causes for our floundering start and inability to turn it around (though injuries are killing us under Skiles) is that the young guys believed their own hype. The lack of intensity early on in the blowouts suggests it. Tyson plays with intensity all the time. It's funny that he was "the forgotten member" of the 3Cs. Also a problem was that Jalen Rose himself exuded a sense of entitlement because he's "a veteran starter in this league" and since he had some great games in Indiana, it'll just _happen_ in the future as well because he's Jalen Rose...well, outside of a few great games, that hasn't been the case since 2000-01. I don't think it was a conscious thing, but I think that kind of mentality sunk into this team, to where they thought they were more talented and more prepared than they really were and got lazy in their effort.
> ...


DeShawn Stevenson is a remarkable talent but hasnt put it all together yet. Good points


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I disagree with rlucas' sentiments, and generally agree with most everyone else's. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, but I think some people want the omelet without even turning the stove on.

rlucas, you're all over Skiles for not benching AD because he hasn't gotten the rebounds he should have the last few games -- but have you taken a look at Crawford's stats for the same time frame? They're horrendous. The last two games, JC is shooting 30% from the field and 14% from behind the arc. If you go back further and incorporate more games from this month, the numbers don't get much better. If JC is our primary scorer, then these numbers are roughly tantamount to a 3.5 rpg average over the same time period from our starting C. So, if you have a vocal problem with Skiles not benching AD last night, why do you have a problem with Skiles benching JC, given these atrocious stats? Isn't it all about consistency?

Regardless, this argument is not about rebounds or shooting percentage or assists or blocks. It's about execution, desire, coachability and long-term success. You gotta go through hell to get to heaven. No team wins without uniformity, organization and discipline, and teams that win in the long-term don't always win in the short-term. It's the nature of team building and the circuitous route of success. Winning one game does not translate into winning in the future. Thus, winning last night with JC playing instead of being benched does not necessarily translate into future wins. In fact, it would probably have been detrimental to the team in the long term. A coach has to have strategy to win games (plural), not just a game.

Finally, what I find hilariously ironic is that we're talking about discipline and execution the day after the team that best illustrates these attributes, the Jazz, easily handled us on our home court. The people saying Skiles is in the wrong should probably take a page from the Utah handbook and see how they run things.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> Crawford is barely a 4 year player. Why didn't Floyd play him his rookie year? Lord knows they were losing anyways. Couldn't have hurt. Why did Cartwright choose JWill over Crawford even though Crawford proved himself to be the better player.
> 
> ...



You are right futuristxen, I am being hard on Crawford. I see his success as relating to Skiles' scrapping of the triangle and allowing Crawford to shoot like a 2. I had been arguing for this before, if you recall. My issue with Crawford is what I consider a certain immaturity and hipcoracy in his comments. They dont jive with his results on the floor. I know Jamal got off to a hot start under Skiles. He did that under Cartwright at the end of last season too. He has shown he cannot sustain this. He doesn't understand why. He completely unravels into a streetball player. No discipline. This is my issue with Jamal. When things dont go his way he pouts and goes solo. Only this time, he has been talking up Skiles recently and he has been given the freedome he says he needs. Jamal is out of excuses. He has painted himself into a wall. He still gives sporadic efforts night in and out. He wont acknowledge this even though this is the 3rd coach that has told him so. What is there for Crawford to understand? What is there that Crawford has to have explained? We have been watching this for almost 4 years. Crawford simply thinks he know better. As for the Floyd comments, you are reaching. Many PGs have started out on the bench their rookie year and have turned out ok.

Futuristen, let me say I respect your posts and agree with you 90% of the time. You and I will never agree on Crawford. I still wish you and yours happy holidays.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> When Ron and Brad were traded, they were labeled as malcontents, psychos (in the case of Ron), uncoachable. as well as just plain a bad influence on the team. As JC is now. But they went elsewhere and found their games.....


Miller, Artest and Brand were good consistant players when they were traded away from Chicago. We have a new GM, and a new coach and a new system since these guys left. Crawford has not reached the level of these guys. So I am not sure how much it strengthens your case to keep referencing these guys.

Unfortunetely, Paxson and Skiles only have about 7 month before they need to bet their career on signing Crawford or not.

There is not time for years of babysitting. It's time for shock theropy. 

Players get dissed all the time in the NBA. GSW has "benched" Dunleavy just as much as Crawford has been benched this year. Same with JRich especally last year. Can we wait until one of our players complains before we have have post after post about how a coach was too tough.

Are you really resigned to seeing half-assed efforts and 1 for 12 or 0 for 10 3pt shooting nights?

Players rule the NBA but if you ain't got the right players it's going to hurt you to baby them, not help.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> Why didn't Floyd play him his rookie year? Lord knows they were losing anyways. Couldn't have hurt.


So what's the problem with Skiles benching JC last night? Lord knows they were losing anyways. Couldn't have hurt.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> If I weren't a guy, I'd kiss you. 5 star post.


If you weren't guy, I would accept. thanks for the 5 star.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I doubt it trueblue, youll be back
> ...


rlucas I think you're reaching by drawing a parallel between Craw and Miller/Artest. I honestly don't remember anyone labelling Miller a malcontent other than a few grumblings he made about how we sucked, and I don't remember much talk, if any, that Artest's problems affected his ability to play hard and be coached. That's probably a big reason why they never got sent to the pine for botching a diagrammed play or lambasted in public for their lack of discipline...Artest and Miller were flawed players when they were here, but one thing they DID do is bring the effort every night...it was a rare occurrence where they dogged it on defense or failed to properly run a diagrammed play. I don't think Skiles has a short leash on Jamal. I think he has a very long leash. 7-27FG? That's a long leash. But Skiles probably saw Jamal break plays and execute improperly one time too many and decided to try something new to get through to him. Sometimes I think the most faithful Jamal-backers would only be happy if he was entirely above criticism...but that won't happen until he improves more of the flaws in his game. Does good coaching mean letting Jamal play how he sees fit? Skiles is trying to let Jamal do that as long as he plays smart and plays defense. I don't see how that's bad coaching.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I disagree with rlucas' sentiments, and generally agree with most everyone else's. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, but I think some people want the omelet without even turning the stove on.
> 
> rlucas, you're all over Skiles for not benching AD because he hasn't gotten the rebounds he should have the last few games -- but have you taken a look at Crawford's stats for the same time frame? They're horrendous. The last two games, JC is shooting 30% from the field and 14% from behind the arc. If you go back further and incorporate more games from this month, the numbers don't get much better. If JC is our primary scorer, then these numbers are roughly tantamount to a 3.5 rpg average over the same time period from our starting C. So, if you have a vocal problem with Skiles not benching AD last night, why do you have a problem with Skiles benching JC, given these atrocious stats? Isn't it all about consistency?
> ...


VV, tell that to the people who spent their time and money to go watch the Bulls last night. Laying down in front of 17000 fans is not acceptable. There simply is no arguing that

As for AD, Look at his stats recently, why isnt he taking blame? He has been awful. JC has OUTREBOUNDED him over the last 2 games. You can sure as hell chalk up the last 2 losses on his inability to do anything right, defensively, offensively or on the glass. 

Why does Utah have to be the model? Phil Jackson has won 9 TITLES. Count them. And would he do what Skiles did last night? Would Chuck Daly? Or John Wooden even? Everyone has their style. There is a guy in Coach Popovich who is as strict a disciplinarian as there is. Would he do that to Jamal? NO. I am not on Skiles because of this however. I just didnt think he was that great a coach in Phoenix. Considering that NOT ONE OF HIS PLAYERS has had a good thing to say about him, looks like i might be right. But its a long ways off, and he deserves a camp to put in his system. But what has he done that BC hasnt? Ok, played Jamal and Kirk together. Give him a heck for that. But nothing else really. And I didnt think BC was that great to start out with. Skiles hasnt done one thing original, other then forfeit last nights game. Its a ploy that might work, but it probably wont. ANd he will end up quitting on the Bulls like he did in Phonix, eventually. Thats my opinion. The point is, you try to win every game. if you dont believe in the players, go into Paxs office and get the player traded. But Brunson doesnt give you the best chance to win any night. And that isnt fair to the fans who take the time to go. Its delivering a bad product. I believe Fl-flash talked about that earlier. Well one bad product could lose you a customer for life. JC and Skiles were the bad products. JC was in the wrong, absolutely, but the over whelming support for Skiles in how he handled it is laughable. Skiles handed a lemon to the fans yesterday as well, and he should be called on it. Again, would Phil handle it the same way?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Miller, Artest and Brand were good consistant players when they were traded away from Chicago. We have a new GM, and a new coach and a new system since these guys left. Crawford has not reached the level of these guys. So I am not sure how much it strengthens your case to keep referencing these guys.
> ...


And Crawford is a good player now with the burden of being the ONLY offensive threat everynight. Heck, Kobe struggled with no shaq, why should we think jamal would do better?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas I think you're reaching by drawing a parallel between Craw and Miller/Artest. I honestly don't remember anyone labelling Miller a malcontent other than a few grumblings he made about how we sucked, and I don't remember much talk, if any, that Artest's problems affected his ability to play hard and be coached. That's probably a big reason why they never got sent to the pine for botching a diagrammed play or lambasted in public for their lack of discipline...Artest and Miller were flawed players when they were here, but one thing they DID do is bring the effort every night...it was a rare occurrence where they dogged it on defense or failed to properly run a diagrammed play. I don't think Skiles has a short leash on Jamal. I think he has a very long leash. 7-27FG? That's a long leash. But Skiles probably saw Jamal break plays and execute improperly one time too many and decided to try something new to get through to him. Sometimes I think the most faithful Jamal-backers would only be happy if he was entirely above criticism...but that won't happen until he improves more of the flaws in his game. Does good coaching mean letting Jamal play how he sees fit? Skiles is trying to let Jamal do that as long as he plays smart and plays defense. I don't see how that's bad coaching.



are you insinuating Jamal doesnt play hard? he has outrebounded Antonio Davis over the last 2. he has almsot as many assists as Kirk. So he is doing other things. So he is in a slump, but he is still out there giving it his all. Im not a jamal backer, just a guy looking for a fair shake


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas I think you're reaching by drawing a parallel between Craw and Miller/Artest. I honestly don't remember anyone labelling Miller a malcontent other than a few grumblings he made about how we sucked, and I don't remember much talk, if any, that Artest's problems affected his ability to play hard and be coached. That's probably a big reason why they never got sent to the pine for botching a diagrammed play or lambasted in public for their lack of discipline...Artest and Miller were flawed players when they were here, but one thing they DID do is bring the effort every night...it was a rare occurrence where they dogged it on defense or failed to properly run a diagrammed play. I don't think Skiles has a short leash on Jamal. I think he has a very long leash. 7-27FG? That's a long leash. But Skiles probably saw Jamal break plays and execute improperly one time too many and decided to try something new to get through to him. Sometimes I think the most faithful Jamal-backers would only be happy if he was entirely above criticism...but that won't happen until he improves more of the flaws in his game. Does good coaching mean letting Jamal play how he sees fit? Skiles is trying to let Jamal do that as long as he plays smart and plays defense. I don't see how that's bad coaching.



are you insinuating Jamal doesnt play hard? he has outrebounded Antonio Davis over the last 2. he has almsot as many assists as Kirk. So he is doing other things. So he is in a slump, but he is still out there giving it his all. Im not a jamal backer, just a guy looking for a fair shake


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas I think you're reaching by drawing a parallel between Craw and Miller/Artest. I honestly don't remember anyone labelling Miller a malcontent other than a few grumblings he made about how we sucked, and I don't remember much talk, if any, that Artest's problems affected his ability to play hard and be coached. That's probably a big reason why they never got sent to the pine for botching a diagrammed play or lambasted in public for their lack of discipline...Artest and Miller were flawed players when they were here, but one thing they DID do is bring the effort every night...it was a rare occurrence where they dogged it on defense or failed to properly run a diagrammed play. I don't think Skiles has a short leash on Jamal. I think he has a very long leash. 7-27FG? That's a long leash. But Skiles probably saw Jamal break plays and execute improperly one time too many and decided to try something new to get through to him. Sometimes I think the most faithful Jamal-backers would only be happy if he was entirely above criticism...but that won't happen until he improves more of the flaws in his game. Does good coaching mean letting Jamal play how he sees fit? Skiles is trying to let Jamal do that as long as he plays smart and plays defense. I don't see how that's bad coaching.



are you insinuating Jamal doesnt play hard? he has outrebounded Antonio Davis over the last 2. he has almsot as many assists as Kirk. So he is doing other things. So he is in a slump, but he is still out there giving it his all. Im not a jamal backer, just a guy looking for a fair shake


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> And Crawford is a good player now with the burden of being the ONLY offensive threat everynight. Heck, Kobe struggled with no shaq, why should we think jamal would do better?


What standard do you have for this guy? None? Is Crawford not accountable for being in position on his plays? Especially straight out of a timeout?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What standard do you have for this guy? None? Is Crawford not accountable for being in position on his plays? Especially straight out of a timeout?


Im saying is he playing hard? If he was, then you sit him down and tell him to run the plays right. If it was an isolated event, then he plays through it. But if it isnt, then explain it to him. How do you think Phil Jackson handles situations like this? He does it in the privacy of a huddle or in the locker room. A quiet fine. no pressing clippings. nothing. Remember, what Pippen did with the 1.9 seconds? Did Phil make a big public showing of that? No. What JC did was wrong, but how Skiles handled it was not stellar either.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> are you insinuating Jamal doesnt play hard? he has outrebounded Antonio Davis over the last 2. he has almsot as many assists as Kirk. So he is doing other things. So he is in a slump, but he is still out there giving it his all. Im not a jamal backer, just a guy looking for a fair shake


I am insinuating just that, in a sense. Not paying attention to a play being diagrammed during a timeout is an example of not playing hard. Every player, especially young ones, make mental errors, but failing to follow simple instructions in such a situation is a case of mental laziness, pure and simple.

You love pointing out that AD has not rebounded much in the last 2 games, but in the 10 since he's gotten here taken as a sum? he's rebounded fine. In fact, he rebounded pretty well in pretty much every game except those two. Sometimes shots don't fall, balls don't bounce your way. Going 2 games without racking up 20 rebounds doesn't mean much unless it becomes a trend...Jamal's shooting and execution problems are at the point where you start to wonder if it is a trend. That's the difference.

On the whole, Jamal's overall effort seems to be pretty good since Skiles took over. That's at least partly a credit to Skiles, isn't it? however, he still needs to be reminded of certain aspects.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> You love pointing out that AD has not rebounded much in the last 2 games, but in the 10 since he's gotten here taken as a sum? he's rebounded fine. In fact, he rebounded pretty well in pretty much every game except those two. Sometimes shots don't fall, balls don't bounce your way. Going 2 games without racking up 20 rebounds doesn't mean much unless it becomes a trend...Jamal's shooting and execution problems are at the point where you start to wonder if it is a trend. That's the difference.


Bingo.

And rlucas, I didn't mean any offense with my previous post. Just good argument, that's all.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Im saying is he playing hard? If he was, then you sit him down and tell him to run the plays right. If it was an isolated event, then he plays through it. But if it isnt, then explain it to him. How do you think Phil Jackson handles situations like this? He does it in the privacy of a huddle or in the locker room. A quiet fine. no pressing clippings. nothing. Remember, what Pippen did with the 1.9 seconds? Did Phil make a big public showing of that? No. What JC did was wrong, but how Skiles handled it was not stellar either.


funny, I remember Phil Jackson taking Kukoc to task for all kinds of things through the media all the time. Phil Jackson is not an example of a coach who keeps things in house. He uses the media as a motivational tactic as much as any coach in the history of the league - he just has a good understanding of what buttons to push. Skiles is no-nonsense, direct, and honest. he's not a con-man like Phil. So far, he's been very tactful in his criticisms of players, and has been very "glass half-full" about a lot of the losses.

and here's something you're not giving Skiles credit for...Jamal said himself that Skiles explained to him why he was taken out, and Jamal himself seemed to respect the decision. Now it's on him to learn from it and not make the same mistakes again.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I am insinuating just that, in a sense. Not paying attention to a play being diagrammed during a timeout is an example of not playing hard. Every player, especially young ones, make mental errors, but failing to follow simple instructions in such a situation is a case of mental laziness, pure and simple.
> ...


Its not the 20 boards, its the lack of D on Ostertag or Z, its not shutting down the penetration, its being outbebounded by a ton, by a team playing their 6th game on a 6 game road trip, by being outscored in the paint against Cleveland by alot. AD isnt playing hard. JC actually has been. So his shot has been off. he is doing other things. Running a play the wrong way should be addressed. I agree. But that is harsh when you have other guys, MAKING MAX MONEY, not pulling their weight at all. IF AD were sitting on the bench next to Skiles, I still wouldnt like it, but atleast you couldnt question his inconsistency. Now you can. And he looks awfully 2 faced to me.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> When Ron and Brad were traded, they were labeled as malcontents, psychos (in the case of Ron), uncoachable. as well as just plain a bad influence on the team. As JC is now.


Seriously? I haven't seen anything like that posted on this thread. Maybe you're referring to some other thread? I just haven't heard anyone write that Jamal is "psycho" or "malcontent" or "bad influence". I hear "young" and "undisciplined" which I think are right on.



> But they went elsewhere and found their games.


They've also grown up and matured. It was just one season ago that Ron was as much a liability as an asset. But yes, he seems to have gotten it. I hopefully expect Jamal to eventually "get it" too, but not without growing pains. And benchings.



> But how many times did you see Phil Jackson publicly embarass a player?


Oh, I can think back to last season when Phil and Shaq were having their little spat. And before that, Phil was calling out Kobe to be more of a team player. Before that, Kucoc was his favorite wipping boy. I don't recall anything said in the media, but he sure could get benched in a hurry, and for very small mistakes. I really don't know anything about the Kings. 

Just as aptly, what would Riley or Van Gundy or Sloan do? You better believe they call out players. Van Gundy's even ripped into his star player earlier this season, and guess what? They're winning 'cause they're playing much more disciplined team basketball. Coincidence?



> What JC did yesterday was wrong, but it was no more wrong then what 4 or 5 other guys have done and didnt get called on it. Thats a fact.


Ah hah! I now understand why you have the opinion that you do. We _fundamentally_ disagree about the facts.

Do you really believe that Skiles is singling out Jamal? Why is that? Why is he being so unfairly harsh on Jamal and not, say, Gill? Why is he the third coach in a row that's being so unfair to him? I'd love to hear your theory.



> JC is not to blame for the Bulls problems.


Really?! Is he above criticism? Is it really just AD's fault for not rebounding all of Jamal's missed shots? Come on, he has GOT to be partly to blame! That's simply ludicrous to say JC is not to blame! 



> There is no lying down in games to make a point when hard earned money was spent on tickets.


Sure there is. Players do it all the time! Earlier this season some Bulls players did a LOT of lying down. Players are making the point: we suck, we don't want to play any more, and can we just get it over quick with so we can go home.

Or maybe the players are trying to make a point: I don't have to play team basketball, so I'll just do my own thing. I don't reeeeeally need to run the plays the coach calls, or pay attention in huddles or practices.

Or maybe players are making the point: I make 15 million dollars so I can take whatever shot I want as long as I say the right things to the media. I think Pax made a counter point to that one.

The point is that Jamal was sending his message and Scott Skiles responding by sending a message back in return. We fans have to put up with BOTH messages being sent. Yes, it's ugly. This didn't happen in a vaccuum. It wasn't a one way, arbitrary communication. Or maybe you think it was.



> Its up to pax to either change the players or find a coach who will find a system right for those players.


Agreed. Maybe Jamal just isn't a good fit for the Bulls.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> funny, I remember Phil Jackson taking Kukoc to task for all kinds of things through the media all the time. Phil Jackson is not an example of a coach who keeps things in house. He uses the media as a motivational tactic as much as any coach in the history of the league - he just has a good understanding of what buttons to push. Skiles is no-nonsense, direct, and honest. he's not a con-man like Phil. So far, he's been very tactful in his criticisms of players, and has been very "glass half-full" about a lot of the losses.
> ...


jamal was politically correct. He has to be, contract year. Phil used the media to get points across. but he never publicly took a player to task in front of everyone in the building. and he never laid down on a game to make a point. he would address most of his issues, Pippen, Rodman, the Jordan fights, behind closed doors. And that "con-man" is about the greatest coach of our time in any sport and about a 1000x more accomplished then Skiles. perhaps Skiles could learn a thing or two from a true master


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> 
> 
> Seriously? I haven't seen anything like that posted on this thread. Maybe you're referring to some other thread? I just haven't heard anyone write that Jamal is "psycho" or "malcontent" or "bad influence". I hear "young" and "undisciplined" which I think are right on.
> ...


and you dont think he is being singled out? Give me a break. Its ok to not like Jamal. But the coach has to be consistent or he loses credibility. Like i said, our max C/PF has defended anyone in a week and is being outrebounded by our scrawny guard. But somehow, his butt doesnt find the bench


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Its not the 20 boards, its the lack of D on Ostertag or Z, its not shutting down the penetration, its being outbebounded by a ton, by a team playing their 6th game on a 6 game road trip, by being outscored in the paint against Cleveland by alot. AD isnt playing hard. JC actually has been. So his shot has been off. he is doing other things. Running a play the wrong way should be addressed. I agree. But that is harsh when you have other guys, MAKING MAX MONEY, not pulling their weight at all. IF AD were sitting on the bench next to Skiles, I still wouldnt like it, but atleast you couldnt question his inconsistency. Now you can. And he looks awfully 2 faced to me.


you seem to be the only one that is pointedly criticizing AD's overall effort. Others seem to think he was playing his usual solid defense, setting picks, etc. Z gets his points on most defenders and has rebounded better since their trade. Ostertag, well, he's a stiff, but he does occasionally play like he's possessed and own the glass. Not to let AD off the hook for letting those guys get the better of him, but the fact remains that he's only really played poorly in 2 games. Jamal's shooting woes stretch back for 5 games now and I think that correlates well with Skiles's recent questions about his decision-making. 2 games isn't a trend even by the most lax statistical measures. 5 games? It's only natural to start getting a little worried, even if it is just a temporary slump. His reaction to his shooting problems (taking MORE 3s, not driving, not making a couple more passes) is what is somewhat concerning. The 2nd half of the Utah game was a step in the right direction, though. Maybe Skiles got through to him? 

Let me note, I do think Jamal will pull out of this funk and lead us to some wins very soon. And I think Skiles's motivational tactics and tutelage will be part of that. 5 poor games can still be considered a slump by my standards, but I can definitely understand the frustration that Jamal can't be more consistent yet.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> you seem to be the only one that is pointedly criticizing AD's overall effort. Others seem to think he was playing his usual solid defense, setting picks, etc. Z gets his points on most defenders and has rebounded better since their trade. Ostertag, well, he's a stiff, but he does occasionally play like he's possessed and own the glass. Not to let AD off the hook for letting those guys get the better of him, but the fact remains that he's only really played poorly in 2 games. Jamal's shooting woes stretch back for 5 games now and I think that correlates well with Skiles's recent questions about his decision-making. 2 games isn't a trend even by the most lax statistical measures. 5 games? It's only natural to start getting a little worried, even if it is just a temporary slump. His reaction to his shooting problems (taking MORE 3s, not driving, not making a couple more passes) is what is somewhat concerning. The 2nd half of the Utah game was a step in the right direction, though. Maybe Skiles got through to him?
> ...


The expectations on jamal are too high. From everyone. remember the how many points will Jamal average poll? The number was 24ppg after he started the year at 14. The Jamal lovers, and this entire board blew the gasket off. Now that he hasnt lived up to it, his coach, the fans and everyone else are blaming him. Well guess what, he is not a #1 option. At some point in his career, he might be a decent #2 option. But he isnt there yet. pax traded all the firepower away for a guy who is at the end of the line and another guy who cant score. Curry goes down. now jamal has to carry the load. And he isnt ready. Defenses know this league wide. Watch how teams play him. When he puts the ball down, they run a second defender at him every time. They are focusing on him. Kirk hasnt been able to take the load entirely off of JC and we are getting nothing from the front court. He is in a no win situation and im sure the pressure is high. I dont think its a slump so much as a decent team can take him out of his game because they dont have anyone to worry about. And his total floor game hasnt been nearly as disastrous as everyone make it out to be. He has outrebounded our max contract 4/5 and almost out assisted our golden boy rookie over the last 2. So he is contributing something.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> jamal was politically correct. He has to be, contract year. Phil used the media to get points across. but he never publicly took a player to task in front of everyone in the building. and he never laid down on a game to make a point. he would address most of his issues, Pippen, Rodman, the Jordan fights, behind closed doors. And that "con-man" is about the greatest coach of our time in any sport and about a 1000x more accomplished then Skiles. perhaps Skiles could learn a thing or two from a true master


Jackson also had veterans on his team who rarely if ever took a play off. how often did he even need to sit a guy down for botching an inbounds play? I can't even remember such an incident. Kobe's freelancing is the closest thing I can think of, but that's a willful decision by a near-great player to make things happen on his own, and Kobe's nearly good enough to pull that crap off, it's not a failure to listen and execute. Phil may not have ever sat Kobe for most of a half (you simply can't bench a star of that magnitude...jamal isn't one of those guys...yet?), but there have been countless times where he has berated Kobe on the way back to the huddle for taking bad shots or turning it over. That's out in the public. But that's also WHAT COACHES DO.

Jamal politically correct? How about when Cartwright didn't start him? That wasn't too politically correct. Maybe he really does respect Skiles's coaching ability and his decisions. Jamal isn't stupid - he knows that Skiles has given him a real opportunity to become a star. Now all of a sudden he's a scapegoat? no, he's just held to a high standard because he's one of the guys who can make this team a winner and everyone can see it...so when he doesn't do things properly, he gets an earful.

I don't think Skiles was wilfully throwing the game. I think he honestly thought that Jamal's lack of discipline could hurt the team if he didn't correct it. If he had been throwing the game, he wouldn't have put Jamal back in at all. he did give Jamal a chance to go out and redeem himself. Maybe he waited too long, but he did put him back in. That grudge lasted about 45 minutes.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> and you dont think he is being singled out? Give me a break. Its ok to not like Jamal. But the coach has to be consistent or he loses credibility. Like i said, our max C/PF has defended anyone in a week and is being outrebounded by our scrawny guard. But somehow, his butt doesnt find the bench


Of course I think Jamal's being singled out. Actually, being doubled out, 'cause ERob is also being singled out, or rather the other member of the pair that was doubled out.

So of course he's being singled (or whatever) out. The question is whether he is being _unfairly_ singled out. If so, why? Why is Skiles doing this to Jamal? Why is he being so unfair?

I fail to see what AD's rebounding has to do with anything. Jamal didn't get benched because he was missing or hitting shots, or getting or not getting rebounds. It's not about production! I haven't heard Skiles say anything about that. Why does that keep coming up?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I know 2 things about this board. people love stats and they love to blame Jamal. They also love Kirk. But lets match them up for a second. Its a pretty interesting comparison

Kirk Jamal
8.9ppg 16.6 ppg
2.3 rpg 3.1 rpg
5.1 apg 5.3 apg
1.10 spg 1.58 spg
.38 bpg .29 bpg
40.6 FG% 40.0 FG%
2.90 TOs 2.29 TOs
76.1 FT% 84.2 FT%
36.2 3pt% 32.4 3pt%
29.6 mpg 33.3 mpg

Now, I could care less for the Jamal vs Kirk crowd that resonates on every board. And these stats dont tell a perfect story. But if we are going to take a look and blame Jamal for nearly everything that has gone wrong, lets take a look at him vs Kirk for the season. Now kirk is the golden boy. Youll never hear a cross word about him on this board, or any other, not from me, thats for sure. But if we are going to blame Jamal, lets just add that Kirk isnt doing much better. He is outshooting Jamal by basis points on FG% and his 3 pt % is better. He plays slightly less minutes. Gets less steals, though we know his on the ball pressure is better. But he is out assisted-outboarded-outscored by Jamal. So if Jamal is doing all bad, and Kirk is doing all good, which some of the yahoos on this board strongly insinuate, why am i seeing stats that favorably point a picture of Jamal as being the better player? Why arent we asking why Kirk is shooting better for instance? After all, we ***** about Jamals shooting all day


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Not right now, anyway. Remembering the howling about Jamal missing the first half?
> 
> Here is the answer:
> ...


I'm coming into this conversation a little late but to answer your question Should a coach who isn't playing to win be allowed to keep his job? The answer is no.

You play to win the game. Playing Jamal Crawford and Eddie Robinson over Linton Johnson and Rick Brunson gives you the best chance and only chance to win last night. 

There are only few exceptions when a coach is allowed to not play to win the game. 1) You've clinched a playoff spot and you're resting your stars -or- 2) You're already out of it and decide to play your young talent.

Last I checked the Bulls haven't clinched a division and even though they're record is horrible, they are still somewhat in the playoff hunt. You can't bench your best player for a guy who doesn't belong in the league when you're struggling to stay in the hunt and it's December. And Linton Johnson and Rick Brunson aren't the young talent.

The biggest myth of the whole benching last night was that JC and Erob weren't giving their best effort. That's not true. They weren't running the right plays and were in the wrong spots. If they were doing it on purpose it deserves permanent benching but I doubt that. I think they weren't prepared or were confused. That still deserves benching but not for the entire first half. 

We fell down by 20 when Jamal sat out and when he returned we made a run. That tells me we may have won if Crawford and Robinson played in the first half.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm coming into this conversation a little late but to answer your question Should a coach who isn't playing to win be allowed to keep his job? The answer is no.
> ...


bingo!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

alright, I'm willing to meet halfway here.

I still think Jamal deserved a wake-up call for not being able to execute a diagrammed play, and I have no problem with Skiles's method for sending that message.

but I will concede that it didn't HAVE to last the entire half.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas I think you're reaching by drawing a parallel between Craw and Miller/Artest. I honestly don't remember anyone labelling Miller a malcontent other than a few grumblings he made about how we sucked, and I don't remember much talk, if any, that Artest's problems affected his ability to play hard and be coached. That's probably a big reason why they never got sent to the pine for botching a diagrammed play or lambasted in public for their lack of discipline...Artest and Miller were flawed players when they were here, but one thing they DID do is bring the effort every night...it was a rare occurrence where they dogged it on defense or failed to properly run a diagrammed play. I don't think Skiles has a short leash on Jamal. I think he has a very long leash. 7-27FG? That's a long leash. But Skiles probably saw Jamal break plays and execute improperly one time too many and decided to try something new to get through to him. Sometimes I think the most faithful Jamal-backers would only be happy if he was entirely above criticism...but that won't happen until he improves more of the flaws in his game. Does good coaching mean letting Jamal play how he sees fit? Skiles is trying to let Jamal do that as long as he plays smart and plays defense. I don't see how that's bad coaching.


how soon they forget miller's 1st year as a bull

he was out of shape and injury prone 

remember the excuses from him 

"in char. we didn't work this hard "

"my body cant handle the extra work"

"i got on my boat and drank beer all summer"

miller wasn't exactly a peach in the start of his bull career


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Skiles says winning isn't the important thing...*



> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> 
> The biggest myth of the whole benching last night was that JC and Erob weren't giving their best effort. That's not true. They weren't running the right plays and were in the wrong spots. If they were doing it on purpose it deserves permanent benching but I doubt that. I think they weren't prepared or were confused. That still deserves benching but not for the entire first half.


In other job sectors, lack of performance equals demotion, even if there is full effort being exerted. Screw up the report, screw up the lab analysis, screw up the oil change, you still get demoted even if you gave it 100% effort. If you aren't prepared for your job, you get demoted or fired. Simple as that.

Let's hope Jamal and Erob don't pursue medicine after their playing careers are done.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> how soon they forget miller's 1st year as a bull
> ...


hmm, I remember a little of that.

but that wasn't the company line as to why he was traded a year and a half later. He was playing solid, consistent ball and not causing any problems. He had overcome those issues and put them to rest by the end of his first season.

This is Jamal's 4th year and questions are STILL swiriling about him. Different situation.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> hmm, I remember a little of that.
> ...


the year brad was traded from the bulls was his 4th in the league too after 4 years in college.

so yeah it is a little different considering brad was 27 before the questions stopped being asked about him


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> the year brad was traded from the bulls was his 4th in the league too after 4 years in college.
> ...


touche.

but other than that one stretch where he came to camp out of shape, have there been incidents like this? Before that or after? Have three seperate coaches taken issue with his effort or his game?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

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


every scout in the nba had a problem with his game at 1 point 

he wasn't drafted ,he was signed as free agent by the hornets


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Heck, Kobe struggled with no shaq, why should we think jamal would do better?


Bingo. Trade for Shaq Pax...


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Why did Cartwright choose JWill over Crawford even though Crawford proved himself to be the better player.


I think there is misconception on why Jay was chosen as PG over JC in most people's mind. Theri big argument is that on the practice JC always beat JW hands down. On that matter I have no doubt.

But here is the thing. During the practice they probably play against each other. JW on one team and JC on other team, both playing PG. In that setup, knowing JW's below average defense (especailly man-to-man) and JC's ability to creat his own shot off the drible, sure 9 out of 10 times JC would beat JW.

There another myth created. Simple fact that JC can beat JW one-on-one doesn't neccessarily mean JC is better PG than JW. Maybe that's what coaches and GM saw druing the practice. JW's better ability to play teamball and managing offense.

I always thought this could be behind story regarding starting PG last year. Just a thought.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: furthermore...*



> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> I think there is misconception on why Jay was chosen as PG over JC in most people's mind. Theri big argument is that on the practice JC always beat JW hands down. On that matter I have no doubt.
> 
> ...


what is not a misconception is that the majority of williams' and crawford's teammates though it should have been crawford's job all along .

so williams being torched or not the players had their own ideas who was better and since they have to play with them i'm more inclined to believe their general feeling that crawford got shafted in favor of williams' q rating


----------

