# The Bulls win without Hinrich?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bulls just won a road game without Kirk Hinrich even playing.

Can this really be possible?

How on Earth did this happen?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The Raptors suck.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> The Raptors suck.


There are 7 teams in the NBA worse than the Raptors in overall record and the Raps are a really good home team... 21-13 at home this season.

Somehow we won without Hinrich.

I'm still scratching my head.

How on Earth did we beat one of the best home teams in the league without Kirk Hinrich?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well first off it starts with Kirk Hinrich not being the best player or most important player on the Bulls. Eddy Curry is because he restructures how an opponent has to play us imo. Kirk is a very important player though for the most part. We also had other guys come up big tonight like Othello and Duhon, and we were in the absence of another 3-15 shooting night. We did about the same as we would have done with him tonight imo.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

How can one NBA team win an NBA road game without its heart?

Or its soul?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

i guess Kirk is useless and just a role player for this team. We might as well trade him for a 2nd round pick.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

We win all year long without Crawford. How was that suppose to happen?

One game, others picked up the slack. This team has done it all year long


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

remlover said:


> i guess Kirk is useless and just a role player for this team. We might as well trade him for a 2nd round pick.


Gosh. I think that's a little over the top.

But it appears that... at least for one night... the Chicago Bulls can win without Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

This is a *team*. We don't have stars/superstars carrying us every night. Everybody chips in a little. Kirk can be replaced through good team play and that's what happened tonight.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> We win all year long without Crawford. How was that suppose to happen?


No need to take the thread off topic TBF.

Every thread does not have to be about Jamal. Perhaps this is best suited for the "Crawford Update" thread.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I seem to remember the Bulls winning a game once in a while without Michael Jordan. Even against good teams. What's your point, exactly?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SPMJ said:


> This is a *team*. We don't have stars/superstars carrying us every night. Everybody chips in a little. Kirk can be replaced through good team play and that's what happened tonight.


Exactly.

And this wasn't the case much of the time last year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> What's your point, exactly?


Just curious about the board's reaction to a Hinrich-less win.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Time for the administrators to get the paperwork ready for the banning of kukoc4ever for questioning whether or not Kirk is the heart and soul fo the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I seem to remember the Bulls winning a game once in a while without Michael Jordan. Even against good teams. What's your point, exactly?


I think he is asking a legitimate question as he was watching the Knicks thrash the Celtics tonight and wants to know what happened in our game. He knew enough to say that none of JC's perimeter shots were off the backboard tonihgt so I'm assuming he was watching the Knick game.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

dkg1 said:


> He knew enough to say that none of JC's perimeter shots were off the backboard tonihgt so I'm assuming he was watching the Knick game.


I have an array of television sets in my compound.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gosh. I think that's a little over the top.


ugh, he's being sarcastic


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Kukoc4ever: Why not just make a "Bash Hinrich" thread and post all your little comments in there?

You might try to act coy and pretend you arent attacking him, but clearly this whole thread is a back-handed slap to Kirk Hinrich. 

Some posters make me scratch my head. Are you guys not happy w/ a win? Aren't you thrilled that w/o our team captain and on the road against a tough home team we come out with a big win to get to *35* wins??

Seems like some posters have agendas here. Maybe i'm just a tad cranky tonight, but this thread irks me and instead of ignoring it i have to share my displeasure.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

remlover said:


> Kukoc4ever: Why not just make a "Bash Hinrich" thread and post all your little comments in there?
> 
> You might try to act coy and pretend you arent attacking him, but clearly this whole thread is a back-handed slap to Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> ...


I like Hinrich. How am I attacking him? Have I said anything bad about him?

We had 2 of our 3 team captains playing tonight. AD and THE HAWK were both ready to roll. Hinrich was nursing an injury.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I have an array of television sets in my compound.



I knew it, you live in a compound! Would this be a compound like they had in Waco years ago? The Branch Crawfordian Compound? 

In answer to your question, Toronto really stunk it up in the first half, a lot of their offensive woes had to do with our defensive effort. The Bulls simply seemed to play harder to me. Skiles said part of the gameplan was to not let Toronto beat them from three point land. They did a good job of getting a hand in the shooter's face. I believe they were 2-16 at one point in the 1st quarter? Speaking of effort, one reporter asked Skiles about the players stepping up with their "heart and soul of the team on the bench". He said the difference between this year and last is that they have more players who play hard and with heart, or something to that effect. Take it for what you will.

Don't underestimate Captain Kirk as an inspiration to his teammates from the bench. The team fed off his towel waiving and cheering. When Toronto made their run in the second half, I was waiting for Kirk to pull a Willis Reed and come walking out of the crowd to bring home a victory.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

He's "attacking" fans who say the Bulls live and die by Kirk.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> We win all year long without Crawford. How was that suppose to happen?
> 
> One game, others picked up the slack. This team has done it all year long



:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How can one NBA team win an NBA road game without its heart?
> 
> Or its soul?


I'm sensing sarcasm......



:biggrin:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

remlover said:


> Kukoc4ever: Why not just make a "Bash Hinrich" thread and post all your little comments in there?
> 
> 
> Seems like some posters have agendas here. Maybe i'm just a tad cranky tonight, but this thread irks me and instead of ignoring it i have to share my displeasure.


*kukoc4ever!* is just upset that the Bull traded away their best 3 players (Crawdaddy, Rose, and Donyell) for cap space and somehow got better. So now, while the Bull is in the middle of a fight for playoff position, the Raptor and the Knick are battling it out to see who get to be the worst team in the worst division in basketball.

What makes it worse for our poor friend *kukoc4ever!* is that he started keeping track of the records of the three teams in his signature to show what a mistake the Bull had made. Now he's been having to eat crow ever since.

Leave the little guy alone and let him lash out at Kirk for having a pulled hamstring. It's just payback.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> *kukoc4ever!* is just upset that the Bull traded away their best 3 players (Crawdaddy, Rose, and Donyell) for cap space and somehow got better. So now, while the Bull is in the middle of a fight for playoff position, the Raptor and the Knick are battling it out to see who get to be the worst team in the worst division in basketball.
> 
> What makes it worse for our poor friend *kukoc4ever!* is that he started keeping track of the records of the three teams in his signature to show what a mistake the Bull had made. Now he's been having to eat crow ever since.
> 
> Leave the little guy alone and let him lash out at Kirk for having a pulled hamstring. It's just payback.


Goodness!

The personal nature of some of these posts is somewhat disturbing!

Why not keep the topic to Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls? I guess that's too difficult.

So far there have been posts about Crawford, me, and lord knows what else.

People sure can get venomous about certain things.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why not keep the topic to Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls? I guess that's too difficult.


Fair enough. Kirk led the Bull to their 35th victory of the season. That's more wins than any of the other sixth post-dynasty Bull teams. In this victory, Hinrich had one of his better shooting nights, making 100% of his attempted shots. He also held his man to 0 shots made on the night. Kirk pulled down as many boards as Pargo, but in 12 fewer minutes, and had as many assists as Pike, but in 9 fewer minutes. Kirk was also the only Bull on the active roster to have 0 turnovers in the game.

In summation, he lead the team in FG%, was very careful with the ball (0 TOs), and held his man to 0 shots made.

Can we ask for more from a guy with a bum hamstring?!


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

Time to waive Kirk. Yes sir. We don't need him anymore. We will win without him. Tonight's game is proof positive. What more evidence can we need? I bet the Spurs are quaking in their boots right now. Why don't we just put Kirk on the IR for the rest of the season. Then we are guarranteed to make it to the NBA finals. Perhaps we can buy out Kirk's contract so we can pile more cash on our real indispensible players, and not spend it on some white boy poser of a PG. Yep, Kirk, we hardly knew ye, see ya, we want to win. :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Yeah, Wynn!, you should really start a new thread(s), maybe a poll or two-

"Why Do Some 'Bulls' Fans Seem To Get So Much Joy Out Of Seeing Former Bulls Play Well?"

"Why Would A 'Bulls' Fans Argue That A Knick Is A Better Defender Than A Bull On A Bulls Message Board?"

"Why Are Some 'Bulls' Fans Still Bitter That Paxson Decided Against Paying One Of His Former Players $8 million/year Over 7 Years When The Team Is A LOT Better Without That Player Than They Ever Were With That Player?"

Take it to another thread, Wynn!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

FWIW, I thought this thread was pretty funny. 

I don't see why people got so indignant.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Fair enough. Kirk led the Bull to their 35th victory of the season. That's more wins than any of the other sixth post-dynasty Bull teams. In this victory, Hinrich had one of his better shooting nights, making 100% of his attempted shots. He also held his man to 0 shots made on the night. Kirk pulled down as many boards as Pargo, but in 12 fewer minutes, and had as many assists as Pike, but in 9 fewer minutes. Kirk was also the only Bull on the active roster to have 0 turnovers in the game.
> 
> In summation, he lead the team in FG%, was very careful with the ball (0 TOs), and held his man to 0 shots made.
> 
> Can we ask for more from a guy with a bum hamstring?!


It does appear that Hinrich had one of his better games of the season by not even playing.

Can a man do "the little things" while sitting on the bench?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, Wynn!, you should really start a new thread(s), maybe a poll or two-
> 
> "Why Do Some 'Bulls' Fans Seem To Get So Much Joy Out Of Seeing Former Bulls Play Well?"
> 
> ...


Goodness!

The personal nature of some of these posts is somewhat disturbing!

Why not keep the topic to Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls? I guess that's too difficult.

So far there have been posts about former players, me, and lord knows what else.

People sure can get venomous about certain things.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> FWIW, I thought this thread was pretty funny.
> 
> I don't see why people got so indignant.


They really, really, *really* like Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls just won a road game without Kirk Hinrich even playing.
> 
> Can this really be possible?
> 
> How on Earth did this happen?



Stuff like this happens all the time: one athletic squad outperforming another. 

It's not shocking.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Goodness!
> 
> The personal nature of some of these posts is somewhat disturbing!
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It does appear that Hinrich had one of his better games of the season by not even playing.
> 
> Can a man do "the little things" while sitting on the bench?


The heart of a champion beats on -- even from the bench.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mmmm. Pointless divisive muckraking tastes good. Splendid!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Mmmm. Pointless divisive muckraking tastes good. Splendid!


like orange crush!

i agree with many of the posters than the reason the Bulls won tonight was a great defensive effort.

still.. that we were able to pull that effort off without Hinrich... its impressive.... says a lot about our bench. we must have a lot of ultra-talented defensive powerhouses waiting in the wings for the next time Hinrich can't go. good for the Bull (clever singularity)!


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

People around here are always saying "In the case that Hinrich may sit out a game or two, the Bulls will NEVER win one of those games". 

kukoc4ever is just showing us that we're silly for constantly sticking to that belief.

Now if only we can dispel the myth that Duhon is the Bulls best shooter.........


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

addition by subtraction for a night


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> addition by subtraction for a night


Exactly. Jalen Rose was on the other team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rose was, indeed.

And Mr. 8-25 FG wasn't playing for us.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> People around here are always saying *"In the case that Hinrich may sit out a game or two, the Bulls will NEVER win one of those games"*.


Not that I'm disputing your claim, but I'd be interested to see a link or two to some of these quotes besides the one you just made in your post. I'm here quite a bit and don't recall reading any of those posts.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Rose was, indeed.
> 
> And Mr. 8-25 FG wasn't playing for us.


Yet Mr. 8-25 FG's team will be in the playoffs while Rose will be sitting on his couch, or maybe shooting fadeaway threes in his driveway.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Yet Mr. 8-25 FG's team will be in the playoffs while Rose will be sitting on his couch, or maybe shooting fadeaway threes in his driveway.


True... this is the sunset of Jalen's career.

Let's hope that Kirk can "lead" a team to the NBA Finals... like Jalen did.

Maybe Jalen can come to Berto this summer and try to teach Hinrich to shoot over 40%. That would make the Bulls a better team.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Not that I'm disputing your claim, but I'd be interested to see a link or two to some of these quotes besides the one you just made in your post. I'm here quite a bit and don't recall reading any of those posts.


You'll find those links right next to the "Wynn should be banned for being too sexy" threads.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> True... this is the sunset of Jalen's career.
> 
> Let's hope that Kirk can "lead" a team to the NBA Finals... like Jalen did.
> 
> Maybe Jalen can come to Berto this summer and try to teach Hinrich to shoot over 40%. That would make the Bulls a better team.


Why not keep the topic to Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls? I guess that's too difficult.

So far there have been posts about former players...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

"Toronto will finish with a better record than the Bulls. Book it.... "


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> "Toronto will finish with a better record than the Bulls. Book it.... "


Now there have been posts about me, Crawford, Rose and the Toronto Raptors vs the Bulls.

Goodness. Goodness. Goodness.

This thread is about Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls.

Let's keep it on topic people!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Let's hope that Kirk can "lead" a team to the NBA Finals... like Jalen did.


I'd prefer to have him lead us to an NBA championship (or preferably multiple championships), personally.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Why not keep the topic to Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls? I guess that's too difficult.
> 
> So far there have been posts about former players...


Wasn't my post about Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls?

A little trigger happy there.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'd prefer to have him lead us to an NBA championship (or preferably multiple championships), personally.



Yeah... of course... that would be even better.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ok, here's on topic.



kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls just won a road game without Kirk Hinrich even playing.
> 
> Can this really be possible?
> 
> How on Earth did this happen?


1. Yes.
2. The Bulls are a good team.


:reporter: 

There's your scoop. Simple, isn't it?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

We could chalk it up to:

...on any given night...

or

...every dog has his day...

or

...even a blind squirrel finds an acorn...

or 

Who knows and who cares how they did it? I'm just glad they won.

EDIT: Ooops, I forgot..._"Win one for the Gipper!"_ Kirk simply served as the ultimate inspiration for his team. Heart & soul, baby...heart & soul.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

The Bulls have won without Curry, without Chandler, without Deng....

but one things remains constant.....

Noooooooooooooooccccccccccchhhhhhhh!!!!!!
:cheers: 

[this message sponsored by Sbarro]


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Rose was, indeed.
> 
> And Mr. 8-25 FG wasn't playing for us.


Where did you get 8-25? 

nba.com had Jalen hitting 8-22 this game...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ok, here's on topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah... but we're talking about KIRK HINRICH here.

The "heart n' soul."

The "leader."

Perhaps it is just a good team and Hinrich is merely a part of it. I think I see the point.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

Just imagine if this was the first game without Curry and with a Bulls win...

I really think that K4E is too Jamal-Rose fan, but people here bash Curry so much using any game, stat, rebound, TO, and saying we should trade him... One even suggest that he could be playing, that Kirk was playing with the same injury... Now the oppositte hapens and no one says anything....

I really deslike this kind of posts, but I dislike even more people trying to be ironic and sarcastic because other posters are doing what the do, but with their favorite player instead of the player they hate...


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> You'll find those links right next to the "Wynn should be banned for being too sexy" threads.


I KNEW there had to be threads like that! It's a conspiracy by the MAN to keep me down. Can somebody post a link?



























_I don't think I have access to that area of the site...._


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

Hmmmmm,

The Kings won last night without Brad Miller. He must have been the problem and should be traded.

It seems like a lot of teams have won despite having a good starter not play. Maybe they should drop Shaq, AI, Duncan Nash etc because they won games without them.

KK4E needs to go over to the Bucks thread and laud his hero instead of tearing down Bulls players time and time again.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Bolts said:


> KK4E needs to go over to the Bucks thread and laud his hero instead of tearing down Bulls players time and time again.


Please provide a quote on this thread where I'm tearing a Bulls player down.

I brought up Hinrich's FG%, but that's a fair critique. 

I think Hinrich brings a lot to the table. He's a good basketball player.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

How did the Bulls survive the game without Hinrich? Simple. All that fine veteran talent Paxson brought in from the Crawford trade stepped up big time. They may not have thrown passes to themselves off the backboard in doing so, but they just won, baby. :banana:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> How did the Bulls survive the game without Hinrich? Simple. All that fine veteran talent Paxson brought in from the Crawford trade stepped up big time. They may not have thrown passes to themselves off the backboard in doing so, but they just won, baby. :banana:


Again... Crawford, Crawford, Crawford.

Here I am trying to have a conversation about something other than Jamal, and it always comes back to Crawford.

The veteran talent Paxson acquired for the player mentioned above played a combined 26 minutes.

The player of the game was some guy Paxson was going to cut before the season started.

The Krause towers played well..... as did the lottery picks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Where did you get 8-25?
> 
> nba.com had Jalen hitting 8-22 this game...


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005031920


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

While this thread is sarcastic and humorous in nature, I do have one thing to add.

Duhon can't play 48 minutes every night. He's the only other player on this team that can consistently run the offense. Great job tonight, Chris. Although he did fill in the Hinrich roll nicely going 2-9 from the field, although I haven't seen anyone else bashing him for his shooting.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Great job tonight, Chris. Although he did fill in the Hinrich roll nicely going 2-9 from the field, although I haven't seen anyone else bashing him for his shooting.


Maybe because he only took 9 shots and left the shooting to the other members of the team that can put the ball in the hole @ a better clip.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3710/gamelog

Take a look.

When was the last time Hinrich took 9 or fewer shots in a game?

When was the last time Hinrich took 9 or fewer shots in a game and played more than 30 minutes?

Hinrich hoists up 18.7 shots per 48 minutes.
Duhon shoots 10.5 per 48.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I've seen a Pacers team lose Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson, two players who are better than Hinrich and one solid starter, and they still won three straight games, before losing 7 straight after that. 

Our teams needs Hinrich more than anyone else, because Hinrich is the guy who keeps Gordon from being exposed, and keeps our undersized backcourt from being exposed, keeps our defensive pressure high, and keeps us from turning the ball over a lot since Duhon is the only guy who can handle the rock efficiently. However, guys like Deng, Gordon, Curry and Chandler are almost as important, or as important as Hinrich.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

On a night when Kirk Hinrich sat with a sore hamstring, the Bulls replaced their *heart and soul* with a collective effort of help and hustle.

"What Kirk brings is passion and energy and toughness," Skiles said.

"The thing that's different this year is we have a lot of guys who bring that."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sgamer,1,3499017.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

From where I sit, those are qualities you can never have too much of, especially at the pro level where fat contracts and an overemphasis on individual performance serve as deterents to group achievement (winning championships).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> There are 7 teams in the NBA worse than the Raptors in overall record and the Raps are a really good home team... 21-13 at home this season.
> 
> Somehow we won without Hinrich.
> 
> ...


Because even without Hinrich the Bulls are a better team than the Raptors.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Deleted. I am trying to turn over a new leaf.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Because even without Hinrich the Bulls are a better team than the Raptors.


This was an impressive win for the Bulls.

Just beating the Raptors alone at their house is a tough task.

They hold the 7th best home record in the east.

Better than teams like Chicago, Indiana, Philly.

To beat such a good home team period is an impressive feat.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> This was an impressive win for the Bulls.
> 
> Just beating the Raptors alone at their house is a tough task.
> 
> ...


For the Bulls it appears to be a ho-hum feat considering they've done it 8 times in a row. 6 of which came after the Rose trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> For the Bulls it appears to be a ho-hum feat considering they've done it 8 times in a row. 6 of which came after the Rose trade.


You are correct.

The Bulls do have a history of success against a great home team in the Raptors.

Good win for the Bulls last night in a tough environment.

A lot of teams would have folded... but last night's squad had the fortitude to persevere.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

As today's Tribune article states... the game was not as close as the score indicated.

This was not just a victory over a tough home team in the Raptors.... it was a whooping.

Nice to see all of our great players step up and take out this pesky Raptors squad.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Hey kukoc4ever, 

If you're interested I could write a program that will compose your posts for you... You wouldn't have to write a word... not one word. 

Because don't you get tired of writing the same thing over and over and over again?

Have you ever seen the film "Planes, Trains and Automobiles?"

You're like Steve Martin's impersonation of John Candy-- one of these dolls that talks when you pull a chord from it's chest, only no one wants to listen, so you just stand there like a ******* yanking your own crank...

"BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!"


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> As today's Tribune article states... the game was not as close as the score indicated.
> 
> This was not just a victory over a tough home team in the Raptors.... it was a whooping.
> 
> Nice to see all of our great players step up and take out this pesky Raptors squad.



"bzzzz, bzzzz, bzzzz...."

SMACK!

The gadfly routine (and it is a routine) is getting old. Still obtuse as ever, I guess.

Nonetheless, a great win by the Bulls. Looking at the boxscore, none of the starters or even Ben shot a great percentage. But Pargo, Tyson, Deng and Harrington all shot 50% or better. Our reserves (the "right way" squad) got it done big time last night. I liked ScottMay's comment on the Toronto commentators who were expressing their regret about Toronto's lack of playing the right way, which was really shown up by the Bulls proclivity to do so. 

35-31. So hard to believe! Especially after getting NOTHING for our best players.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I like Hinrich. How am I attacking him? Have I said anything bad about him?
> 
> We had 2 of our 3 team captains playing tonight. AD and THE HAWK were both ready to roll. Hinrich was nursing an injury.





> Can this really be possible?
> 
> How on Earth did this happen?


Don't you answer your own question?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Don't you answer your own question?


Theories abound. 

Is the Hinrich love so think around here that merely asking a question as to how the Bulls won a game without him constitutes an attack?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

madox said:


> Hey kukoc4ever,
> 
> If you're interested I could write a program that will compose your posts for you... You wouldn't have to write a word... not one word.
> 
> ...


Once again... while I appreciate the personal nature of this post... let's try to keep the subject to Kirk Hinrich and the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Theories abound.
> 
> Is the Hinrich love so think around here that merely asking a question as to how the Bulls won a game without him constitutes an attack?


Don't play dumb.

If you are going to start a Hinrich bashing thread, at least have the decency to admit your intentions.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Don't play dumb.
> 
> If you are going to start a Hinrich bashing thread, at least have the decency to admit your intentions.


I'm not out here to bash Hinrich. I'm not calling him names. I'm not creating funny photoshop images. 

I have no qualms with Kirk Hinrich nor any reason to bash him.

Go Bulls!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Theories abound.
> 
> Is the Hinrich love so think around here that merely asking a question as to how the Bulls won a game without him constitutes an attack?


No, but your post stating that Hinrich had one of his best games of the season by not playing does.

If David Duke, 10 other white guys and Ray Lewis are all sitting in a room together and David Duke generically comments on how much nicer the environment is once Ray Lewis leaves the room, is he actually saying something bad about Ray Lewis and black people even though he didn't actually expressly make a negative statement? 

In other words, you have to consider the source.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, but your post stating that Hinrich had one of his best games of the season by not playing does.


True... but you also have to consider the context.

That was a tongue-in-cheek reply to Wynn's tongue-in-cheek message.

I'm sure you were able to pick up on that.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Scott Skiles' comment:



> “Tonight’s a good win, especially without Kirk. I thought most of the game we played well, we kind of limped to the finish line at the end, but we have got to be happy about that win. Our game plan was to get them off of the three-point line and try to make them miss their threes. I thought our guys were conscientious about that, and for the most part, pulled that off. That is a big key to beating them.”
> 
> When was the decision made about not playing Kirk (Hinrich)?
> “About two minutes after I talked to you guys, I went back in and Fred (Tedeschi, athletic trainer) said he wasn’t going to be able to go. What I did this morning, like I said, he came out in this morning’s shootout, loosened up and he took about five shots, and I took him right out. I made him sit down because I didn’t like the way he looked. As the day went on, he kind of felt better he thought, but then when he went out to do the pre-warm up it just became clear he couldn’t go.”
> ...



Antonio Davis' comment:



> Was it your defense or a lack of shooting on their part?
> “I guess you have to say it was a little bit of both. I think we went into it, very much prepared knowing that this is a great offensive team. You do your best to get the ball inside and make them collapse and help our shooters get open shots. *We didn’t have Kirk Hinrich either, who really is our floor general. So it made it a little bit different. But everyone stepped up and played great defense. * We didn’t allow Donyell Marshall to really get off and we helped on Jalen as much as possible. I think overall, we did a pretty good job.”


Again, all the bench players shot 50% or more (Tyson, Othella, Pargo and Deng). Good team effort. They pulled one out for their captain, instead of trying to "get theirs". Thank goodness we have a TEAM. :clap:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not out here to bash Hinrich. I'm not calling him names. I'm not creating funny photoshop images.
> 
> I have no qualms with Kirk Hinrich nor any reason to bash him.
> 
> Go Bulls!


Well I guess I am just curious as to why you haven't created threads after the 34 Bulls wins in which Kirk participated to talk about his important contributions.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> True... but you also have to consider the context.
> 
> That was a tongue-in-cheek reply to Wynn's tongue-in-cheek message.
> 
> I'm sure you were able to pick up on that.


"Picking up" on where you are coming from is about as hard as "picking up" a 3 dollar hooker.

Notwithstanding your transparent protestations to the contrary. :clown:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Well I guess I am just curious as to why you haven't created threads after the 34 Bulls wins in which Kirk participated to talk about his important contributions.


Becuase he's the "heart and soul" and "leader" and "future all star" of the Bulls.

Winning with him is not threadworthy.

Winning a game without him... on the road... against a good home team.... well that's an occasion to... :jawdrop:

But... once again... let's stop talking about me and why i created a thread and start talking about Kirk Hinrich and the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> "Picking up" on where you are coming from is about as hard as "picking up" a 3 dollar hooker.
> 
> Notwithstanding your transparent protestations to the contrary. :clown:


Then why make a post pretending otherwise?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Then why make a post pretending otherwise?


I don't know why you pretend. I suppose you think its funny.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No need to take the thread off topic TBF.
> 
> Every thread does not have to be about Jamal. Perhaps this is best suited for the "Crawford Update" thread.


Actually you missed my point. JC was the heart and soul of the Bulls last year. Many said the sky will fall after he was traded. The team came together. TEAM. 

When Jordan left basketball the first time, the Bulls competed for the finals. They came together as a unit. 

This team, all year long has stepped it up when someone is not playing. 

Hinrich is not a superstar if that is what you are getting at with this thread.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Actually you missed my point. JC was the heart and soul of the Bulls last year. Many said the sky will fall after he was traded. The team came together. TEAM.


Actually.... midway though the season.... Hinrich was considered to be the leader.

I remember a new article where Skiles asked everyone on the team about this and they all agreed.

JC was being benched by Skiles... he was far from being the heart and soul.

Hinrich was the heart and soul of that abysmal team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't know why you pretend. I suppose you think its funny.


There are many here that think Hinrich is a great, majestic player.

I was curious as to what their thoughts were on last night's game.

The usual suspects have come out of the woodwork.

Also, other posters on this thread have already posted about enjoying its comic nature.


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

To answer the question about the last time Hinrich took 9 shots (or less) when playing 30+ minutes, the answer is that has happened just once this season, back in December in a game against Detroit. I agree that he takes more shots than he probably should, given his low FG %. But a better comparison would be to see how many times he took 9 or ess shots when playing 30+ minutes last year, when he played almost all his minutes as the PG. I would bet there were many such games. 

Anyway, in the interest of fairness, I would also point out that -- despite splitting time between PG and SG, Kirk has 25 games this season with 8+ assists (which is how many Duhon had last night), while Chris only has 11 such games.

Also, while I agree that Chris played a terrific floor game last night, as he usually does, and is a solid defender, his shooting is even WORSE than Kirk's. Over his last 7 games, Duhon is shooting 29.5%, which has dropped his season FG% to under 34%. This wouldn't be a good thing even if he were racking up 10+ assists per game. Since he only averages 5+ assists per game, he REALLY needs to raise that FG %. I like the fact that Chris rarely forces shots and he seems more confident in his 3-point ability, but there are still too many times when he is TOO hesitant to take a shot, even when he is wide open (which is often). 

Lastly, doesn't it worry anyone that Chris had to play all 48 minutes last night because Skiles seemingly didn't trust Gordon or Pargo to be the point guard? If Kirk is out for any leangth of time with this injury and Chris has to play way more minutes than he is used to, his play -- and the team's ability to execute on offense -- could really suffer. Now I'm not saying that it will, necessarily, but I do think that there is a very good possibility that it would.

The Bulls got nice contributions from a bunch of guys in beating Toronto last night. And it was a big win. But let's remember it came against one of the worst defensive teams in the league. I will be more impressed if the Bulls can win their back-to-back games on Friday & Saturday without Hinrich.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I've seen a Pacers team lose Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson, two players who are better than Hinrich and one solid starter, and they still won three straight games, before losing 7 straight after that.
> 
> Our teams needs Hinrich more than anyone else, because Hinrich is the guy who keeps Gordon from being exposed, and keeps our undersized backcourt from being exposed, keeps our defensive pressure high, and keeps us from turning the ball over a lot since Duhon is the only guy who can handle the rock efficiently. However, guys like Deng, Gordon, Curry and Chandler are almost as important, or as important as Hinrich.


:naughty: stop it! You make too much sense. We can't have that in a thread meant to challenge Hinrich supporters. No, can't have this at all.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> There are many here that think Hinrich is a great, majestic player.


Really? Granted, I've only been posting since December but I haven't seen a single person describe Hinrich as great or majestic. Best player on the team? I've heard that. Most valuable Bull? I've heard that too. Future allstar? Check.

But as to assertions of his greatness, admittedly I must have missed all of those posts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Really? Granted, I've only been posting since December but I haven't seen a single person describe Hinrich as great or majestic. Best player on the team? I've heard that. Most valuable Bull? I've heard that too. Future allstar? Check.
> 
> But as to assertions of his greatness, admittedly I must have missed all of those posts.



Best player on a winning playoff team most of the time is a great player. Many thought he should be an all-star *this* year... that's a game specially designed to showcase great players.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Best player on a winning playoff team has to be a great player. Many thought he should be an all-star *this* year... that's a game specially designed to showcase great players.


*poof*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> Best player? Veteran in Jackson, Smits, a probably HOF in Miller who was at/near his prime, the Davis brothers hitting the boards. I don't think you can simply call Jalen the best player just because he had good nights scoring.


Dude. You have your threads confused. This is not the one talking about Jalen.

MODS: Can you please move VD's above post to the "Jalen talking smack" thread? 

(BTW... he also was 2nd in assists and steals... and 4th in rebounds)

(They thought enough of him after that season to give him the MAX.... so the Pacers seemed to like him well enough)


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

well, i guess the point of starting this thread is that Hinrich isn't the MVP of the league, or that he's not a one man gang.....duhhhhhh

divisive muckraking...yep

generally, when guys get criticized for critiquing Bulls players as non Bulls fans, i stick up for em, because theres sometimes a new point to be made.
Can't do that this time. Its just pure hating on a Bull who never disgraced the uniform

The only Bulls i ever hated was Eddie Robinson for being such a you know what, and those that didn't put forth the effort. I dislike Eddy Curry at times, because of that...but I'm still a fan, and i don't see why I would have to be on his case if the Bulls win, and he's busting his tail. Ever


hey the Bulls won, and all we can think of is to hate on Kirk. A Bull who leaves it all out there on the floor. Nice. Its NOT to make some sort of point. This thread blatantly stinks


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually.... midway though the season.... Hinrich was considered to be the leader.
> 
> I remember a new article where Skiles asked everyone on the team about this and they all agreed.
> 
> ...


Not true. Hinrich was considered to be out best player because of how he played at both ends of the court, but Jamel was the heart and sould of team as he went so did the Bulls. 

ok, but when Rose was traded, this was suppose to be Jamel's team. 

Ok you may be right. He was given the chance to prove himself and be the heart and soul of the team, but he couldn't do it. 

As for Hinrich, SA has won some games without Duncan. Is he the heart and sould of the team? Teams come together when the chance presents itself. Maybe the fact that the last 6 years this has not been true of our bulls team, we as posters talk about individual players because the teasm we had were so bad. Not anymore. The Bulls are a team. This team is not about anyone player. Old ways of posting may be hard to break. We can talk about the Bulls as a TEAM now, it's ok to do that. 

I can't help myself by saying the next statement and I know it is off-topic but others said it first. The comment about Jalen "leading" the Pacers to the finals one year. That team had more players than Rose. Rose played his part. But that was once. What has he done for any team lately? If he "led" the Pacers there, why isn't he leading other teams into the playoffs?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Dude. You have your threads confused. This is not the one talking about Jalen.
> 
> MODS: Can you please move VD's above post to the "Jalen talking smack" thread?
> 
> ...


Nice use of statistics. So you stand by the fact that Jalen was the best player on the 2000 Pacers team? [apologies to everyone else on the OT subject matter]

Guess the GM's around the league think so much of his contract that he's been traded twice since then. To no surprise, the Toronto GM tried to sneak him in with Marshall during the trade deadline. No one was biting though

Let's see... following k4E's logic. Hinrich is 1st in assists, 1st in steals, 2nd in scoring and 6th in rebounding... he must be this team's best player. Got it


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

fleetwood macbull said:


> hey the Bulls won, and all *we* can think of is to hate on Kirk. A Bull who leaves it all out there on the floor. Nice. Its NOT to make some sort of point. This thread blatantly stinks


Notwithstanding the length of the thread, its not a "we" issue, its a K4E issue. 

And you are right, the thread does stink, yet Ron Cey is drawn to it like a moth to flame. Hence the mysterious dichotomy of K4E's simultaneous uselessness and indispensability.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Not true. Hinrich was considered to be out best player because of how he played at both ends of the court, but Jamel was the heart and sould of team as he went so did the Bulls.
> 
> ok, but when Rose was traded, this was suppose to be Jamel's team.


I'll have to find the article I'm referring to. I think you are wrong on this. I remember reading about a team meeting Skiles had with the whole team and asked them "Will you let this guy be your leader?" and they all agreed to. I'll find the article... or perhaps someone will back me up on this. But... you're wrong.



> Ok you may be right. He was given the chance to prove himself and be the heart and soul of the team, but he couldn't do it.


TMAC could not win in Orlando. Surround a player with crap and you have a crap team. That's so obvious its painful.



> As for Hinrich, SA has won some games without Duncan. Is he the heart and sould of the team? Teams come together when the chance presents itself. Maybe the fact that the last 6 years this has not been true of our bulls team, we as posters talk about individual players because the teasm we had were so bad. Not anymore. The Bulls are a team. This team is not about anyone player. Old ways of posting may be hard to break. We can talk about the Bulls as a TEAM now, it's ok to do that.


I'm from the camp that says posters can post however they feel like... as long as they follow the rules of the site.... but perhaps you think otherwise.



> I can't help myself by saying the next statement and I know it is off-topic but others said it first. The comment about Jalen "leading" the Pacers to the finals one year. That team had more players than Rose. Rose played his part. But that was once. What has he done for any team lately? If he "led" the Pacers there, why isn't he leading other teams into the playoffs?


See above obvious statement about being surrounded by crap.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Notwithstanding the length of the thread, its not a "we" issue, its a K4E issue.
> 
> And you are right, the thread does stink, yet Ron Cey is drawn to it like a moth to flame. Hence the mysterious dichotomy of K4E's simultaneous uselessness and indispensability.


 :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> Let's see... following k4E's logic. Hinrich is 1st in assists, 1st in steals, 2nd in scoring and 6th in rebounding... he must be this team's best player. Got it


I would have no problem saying that Hinrich is the best player on the Bulls right now. Like I said... I like Hinrich.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Notwithstanding the length of the thread, its not a "we" issue, its a K4E issue.
> 
> And you are right, the thread does stink, yet Ron Cey is drawn to it like a moth to flame. Hence the mysterious dichotomy of K4E's simultaneous uselessness and indispensability.


And yet another example of the inability of posters to control themselves enough to not resort to name calling.

Nice 1.

Maybe you can request the thread be moved to another forum?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would have no problem saying that Hinrich is the best player on the Bulls right now. Like I said... *I like Hinrich*.


if i said you were full of #$%! would you hold it against me?

that dog won't hunt


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> i i said you were full of #$%! would you hold it against me?
> 
> that dog won't hunt


No really... I do. I have a bobble head doll of him and everything. Its sitting on my desk right now.

I wrapped a little piece of tape around his hamstring this morning though.

(honestly.. I think Hinrich is a great basketball player... I just wish he could improve his shooting)


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet another example of the inability of posters to control themselves enough to not resort to name calling.
> 
> Nice 1.
> 
> Maybe you can request the thread be moved to another forum?


No, we should keep this here. This is fun


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

K4E was obviously starting the thread with tongue in cheek, but on a serious note - it was a great game to give Hinrich some rest. 

We have absolutely OWNED the Raptors. I believe the win last night was our 9th in a row and over the last 6-8 quarters we were shooting near 60% against them. These were noted by the Raptors broadcast crew.

BTW, if theres any one guy on the Bulls they continue to fawn all over its Hinrich as they recalled the stellar game he had against them last time. Of course the last time we whupped this "awesome" home team as well.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=508 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=508 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>







</TD><TD vAlign=top width=1 bgColor=#8caede>







</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>







</TD><TD vAlign=top width=1 bgColor=#6b9ade>







</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>







</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>







</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=508 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=center bgColor=#dddddd><TD class=dFontBL width=140><SCRIPT language=javascript>playerName ("Kirk Hinrich", "Hinrich");</SCRIPT>K. Hinrich</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont align=middle width=24 height=15>G</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont align=middle width=26>43</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFontL noWrap width=36><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=dFontR noWrap width="90%">11-16</TD><TD class=dSmall align=right width="10%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD width=1>







</TD><TD class=dFontL noWrap width=36><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=dFontR noWrap width="75%">6-8</TD><TD class=dSmall align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD width=1>







</TD><TD class=dFontL noWrap width=36><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=dFontR noWrap width="75%">0-0</TD><TD class=dSmall align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont noWrap width=18>0</TD><TD width=1>







</TD><TD class=dFont noWrap width=19>3</TD><TD width=1>







</TD><TD class=dFont noWrap width=18>3</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont width=25>4</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont width=24>4</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont width=24>2</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont width=24>7</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont width=24>0</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#ffffff>







</TD><TD class=dFont width=25>28</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Sure the Gip/Sloth/woody contigent doesn't grasp this sort of thing and is always eager to submit a post ripping on Hinrich, but lets not get too carried away with Curry's 1-5 mark when not playing.

That would include two losses to start the season on our way to 0-9:

NJ 106-111 (2OT)
Indy 90-100

Anyone want to make the case we should have been the favorite in our first two games of the year against NJ or Indy?

NJ 84-100
NO 90-94
PHIL 94-88

Looks like we lost the game we should have won (NO) and won the game we should have lost (PHIL) making it a wash. NJ? They've owned Eddy and the Bulls.

DET 80-87

We beat them on the road, they come in and beat us on the road.

Without Curry and based on the schedule, 1-5 looks about right whether he played or not.
Without Hinrich and based on the schedule, 1-0 looks about right whether he played or not.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No really... I do. I have a bobble head doll of him and everything. Its sitting on my desk right now.
> 
> I wrapped a little piece of tape around his hamstring this morning though.
> 
> (honestly.. I think Hinrich is a great basketball player... I just wish he could improve his shooting)


this is like the guy who beats his wife and tells her if he didn't that would mean he doesn't care about her

holy murder i've heard it all :cheers:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet another example of the inability of posters to control themselves enough to not resort to name calling.
> 
> Nice 1.
> 
> Maybe you can request the thread be moved to another forum?


If you continue to bait and provoke, then this is the inevitable result. I can only imagine this day is your finest hour. You're running the counter-argument singlehandedly on at least three threads this morning and seemingly disparaging the fact that the team most of us root for won last night.

I can see now why Jamal and Jalen are such favorites of yours. A team win meant nothing to them, either, unless they got theirs.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

fleetwood macbull said:


> this is like the guy who beats his wife and tells her if he didn't that would mean he doesn't care about her
> 
> holy murder i've heard it all :cheers:


That was post 1000 for fleetwood macbull. :cheers:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> this is like the guy who beats his wife and tells her if he didn't that would mean he doesn't care about her
> 
> holy murder i've heard it all :cheers:


Honestly, what have I ever said bad about Hinrich? Other than his low FG%?

Even in this thread... I'm only asking how can the Bulls win without him. Then people start bashing away.

The Bulls have a deep, talented team right now that is playing their asses off. They can win without him... mostly because of the surprising Chris Duhon.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'll have to find the article I'm referring to. I think you are wrong on this. I remember reading about a team meeting Skiles had with the whole team and asked them "Will you let this guy be your leader?" and they all agreed to. I'll find the article... or perhaps someone will back me up on this. But... you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can post how you feel, so can I. All I was referring to is we can talk about the Bulls as a team. The concept is new and awkward to some I know. Did I say for you to stop talking about players? Where did I say that? Where did I give you the idea, that I think otherwise. You missunderstood my point. 

About Jalen, I feel different. If he lead the team to finals one year and he is leading teams now, then he is leading them downward. Last year, Carter, Jalen, Marshall, bosh etc missed the playoffs, big time. When Rose and marshall were traded to the Raptors I really thought the playoffs were a lock. Was Rose leading that team or not? And the year after Indy went to the finals, why didn't Rose lead them to the finals again? As I remember he had all types of run ins with the coach. The only leading he did was for himself that year.

As for Tmac, the team was always over .500 and in the playoffs except for last year, when he quit playing like Tmac.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ok (TBF takes deep breath) We won without Hinrich. At Toronto. This says more about Skiles as a coach and the entire team in general than it does about Hinrich the player. 

Played his best game by sitting? No... the team came together. The entire team deserves credit and that is where the focus should be, not on Hinrich missing and the bulls win. Good teams adjust. We are a good team.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, what have I ever said bad about Hinrich? Other than his low FG%?
> 
> Even in this thread... I'm only asking how can the Bulls win without him. Then people start bashing away.
> 
> The Bulls have a deep, talented team right now that is playing their asses off. They can win without him... mostly because of the surprising Chris Duhon.


heres another one you won't understand if pattern holds:

Barry Bonds thinks the world is designed to drag him down. Can't figure out the simple fact that the world understands the game he tries to run (off the field) 

agree with him...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not creating funny photoshop images.


You couldn't even if you wanted to. :grinning:


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

K4E, you know how to push the buttons and you know you pushed them. The only thing I'm contributing to the whole argument _ in that way _ I already posted on the Jalen thread and, frankly, I'm exhausted.

It was indeed a great win without Kirk. Rafer Alston had a field day getting to the ball--something that wouldn't have happened so much with another good ballhandler like Kirk available. That being said, we shot the ball incredibly well and gave him a chance to rest up. Additionally, Chris proved even more his value as a floor general and Ben proved even more his inability to be a floor general. Them's my :twocents:. Maybe when Kirk comes back, he'll know his role on the team better for having watched from a distance...he'll maybe have seen that he doesn't have to be superman every night and he might just end up playing like him because of it.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> Actually you missed my point. JC was the heart and soul of the Bulls last year. Many said the sky will fall after he was traded. The team came together. TEAM.
> 
> When Jordan left basketball the first time, the Bulls competed for the finals. They came together as a unit.
> 
> ...


One thing we know for sure. If somebody started this thread last year (tongue-in-cheek or not) they would have been EXCORIATED as a JAMAL HATER.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> That was post 1000 for fleetwood macbull. :cheers:


still not banned and loving it!!! :spam:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> You can post how you feel, so can I. All I was referring to is we can talk about the Bulls as a team. The concept is new and awkward to some I know. Did I say for you to stop talking about players? Where did I say that? Where did I give you the idea, that I think otherwise. You missunderstood my point.


The first statement is correct and all that needs to be said. The rest is unnecessary and useless. I understood your useless point just fine.

Hinrich was the leader last season… I guess you’ve given up on that failed line of reasoning.



> About Jalen, I feel different. If he lead the team to finals one year and he is leading teams now, then he is leading them downward. Last year, Carter, Jalen, Marshall, bosh etc missed the playoffs, big time.
> When Rose and marshall were traded to the Raptors I really thought the playoffs were a lock. Was Rose leading that team or not?


1.) That was Vince Carter's team. 
2.) The Raptors were playing .500 ball until they had a horrible February. Rose was hurt from 2/12/2004 until 3/14/2004.... as the Raptors wilted from a .500 team to a 10 games under .500 team. So... no... he was not leading that team. 

Them's the facts. Look it up.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=TOR&yr=2003&lg=n





> And the year after Indy went to the finals, why didn't Rose lead them to the finals again? As I remember he had all types of run ins with the coach. The only leading he did was for himself that year.


Haha. Who was the coach? The same guy so many people on this board loves to hate... Isiah Thomas. Haha.



> As for Tmac, the team was always over .500 and in the playoffs except for last year, when he quit playing like Tmac.


By your logic I guess TMAC, Redd, Baron Davis, AK47, Jason Richardson all can't lead their teams to the promised land as well. The difference between these guys and Jalen is that Jalen led a team to the NBA Finals while he was in his prime.

Let's be honest.... Jalen is getting a little long in the tooth. Still.. .he can put the ball in the hole at a 46% clip. Impressive.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

fleetwood macbull said:


> well, i guess the point of starting this thread is that Hinrich isn't the MVP of the league, or that he's not a one man gang.....duhhhhhh
> 
> divisive muckraking...yep
> 
> ...


Excellent post Fleet. For some, its a nice opportunity to slip in a cheap shot or two. You make some great points about Hinrich. None of us are particularly enamored with his low FG% this year, but to berate the guy wreaks with stupidity. The guy is solid on the court and off the court and despite some of the hate he gets here, he still a fan favorite. Maybe the "bandwagoners" do have some good traits after all.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

BealeFarange said:


> K4E, you know how to push the buttons and you know you pushed them. The only thing I'm contributing to the whole argument _ in that way _ I already posted on the Jalen thread and, frankly, I'm exhausted.
> 
> It was indeed a great win without Kirk. Rafer Alston had a field day getting to the ball--something that wouldn't have happened so much with another good ballhandler like Kirk available. That being said, we shot the ball incredibly well and gave him a chance to rest up. Additionally, Chris proved even more his value as a floor general and Ben proved even more his inability to be a floor general. Them's my :twocents:. Maybe when Kirk comes back, he'll know his role on the team better for having watched from a distance...he'll maybe have seen that he doesn't have to be superman every night and he might just end up playing like him because of it.


Tried to add rep after this post, but apparently I've given you too much already. Have to settle for an "Atta boy, *Beale!*" and look for some positive rep after I've "spread some around a little".


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Throughout this thread i have learned a few things.

-K4ever LOVES kirk hinrich 
-k4ever loves playing the role of the victim
-Loves inferring something, than plays dumb like he has no idea what they are talking about.

I just don't understand the motive of this thread K4ever? You say its not to bash Kirk, so what is it for? To bait the so-called Kirk'ites? 

I wonder why you cant enjoy the Bulls getting their 35 win of the season?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

remlover said:


> I wonder why you cant enjoy the Bulls getting their 35 win of the season?


As a father, I can say that when my kid does something that I consider extraordinary, I don't enjoy it as much when my wife isn't there to share it with me. 

To make this an SAT type of analogy, for K4E the Bulls are his kid and Crawford is his wife.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Again... Crawford, Crawford, Crawford.
> 
> Here I am trying to have a conversation about something other than Jamal, and it always comes back to Crawford.
> 
> ...


this thread sure moved along after I went to sleep.

I kept it on topic. You asked why we won without Hinrich, and I provided an answer. The quality vets provided 14 points, 6 rebounds and 3 assists in their minutes. Flip the rebound and assist numbers, and you have a Hinrich-like line, but without all the missed shots. My only mention of Jamal was that we got these guys in the trade that included him.

Duhon had a fine game. Are we ripping on Pax now because he almost (DIDN'T) cut him? Good stuff. Stay on topic, we're not talking about the bad moves that Pax didn't make in this thread. Tee hee.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> He's "attacking" fans who say the Bulls live and die by Kirk.



spongy nailed it on the first page of the thread. why dig deeper?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Only 1800 more posts and this thread catches up with the Crawford update thread.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Only 1800 more posts and this thread catches up with the Crawford update thread.


OT: How is the Bulls board doing versus the Portland board? Do they have a lead on us?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Only 1800 more posts and this thread catches up with the Crawford update thread.


Seems like it should be a part of it, though, doesn't it?

"Bulls win without the guy who replaced my boo."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

superdave said:


> OT: How is the Bulls board doing versus the Portland board? Do they have a lead on us?


There's been a pretty big uptick in the Atlantic Division forums.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Wynn said:


> Tried to add rep after this post, but apparently I've given you too much already. Have to settle for an "Atta boy, *Beale!*" and look for some positive rep after I've "spread some around a little".


Lol...thanks Wynn. When I get to 1,000 posts I'll finally have TWO rep points and that will be sweet. 

Two rep points. 

Mama would be proud.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I'm guessing some people on this forum hate the Kirk fans and feel the need to put Kirk on the correct size pedestal. However if you have felt "Man, I hope the Bulls struggle with this game against the Raptors to show how important he is to this team", well then you are more of a Kirk fan and less of a Bulls fan. 

I may be guilty of saying something along the lines of "we'll see how the we play without Kirk" but I'm not here to talk about the past. I'm here to be positive about this subject.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> To make this an SAT type of analogy, for K4E the Bulls are his kid and Crawford is his wife.


:laugh: 

Photoshop anyone? :clown:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

BealeFarange said:


> Lol...thanks Wynn. When I get to 1,000 posts I'll finally have TWO rep points and that will be sweet.
> 
> Two rep points.
> 
> Mama would be proud.


I shall rep you as Wynn's proxy, Beale!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I think we're being a little hard on K4E.

People ride him pretty hard and use the logic that we're winning without Crawford and Rose a lot of the time.

So we win without Hinrich and he's throwing that logic back at people, tongue in cheek.

I freely admit that I observed that, statistically, we were shooting (as a team) a lot better last night without Hinrich. Can't say for sure that it meant anything, because 1 game doesn't say a whole lot about what would happen in the long term. But if you look at the box score and eliminate the 8-25 FG guy, it (team FG%) should get better. Nothing more, nothing less.

In K4E's spirit of tongue-in-cheek (and throwing bad logic back at people)... We won last night, and it was addition by subtraction.

Carry on


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Photoshop anyone? :clown:


RonCey and Mr.T...that's not helping anything. 



If there are to be pictures of anything, though, I want to see K4E's bobblehead kirk with the taped up hamstring...haha. My co-workers would have a ball with that. 

They're all sports fans but only a certain type is a _ Bulls _ fan these days...I bet a patched up Kerry Wood doll is on every secretary's desk in the city.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I shall rep you as Wynn's proxy, Beale!


Thank you, *Mr. NE;NV!*, well and rightly done.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I think we're being a little hard on K4E.
> 
> People ride him pretty hard and use the logic that we're winning without Crawford and Rose a lot of the time.
> 
> ...


It doesn't mean anything and thats what I was pointing out comparing it to those who would Invoke our Hinrich record vs. our Curry record. We have OWNED the Raptors as the Nets have OWNED us. Our last game against the Raptors we shot over 50% and Hinrich was 11-16. I'm sure he would have loved to have played to "get his" if he was that kind of player (cough, cough, Jalen).


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I think we're being a little hard on K4E.
> 
> People ride him pretty hard and use the logic that we're winning without Crawford and Rose a lot of the time.
> 
> ...


i don't really believe you when you say its "tongue in cheek"
I think is disguised as "tongue in cheek"

Whats disguised? I think we all know what.

and all the Crawford and Rose talk is pretty much instigated by one or two superfans...or we'd probably have long ago stopped talking about them for the most part.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Photoshop anyone? :clown:


I have a great photoshop idea, but right now im downloading the program. Hopefully this thread will still be alive and i can add my creativity to the group. :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> i don't really believe you when you say its "tongue in cheek"
> I think is disguised as "tounge in cheek"
> 
> Whats disguised? I think we all know what.
> ...


Cub fans STILL talk about the Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio trade.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think we're being a little hard on K4E.
> 
> People ride him pretty hard and use the logic that we're winning without Crawford and Rose a lot of the time.
> 
> ...


We are winning without Crawford and Rose, though! With a sample size of nearly 70 games now. Where's the bad logic in pointing that out? (edit: bad logic can come from taking that point to extremes, but simply pointing it out is just pointing out a fact)

I actually thought to myself before I checked the board last night that there would be a "we don't need Kirk" thread of some sort, and if I'd had to guess, I would have thought k4e was a likely candidate to start it. Sort of predictable, but funny in any event. For my part, I was responding to his tongue-in-cheek pot-stirring with a response that I thought fit the tone of his thread.

I think the length and vehemence of this thread proved whatever point he had. I'm just glad we have a good team that can withstand player injuries and still win games. I think we'd have trouble winning as consistently without Kirk, but I'd rather not have to find that out.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BealeFarange said:


> RonCey and Mr.T...that's not helping anything.


It helps me enjoy the thread. :angel:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Cub fans STILL talk about the Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio trade.


Broglio was no good :biggrin: 

see there we go again :sfight:


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> It helps me enjoy the thread. :angel:


Hehe, then carry on...


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> I shall rep you as Wynn's proxy, Beale!


 :jump:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

BealeFarange said:


> RonCey and Mr.T...that's not helping anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beale! After I repped you and everything! 

I figure a picture is worth a thousand words, no? I know I don't want to type the thousand words and I know nobody here wants to read them (thread already long enough). And for the record, K4E is a devout follower of my photoshopping (see avatar). He wears one proudly and I'm sure he'd be even more honored to be the guest star in one!


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*THIS THREAD IS CURRENTLY PAUSED*


Has anyone noticed K4E has disappeared? He is currently in his supervisors office explaining his Internet usage this morning. It seems, K4E has been siphoning off the better part of a T3 to himself all morning. 

Pending K4E's reinstatement to his cubicle, this thread will continue.

Should K4E be terminated, this thread will adjourn until he has time to get home and log on.

:biggrin:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think we're being a little hard on K4E.
> 
> People ride him pretty hard and use the logic that we're winning without Crawford and Rose a lot of the time.



I'm sorry, but when you create a signature that is meant to rub in the fact that Jamal and Jalen are doing better than our beloved Bulls on their two new teams, only to have it bite you in the butt when fortunes are reversed, you are asking to be ridden.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

This whole thread is silly, and in really poor taste. The saddest part about it is that k4Ever has probably been waiting the entire season for Hinrich to miss a game and for the Bulls to win so that he could start this topic. There's no tounge-in-cheek to this. It's pretty blatant baiting.

The Bulls won. Hinrich didn't play and we're one game closer to clinching a playoff berth. Is there really anything else to discuss? Agendas seem to be more important that actually winning the games.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

“Kirk is pretty much our general out there, but at the same time, we’ve got guys that can step up and play basketball,” said center Eddy Curry, who led the Bulls with 16 points. 

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=23675


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Cub fans STILL talk about the Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio trade.


I think it's safe to say JC is not a future hall of famer a la Lou Brock.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> “Kirk is pretty much our general out there, but at the same time, we’ve got guys that can step up and play basketball,” said center Eddy Curry, who led the Bulls with 16 points.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=23675


This pretty much sums it up IMO. Good show, Eddy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

If Hinrich doesn't play Friday, and the Bulls lose, what impact would that have on this thread?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

at least all posters on this board finally wanted the Bulls to win (last night). That had to be a first :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We are winning without Crawford and Rose, though! With a sample size of nearly 70 games now. Where's the bad logic in pointing that out? (edit: bad logic can come from taking that point to extremes, but simply pointing it out is just pointing out a fact)
> 
> I actually thought to myself before I checked the board last night that there would be a "we don't need Kirk" thread of some sort, and if I'd had to guess, I would have thought k4e was a likely candidate to start it. Sort of predictable, but funny in any event. For my part, I was responding to his tongue-in-cheek pot-stirring with a response that I thought fit the tone of his thread.
> 
> I think the length and vehemence of this thread proved whatever point he had. I'm just glad we have a good team that can withstand player injuries and still win games. I think we'd have trouble winning as consistently without Kirk, but I'd rather not have to find that out.


The flaw in the Rose/Crawford logic is this.

We've won 35 games without them, so far. There's no way of knowing if we might not have won 50 with them. And logic would suggest that we might be closer to the 50 figure (i.e. if you have MORE talent, you should win more).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm sorry, but when you create a signature that is meant to rub in the fact that Jamal and Jalen are doing better than our beloved Bulls on their two new teams, only to have it bite you in the butt when fortunes are reversed, you are asking to be ridden.


His signature does more to damage his argument than help. Where's the beef?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Not to take the thread off topic and talk about Kirk Hinrich at all, but ...

Scottie Pippen's blog 



> These young kids on the Bulls have really worked hard. A year ago, they were at the bottom of the barrel. But now, with the development of Kirk Hinrich and the coaching of Skiles, this is a very scary team going into the playoffs. *In my mind, Hinrich should merit All-NBA Third Team honors for what he is doing in only his second season. *The Bulls have primarily being doing it with their defense -- strong defensive rebounding while eliminating most teams to only one shot per trip down the floor.
> 
> Skiles is really doing a great job of rotating the young players. If you put five of them out there at one time, you really don't give yourself a lot of room for coaching any one individual. Skiles will pull Tyson Chandler out and say "Look, you're going to have to play behind Eddy Curry and earn your minutes. Andres Nocioni, you gotta play behind Luol Deng, and Ben Gordon, you have to earn your minutes behind Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon." This way, the younger players can learn a lot watching from the bench and Skiles is always gonna have fresh meat out there.
> 
> Bottom Line: Ben is doing more with less minutes for a winning team. And isn't that what really counts -- the rookie making the most impact in helping his team win?


Mainly about Ben, but nice and measured praise for Kirk. I think it means a lot, coming from a superstar. He gives him much of the credit for the team's success, along with Skiles and Ben.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Mainly about Ben, but nice and measured praise for Kirk. I think it means a lot, coming from a superstar. He gives him much of the credit for the team's success, along with Skiles and Ben.


Nice find. I think there are really only a handful of people left who won't acknowledge the credit due to each of those guys for the team's improvement.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wynn said:


> If you continue to bait and provoke, then this is the inevitable result. I can only imagine this day is your finest hour. You're running the counter-argument singlehandedly on at least three threads this morning and seemingly disparaging the fact that the team most of us root for won last night.
> 
> *I can see now why Jamal and Jalen are such favorites of yours. A team win meant nothing to them, either, unless they got theirs*.


 :clap: 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wynn again

Now I owe you two...

And to be accurate, a team win meant nothing to Jalen even when he got his if he had to get his off the bench, remember?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, what have I ever said bad about Hinrich? Other than his low FG%?
> 
> Even in this thread... *I'm only asking how can the Bulls win without him.* Then people start bashing away.
> 
> The Bulls have a deep, talented team right now that is playing their asses off. They can win without him... mostly because of the surprising Chris Duhon.


This right here shows that you didn't start this thread to ask "how can the Bulls win without Hinrich?". You already know the answer.

Everyone knows why you started this thread, and I think most of us find it quite hilarious. Not as hilarious as your denials and supposed love for Kirk, but quite funny nonetheless.

Please keep it up, though, there isn't nearly enough laughter in the world.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The flaw in the Rose/Crawford logic is this.
> 
> We've won 35 games without them, so far. There's no way of knowing if we might not have won 50 with them. And logic would suggest that we might be closer to the 50 figure (i.e. if you have MORE talent, you should win more).


There's also no way of knowing if we might not have only won 20 games with them. Adding talent to a team, on its own, doesn't always make it better. See Portland in the late 90s and early 00s. See last year's Dallas team. Heck, even last year's Laker team. The three-peat Lakers actually got better when they streamlined their talent to revolve around Shaq and Kobe (got rid of Van Exel, Eddie Jones). You need talent, yes. And usually, the more the better. But it's not a universal truth.

The crux of my argument all along is that we're much better now than we were in the last couple years. I'll stop short of saying it's BECAUSE we got rid of those two guys (that's wayy too simple, even if it were true, which it might not be), but whatever the reason, we're a better team now. I'm happy with Kirk, Ben, Duhon, Deng, and Noc taking the floor at our guard and swing positions, so I see no need to dream about Jalen and Jamal. 

argh, we've been around this block enough. If you want a last word on it, be my guest.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm sorry, but when you create a signature that is meant to rub in the fact that Jamal and Jalen are doing better than our beloved Bulls on their two new teams, only to have it bite you in the butt when fortunes are reversed, you are asking to be ridden.


 :clap: :worship: :yes:

K4E, I have a serious question for you, though- why is it that your 3 favorite players (Toni, Jamal and Jalen) are all guys with amazing offensive talents who aren't really interested in playing defense? It seems like you should become a Knicks fan, Isiah is building the perfect team for you over there- he even went after Jalen earlier in the season...

Does this possibly explain your disdain for Hinrich? You can say you like him all you want, but your actions certainly scream just the opposite. 

You say you just don't like the way Bulls fans here on this board "worship" or "over-praise" (or whatever) Hinrich. You start a thread serendipitously asking "how did we possibly win without Hinrich when he is the 'leader' and the 'heart and soul' of the team"? Well if you are sick of hearing Hinrich getting "over-praised", it looks like you are going to have to stop watching the NBA altogether.

Because opposing players, coaches, announcers and fans are all saying how Hinrich is the "leader" and the "heart and soul" and the "backbone" of this Bulls team. Not just the "Kirk fan-boys" or the even the Kirkites are praising him, it's the people on NBA-TV and ESPN Fastbreak and ABC and in the newspapers and in the magazines and...

The thing is, as the Bulls keep winning and the playoffs get closer and people start talking about the Bulls, they are all going to be talking about Hinrich. And almost none of them are going to mention his 38.6% shooting. You are going to hear Kirk referred to as the "leader" and "heart and soul" and "backbone" of this team many, many times over the nest 2 months from all the local and national media.

What are you going to do? I'm worried about your mental health, it obviously bothers you that Kirk receives so much "over-praise" here, how are you going to handle hearing it from all the impartial national media and Bulls opponents? I don't want you going postal and driving up to Bristol to take out ESPN, we'd miss you around here.

And what about when some impartial national guy sees Harrington and Piatkowski have a good game, and he mentions that the Bulls gave up their leading scorer from last year, Jamal Crawford, in order to get them, and that at the time of the trade some wondered how the Bulls would replace their leading scorer, but Paxson knew what he was doing?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The flaw in the Rose/Crawford logic is this.
> 
> We've won 35 games without them, so far. There's no way of knowing if we might not have won 50 with them. And logic would suggest that we might be closer to the 50 figure (i.e. if you have MORE talent, you should win more).


I'm no logician, or philosopher, but I don't buy your "logical" argument. You are treating the "talent" of Jalen and Jamal as a known and positive variable. That's an assumption that will destroy the logic of any further equation in which it is used unless you can prove your assumption.

When solving for the variable "talent" in a logical equation, you must first insert the "knowns" (ie: team records) to solve for the "unknowns" (ie: "talent" or maybe better defined as "contribution to team").

After losing Jalen & Jamal, the record for the Bull *increased*.

After gaining Jalen or Jamal, the records for the Knick and the Raptor *decreased*.

Therefore, one must logically deduce, *IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER VARIABLES*, that the value of "contribution to team" for Jalen and Jamal would be a negative answer.

I'm not going to go so far as to say there were no other variables. Nor do I think the logical argument is sophisticated enough to isolate which variables are more or less responsible for the rise of the Bull. 

I will say, though, that there is more evidence supporting the argument that the two are a negative effect on overall team record than the other way around.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The flaw in the Rose/Crawford logic is this.
> 
> We've won 35 games without them, so far. There's no way of knowing if we might not have won 50 with them. And logic would suggest that we might be closer to the 50 figure (i.e. if you have MORE talent, you should win more).


I have my own opinion about this logic. Rose and JC would take the ball our of Gordon's hands and some of the 4th quarter outbursts he has would not have happened. Jalen and Jamel would try and "get theirs" and because of that some of the games Ben has won for us would be losses. 

Both Jalen and Jamel had it in them to win games for us, but more than likely the games became a shooting contest and both guys could shoot us to losses easier than they could to wins. 

If this combo was going to work, it would have worked last year. The best they could do, even with Marshall in the mix was 30 wins and that season included losing streaks of 10 and 8. 

This is not even talking about defense of those two. The bulls would not be leading the league in FG% if they were here. We have won many games with our defense. 

Of course this is just my humble opinon.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think we're being a little hard on K4E.


Maybe we are, but didn't he start the thread? Looks like he was game to start with.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The flaw in the Rose/Crawford logic is this.
> 
> We've won 35 games without them, so far. There's no way of knowing if we might not have won 50 with them. And logic would suggest that we might be closer to the 50 figure (i.e. if you have MORE talent, you should win more).


And any assumption that we would ALSO have Deng and Gordon would be illogical.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The flaw in the Rose/Crawford logic is this.
> 
> We've won 35 games without them, so far. There's no way of knowing if we might not have won 50 with them. And logic would suggest that we might be closer to the 50 figure (i.e. if you have MORE talent, you should win more).


Well, that depends not only on your definition of "talent", but also what each said player does with his talent.

We replaced Crawford and Rose with (except for Gordon) players who are *undoubtedly less talented*- Duhon, Piatkowski, Nocioni, Deng and Gordon are getting the minutes that Rose and Crawford would be getting if they were here.

We would still have all of those guys on our roster, but Jalen and Jamal would be taking up about 70 minutes a game that Duhon, Gordon, Deng/Nocion wouldn't be out there. *It doesn't do any good to have more talent if said talent doesn't get any PT*. (And don't bother with the 'Jalen and Jamal could have played less minutes'- we all saw how they reacted to not starting last season- and that was a Bull WIN!)

Outside of yourself, K4E and NYGrinch, anyone would tell you that our defense is a huge part, the biggest part, of our turnaround. Replacing JC and Jamal in the starting line-up with Duhon and Deng/Nocioni (not to mention AD) has made that unit one of the top-3 defensive units in the NBA.

If we had kept JC and Jamal, we wouldn't have Harrington, Davis or Piatkowski. Duhon would have never made the team. Gordon wouldn't be leading the league in 10-point 4th quarters because Jalen and Jamal would be our 4th quarter "go to guys". Deng wouldn't be a lock for 1st-team all-Rookie because Rose would be starting at SF.

The Knicks have Marbury, Crawford, Hardaway, Tim Thomas, if you match Bull vs Knick, *talent-wise* the Knick wins every position except starting center. Marbury MT Duhon, Jamal MT Kirk, TThomas MT Deng, M Rose MT Davis, Sweetney LT Curry. 

"If you have more talent, you SHOULD win more", just doesn't ring true. Talent minus hard work and defense = high-scoring, high-salaried *losing* basketball.

How happy would DaBullz, Kukoc4Ever and NYgrinch be if Isiah were running the Bulls? The thought of IT running this team gives me cold chills and makes me nauseus.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> His signature does more to damage his argument than help. Where's the beef?


Does now. Didn't before. Even though I know now that it's biting him in the butt, we all know why it was started. It was started to say "Nyah nyah nyah nyah, Jamal and Jalen are doing better than the Bulls." 

I'm just saying if you're coming from that kind of a place as far as your intent goes, you're likely to get ridden a little more. You dispute this?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Does now. Didn't before. Even though I know now that it's biting him in the butt, we all know why it was started. It was started to say "Nyah nyah nyah nyah, Jamal and Jalen are doing better than the Bulls."
> 
> I'm just saying if you're coming from that kind of a place as far as your intent goes, you're likely to get ridden a little more. You dispute this?


<b>JNRJR79</b>..... sweet avatar. It took me a while, but I finally got it. Damn U of I education at work!

:cheers:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

superdave said:


> <b>JNRJR79</b>..... sweet avatar. It took me a while, but I finally got it. Damn U of I education at work!
> 
> :cheers:


That's right! Only three more hours till game time. I'm stoked!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I'm no logician, or philosopher, but I don't buy your "logical" argument. You are treating the "talent" of Jalen and Jamal as a known and positive variable. That's an assumption that will destroy the logic of any further equation in which it is used unless you can prove your assumption.
> 
> When solving for the variable "talent" in a logical equation, you must first insert the "knowns" (ie: team records) to solve for the "unknowns" (ie: "talent" or maybe better defined as "contribution to team").
> 
> ...


In games where we lost and played against teams very strong at SG, I fail to see how Rose or Crawford could have or would have done any worse. The chance is they'd do better.

When Deng went down with his ankle injury, Jalen Rose could have been a great guy to put in at SF. Heck, he'd have been a fine starting SF for us last season, when we were playing guys like Linton Johnson and JYD out of position.

We wouldn't have any less of our young core, unless you think that having Rose and Marshall (don't forget about him!) would have gotten us worse than the #3 pick and someone else would have grabbed Gordon before us.

Plus we'd still be in a position to trade Rose, Marshall, and Crawford right now, or at the trade deadline, for one or more players who might be enough to let us go deep in the playoffs, vs. just getting there. When it came to the trade deadline, we were in position to do what Detroit did last season - add a Sheed to a playoff bound team to put them over the top. But we didn't have anyone we could trade willingly.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_from L to R: *k4e!, sloth!, dabullz!, "ja rule"! *_




:wink:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> _from L to R: *k4e!, sloth!, dabullz!, "ja rule"! *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :rotf: 

Post of the Year Nomination! And worthy of Rep points


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> If you continue to bait and provoke, then this is the inevitable result. I can only imagine this day is your finest hour. You're running the counter-argument singlehandedly on at least three threads this morning and seemingly disparaging the fact that the team most of us root for won last night.
> 
> I can see now why Jamal and Jalen are such favorites of yours. A team win meant nothing to them, either, unless they got theirs.


Perhaps.... but I certainly didn't expect this type of emotional outburst.

For instance... let's say I wrote a song about me hating Kirk Hinrich... I wonder what would happen then?

Death threats?

RPG through my window?

All I did was ask a question. Yeah, I was curious as to what the reaction would be... but its also a valid question.

There was not 1 time during last night's game where we missed Hinrich. We didn't need him at all... last night at least. The D was still solid. The PG was still tossing up bricks.... just not as many of them. The assists and rebounds from the small guard were still there.

How do you know that winning didn't mean anything to Jalen and Jamal? That's the kind of attitude I don't like. For a guy that does not care about winning... Jalen sure did a lot of it... both in college and in the pros.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I guess the Pacers don't need Artest, O'Neal or Jackson either. I guess the Spurs don't need Duncan. Lakers don't need Kobe. 

All of these teams won their first game without their franchise player, and in some cases, even went on win streaks. What people don't understand is the change in dynamic when a key player is gone. Defenses can't put as much value in the tape they study knowing the team is going to play a different game without their best player. 

and Hinrich isn't even a franchise player, he is just the best player on a balanced team, so it's no surprise that the Bulls can go into Toronto and beat a bad team for 1 game.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> We are winning without Crawford and Rose, though! With a sample size of nearly 70 games now. Where's the bad logic in pointing that out? (edit: bad logic can come from taking that point to extremes, but simply pointing it out is just pointing out a fact)
> 
> I actually thought to myself before I checked the board last night that there would be a "we don't need Kirk" thread of some sort, and if I'd had to guess, I would have thought k4e was a likely candidate to start it. Sort of predictable, but funny in any event. For my part, I was responding to his tongue-in-cheek pot-stirring with a response that I thought fit the tone of his thread.
> 
> I think the length and vehemence of this thread proved whatever point he had. I'm just glad we have a good team that can withstand player injuries and still win games. I think we'd have trouble winning as consistently without Kirk, but I'd rather not have to find that out.


Yes, we're winning without Jalen and Jamal and Donyell (who somehow gets left out of the hate-fest for whatever reason)... almost everyone wants him back. The Heat is winning without Lamar Odom. The Mavericks are winning without Steve Nash. Its not a logically legitimate point to argue, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm sorry, but when you create a signature that is meant to rub in the fact that Jamal and Jalen are doing better than our beloved Bulls on their two new teams, only to have it bite you in the butt when fortunes are reversed, you are asking to be ridden.


True... but the reason I made the sig to begin with is because I was sick of the Bulls losing.

I try to keep my posts about the Bulls or basketball or sports.... I try not to personally antagonize other posters.... even if.... gasp.... I disagree with them.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> This whole thread is silly, and in really poor taste. The saddest part about it is that k4Ever has probably been waiting the entire season for Hinrich to miss a game and for the Bulls to win so that he could start this topic. There's no tounge-in-cheek to this. It's pretty blatant baiting.
> 
> The Bulls won. Hinrich didn't play and we're one game closer to clinching a playoff berth. Is there really anything else to discuss? Agendas seem to be more important that actually winning the games.


Once again, not true. I didn't even really think about this thread until I logged onto my CPU last nite.

I was curious as to what the reaction would be to a simple question being asked. Given the bashing of players like Eddy Curry as of late... and then having to play games without him and being unsuccessful... I was interested what people would have to say.

The reaction... while surprisingly vicious and personal..... is to be expected I guess... given the Hinrich fandom around here.

Bash Eddy Curry.... and I mean really bash him to the point of calling him fat, lazy, stupid, slow... write hate-filled songs about him.. and not much happens.

Ask a question about the team's play without Hinrich... and... well.... you see the results.

Its not about the Bulls.... its about something else.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _from L to R: *k4e!, sloth!, dabullz!, "ja rule"! *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That'd be me if it spelled "DORK"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Not to take the thread off topic and talk about Kirk Hinrich at all, but ...
> 
> Scottie Pippen's blog
> 
> ...


Wow. Pip really is gunning hard for that front office job.

Paxson is paying him millions this season to do nothing... I guess the least he can do is help the PR department out.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Once again, not true. I didn't even really think about this thread until I logged onto my CPU last nite.
> 
> I was curious as to what the reaction would be to a simple question being asked. Given the bashing of players like Eddy Curry as of late... and then having to play games without him and being unsuccessful... I was interested what people would have to say.
> 
> ...



apparently it's about you! methinks you doth protest too much friend. don't dish it out if you can't take it in!

:boohoo:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> apparently it's about you!


So simple, yet so true.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Rose and Crawford are more worried about starting than winning, evidently.*

____________________________________________________

And on Saturday night, seven games into a season perilously close to slipping away, coach Bill Cartwright replaced Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford in the starting lineup.

In an effort to shake up his lethargic team whose losses have been by an average of 27 points, Cartwright started Kirk Hinrich and Eddie Robinson against Tim Floyd's five.

And the Bulls responded with a passionate effort in a 109-106 victory over the Eastern Conference-leading Hornets.

Rose responded with 34 points as the Bulls shot an NBA-season-high 59.4 percent. But an upset Rose afterward deemed himself "a scapegoat" and felt disrespected by Cartwright's move.

*(Hello, Jalen, the TEAM won.)*

Both Crawford and Rose played the entire fourth quarter, when the Bulls led by as many as 13 points. But Crawford, like Rose, was upset that he didn't start and said, "The writing is on the wall" in reference to his future with the Bulls.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...amer,1,2778121.story?coll=cs-bulls-navigation

*It certainly seems as if Jalen and Jamal aren't happy with a win unless they start.*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> :clap: :worship: :yes:
> 
> K4E, I have a serious question for you, though- why is it that your 3 favorite players (Toni, Jamal and Jalen) are all guys with amazing offensive talents who aren't really interested in playing defense? It seems like you should become a Knicks fan, Isiah is building the perfect team for you over there- he even went after Jalen earlier in the season...


Once again... not true. I rooted for Artest way more than I rooted for Rose. I liked Pippen more than Jordan... mainly for his defense. I like good defensive play as much as you do. The difference between you and I is that I don't HATE players. Some players are good at O. Some at D. The rare superstar can do it all. I recognize that a good defensive player that is bad at O is as much as a detriment as a good offensive player that is bad at D. The goal is to build a team that can win ballgames... hopefully the team can make up for the individual's deficiencies.



> Does this possibly explain your disdain for Hinrich? You can say you like him all you want, but your actions certainly scream just the opposite.


Once again, not true. I like Hinrich just fine. I think spongy hit the nail on the head about my thought about Hinrich.



> You say you just don't like the way Bulls fans here on this board "worship" or "over-praise" (or whatever) Hinrich. You start a thread serendipitously asking "how did we possibly win without Hinrich when he is the 'leader' and the 'heart and soul' of the team"? Well if you are sick of hearing Hinrich getting "over-praised", it looks like you are going to have to stop watching the NBA altogether.
> 
> Because opposing players, coaches, announcers and fans are all saying how Hinrich is the "leader" and the "heart and soul" and the "backbone" of this Bulls team. Not just the "Kirk fan-boys" or the even the Kirkites are praising him, it's the people on NBA-TV and ESPN Fastbreak and ABC and in the newspapers and in the magazines and...


I don't watch any of those shows... mainly because of all the jock-riding that does on and the lack of any real analysis. So... its not going to bother me at all.



> The thing is, as the Bulls keep winning and the playoffs get closer and people start talking about the Bulls, they are all going to be talking about Hinrich. And almost none of them are going to mention his 38.6% shooting. You are going to hear Kirk referred to as the "leader" and "heart and soul" and "backbone" of this team many, many times over the nest 2 months from all the local and national media.
> 
> What are you going to do? I'm worried about your mental health, it obviously bothers you that Kirk receives so much "over-praise" here, how are you going to handle hearing it from all the impartial national media and Bulls opponents? I don't want you going postal and driving up to Bristol to take out ESPN, we'd miss you around here.


Its not so much the praise. Its the praise for Hinrich when combined with the hatred for other players... both on the Bulls and former Bulls.



> And what about when some impartial national guy sees Harrington and Piatkowski have a good game, and he mentions that the Bulls gave up their leading scorer from last year, Jamal Crawford, in order to get them, and that at the time of the trade some wondered how the Bulls would replace their leading scorer, but Paxson knew what he was doing?


Even you admitted that this season is a miracle. I like the job Paxson has done. Even the Bulls are stunned by the success this season. The slogan was "Through Thick and Thin" for the love of God.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I'm no logician, or philosopher,
> 
> 
> After losing Jalen & Jamal, the record for the Bull *increased*.
> ...



After losing Lamar Odom, the record for the Heat *increased*.

After gaining Lamar Odom, the record for the Lakers *decreased*.

Therefore, one must logically deduce, *IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER VARIABLES*, that the value of "contribution to team" for Lamar Odomwould be a negative answer.




WRONG


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't watch any of those shows... mainly because of all the jock-riding that does on and the lack of any real analysis. So... its not going to bother me at all.


A show like that seems like it would be right down your alley.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Maybe we are, but didn't he start the thread? Looks like he was game to start with.


I started a thread about Kirk Hinrich.

It turned into a series of attacks.

I guess that's how people handle disagreements around here.

Maybe I was interested in the reaction of some posters (AKA Bulls fans)... but that's it. The pile on I've endured on this thread is stunning... but... I soldier on. 

Just reinforces my beliefs. Feel free to stick up for Eddy Curry in such a fashion anytime you feel your creative juices flowing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Does now. Didn't before. Even though I know now that it's biting him in the butt, we all know why it was started. It was started to say "Nyah nyah nyah nyah, Jamal and Jalen are doing better than the Bulls."
> 
> I'm just saying if you're coming from that kind of a place as far as your intent goes, you're likely to get ridden a little more. You dispute this?


I didn't think a team full of rookies would win in the NBA (as did most people here judging by the pre-season win predictions).

History is still on my side when it comes to this belief. It still is after this season.

Its a miracle!


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> True... but the reason I made the sig to begin with is because I was sick of the Bulls losing.
> 
> I try to keep my posts about the Bulls or basketball or sports.... I try not to personally antagonize other posters.... even if.... gasp.... I disagree with them.


thats more poopoocacka

the entire reason you started this thread was to antagonize other posters. To deny it just means you won't even step up minimally. Its all about disingenuousness apparently

This whole Who me? act is tired

if you don't like Bullsvilles song, then by all means have at it. He can take it. I bet he won't run and hide like this



If i can be of service...Kirk Hinrich lays it all on the line. Is the best he can possibly be Eddy does/is not. Theres where most of the criticism stems from.

Thats the whole thing in a nut.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow. Pip really is gunning hard for that front office job.
> 
> Paxson is paying him millions this season to do nothing... I guess the least he can do is help the PR department out.


Or he could just actually believe it.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

It's official. Jamal = Shaq.

It wasn't Shaq's arrival in Miami that helped them get the East's best record, but simply the departure of Lamar Odom.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> apparently it's about you! methinks you doth protest too much friend. don't dish it out if you can't take it in!
> 
> :boohoo:


I can take it. But when I "dish it out"... its about basketball.

You rarely... if ever... see me calling out other posters.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes, we're winning without Jalen and Jamal and Donyell (who somehow gets left out of the hate-fest for whatever reason)... almost everyone wants him back. The Heat is winning without Lamar Odom. The Mavericks are winning without Steve Nash. Its not a logically legitimate point to argue, IMO.


Your main point of anger all summer and fall was that we replaced Jamal with NOTHING. Did those other teams replace those guys with NOTHING? Is Shaq NOTHING? Is Jason Terry and Devin Harris NOTHING? 

I contended that we replaced Jamal with SOMETHING. Cap space and vets who could contribute to our depth off the bench. You laughed that off. You still shrug it off. So, if we replaced Jamal with NOTHING according to you, and we're in the playoffs this year without him, what does that say about Jamal's contribution towards winning games? That seems logical enough, but I wouldn't take it that far because I think Jamal's a decent, but flawed player. I'd just say that this year proves that we can win without Jamal (which, to you and many others, was proof of insanity before the season started) and there's no way of knowing whether his presence here this year would help or hurt us. And since we're doing well as is, what's the point of pining for him?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> It's official. Jamal = Shaq


[sigh]

I believe the argument was about logic.

[/sigh]


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I can take it. But when I "dish it out"... its about basketball.
> 
> You rarely... if ever... see me calling out other posters.


Actually you called me a coward on the boards and in a PM about 2 hours ago.

:cheers:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

K4E, I really wish you would quit telling me I HATE anyone. I LIKE EDDY, he was really nice the one time I met him, so why wouldn't I like him?

I HATE the way Eddy plays. No passion most of the time, no emotion most of the time. I HATE the way Eddy plays basketball. I LIKE Eddy.

I HATE the way Jamal plays. He doesn't try hard on defense very often. He takes too many bad shots early in the shot clock. I've never met Jamal, but I don't HATE him.

I HATE the way Jalen plays. He whines to the officials WAAAAY too much. He doesn't play hard on defense very often. If you take him out of the starting line-up, he cries like a baby and says he is being "disrespected". I've never met Jalen, but I don't HATE him.

If you think someone is wrong about something they post about Eddy or Jamal or Jalen, you should discuss the post, not call them a HATER. Maybe what they say is true?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I can take it. But when I "dish it out"... its about basketball.
> 
> You rarely... if ever... see me calling out other posters.


Wait, who started this thread again?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Your main point of anger all summer and fall was that we replaced Jamal with NOTHING. Did those other teams replace those guys with NOTHING? Is Shaq NOTHING? Is Jason Terry and Devin Harris NOTHING?
> 
> I contended that we replaced Jamal with SOMETHING. Cap space and vets who could contribute to our depth off the bench. You laughed that off. You still shrug it off. So, if we replaced Jamal with NOTHING according to you, and we're in the playoffs this year without him, what does that say about Jamal's contribution towards winning games? That seems logical enough, but I wouldn't take it that far because I think Jamal's a decent, but flawed player. I'd just say that this year proves that we can win without Jamal (which, to you and many others, was proof of insanity before the season started) and there's no way of knowing whether his presence here this year would help or hurt us. And since we're doing well as is, what's the point of pining for him?


If it was not for a fit, motivated, more mature Curry, a heatly, more mature Chandler, two great lotto picks in Gordon and Deng, a great draft pick in Duhon and a great FA signing in Noc this team would suck.

Pike and Othella are Bill Wennington and Ron Harper.

We saw how good the Bulls were with those guys once Pippen and Jordan left.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I can take it. But when I "dish it out"... its about basketball.
> 
> You rarely... if ever... see me calling out other posters.



is it about basketball in this case? or about something else entirely?

you admit that spongy "nailed" it when he said it's about "calling out those who would place hinrich on some pedestal" (i'm paraphrasing)

that's not about basketball!

c'mon man, you're better than this. you knew it would provoke a reaction, so the whole innocent who me i like hinrich act is just a little transparent! 

that said, drinks later??! toast to win number 35?!!! 

:wink:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I can take it. But when I "dish it out"... its about basketball.
> 
> You rarely... if ever... see me calling out other posters.


maybe theres a time and place for it. 

bottom line is, if another poster from another board came in and posted the suff you and before you arenas did, they be labeled trolls. bottom line. It gets a rise, rightfully, from Bulls fans who constantly see their players ripped on who are doing the best they can

and some anti Eddy posters too, if you want. But at least Eddy sets himself up some


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Wait, who started this thread again?


I did.

It was not 

"Hey XXXXXX".... 

Its a legitimate question.

If Hinrich is so important... why wasn't he missed that much?

Right off the bat.... "the raptors suck."

well no... not at home they don't

then there was a dash of "its only 1 game."

then people started firing away.


very, very, very touchy when it comes to Hinrich around here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> Actually you called me a coward on the boards and in a PM about 2 hours ago.
> 
> :cheers:


True.... after today  kk4e, talk all you want to about basketball. Your opinion is allowed, but I draw the line when you say things like this. Opinions about what we think of other posters, gets us nowhere.truebluefan .<strike>I've lowered down to your level.</strike>

(burp)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> is it about basketball in this case? or about something else entirely?
> 
> you admit that spongy "nailed" it when he said it's about "calling out those who would place hinrich on some pedestal" (i'm paraphrasing)
> 
> ...


I knew it would provoke a reaction. But damn... look at it. Didn't expect it to be so personal

All for a question.

Imagine if I wrote a song.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> K4E, I really wish you would quit telling me I HATE anyone. I LIKE EDDY, he was really nice the one time I met him, so why wouldn't I like him?
> 
> I HATE the way Eddy plays. No passion most of the time, no emotion most of the time. I HATE the way Eddy plays basketball. I LIKE Eddy.
> 
> ...


You wrote a song called "I HATE EDDY CURRY!" "I HATE HIS ******* GUTS!"

Its was funny/clever... but come on!


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

trolling


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Hinrich is so important... why wasn't he missed that much?


Why did Duhon play all 48 minutes?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> A show like that seems like it would be right down your alley.


How many of the HATIN and JAMAL posts do you think I write for chuckles at this point?

Do you really think I'm being serious when I write "WHY U HATIN ON JAMAL?"

Really?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Why did Duhon play all 48 minutes?


Because he's an adequate replacement for Hinrich?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> maybe theres a time and place for it.
> 
> bottom line is, if another poster from another board came in and posted the suff you and before you arenas did, they be labeled trolls. bottom line. It gets a rise, rightfully, from Bulls fans who constantly see their players ripped on who are doing the best they can
> 
> and some anti Eddy posters too, if you want. But at least Eddy sets himself up some


Can anyone post a legitimate negative comment about Hinrich... which I didn't even do?

Yes... the groupthink is so thick here that even a question causes a rise... you are correct.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Because he's an adequate replacement for Hinrich?


You missed the point, not one other player on the team besides Duhon can run the point, which is why he played *every single minute* at the point guard position. It's conveniant for you to use a one game sample, since a player can play 48 minutes in one game, but can he do it for 5-6 games straight? Let alone a whole season? You probably think so, since Hinrich isn't that important.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> True.... after today I've lowered down to your level.
> 
> (burp)


Nice! now you can put up some posts that actually make sense.

How kind of you to join the proletariat


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You missed the point, not one other player on the team besides Duhon can run the point, which is why he played *every single minute* at the point guard position. It's conveniant for you to use a one game sample, since a player can play 48 minutes in one game, but can he do it for 5-6 games straight? Let alone a whole season? You probably think so, since Hinrich isn't that important.



No I didn't miss the point.

Of course Duhon can't play 48 minutes a night.

I wonder how a Duhon/Brunson combo would do? 30 minutes for Duhon. 18 for Brunson.

Hinrich is better. But by how much?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I did.
> 
> It was not
> 
> "Hey XXXXXX"....


Well, it might as well have been, "Hey all you Hinrich fanboys" b/c that was exactly your intent.



kukoc4ever said:


> Its a legitimate question.
> 
> If Hinrich is so important... why wasn't he missed that much?


Wait, this was your question? Why, that sounds reasonable and measured. Why for some reason do I remember you saying this:



kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls just won a road game without Kirk Hinrich even playing.
> 
> Can this really be possible?
> 
> How on Earth did this happen?


Wait, that doesn't seem sincere. That seems like baiting. The tone here is clearly provocative. You make it sound as if somehow this board had a consensus that it would be impossible for the Bulls to win a game sans Hinrich. I don't think that's the case.




kukoc4ever said:


> Right off the bat.... "the raptors suck."
> 
> well no... not at home they don't


First, yes, the Raptors suck.
Second, didn't you yourself say they have the 7th best home record in the Cast? Well, ok, that puts them right in the middle of the pack. So, they're an average Eastern Conference home team. That's a far cry from some awesome team that doesn't let people win on their floor (like San Antonio for this year).



kukoc4ever said:


> then there was a dash of "its only 1 game."


It is only one game. Is this not relevant?



kukoc4ever said:


> then people started firing away.
> 
> very, very, very touchy when it comes to Hinrich around here.


Touchy when you bait. You also are being a bit dramatic in characterizing all of these responses as personal attacks. The fact of the matter is you posed the question knowing exactly what type of response it would provoke. When it did then provoke that response, you threw up your hands in the air and said, "Who, me??" It is a tired routine. I can appreciate your efforts to get the board to recognize that some people may overstate Hinrich's value. It's a valid point of view. However, using these tactics and then feigning ignorance isn't the most mature approach. If it's thoughtful debate you are truly after, you might go about it differently.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If it was not for a fit, motivated, more mature Curry, a heatly, more mature Chandler, two great lotto picks in Gordon and Deng, a great draft pick in Duhon and a great FA signing in Noc this team would suck.
> 
> Pike and Othella are Bill Wennington and Ron Harper.
> 
> We saw how good the Bulls were with those guys once Pippen and Jordan left.


Bill and Ron helped us win championships. Good teams tend to have depth players like that who come in and do their jobs without complaint. We didn't really have those before. Our vets thought they were running the show and our young players didn't know which way was up or why they weren't playing more. These vets know they aren't running the show, but step up and play good ball when we need them (usually), especially Othella. On a side note, I can't understand why Othella had been cast into the NBA scrap heap - he's a solid player.

Crawford would have eaten into the minutes of the guards we added this offseason, and maybe even Deng's a little bit. Would that be good or bad? Impossible to know. But I like what we have here. And I like what Othella (especially) and Pike provide, even if they're not all-stars.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Because he's an adequate replacement for Hinrich?


maybe this stuff amuses you and a couple others, The stuff about Knicks players, and Raptors..... you know, to annoy Bulls fans, get a rise out of them. I understand. You get a kick out of it. It makes you smile once in a while

hey, its trolling. Been trolling for quite some time. Just because a troll can come from its own board doesn't mean its not a troll


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> How many of the HATIN and JAMAL posts do you think I write for chuckles at this point?
> 
> Do you really think I'm being serious when I write "WHY U HATIN ON JAMAL?"
> 
> Really?


What are you talking about? 

Never mind. You've successfully drawn me into this absurd little world of yours, but I'm extricating myself right now. 

The bottom line is you are terrible at evaluating winning basketball and virtually everything you've posted this entire season confirms that. So why I get so irritated with your continued musings is beyond me. 

I guess I don't tolerate well. I'm out of this thread forever. But don't worry, next week when you start another one, I'm sure I'll be back like the fool I am.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Never mind. You've successfully drawn me into this absurd little world of yours, but I'm extricating myself right now.
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> If it's thoughtful debate you are truly after, you might go about it differently.


Maybe I should compose a hateful song?

That seems to be a hit!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich is better. But by how much?


A lot. Brunson can't guard both guard positions, he can barely guard one. Hinrich guards both and is one of the best defensive guards in the league. Hinrich is also a much better passer and playmaker.

This thread is as ridiculous as it would have been if I made one after *one* loss, claiming that the team is doomed without Hinrich and without any doubts the worst team in the league. We're a .500 team, so a win and loss are about equally as common. We have beaten the Mavericks and Sonics on certain nights with Hinrich, so I don't know why it would surprise anyone that we could beat the Raptors without him. It's one game.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Maybe I should compose a hateful song?
> 
> That seems to be a hit!


It does? Really? I don't seem to remember droves of people loving it. Not at all. 

Continue with your mischaracterizations of fact and evasion of logical arguments.

Perception does not equal reality.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The bottom line is you are terrible at evaluating winning basketball and virtually everything you've posted this entire season confirms that. So why I get so irritated with your continued musings is beyond me.


Do some research.

See how many winning NBA basketball teams there have been when 6 of the 8 top guys in minutes played are either rookies or are 22 years old or younger. When the 7th is a 2nd year player and the 8th is a old-timer average big man... you'll see its not a recipe for success.

I'd criticize what you have to say... but you never have anything to say... other than cutting people down. 

What was your pre-season win prediction Mr. Winning Basketball evaluation?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do some research.
> 
> See how many winning NBA basketball teams there have been when 6 of the 8 top guys in minutes played are either rookies or are 22 years old or younger. When the 7th is a 2nd year player and the 8th is a old-timer average big man...


I can think of one team...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I can think of one team...


Exactly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It does? Really? I don't seem to remember droves of people loving it. Not at all.
> 
> Continue with your mischaracterizations of fact and evasion of logical arguments.
> 
> Perception does not equal reality.


There certainly was not a 200+ post thread about it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> You wrote a song called "I HATE EDDY CURRY!" "I HATE HIS ******* GUTS!"
> 
> Its was funny/clever... but come on!


You should check out some of my other lyrics:

From 'I Hate You...'

"George and Spacely were flyin' around, Judy and Jane doing Bozo the Clown
Cookie did nothing but sit and stare, pickin' the crabs from his red pubic hair"

But I don't hate Cookie the Clown.

"Pebbles and Bam Bam put up a fight,
Wilma was a ho but Betty was tight"

I certainly have nothing against Wilma Flintstone.

Or the beginning of 'Kirk Hinrich Can't Shoot'

"Kirk Hinrich, why can't you hit a f***ing shot,
I don't care if you're tired, if you're hurting or not
It's late in the season, everybody's banged up,
You're running with the big dogs, shootin' like a pup"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> maybe this stuff amuses you and a couple others, The stuff about Knicks players, and Raptors..... you know, to annoy Bulls fans, get a rise out of them. I understand. You get a kick out of it. It makes you smile once in a while
> 
> hey, its trolling. Been trolling for quite some time. Just because a troll can come from its own board doesn't mean its not a troll


Earlier in the season I remember a debate about Primoz Brezec being an adequate replacement for Eddy Curry. I remember a Bulls insider proposing a Nick Collinson for Tyson Chandler swap.

Were these baiting?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Exactly.


Ah, so you agree then that Pax has found a new paradigm that includes winning with youth and hard workers that flies in the face of the abismal failures that we experienced in years past. Splendid.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ah, so you agree then that Pax has found a new paradigm that includes winning with youth and hard workers that flies in the face of the abismal failures that we experienced in years past. Splendid.


Perhaps he has. Time will tell. I'm happy with the job he's done. I wonder if he could recreate an off-season like this last one... given another opportunity. I wonder if anyone could?

Let's hope he resigns the towers.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> *Can anyone post a legitimate negative comment about Hinrich*... which I didn't even do?
> 
> Yes... the groupthink is so thick here that even a question causes a rise... you are correct.


I've posted plenty, you should check out some of the game threads where I have called for him to be BENCHED :eek8: in favor of Duhon because he's not hitting his shots.

Or where I have commented that he is playing like crap.

IMO, you knew what you were doing when you started this thread, and it got the reaction you expected. Seemingly, almost everyone agrees.

Maybe, just maybe, Kirk gets less criticism because he is our best player?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Maybe, just maybe, Kirk gets less criticism because he is our best player?


Like I said, I have no problem calling Kirk our best player. Can't really make a case for anyone else.

I didn't criticize Hinrich.

I think he's really good.

Its the frothing reaction to a mere question that's interesting.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its the frothing reaction to a mere question that's interesting.


65+ posts of baiting will do that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its the frothing reaction to a mere question that's interesting.


As I stated earlier which you didn't really bother addressing, the reaction is somewhat less than frothing and the question was more than "mere."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Crawford would have eaten into the minutes of the guards we added this offseason, and maybe even Deng's a little bit. Would that be good or bad? Impossible to know. But I like what we have here. And I like what Othella (especially) and Pike provide, even if they're not all-stars.



Given that Paxson was able to find 2 solid 3s, a solid 1 and a solid 2 through the draft and MLE in 1 off-season... yah... there would be a logjam.

I guess he had this all planned out. 

Seems like one hell of a rebuilding strategy.

I wonder if it can be re-created... or if the dump your vets and rebuild with 2 lotto picks, a 2nd round pick who you were going to cut and MLE plan will sweep over the NBA like a tidal wave?

Given that even the most optimistic posters around here couldn’t get the Bulls over .500…. it seems like not many had faith 4 months ago.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> 65+ posts of baiting will do that.


If it was any other player on the Bulls, do you think the reaction would be similar?

If so, who?

Deng?

Noc?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> As I stated earlier which you didn't really bother addressing, the reaction is somewhat less than frothing and the question was more than "mere."






_next time maybe he should order up a decaf cappuccino and call it a night!_


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _next time maybe he should order up a decaf cappuccino and call it a night!_


With this frothing mob around here.... I think you are right!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> If it was any other player on the Bulls, do you think the reaction would be similar?


Hinrich is the most loved and most hated player on our team. That is usually the case with the best player on any team. That is pretty obvious though, so I don't know what the purpose of the thread was. That is where you get accused for baiting (and rightfully so), there is really no reason for this thread, unless it's baiting. The fact that you've posted 70 times defending your argument only supports that. The Bulls are a better team with Hinrich, but will not lose every game without him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Hinrich is the most loved and most hated player on our team. That is usually the case with the best player on any team. That is pretty obvious though, so I don't know what the purpose of the thread was. That is where you get accused for baiting (and rightfully so), there is really no reason for this thread, unless it's baiting. The fact that you've posted 70 times defending your argument only supports that. The Bulls are a better team with Hinrich, but will not lose every game without him.


I guess I'm curious as to what "baiting" is then.

Is suggesting Nick Collinson for Tyson Chandler baiting?

Primoz Brezec better than Eddy Curry?

Writing songs of hatred towards our starting center?

Calling players “cancers?”

Creating funny images of players?

Personally taunting/insulting other posters openly?

People make posts in an attempt to get a reaction all the time.

Just because its the opposite of what the mob wants to believe... does not make it baiting.

I think Hinrich is overvalued by many on this board... and was interested in what their reaction would be to a easy road victory against a tough home team without him.

This thread only confirms my beliefs.

We did look pretty good without him. We looked pretty crappy without Eddy. Sure... sample size.... but its the only sample we have to go by to this point.

Once again... the level of personal attacks on this thread is despicable and unwarranted. 

Just shows how deeply the Hinrichlove goes…. And how the free flow of ideas is quashed by the unruly mob.

Its been fun. RESPECT!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)




----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Someone needs to get a life and take a break from these boards for a little while. Good night guys, it's been entertaining as always. Going out to watch the Illini.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just because its the opposite of what the mob wants to believe... does not make it baiting.


It does make it baiting when you don't really believe the things you're saying, you're just doing it to get a rise. The only way this thread isn't baiting is if you believe the Bulls are a better team without Hinrich, and that the one game sample size confirms that opinion for you, thus this thread is proof of your point. 



kukoc4ever said:


> Once again... the level of personal attacks on this thread is despicable and unwarranted.


Ironic. You look down on those who use personal attacks, then a sentence later, you're accusing people of "Hinrichlove" to make their opinion invalid. 



kukoc4ever said:


> Just shows how deeply the Hinrichlove goes…. And how the free flow of ideas is quashed by the unruly mob.


Just goes to show how deep the Hinrichhate goes, posters will create threads just trying to get a rise after one win against a below .500 team without him to prove some kind of a point. No other player on the team has that kind of hatred towards him. Like I said, Hinrich is the most loved and most hated player on the team. So if the people you're responding to are the ones who "love" him because they defend him, then you're one of the ones who "hates" him because you go out of your way to try to bash him.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

dkg1 said:


> Someone needs to get a life and take a break from these boards for a little while. Good night guys, it's been entertaining as always. Going out to watch the Illini.


yes. let's all go watch illini. I hate these megathreads with all the fightin' and feudin'. keep arguin if you guys want, I just have to read every word of it.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If it was any other player on the Bulls, do you think the reaction would be similar?
> 
> If so, who?
> 
> ...


When I (and many others) did post in response to the rhetorical question, "Is Hinrich more useful by playing or not playing?" with a resounding, "he is worth more playing than not," you didn't pay much attention. You paid a lot more attention to how people responded to you, as evidence of our "group think" and your "objectivity."

And we would all like to know what drives this obsession to discredit Hinrich, and by proxy Skiles, Paxson, et al. There is a morbid curiosity at the sight of one person who just refuses to see what has happened. You present it as one who looks to the facts in the face of common assumptions, and sees the truth. I see it as one who enjoys proclaiming the world is flat. 

At the root, this is about rebelling against the tyranny of "the right way". Because Kirk is the heart and soul of the team as the leader of a movement away from "talent"-based basketball and toward "right way"-based basketball. 

When Jalen first practiced with Jay Williams, he made an interesting quote. He said that that Jwill practiced too hard, trying to win every sprint, trying to do everything right. Rose said, "he has to learn that the NBA is a marathon, not a sprint." JWill expected a group of people like those he knew at Duke, guys who would rally around him and give their all for the team. You know, play the "right way." But the big name vet on our team gave him the lowdown real quick. "This ain't college anymore, youngin. We're just trying to survive and make a livin'" The poor kid didn't know what to do. Those teams sucked, not because there wasn't talent, but because they just couldn't care less. Jalen says that the Bulls should be good, we have so many lottery picks... We had just as many lottery picks when he was on the team! There wasn't crap around him. He was crappin around him.

Kirk Hinrich came in and faced the same kind of crap. BC from the beginning loved him, and said he's going to be great, like a young Stockton. He started ahead of Jamal one game early in the season. Someone asked Jamal if Hinrich was "better than him", and that's why he was starting. It was reported that Jamal doubled over in laughter. He and Jalen were going to "break in" Hinrich, just like they did JWill. It was their team, and they were going to teach him a lesson. 

But when Paxson saw what they were doing, up close, he got pissed. He confronted Rose and Jamal. He confronted Eddy. They laughed at him at first, because it's the players who rule, he was just some suit talking about "the right way" and "respect" and "team work" -- yada yada yada. They weren't laughing so much when he fired his friend BC and brought in Skiles. They were laughing a little less when Jalen was traded, and Jamal was given the responsibility of leading the team. This, apparently, was the "agenda" that Jamal talked about the Bulls having. 

And clearly, Paxson hitched his horse to one thing -- Kirk Hinrich-style basketball. That was his plan. He was going to change the culture, change anything and everything he had to (but nothing more) in order to get the team to follow Hinrich's lead, instead of letting the league and the selfish culture make Hinrich follow them and turn into a jaded one-trick pony. Look it up. BJ Armstrong (whom RLucas said should have become the GM, and who wanted to draft Pietrus instead of Kirk) said in an interview on Comcast during offseason, "it's all about bringing in players like Kirk Hinrich". That must have made Jamal feel good. He proved to be incapable of leading this team. Now, he was being told to follow Hinrich's lead, or so long, buckaroo. He followed his dream. Good for him. Maybe he'll learn his lesson in NY or wherever he ends up. But he had his chance to set the tone in Chicago to make this a winning culture and team. He didn't do it. Buh-bye!

And in an amazingly short amount of time, Paxson did exactly what he wanted. He put together a team of people who understand a system, can submit their individual talents to the greater good of the team, and follow Kirk as their leader. Even AD sees who is the leader on the team. Was Pax lucky? You bet. I'm sure he didn't see the turn around taking place this quick. But was it by chance that the team plays like it does? Not in the least. Pax determined that Hinrich would be the heart and soul. He sets the lead in how to play, how to follow the coach, how to practice, how to win. And notwithstanding the estimable contributions from many others, it is recognized by the team and by most observers that it is Hinrich's team now. 

It's really incredible. It's a wonderful story, no matter how hokey and "Hickory" it seems to some. We can learn from it, even, if we're willing. Is Hinrich perfect? Is he a "god" to be worshipped, as some did to JC? Not in the least. And I guess that he is probably enjoying the NBA lifestyle more than some would care to admit. But in regards to what he does in the game, and his commitment to help the team win, he is exemplary. 

And this is what you don't like. The "little things". The "grit" and "determination" and all the "mythology" of the "right way". But here it is. It is a revolution, and it's not going away -- the Olympics bronze made sure of that. 

Talent is necessary, but complacent talent is cancer. Discipline without individuality can lead to Nazism. But there is a right way, that brings both together to achieve the goal of success, accomplishment, inspiration and encouragement. 

And that's why a lot of people watch and care about sports, you know. They want to see something done very well. They want to see people face challenges and overcome them, do impossible things. It gives them hope to maybe do something meaningful and great in their own lives. It's really encouraging, like the Iraqi soccer team that almost made it to the medal round this last year, or like the Korean soccer team under Hiddink that almost went to the World Cup championship. People get a lot of strength and courage (sometimes stupidly so, yes...) from those kinds of accomplishments that they have some identification with, no matter how tenuous.

And so, little k4e, after a long speech, I just want to say "stop pissing on my boo". I am glad he is the leader of the team I root for. I'm glad the team organization decided that it would build around him and his style, and NOT around Jalen or Jamal or Marcus...I think that was the crucial decision that set the direction for the team and made way for the success we now see. Maybe, if Jalen was a little less set in his ways, he might have been included, same with Jamal. And that would have been nice. 

But they were the ones who had to give in, cry uncle, and play "the right way". 

Go Bulls. Play the "right way"


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Good Hope said:


> When I (and many others) did post in response to the rhetorical question, "Is Hinrich more useful by playing or not playing?" with a resounding, "he is worth more playing than not," you didn't pay much attention. You paid a lot more attention to how people responded to you, as evidence of our "group think" and your "objectivity."
> 
> And we would all like to know what drives this obsession to discredit Hinrich, and by proxy Skiles, Paxson, et al. There is a morbid curiosity at the sight of one person who just refuses to see what has happened. You present it as one who looks to the facts in the face of common assumptions, and sees the truth. I see it as one who enjoys proclaiming the world is flat.
> 
> ...


Close the thread. :clap:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Wow, I have 1 measly week away from the boards and come back to see a 17 page thread on Kirk Hinrich missing 1 game. I'm impressed. 

First of all, give it up to Chris Duhon...the guy played 48 minutes of great ball. He's one hell of a floor general. Kirk's absense should at least show us how important Duhon is to this team. 

Secondly, it's hard to judge the worth of a player when he misses only 1 game, especially when it's a losing team like the Raptors. Let's see how the Bulls play over a 10-game stretch without our best defender out there. I think it's a different story.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I guess I'm curious as to what "baiting" is then.
> 
> Is suggesting Nick Collinson for Tyson Chandler baiting?
> 
> ...


*This thread has NOTHING to do with how we won a game without Hinrich.* 



> All I did was ask a question. Yeah, I was curious as to what the reaction would be... but its also a valid question.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2033786&postcount=176




> I was curious as to what the reaction would be to a simple question being asked.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2033864&postcount=180



> Maybe I was interested in the reaction of some posters (AKA Bulls fans)... but that's it.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2033932&postcount=189
_________________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomBoerwinkle#1 
What's your point, exactly? 



> "Just curious about the board's reaction to a Hinrich-less win."


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2030978&postcount=13


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Good Hope said:


> When I (and many others) did post in response to the rhetorical question, "Is Hinrich more useful by playing or not playing?" with a resounding, "he is worth more playing than not," you didn't pay much attention. You paid a lot more attention to how people responded to you, as evidence of our "group think" and your "objectivity."
> 
> And we would all like to know what drives this obsession to discredit Hinrich, and by proxy Skiles, Paxson, et al. There is a morbid curiosity at the sight of one person who just refuses to see what has happened. You present it as one who looks to the facts in the face of common assumptions, and sees the truth. I see it as one who enjoys proclaiming the world is flat.
> 
> ...


good Lord that was good. 
That was the whole Galaxy hanging from a cats neck



Happy Easter Good Hope!!!!! :woot: :rock: :yes:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think Hinrich is overvalued by many on this board... and was interested in what their reaction would be to a easy road victory against a tough home team without him.
> 
> We did look pretty good without him. We looked pretty crappy without Eddy. Sure... sample size.... but its the only sample we have to go by to this point.
> 
> ...


K4E, Kirk IS overvalued by some here and most notably when we are at full strength. Yet, this alone does not somehow diminish his true value. In year two he is still the best all-around player on the team. This may NOT be the case in year three.

I pointed out in the middle of this novel that if you look at the record we would likely be 1-5 in the games Curry missed whether he missed them or not. I'd say the same about 1-0 without Hinrich. You can claim the Raps are a difficult team to play at home, yet their home record is not unlike the majority of the Eastern Conference. There are 5 exceptional home teams (Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, Boston) and 2 horrific home teams (Atlanta, Charlotte). The remaining 8 teams all sport essentially the same home records. You also failed to recognize we have OWNED the Raps which now includes 8 straight wins and 2 fairly convincing wins this year - both in Toronto. 

Now, look at the 6 games without Eddy and tell us what you think the record would be if he played in all of those. Are you really willing to compare games played without Eddy vs. games without Kirk?

Missing Curry
#2 DET 42-25
#7 IND 34-33
#8 PHI 33-34
NJ 32-36 (1.5 gb 8th seed - played twice)
CHA 13-53

Missing Hinrich
Tor 28-39 (5.0 gb 8th seed)

Personal attacks? I think last year set a record for personal attacks. The "hater" label was the first line of defense in almost every argument to support Jamal. Curiously, I've noticed that not to be the case with the defense of Hinrich this year. Ironically, it seems almost universally accepted on this board that Hinrich is one of - if not THE best players on this team, but hasn't shot well. I find it rather amazing how despised he is for this.

You say "_Once again... the level of personal attacks on this thread is despicable and unwarranted. Just shows how deeply the Hinrichlove goes…._", but surely you must recognize you have just offended those who will in fact support Hinrich. At a minimum, you have inpugned their basketball intelligence. You are suggesting their basketball judgement is blinded by their love for the player. You have in essence fostered the same derision that engulfed the board last year and its not clear if that isn't really your intent. 

I think everyone could have accepted the sarcasm of the original post, taken it as tongue-in-cheek were it not for your continuing defense that our single win against a non-playoff bound Raptor team held some greater meaning with respect to Hinrich's value.

This whole thread is probably even harder to understand given your acknowledgement that Hinrich is our best player (unless that too was tongue-in-cheek). 

As for the images of players, theres no doubt I've had fun making images of Jamal. Funny thing is he ain't a Bull any more. I'm old school, once we get rid of a player I couldn't care less about him from a professional basketball perspective. But just to be clear, I wouldn't be excited to see him jump on a motorcycle and end his career. Is it baiting? I dunno. You've put up images too, whats your take on it?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Good Hope said:


> When I (and many others) did post in response to the rhetorical question, "Is Hinrich more useful by playing or not playing?" with a resounding, "he is worth more playing than not," you didn't pay much attention. You paid a lot more attention to how people responded to you, as evidence of our "group think" and your "objectivity."
> 
> And we would all like to know what drives this obsession to discredit Hinrich, and by proxy Skiles, Paxson, et al. There is a morbid curiosity at the sight of one person who just refuses to see what has happened. You present it as one who looks to the facts in the face of common assumptions, and sees the truth. I see it as one who enjoys proclaiming the world is flat.
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

TBF, this needs to be on the front page of the site. This is better than many of the articles I've written in my life, that's for sure!

EDIT: I do have one beef with Good Hope- member since Nov 2002 and only 229 posts? I'm all for quality over quantity, and this post was certainly worth "waiting for", but I get the feeling that your posting infrequency is causing the rest of us to miss out on a lot of hellagood basketball commentary. :clap: 

That is all.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Whether we want to recognise it and give it credence or not certain players are sociological mirrors for our respective value systems 

Islands in the stream baby

Anyone want a toke ?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Gee, Man oh man, Good Hope! You CAN write. I am almost too embarrassed to add anything after what you wrote. Clearly one of the best post in recent memory.

Wow, just wow.

Seriously, if there is Pulitzer award or something for basketball forum, you got my vote. Hands down...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Good Hope again.*


ok! 

great, great post. i thought this passage was particularly brilliant:

_And we would all like to know what drives this obsession to discredit Hinrich, and by proxy Skiles, Paxson, et al. There is a morbid curiosity at the sight of one person who just refuses to see what has happened. You present it as one who looks to the facts in the face of common assumptions, and sees the truth. I see it as one who enjoys proclaiming the world is flat. _


:worship:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Good Hope

Excellent post .

First class 

"Right way" ball 

Hmmmmmm.

Let's see ..... Phoenix, Detroit , Memphis , Sacramento, Chicago ,Denver 

What do they all have in common?

They are all stylistically different , but similar to organisational risk managment strategies in corporate life , you take away too heavier a reliance in production from too narrow a value channel 

Sure Nash is the heart and soul of the Suns , Bibby is the king pin in Sacramento etc 

Detroit and Memphis in particular are kind of faceless in the context of a big swinging dick dual star model

Look at the what Karl is doing in Denver with the talent . Since he came in and laid the smackdown - particularly with Melo , the Nugz have ripped off 12 out of 13 

You could argue that the organisational symbols in Denver , similar to what Good Hope correctly references is the case in Chicago with Hinrich , are Boykins , Miller and Martin - notwithstanding that Melo is "the star"

In Memphis its Battier , Posey , Cardinal, Miller and Wright as the standard with Pau as "the star" . Similar to Pax , or rather - Pax similarly to Jerry West looked for college pedigree players that had learnt to play the right way in College with good Coaches that insisted on good fundamentals.... Dahntay Jones and Earl Watson fit with Shane Battier in this strategy

In Detroit its Wallace and Prince as the primary standard setters and the talent of Billups, Sheed and Rip play in a particular system designed to maximise their talents

All of these teams I mentioned share the ball incredibly well and have well spread out contributions in clearly defined roles 

Players have equal opportunity to contribute and given a positive structure invariably find ways to come in and get it done when they are called upon

A guy like Othella Harrington is a key example and has been huge for us when we need him . Same deal with a guy like Darius Songalia in Sacto

And Sacto dealt "the star'

Philly have always been looking for "the 2nd star" to ride shotgun with AI and they have always seemed to struggle to be a legit contender for anything bar one trip to the Finals a few years back 

Not a big return for a "star" model over a 12 year type career

Great players as they are is sole commitment to the star model that sees Bryant , Iverson , and Garnett heavily featured the best way to go ?

Recent evidence doesn't suggest so 

Look at McGrady in Orlando last year ... now he is in Houston , still featured but with better supporting talent admittedly - but playing in a truer integrated system where other contributions are used more effectively

Bryant and Iverson have the talent around them - but its not properly integrated and the basketball fit of the talent is undeniably underperforming 

Poor KG in Minnesota is another story. Seemingly a battle of the vet egos in contract years . Cassell and Sprewell are great talents but have always been *****ly 

But here we are without the mouthwatering "talent" ( although I think Gordon and Deng fit this category ) and we're paid up card carrying memebers of right way ball... we've come from last and are now in the top half of teams in the league and are one of the best defensive teams 

And we've done it with 4 rooks and a 2nd year player and by trading away our two leading scorers from the previous regime ?

Accident ?

Hardly

Its a clear philosophic commitment to a brand of basketball that has come back to actually focus on the pure form of the game of basketball rather than get sidetracked with the distractions of the glitz that has come with celebrity and sports


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wow, another great post by Mr. Frohman, it's amazing that a man who made his money in the sausage business would know a thing or 12 about basketball. The elder Bueller may think you are a cheap schmuck, but that's his opinion, and he's just an ad salesman, screw him.

Let me jump in here and lay down some props for my candidate as "player who had the biggest impact on changing the game over to the current 'right way' trend"- one Tayshaun Prince.

Yes, coming out of Kentucky, people laughed at bullsville, who said that Krause needed to get Tay, the hell with JayDoesn'tanymore. 'Tayslow', they called him. Not enough quickness for the NBA. Skinny like a crack whore, he'll never be able to sniff the rim in the bigs. Ugly shot. 

Bullsville told them all, no, Tayshaun is a player. He's quicker than he looks, with his freak arms he can play well off a man and still get a hand in his face. You can't get past him because he plays so far off you. He's skinny, but he played PF at Kentucky, he's no wimp. He can guard all kinds of different players. He's not a pretty dribbler, but you can't press his teams because the guards will just have him bring the ball upcourt. 

Well, for most of the first round, nobody believed. Bullsville thought maybe the impossible was about to happen- not one NBA team was going to take Tayshaun in the first round, and the Bulls were going to steal him at the top of the 2nd round. Bullsville still gets goosebumps just thinking about it, we finally had the new Pippen.

But damn that old Bulls nemesis, Joe Dumars. Not only did he defend MJ one on one about as well as anyone ever did, now he's taking over the conference. He already stole Ben Wallace from Orlando, and his talent-spotting arse just took Tayshaun with the 23rd pick. Oh well, Bullsville figured he would have the last "laugh" when Tayshaun became a bona-fide NBA star... although the laughter would be empty, since he's not doing it as a Bull...

Carlisle was just as blind, he didn't bother playing Tayshaun his entire rookie year. The Pistons played well enough, why should he? 

Well next thing you know, the playoffs roll around and the Pistons are down 3-1 in the first round to the Magic, and TMac is making Detroit look bad. Finally, Joe D tells Carlisle to get his head out his arse and get Tayshaun in the game. He does, Tayshaun shuts down TMac, and the Pistons become the 7th team ever to come back from 3-1 down to win the series. They go on to the EC Finals, Tayshaun becomes a starter the next year, they win the Finals with Tayshaun being the Artest and Kobe stopper, and now no-superstar, team-oriented, defense-first ball is the all the rage.

And it all started with Tayshaun shutting down TMac to lead the Pistons back from the almost insurmountable 3-1 series deficit. Now Tayshaun has been the Pistons leading scorer since the All-Star break.

Now teams are looking more and more at guys who, like Tayshaun, played 4 years of college ball, know the fundamentals, know that defense is just as important as offense, know how to play the game.

The Leader of the Sausage People listed a lot of names, Battier, Andre Miller, etc who are the face of the new NBA. I'm just saying that IMHO, Tayshaun is the poster boy with his all-around skills. 

Jerry West? A little out-dated, I say Tayshaun Prince for the new logo.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> I just have to read every word of it.


I think thats good enough reason to close it, especially since nothing new seems to have really been said since the first or second page.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

True on everything you say about the Wildcat formerly known sa Tayslow by one Retrodreams 

Back in the day Ret was not shy on telling me that Brad Miller was garbage and had no business being in the NBA and that Eddie Robinson was a powerforward

Anyhoo Ret had some other good insights and we all can't get it right 100% of the time 

To slightly digress ... but that block by Prince in last year's playoffs ( on Reggie I think ) is probably one of the most incredible things I have ever seen in a game of basketball

All will. All desire 

Reggie had like half a court on him , did the right thing in trying to protect it in the lay up and being out on the break ... but at the end of the day there was just nothing he could do 

Prince just took off

Truly awesome


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> When I (and many others) did post in response to the rhetorical question, "Is Hinrich more useful by playing or not playing?" with a resounding, "he is worth more playing than not," you didn't pay much attention. You paid a lot more attention to how people responded to you, as evidence of our "group think" and your "objectivity."
> 
> And we would all like to know what drives this obsession to discredit Hinrich, and by proxy Skiles, Paxson, et al. There is a morbid curiosity at the sight of one person who just refuses to see what has happened. You present it as one who looks to the facts in the face of common assumptions, and sees the truth. I see it as one who enjoys proclaiming the world is flat.
> 
> ...


Uhhh..."ditto." :wordyo:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I hate to lock this thread. Some very good discussion was in it. But then I went back and looked at it again and came to the conclusion that KK4E knew what he was doing all the way through it. I am not belittling his opinion about Hinrich in fact that is not why I locked the thread. I locked it (and you will see other reasons why) because some of what he was saying was not true.Some of the attacks he said was brought onto him by "frothing mobs" was also encouraged by him. How so? If all he want to do was say Wow The Bulls won without the heart and soul of the team and let it be at that, yes that is a worthy topic. But he also said, his best game while setting. That is baiting. Pure and simple. Now he can deny his motives but I went back and read the thread. Any time after page 6, he could have let it be, or redirected the posting but he didn't. In other words he kept it going as much as the "frothing mob" did. 

Also he claims he was attacked all the way through. He attacked others. I edited one where he belittled Superdave and said he was bringing himself down to his level. Guys, we do not want that type of posting. Opinions about players, is ok. But not about each other. KK4E, you want people to stop attacking you and respect your opinion, then you need to return the favor. Saying what you did about Superdave and even my post is unnessary(my post is the last one below) and adds nothing to the conversation, expects to provoke the other person, a fellow bulls fan. You need to stop calling groups of people names yourself if you expect people to stop calling you names. 

This statement made later in the thread is not true: 

_I didn't criticize Hinrich.

I think he's really good.

Its the frothing reaction to a mere question that's interesting_

Yet you said in the beginning that this was his best game...so I fail to see where you never criticized him...I don't know who you tryed to convince by saying that over and over again, the board or yourself. You said this numerous times.

You said: 

_knew it would provoke a reaction. But damn... look at it. Didn't expect it to be so personal

All for a question.

Imagine if I wrote a song._

After going back and reading the thread, I am sorry, I don't believe that. 
You kept it going and made it personal yourself. 

You said: 

_It turned into a series of attacks.

I guess that's how people handle disagreements around here.

Maybe I was interested in the reaction of some posters (AKA Bulls fans)... but that's it. The pile on I've endured on this thread is stunning.._

I am sorry but you are not the victim here. Posts like this only encourages more personal attacks. Does nothing about real basketball discussion. You know what your doing and as I said before you keep it going as much or more so than the "mod" does. By the way, how is it being respectful calling groups of others a mob? No wonder you keep getting the reaction that you do. 

You said:

_I try to keep my posts about the Bulls or basketball or sports.... I try not to personally antagonize other posters.... even if.... gasp.... I disagree with them. _

Well I have already shown where you do just the opposite. You made the post about r *after your answer to me in a post.*...

You said: 

_The rest is unnecessary and useless. I understood your useless point just fine._

That was addressed to me...Now how is that not making something personal? This was done way back in page 7 or 8. I never attacked you, you jumped on me. Then the rest of the remarks, quoted above this one came later on. It was after your remark to me and when people started making it personal to you, that you cried foul....


No, I will not let this thread go on any further. You add to all of the turmoil. You said things not true. You made comments you accused other made to you...comments you said first. You set the tone from page 7 or 8 onward. 

Want respect? Practice giving it. 

All opinions on here are not "useless" 
You are not the victim and you knew the reaction you would get or else you would have redirected the posting on your own. You had to power to do it all along. 

I am not letting this thread go on for another `18 pages.

oh one last thing, I am not excusing the other posters that made it personal with you as well. That is another reason why the thread is locked.


----------

