# What has Hinrich done...



## Jumpman23 (Oct 10, 2002)

to deserve to start, and finish games? I just don't understand how he is better than crawford even in tonight's game against boston. He did nothin but turn the ball over again....and had a couple of layups that somehow went in. Other than that he played terrible defence on james and I don't know why all of a sudden this kid has all this hype and following. Please explain...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

He stuck james and shut him down in Q4. James was the only guy to hit shots for the celts. He fought through screens as good as anyone can coach it.

Not only does he have speed, he uses it to the Bulls' advantage. It doesn't show in the box score, but you can see how much better the whole team plays when he's out there. 

He makes his teammates better. That's enough.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Jumpman,

The only reason Kirk is starting is because he is following the game plan. Jamal could have his job back if he checked his ego and played ball the way Cartwright wants him to.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

As many posters have pointed out, I think the move was more about benching Crawford than about starting Hinrich . . .


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

I couldn't really tell you man... I think that mangament wants him to be the guy, and therefore will get every chance to prove himself.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jumpman23</b>!
> to deserve to start, and finish games? I just don't understand how he is better than crawford even in tonight's game against boston. He did nothin but turn the ball over again....and had a couple of layups that somehow went in. Other than that he played terrible defence on james and I don't know why all of a sudden this kid has all this hype and following. Please explain...


And to go with what the others said, We are 2-1 with Kirk as a starter. That should be all we need to see. If we were 0-3 then of course, thats different.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> I couldn't really tell you man... I think that mangament wants him to be the guy, and therefore will get every chance to prove himself.


as long as we win games he will continue to start.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

DaBullz,

Did you notice he played slower today. I know there was a print quote from BC that asked him to take it down a couple of notches. I didn't have near as much fun watching him play as I have the last couple of games... probably is more effective though at this point in his career playing down a gear.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Kirk's D continues to be good, he hit the "drive of the game" in a crucial moment to put the Bulls up 5 (momentarily), and the offense flows conspicuously better with him at point guard.

I'm not sure if leaving him in at the end is smart this early in the season, but the results of throwing him in the fire at nut-cuttin' time will no doubt prove to be beneficial in the long run.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> DaBullz,
> 
> Did you notice he played slower today. I know there was a print quote from BC that asked him to take it down a couple of notches. I didn't have near as much fun watching him play as I have the last couple of games... probably is more effective though at this point in his career playing down a gear.


What I noticed was that he handled pressure dribbling up court just fine.

On defense, he was used to double team Pierce a lot, and that left James open for all those 3's.

The biggest difference I noticed about Kirk was how BC used him. The first 3 games, Kirk was used with a very specific lineup. Tonight, he played with just about everyone on the roster.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Tonight, he played with just about everyone on the roster.


THe result? A win in Boston.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I guess your right about his D, It was frustraing watching Mike James float around without a hand in his face, but the proof is in the pudding. You stop Pierce you stop the Celts. Reason #563 he is playing meaningfull minutes--he follows the game plan.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Well, he's playing with guys he hasn't really played with before, so tonight he may not have been as comfortable.

His energy is a tremendous lift to the team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kirk is our Shane Battier.

By the way, I'd still really like to have Battier... he's playing very effective ball right now.

But yeah, Kirk was solid bringing the ball up.


----------



## Jumpman23 (Oct 10, 2002)

I have to disagree I think the team has come together much better in terms of playing defence and it has nothing or little to do with hinrich...this guy didn't stop pierce it was team defence...plus a point guard should have some assists...and all i see are 5 turnovers.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Eric Snow/AI/Baron

I can't imagine a worse way to cut your teath in the league. His ball skilsl were not as week as they seemed.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

jumpman, no offense intended, but how much basketball do you watch?


----------



## Laid-Backness06 (Nov 9, 2003)

KH still remains somewhat careless with the ball, but the other poster is right...the Bulls just play a lot better with him on the court than Jamal right now. There is actually some movement when KH is in whereas the guys just stand around when Jamal is running point. It doesn't reflect in the box score, but that's what I've noticed.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> His ball skilsl were not as week as they seemed.


That's what one game can or can't do for someone, especially a rookie.

After watching Hinrich for four years I felt he was a very good ballhandler, then I doubted them for a short while after the NO game, but then thought about it some more and realized that this aspect of his game looked worse than it really was and that whatever is lacking will eventually get even better anyway. I wish rlucas would share some observations.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: What has Hinrich done...*



> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> And to go with what the others said, We are 2-1 with Kirk as a starter. That should be all we need to see. If we were 0-3 then of course, thats different.


Then I think we need to bench Chandler and see our record

Then Curry


----------



## Jumpman23 (Oct 10, 2002)

VincentVega I know enough bball to see a good difference between a good player and a back-up for life....and that's all that hinrich will ever be in this league. The fact that u have follewed him for 4 years at Kansas just shows why u have a favorable bias towards him. I watched him play during the rocky mountain review and he led the league in turnovers then and he does it again now....he's a poor's man fred hoiberg tops.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> as long as we win games he will continue to start.


Then why has E-Rob been pulled from the starting line-up?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jumpman23</b>!
> VincentVega I know enough bball to see a good difference between a good player and a back-up for life....and that's all that hinrich will ever be in this league. The fact that u have follewed him for 4 years at Kansas just shows why u have a favorable bias towards him. I watched him play during the rocky mountain review and he led the league in turnovers then and he does it again now....he's a poor's man fred hoiberg tops.


That's complete B.S Jumpman.



He's at the least a rich man's Fred Hoiberg.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

Kirk Hinrich will never be a star in this league. 

Jamal Crawford might, but certainly not with the bulls. 

It's very clear to me. The bulls simply do not want to pay Crawford. Hinrich will be the starting PG on this team for years to come. He's the type of role player that Paxon likes. That's why he's handed the job from day one.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> Kirk Hinrich will never be a star in this league.
> 
> Jamal Crawford might, but certainly not with the bulls.
> 
> It's very clear to me. The bulls simply do not want to pay Crawford. Hinrich will be the starting PG on this team for years to come. He's the type of role player that Paxon likes. That's why he's handed the job from day one.


If Crawford has star potential (which I am beginning to seriously doubt) it will be as a SG. He simply doesn't have enough natural PG skills to cut it in this league. He can be a brilliant scorer at times, but I see a lot of guys out there who can do the same that don't get the respect of being a star.

Hinrich may never be a star, but I could care less. More stars doesn't mean a better team. Hell, the Mavs have 5 guys you could call stars but they haven't become a better team. I think Hinrich will give this team what it needs. His defense is aggressive, he plays with energy and toughness, and he's got the ball skills. He's making mistakes now, sure, but his presence alone is clearly giving this team some mojo.

This shouldn't have to be a pissing contest between Hinrich and Jamal. I think most of us want the best player out there. And the best player should be defined by the results his leadership is producing, and right now that's leaning in favor of Hinrich, despite his many turnovers. It's about wins and losses people!


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> Kirk Hinrich will never be a star in this league.
> 
> Jamal Crawford might, but certainly not with the bulls.


 If Kirk continues to help the Bulls win ball games, he might not become a star but he will be well known. 

Jamal is going to have to change his attitude if he's ever going to star in this league. He has unbelievable ability but there are legitimate reasons for benching him in favor of someone who is more team driven. The way Jamal is going he might reach Jalen Rose type stardom. If I remember right, Jalen deemed himself point guard many years ago in Dennver.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Hey everybody...*WE WON!*

Ain't that enough???


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

As far as I can tell from the stats, this win had very little to do with either Crawford or Hinrich. I think there is entirely too much emphasis right now on who our point is.

It's time to turn our attention to the fine play of the rest of the team.

Hinrich's playing like you'd expect him to. There's no reason to really rip his game. Especially after wins. it's BC's decision to put Hinrich in those situations. Though i believe he's wrong, it isn't killing us too badly, because the rest of the team is finally getting in sync this year.

I'm almost a hundred percent certain that Crawford is not part of the bulls present or future plans and will either be traded or allowed to sign with another team at the end of the season.

I think people need to stop trying to attack Crawford's character. Because he really doesn't have the outstanding character issues that you are distorting him to have. He's not got in trouble with the law. He's tried to do what has been asked of him. He's been in a tough situation here for awhile now where it's clear no one in the organization supports him at either the 1 or the 2. You guys have complained that Crawford refuses to play off the ball, but then during games as Dabullz likes to point out, Crawford IS playing off the ball.

Considering this is a bulls board, and considering that we have 1) a rookie starting and 2) a guy on the bench who apparently is never going to get a chance, we should just stop with the character assassinations of both guys.

Kirk didn't ask to be put in this situation. He's not going to, in his rookie year, or ever, tell a coach, "no coach, I don't want to play, I think you're doing Jamal wrong" he's going to take the opportunity given to him to do whatever he can. So there's no real reason to hate on him.

And there's not a huge reason to hate on Crawford either. He's done very well for the bulls when given the opportunity. The only negative thing he's said is that he felt like he was going to be traded.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

actually forget that.

Hinrich sucks.
And as soon as Jamal gets back in a starting lineup somewhere and gets some minutes he's gonna be a star in this league.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> actually forget that.
> 
> Hinrich sucks.
> And as soon as Jamal gets back in a starting lineup somewhere and gets some minutes he's gonna be a star in this league.


He was a star in the EBC and that's it.

It isn't a matter of character. In a league where defense matters, he has to put forth the effort.

As for Hinrich, there's a certain PG named Derek Fisher that isn't an all-star, but he's got 3 rings. I'll take the three rings, you can have your EBC all-star.

Now, if Crawford does want to put forth the effort, he's going to be a dynamite PG or SG. Let's hope he decides to do it before we (the Bulls) give up on him.


----------



## J-City (Feb 20, 2003)

Before I go any further I don't want any responses about "well we won didn't we", because I don't think Hinrich has been crucial to either of the two wins he started. However, Jamal has played a significant role in his starts/wins. Ex. Orlando

Either way you look at it, Cartwright is a freakin idiot. And Paxson too for that matter. 
--If Jamal is the PG of the future and they are willing to pay him for whatever he proves himself to be worth, then he should be starting. 
--If they are unsure about his future, he should be starting or at least getting the majority of the minutes (I think it's fair to say he's earned them over Hinrich or T.O. as I like to call him) so they can find out what they want to do. 
--If they have already decided they want to go with Kirk, which is insane, then Jamal should be still be starting. He's currently the better player. This would at least keep his trade value up and most likely result in more wins. Then, after the trade deadline, if Jamal is gone (I hope he's not), hopefully Hinrich will be better prepared to handle the NBA game.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> He was a star in the EBC and that's it.
> ...


Fisher is a coattail riding scrub. In the good tradition of all the coattail riding scrubs before him. It's funny you talk about defense and bring up the guard who is a human escort to the basket for all the point guards in the league. Derek Fisher single-handledly got Mike Bibby paid and on the olympic team.

Derek Fisher doesn't even start anymore. He's always just been the best guy they had at the time. It's not like they could bench him in favor of Janero Pargo.

And I don't think Hinrich is exactly allworld defense. Baron Davis was going to the basket whenever he wanted to on Hinrich.

If your saying Hinrich is a championship PG, I'd have to ask, based on what? He couldn't even win in 4 years of college at one of the top programs in the country under one of the best coaches in the country, Roy Williams.

Hinrich will be a solid Point Guard in this league, in about a year to two years. And I have no doubt he will fit in perfectly with the bulls future plans.

Crawford on the other hand will go to another team. And he will be a star and diffrence maker. He is being woefully misused in Chicago. You can't really say what he'll do one way or the other in terms of helping a team win, when he is playing in a system that he has to fight just to play to his strengths, under a coach who has undermined him at every turn for an organization that right now has shown him next to zero support. You put him on almost any other team in this league and he could thrive. Whether it's as offense off the bench, or starting at point guard.

The most significant thing to note in Crawford's years, is that every year the bulls try to give the PG spot to someone else, and every year they end up having to put Crawford back at the position. He has beaten out the last two golden children for the starting spot against the wishes of the higher ups. This year they had to physically just take the spot from him and give it to the guy who hadn't proved anything. Before he got demoted, Crawford had outplayed Tracy Mcgrady and put up 29, 8, and 6 in a WIN. Then two games later he goes on the bench for the next 3+ games? If Crawford hadn't done Cartwright the favor of opening his mouth and giving Cartwright the further excuse to put him farther on the bench(and it's funny all Crawford said was that he felt like he was on the way out--he didn't feel support from the organization--and how do they respond to that? By continuing to do exactly what he said they were doing. At this point, how can you not think that Crawford is obviously not going to work for Paxson and BC in chicago? You want to get mad at Crawford for being one hundred percent right? For not being an idiot?--well at any rate, by saying what he said, he took the blame that was rightfully Cartwrights and allowed that to get blurred.)

It's entirely ridiculous that they had all offseason to figure out how to utilize Crawfords abilities that he showcased last year, and they came up with nothing. They haven't figured out any way to use him off the ball. They haven't figured out any plays to spring him loose for shots. HOW COULD PAXSON AND CARTWRIGHT NOT FIGURE OUT THAT THEY DIDN"T WANT CRAWFORD BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED? Why jerk this kid around like this? It's outright shameful. Supposedly they knew right off the bat how great Hinrich is and how great he's going to be. Judging by all the comments that were made. But they played it up to Jamal like he didn't have to worry about his starting spot. That this year he would get to play through his mistakes. That this year he was, for better or worse, their guy. Well that little pipe dream lasted, how long? I have no respect for BC or Paxson right now over this. It's completely pathetic. It's either outright mean, or outright incompetent. I'm sure it's the latter.

You watch how Seattle plays the Bulls this weekend. Look at their starting lineup. Radman, Lewis, Murray, and Barry. All of them are lights out shooters, great passers, all of them have the green light to shoot because they all can shoot so well. And all of them play unselfishly because they all can pass as well. That's a perfect team for Crawford. That could be Crawford instead of Ronald Murray right now. But instead Crawford is sitting on the bench because of an incompetent organization that has no idea what to do with him. How to play him, or where to trade him. I don't even think Paxson has a clear idea of what he wants for Crawford. If he's like Bulls posters here, who on the one hand want to get "something" back for him, but don't want to play him here--you think a team is going to give us something for a player we clearly aren't going to use? They can just play the waiting game and wait for Crawford's numbers to keep dropping on the pine.

You watch, we'll end up trading Crawford for a guy we'll cut and a 2nd round draft pick.

everytime I think I've gotten past mad on this, I only get madder. Play him or trade him. Preferably trade him. I want to see Crawford in another uniform by the end of the week. So he can officially start his career in this league. I'm tired of watching us destroy this kid every year.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

*C*

Nobody questions C-fishes ability to score. However, he would not fit in with the Sonics because, as you pointed out, they pass and play unselfishly. Anyway, I'd take Murray over Crawford.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: C*



> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> Nobody questions C-fishes ability to score. However, he would not fit in with the Sonics because, as you pointed out, they pass and play unselfishly. Anyway, I'd take Murray over Crawford.


I'd take Murray over everybody on the Bulls roster right now. If Lebron is the basketball Jesus, I'm pretty sure Ronald Murray is the basketball John the Baptist.

And I'd like some evidence to the effect that Crawford is selfish. He shot over 18 shots once. And in that game he scored 29 points and dished out 8 assists. If you go through the Seattle boxscores, the main guys are all shooting between 12 and 20 shots depending on how hot they are. Crawford would fit in perfectly there if there were room anymore, which there isn't.

Crawford's selfish reputation is the product of message board rumor and has no real basis in reality.

But anyhow. Yeah. Ronald Murray is the Truth. He kind of took tonight off, because Shard was going off against the Bucks. Only scored 20 I think. And 16 of those were in the first 3 quarters.

Wait. Did we take Mason Jr. over Ronald Murray?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I liked how the Bulls used Hinrich and Crawford tonight. Both were effective in their roles.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> As far as I can tell from the stats, this win had very little to do with either Crawford or Hinrich.


Good offensive ball movement doesn't show up on the stat sheet.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dude, grab a chill pill. It's a game.



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Fisher is a coattail riding scrub. In the good tradition of all the coattail riding scrubs before him. It's funny you talk about defense and bring up the guard who is a human escort to the basket for all the point guards in the league. Derek Fisher single-handledly got Mike Bibby paid and on the olympic team.
> ...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Dude, grab a chill pill. It's a game.


I'm cool. You cool?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Fisher is a coattail riding scrub. In the good tradition of all the coattail riding scrubs before him. It's funny you talk about defense and bring up the guard who is a human escort to the basket for all the point guards in the league. Derek Fisher single-handledly got Mike Bibby paid and on the olympic team.
> ...


You can slam Fisher all you want. He's got the three rings, so he's obviously plenty good enough. And I'm sure, in your mind, he's way inferior to Jamal, who has zero rings.

You can rag on Hinrich all you want, but what he's been doing is what Fisher did for the Lakers. He helped them win.

What Jamal has done is put up some pretty ugly stats (particularly the shooting %) while leading a team in scoring that lost most of those games by 20 or 30 points.

When the lightbulb goes on over Jamal's head, he'll realize that he can be a winner without being a scorer, or he can use his scoring ability in conjunction with being a rounded basketball player to help his team win. If you put Jamal on ANY team and give him the ball, the results will be the same: and1 from one guy with the rest of the guys just watching and waiting for the rare pass to come their way.

In the meantime, we want to win and not watch Jamal score big (shoot low %) and the team lose by 30 anymore.

And yes, we'd rather watch a guy turn the ball over 10 times and shoot 1-10 FG in a close game than watch those 30 pt losses.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Here's what I think Dabullz. I think the Bulls to win, need more of a derek fisher type(albiet with a lot better defense, sorry but Fisher is a SORRY defender) or at least that's what they think they want.

Trying to get Crawford to be that guy will never work. And they should know this by this point. Sometimes it just doesn't work for a certain player in a certain system. It doesn't always mean the player is at fault, or even that the team is at fault for not being the perfect team for that player, but it does mean that both would be better off going their seperate ways than sitting around moaning about each other.

Scottie Pippen is a good example of this. Remember his houston years? In houston they didn't need him to be a PG. They needed somebody to throw the ball inside and then stand around the perimeter and knock down 3's if Hakeem got doubled. This should have been a simple task for pippen, since it was markedly less than what he was ever asked to do in Chicago. But he balked on it, and struggled with the system throughout the year to Houston's detriment, and really bothered the chemistry on that team before finally being delt to Portland where his skills could once again be used. Crawford is basically a lot like Pippen in Houston. We're asking him to do something that should be an easy sacrifice in theory, because it is using less of his skills than he would otherwise half to use, however, Crawford, like Pippen is chafing under the system. And with almost as volitile results.(actually it's funny that we talk about selfish guys, and bad teammates, and yet Scottie in houston was a TERRIBLE teammate. He and Charles Barkley and Hakeem were in constant fued.)

And back to fisher, it's not like he was even the starting PG for all 3 of those championship teams. Part of the reason for the lakers decline is that he is pretty much a bench player who was forced to start the last few years.

And honestly any comparisons between our bulls and the lakers championship teams are kind of moot until we get a Shaq and a Kobe on our team and actually win a ring or two.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jumpman23</b>!
> I have to disagree I think the team has come together much better in terms of playing defence and it has nothing or little to do with hinrich...this guy didn't stop pierce it was team defence...plus a point guard should have some assists...and all i see are 5 turnovers.


Defense and team defense to be more specific starts at the perimeter 

Firm your foundations there and its all gravy


----------



## tpolish (Feb 25, 2003)

*fisher*

I think alot of you are forgetting that fisher played with Shaq and kobe for those 3 championships. You put any other point guard in there during those years and it would be the same result. Just like how the bulls won with guys like bill wennington and will perdue. Do you think any other team in the league would have wanted guys like that to lead their teams. Obviosly not. But hinrich will be a much better player than fisher when its all said and done. Ive watched many kansas games and this guy is a leader and a winner. Maybe no championships but he gets his teams competitive which is a great quality. I was hoping he would come to seattle in the draft and play with collison but we're pretty happy with ridnour so far and Flip Murray is playing some Ok ball as well.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> That's what one game can or can't do for someone, especially a rookie.
> ...


I watched the NO / Dallas game last night and on the strength of that performance I am convinced that Baron Davis is the form point guard in the league right now .. offensively sure - but his defense is outstanding 

No shame on KH struggling against Baron - offensively or defensively


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You can slam Fisher all you want. He's got the three rings, so he's obviously plenty good enough. And I'm sure, in your mind, he's way inferior to Jamal, who has zero rings.


If you really think that this team will be talented enough for them to win championships with Derek Fisher-quality pointguard play, I have severely underrated your optimism regarding this teams future.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You can slam Fisher all you want. He's got the three rings, so he's obviously plenty good enough. And I'm sure, in your mind, he's way inferior to Jamal, who has zero rings.
> ...


Mark Madsen has 3 rings and Kevin Garnett has zero as well. Weak argument.

Were you watching the end of last season, when the Bulls were playing their best ball in years with Crawford starting and scoring?

Plus, I don't see what the problem was with Crawford putting up shots in the early games. He had Rose coming off injury and in a horrible slump, Curry pulling another disappearing act, and Cartwright for some reason not giving Marshall hardly any PT. Who was supposed to be shooting? Baxter? Gill? If Rose and Curry aren't producing, and Marshall isn't a factor, Crawford should be the first offensive option.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Very good points Future, I love your manifesto! I agree with you completely. The Bulls are taking a very talented player and totally misusing him....AGAIN. I don't even know what it is they are tryingto accomplish. Apparently Bill has a hard on for Hinrich for some reason. Sure, Hinrich does have skills but he is nowhere near the player that Crawford is at this point and probably never will be. 


It seems like some posters (this means you DaBullz  ) have a real bias against players who play at the EBC. They automatically somehow become street ballers and not fundamental NBA players. I don't even understand how a run of the mill guy like Fisher comes into the conversation with Crawford. Sure he has three rings, so would Crawford if he was playing with Shq, Kobe, and a coach like Jackson that wouldn't misuse him and toss him on the pine. There are a LOT of NBA players that play in the EBC, to name just a few: Theor Ratliff, Mike Dunleavy Jr., Ron Artest, Stephon Marbury, Eddy Curry, amd Smush Parker. There are probably half a dozen more I can't think of at the moment. It's just a fun way to keep your conditioning over the offseason and get to use all your trick arsenal, it doesn't mean your some hot dogging, showboating, streetballa that can't play fundamental NBA basketball.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You are right ACE Kirk will never be the player offensively that Crawford is. He will be(and prolly is already) a better defender and better a running a team and making the players around him better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> You are right ACE Kirk will never be the player offensively that Crawford is. He will be(and prolly is already) a better defender and better a running a team and making the players around him better.



Don't forget who leads the team in assits before you make that last statement!  

I definitley agree that Hinrich is a better defender though. Unfortunately Cartwright focuses on defense to the point where the offense suffers IMO.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I dont know this even gets to be a Kirk vs jamal situation ?Kirk has absolutely nothing to do with it .Its a BC vs Jamal situation with Kirk being the pawn used by Bc its not his fault .

Bc took a gamble and its paying off because it produced wins I just hope no one gets caught up in the we lost because Jamal and we won without him because if the goal is to make the playoffs the Bulls will need Jamal playing well to make the playoffs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> 
> 
> Mark Madsen has 3 rings and Kevin Garnett has zero as well. Weak argument.
> ...


The only weak argument is comparing guys with a handful of minutes with a starter.

Take a look at any of the past 15 or so champions and you won't find a shoot first PG on them:

Spurs had Tony Parker at ~15 PPG
Lakers had Fisher
Spurs had Avery Johnson
Bulls had Ron Harper
Rockets had Kenny Smith

And so on.

All PGs who protected the ball first (low turnovers), high assists, and not even close to leading the team in scoring.

That's what a championship team's PG is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

futuristxen --



> As far as I can tell from the stats, this win had very little to do with either Crawford or Hinrich.


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61245&forumid=27



> Hinrich sucks.
> And as soon as Jamal gets back in a starting lineup somewhere and gets some minutes he's gonna be a star in this league.


Nice to see your rationale for these sentiments.



> And I don't think Hinrich is exactly allworld defense. Baron Davis was going to the basket whenever he wanted to on Hinrich.


First off, Baron Davis is playing like the best player in the League right now. He's been torching everybody all season. If you watch the NO game again, you'll see that Baron scored 20 of his 35 points vs. Crawford (who played 28 minutes) and 15 against Hinrich (who played 27 minutes) -- nearly all of which were from the outside with a hand in his face. Baron rarely got by Kirk, while he blew by Crawford on more than a few occasions.



> If your saying Hinrich is a championship PG, I'd have to ask, based on what? He couldn't even win in 4 years of college at one of the top programs in the country under one of the best coaches in the country, Roy Williams.


This is so weak. First it's "Roy can't win the big one." Now it's his players' faults. Tell me, how many superstars have never won a championship at any level? How many superstars have never even won a conference ring or a Final Four appearance? Using your logic, is Jamal Crawford an abysmal player? And one other thing -- Hinrich was forced to play out of position at SG/SF the last two years under Roy Williams.



> Ronald Murray is the Truth.


Might wanna tell Paul Pierce that.

Illstate2 --



> Plus, I don't see what the problem was with Crawford putting up shots in the early games.


The problem was the Bulls getting blown out by 30 time and time again.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Hey everybody...*WE WON!*
> 
> Ain't that enough???


kismet what we are watching is a hysterically funny instance of no one taking the advice they practically screamed at 2 of the players only days ago

aren't you amused?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

grinch from way downtown!


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> kismet what we are watching is a hysterically funny instance of no one taking the advice they practically screamed at 2 of the players only days ago
> ...


I'm amused...We Won people! We W O N!!!!!!! And almost nobody’s care…:no:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The only weak argument is comparing guys with a handful of minutes with a starter.
> ...


wasn't scottie the bulls pg. during those title years ...i must have misread your dozens of posts on the subject ...that stated pretty clerly that pippen was the guy running point guard...i find it funny how you twist things to suit your own arguments at any individual times (and before you try to twist things remember this is a discussion about the offensive side of the ball)

in the final bulls title i believe pip led the team 5 and change assists while throwning in over 19 a game point wise ....

19 and 5 ...seems close to what jc was avereaging prior to his benching ...what was that again about title team pg stats again ?


----------



## Laid-Backness06 (Nov 9, 2003)

I wish big Bill would put Crawford in the lineup so everyone can see just how complacent his teammates become when he's on the floor. I agree that JC is talented and could become very successful on some team, but for whatever reason, he just does not fit into our system well. 

When I watch KH play, I see all his mistakes that the people here point out, but I also see that he works his tail off, and this team simply looks more comfortable. Some people cannot look beyond stats. 

I do think that Crawford has a world of talent, but I completely agree with the analogy to Pippen when he was with Houston. Crawford wants to be the man, and he thinks that the only way to realize this goal is to score a bunch of points. BC has a completely different perspective on what role a pg should play, and that is, a pg should look first to get his teammates involved while playing good defense. I think JC would actually excel as an sg with this club, but as many have noted here before, JC doesn't want to be anything other than a pg, and it doesn't seem to occur to BC to start JC at sg. If this isn't going to happen, I don't know why we should keep JC simply because he could be a great scorer.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i love the craziness that permeates this board ...they say pip should play pg ,when he is on the floor with JC ...and he does ...yet they still pin the lack of movement with JC ....how do you figure this laid backness06


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> I wish big Bill would put Crawford in the lineup so everyone can see just how complacent his teammates become when he's on the floor. I agree that JC is talented and could become very successful on some team, but for whatever reason, he just does not fit into our system well.
> 
> When I watch KH play, I see all his mistakes that the people here point out, but I also see that he works his tail off, and this team simply looks more comfortable. Some people cannot look beyond stats.


Well said.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i love the craziness that permeates this board ...they say pip should play pg ,when he is on the floor with JC ...and he does ...yet they still pin the lack of movement with JC ....how do you figure this laid backness06


I’m sensing sarcasm against young poster happygrinch!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> Kirk didn't ask to be put in this situation. He's not going to, in his rookie year, or ever, tell a coach, "no coach, I don't want to play, I think you're doing Jamal wrong" he's going to take the opportunity given to him to do whatever he can. So there's no real reason to hate on him.
> 
> And there's not a huge reason to hate on Crawford either. He's done very well for the bulls when given the opportunity. The only negative thing he's said is that he felt like he was going to be traded.


Nice post. Too bad you disagreed with yourself in the very next post. I wish more people would feel like the quote above.


----------



## Laid-Backness06 (Nov 9, 2003)

All I know is what I see on the screen, and whenever JC is on the floor, the team just becomes stagnant. This doesn't appear to be the case when KH is on the floor. 

Maybe the problem isn't with JC being a pg. It might simply be that JC is out there. His teammates know he can score and so they defer to him and watch him shoot. That's not really Jamal's fault, but the problem is he encourages this by taking all those outside jumpers without getting his teammates involved. I think it's sort of like the situation with MJ and the Wizards. They just stood there watching him do his thing. 

Last night, JC came up with some huge baskets, but did you notice that he didn't even try to initiate the offense when he took those shots? And it wasn't like he was wide open either. His man was on him, and JC just pulled up for a three with about 18 seconds on the clock. Of course, I was glad that he made them, but they really were bad shots to take.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> wasn't scottie the bulls pg. during those title years ...i must have misread your dozens of posts on the subject ...that stated pretty clerly that pippen was the guy running point guard...i find it funny how you twist things to suit your own arguments at any individual times (and before you try to twist things remember this is a discussion about the offensive side of the ball)
> ...


Fine. Pippen was indeed the PG. He still wasn't a shoot first PG, nor did he lead the team in scoring or even try. He didn't lead the team in FGA.

Pippen wasn't the PG for the first 3 peat.

Pippen was an "A" defender (scale of A-F). Jamal is an "F-". End of comparison, and there is no comparison.

If you stick your hand in fire once, you get burned. If you stick your hand in fire a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th...) time, you're a fool. Playing Jamal at PG is sticking your hand in fire - BLOWOUT losses, and nothing to indicate it would change.

To address your other post...

The reason the team doesn't move without the ball when Crawford is on the court is because CRAWFORD doesn't move without the ball when he's on the court. He either stands at the top of the 3pt arc, or plays even further out so he's not even in the TV picture.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> I definitley agree that Hinrich is a better defender though. Unfortunately *Cartwright focuses on defense to the point where the offense suffers IMO.*


I am about as neutral as you can get about the two players and their abilities. I feel that JCraw has all the skills necessary to play with the best. I know nothing about Hinrich that I don't read on this board.

That said, since JC has been benched we've had a better offense. We certainly have not had any 20+ blowouts. So maybe the "Defense before Offense" ruse has resulted in a better offense?

It certainly appears so.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> I am about as neutral as you can get about the two players and their abilities. I feel that JCraw has all the skills necessary to play with the best. I know nothing about Hinrich that I don't read on this board.
> 
> That said, since JC has been benched we've had a better offense. We certainly have not had any 20+ blowouts. So maybe the "Defense before Offense" ruse has resulted in a better offense?
> 
> It certainly appears so.


That, my friends, is all she wrote.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Laid-Backness06</b>!
> All I know is what I see on the screen, and whenever JC is on the floor, the team just becomes stagnant. This doesn't appear to be the case when KH is on the floor.
> 
> Maybe the problem isn't with JC being a pg. It might simply be that JC is out there. His teammates know he can score and so they defer to him and watch him shoot. That's not really Jamal's fault, but the problem is he encourages this by taking all those outside jumpers without getting his teammates involved. I think it's sort of like the situation with MJ and the Wizards. They just stood there watching him do his thing.
> ...


crawford took 4 shots,thats all last night and has taken 9 or fewer shots in 4 of the 9 games ..and is avg 12 shots a game for the season ...he's not the shothog people are making him out to be


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> he's not the shothog people are making him out to be


...well, not lately. But if he's not shooting, what does he bring to the table?

Too bad the BC's prospect of him and Kirk playing together is kind of like putting two rival tomcats from different parts of town in a box together.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> crawford took 4 shots,thats all last night and has taken 9 or fewer shots in 4 of the 9 games ..and is avg 12 shots a game for the season ...he's not the shothog people are making him out to be


He may not be recently.

vs. WAS 18 FGA (Loss, 99-74)
@ MIL 15 FGA (Loss 98-68)
vs HOU 18 FGA (Loss 98-66)
@ ORL 21 FGA (Win 106-100)
vs. PHI 16 FGA (Loss 106-85)

Then he grabbed some pine and we're 2-1 since.

@NOR 9 FGA (Win 109-106)
vs. DEN 6 FGA (Loss 105-97)
@ BOS 4 FGA (Win 89-82)

See the pattern yet?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine. Pippen was indeed the PG. He still wasn't a shoot first PG, nor did he lead the team in scoring or even try. He didn't lead the team in FGA.
> ...


the alltime leading scorer was on his team which is why he didn't try to lead the team in scoring ,but he was an unslefish player i'll give you that, but lets not kid ourselves about what a pg should be doing on the bulls if they want JC to spot up like bj or pax did ...then go ahead he is the best 3 pts shooter on the team or they could do what they did last year simply post curry let JC bring it down and feature rose as the perimeter scorer ...the way things were last year were getting better by the week but they had to alter it and now they dont have any consistentcy

the bulls didn't suffer too many blowout losses when they simply told him to run the team and started messing with the roles adding pg's they dont need and switching up roles base on who was on the court with ..on both offense and defense...while switching up line-ups due to injury or to fear of injury

and i'll agree JC doesn't cut enough but dont say kirk is like stockton when it comes to cutting either


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> He may not be recently.
> ...


we are 2-1 since TC went down too patterns off of 3 games from someone who endlessly spoke about how they didn't take 2 months as proof because it wasn't long enough holds little weight to me


----------



## Jumpman23 (Oct 10, 2002)

The only reason the offence seams stagnant when JC is in the games is because he is there with the second uniti...at least on 3 occasions his passes to baxter ended up being either offensive fouls or missed or blocled. Don't blame JC for that if guys can't make shots when he gives them the ball. The bulls played their best ball last year when JC was a starter and when he averaged close to 20 ppg over the last month of the season. How do u explain that. The man leads the team in assists and was one of league leaders in assists in the nba before being benched for THE FUTURE FRED HOIBERG:no:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> we are 2-1 since TC went down too patterns off of 3 games from someone who endlessly spoke about how they didn't take 2 months as proof because it wasn't long enough holds little weight to me


Crawford proved he was terribly inconsistent over the two months you talk about. Those were games that didn't count and after the season was truly a wash.

There's a huge difference at the start of the season where playoffs and "no excuses" is the expectation. Jamal nearly single-handedly destroyed our chances of getting off to a good start and cost us wins against teams we were supposed to beat.

You can ignore my opinion, if you choose. But you cannot ignore the opinion of the GM and coach who both fully support the move they felt was necessary to salvage the season after watching Jamal do his thing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford proved he was terribly inconsistent over the two months you talk about. Those were games that didn't count and after the season was truly a wash.


 yet they were 9-11 in those games i wonder what their record was in the previous 20 games not as good i assure you ...and every game counts...by that token the heat's and cavs games no longer count so we should now discredit what their players do from here on out til the end of the year ...i mean do they reall have a chance at the playoffs now?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> yet they were 9-11 in those games i wonder what their record was in the previous 20 games not as good i assure you ...and every game counts...by that token the heat's and cavs games no longer count so we should now discredit what their players do from here on out til the end of the year ...i mean do they reall have a chance at the playoffs now?


http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Laid-Backness06</b>!
> All I know is what I see on the screen, and whenever JC is on the floor, the team just becomes stagnant. This doesn't appear to be the case when KH is on the floor.
> 
> Maybe the problem isn't with JC being a pg. It might simply be that JC is out there. His teammates know he can score and so they defer to him and watch him shoot. That's not really Jamal's fault, but the problem is he encourages this by taking all those outside jumpers without getting his teammates involved. I think it's sort of like the situation with MJ and the Wizards. They just stood there watching him do his thing.
> ...


Last night Pip played point when Crawford was on the floor and he initiated the offense the majority of the time on the play in question in the 4th quarter .Pip initated the offense and held the ball he then threw it back to Crawford as the clock was running down who hit the 3 on the other play he pushed the ball saw a crack in the defense and drove in for a foul line shot over a guy he has what 6 inches on .Bad shots ? 

The hypocrisy around here sometimes is baffling .Ive seen Rose,pip,Gill, all take quick shots early in the clock , horrendous shots,hold the ball too long ,and cheat on defense and blow the rotation .But I Crawfords mistakes are all that matter .

What will people do ,what will people do when they trade the whipping boy? :sigh: :uhoh:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> The only reason the offence seams stagnant when JC is in the games is because he is there with the second uniti


Patently false.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html


do me a favor and spell it out ...

you attempt to give me links to the i guess your perception of internet debating fail to move me


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal nearly single-handedly destroyed our chances of getting off to a good start and cost us wins against teams we were supposed to beat.


 :rofl: 

of course it couldnt have been 

Curry
Marshall
Rose
Baxter


a playing like do-do 


or Pip and Hinrich missing 5 games 

or Tyson missing 4 game 

Its all Jamal *"TEAM KILLER"*  Crawford

OMG :laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> do me a favor and spell it out ...
> ...


I see you read the first paragraph. There's a lot more to it than you think.

My problem is in understanding your twisted logic (regarding the Cavs, for example).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> :rofl:
> ...


Reality check.

We're winning without Chandler, and those guys you list are playing better without Crawford in the lineup. We even won without Corrie Blount or a backup center at all.

cause/effect in action


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I think a lot of people like Jamal because he's flashy, not because he helps the team win. They want to see someone embarass the competition, and they want someone who makes them jump from their chair and say "DID YOU SEE THAT?". Someone who'll be on Sportscenter more often than not. KH isn't "cool". No earrings, no tats, not spinning, windmilling, behind the back passes to teammates. Not worthy of 'idol worship'. A simple drive and dish to Curry for a layup caused by his penetration, no matter whether the team wins or not, is boring basketball.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I see you read the first paragraph. There's a lot more to it than you think.
> ...


and your logic is somehow good ...you are blaming every fault the bulls have on 1 player as if they would be undefeated if crawford was on the sidelines while they were shooting 30% from the field


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I think a lot of people like Jamal because he's flashy, not because he helps the team win. They want to see someone embarass the competition, and they want someone who makes them jump from their chair and say "DID YOU SEE THAT?". Someone who'll be on Sportscenter more often than not. KH isn't "cool". No earrings, no tats, not spinning, windmilling, behind the back passes to teammates. Not worthy of 'idol worship'. A simple drive and dish to Curry for a layup caused by his penetration, no matter whether the team wins or not, is boring basketball.


Thats definitely true, you can see it with alot of peoples views towards Kirk.

Although it doesnt apply to me, actually its the opposite. Him and Rose are my two favorite players (to watch, and just in general) in the league, and they're both probably usually construed as boring.
:laugh: I'm just a bit off the norm I guess.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> and your logic is somehow good ...you are blaming every fault the bulls have on 1 player as if they would be undefeated if crawford was on the sidelines while they were shooting 30% from the field


MY logic is fine. Your logic is still causing problems.

I blame the losses and poor performances of his teammates on the PG which was Jamal.

The evidence is clear and straightforward. We may not be undefeated (which we're not) with Hinrich as the starter, but we're in every game and haven't been blown out. With Jamal as the starter, we were getting blown out quite consistently.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> No earrings, no tats, not spinning, windmilling, behind the back passes to teammates. Not worthy of 'idol worship'. A simple drive and dish to Curry for a layup caused by his penetration, no matter whether the team wins or not, is boring basketball.


This is how you can describe, the real Big Team Players.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I think a lot of people like Jamal because he's flashy, not because he helps the team win. They want to see someone embarass the competition, and they want someone who makes them jump from their chair and say "DID YOU SEE THAT?". Someone who'll be on Sportscenter more often than not. KH isn't "cool". No earrings, no tats, not spinning, windmilling, behind the back passes to teammates. Not worthy of 'idol worship'. A simple drive and dish to Curry for a layup caused by his penetration, no matter whether the team wins or not, is boring basketball.


the truth is i like crawford because when the team gets to the playoffs they are going to need a player who can make something out of nothing at the end of the shot clock ,players who can consistently get open shots by creating them off the dribble when the defense bog down are rare and JC is one of them even though he is still somewhat raw...he's not going to get more refined on the bench...kirk despite his good points doesn't have that ...jay williams depite his speed usually needed picks to get free 

that why i want crawford because when this team is good its going to need him in there just like curry and chandler and rose


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The evidence is clear and straightforward. We may not be undefeated (which we're not) with Hinrich as the starter, but we're in every game and haven't been blown out. With Jamal as the starter, we were getting blown out quite consistently.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Reality check.
> ...


But Crawford is still playing hes just not starting by your statements he shouldnt play AT ALL .Even though he played a part in all 3 roads wins I guess he only gets crdit foi the losses .

Crawford didnt force cuury not to rebound or miss gimmes the first 5 games 

Crawford also didnt force BC to start Baxter over marshall in the opener or Rose over Gill until he got his legs back.

Hes not the reason we get outrebounded in losses ,shot ft's poorly, or coughed up so many to's .

By the way you explain it we should cut Jamal Crawford right now because hes the cause of all the teams problems .


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> the truth is i like crawford because when the team gets to the playoffs they are going to need a player who can make something out of nothing at the end of the shot clock ,players who can consistently get open shots by creating them off the dribble when the defense bog down are rare and JC is one of them even though he is still somewhat raw...he's not going to get more refined on the bench...kirk despite his good points doesn't have that ...jay williams depite his speed usually needed picks to get free
> ...


The truth is: we are all biased gentlemen’s! And one-group arguments are nothing to the other group. So farther discussion on this subject is just pointless…


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> MY logic is fine. Your logic is still causing problems.
> ...


well did the bulls get blown out consistently when crawford was the starter last season ,(he did start 31 games not just the 20 at the end of the season) your point on how 3 or 4 gamess last week mean more than anything else simply because of one player simply dont hold water especially since the opening day roster had 2 players in it that didn't play at all during te preseason and another who missed a few too 

your belief that it is absolutely one player's fault doesn't seem very logical to me

to me there are a lot of factors as there are when a team wins or loses ...to you there is one ...and that isn't logical in a team sport


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> But Crawford is still playing hes just not starting by your statements he shouldnt play AT ALL .Even though he played a part in all 3 roads wins I guess he only gets crdit foi the losses .
> ...


I actually happen to like Crawford fine. I want to see him succeed, and I believe BC and Paxson do, too.

I don't have a problem with him shooting, or shooting a lot. I do have a problem with the way he runs the team as PG.

I do have a problem with people saying he should be the PG because he's somehow playing better. "Playing better" is not indicated by 18 FGA and 30% FG and leading the team in scoring. Playing better is playing under control, taking good shots (even if it's only 4 shots in a game), keeping your team in the game, and making your teammates better. That is not the conclusive list, but enough to get my point across. 

happygrinch raised a valid point: have Jamal spot up as the 3 point shooter in the offense. He's the best 3 point shooter we have. I can see Jamal thriving in that role. But if he's going to get a lot of court time, he's going to have to work much much much harder on the defensive end of the court, or he's a liability.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I actually happen to like Crawford fine. I want to see him succeed, and I believe BC and Paxson do, too.
> ...


i find the supposed defensive pg's to be overrated ...plus i remember bj's defense at pg and he was no defensive pg


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I actually happen to like Crawford fine. I want to see him succeed, and I believe BC and Paxson do, too.
> ...


I agree that he needs to start impacting the game with more than just scoring But after last nights game Im convinced we have a player who is highly confused to what his role on the team is now .


Everyone complains about him directing the offense and settting others up but when hes in with Pip ,Pip is the primary ballhandler and Rose has even played a lot of point yesterday.So what role does he play especially since he gets no plays called for him .

Bc is too stubborn to play him at sg the right way and is taking directing the offense out of his hands at pg .

Either Bc needs to become more flexible and creative in the way he uses Crawford or the Bulls need to let him go .


----------



## Laid-Backness06 (Nov 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jumpman23</b>!
> The only reason the offence seams stagnant when JC is in the games is because he is there with the second uniti...at least on 3 occasions his passes to baxter ended up being either offensive fouls or missed or blocled. Don't blame JC for that if guys can't make shots when he gives them the ball. The bulls played their best ball last year when JC was a starter and when he averaged close to 20 ppg over the last month of the season. How do u explain that. The man leads the team in assists and was one of league leaders in assists in the nba before being benched for THE FUTURE FRED HOIBERG:no:


I was referring to the games JC started.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dabullz. Tony Parker IS a shoot first PG. Who happens to play with one of the better players of all time.

And whoever said it, Paul Pierce isn't the truth anymore. Ronald Murray wouldn't let Jalen Rose shut him down. Ronald Murray is the new truth.

And then whoever said I contridicted myself, I certainly did. 


This is what happens when someone falls out of the loop of a 7+ page thread.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Reality check #2.

Crawford contributed to a win last night. Where's the beef?


----------



## Laid-Backness06 (Nov 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Last night Pip played point when Crawford was on the floor and he initiated the offense the majority of the time on the play in question in the 4th quarter .Pip initated the offense and held the ball he then threw it back to Crawford as the clock was running down who hit the 3 on the other play he pushed the ball saw a crack in the defense and drove in for a foul line shot over a guy he has what 6 inches on .Bad shots ?
> ...


I was just at lunch with a friend, and without saying anything about yesterday's game, he says to me, "What's up with JC's three attempt last night? I mean, he made it, but still. The guy was right in his face. If the shot clock was down to 5 seconds, I could understand, but that shot was horrible."

The fact is, the shot clock was not running down, unless you consider having more than 10 seconds left on the shot clock as running down. Pip passed off to Jamal at the top of the three point line just as they were about to initiate the offense, and then Jamal launched one with a guy right in front of him. Go back and watch the tape if you don't believe me.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Laid-Backness06</b>!
> 
> 
> I was just at lunch with a friend, and without saying anything about yesterday's game, he says to me, "What's up with JC's three attempt last night? I mean, he made it, but still. The guy was right in his face. If the shot clock was down to 5 seconds, I could understand, but that shot was horrible."
> ...


I have the tape but since I cant show you the tape Ill do the best I can .

http://scores.nba.com/games/20031112/CHIBOS/PlayByPlayPrint.html



> (9:50) [BOS] Williams Foul: Offensive (1 PF)
> (9:50) [BOS] Williams Turnover: Foul (1 TO)
> (9:28) [CHI 76-65] Crawford Jump Shot: Made (5 PTS


Thats 22 secs .... :sigh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://scores.nba.com/games/20031112/CHIBOS/PlayByPlayPrint.html



> Q2
> (9:09) [BOS] Williams Jump Shot: Missed
> (9:07) [CHI] Pippen Rebound (Off:0 Def:3)
> (9:02) [CHI] Crawford Jump Shot: Missed


Can we say.... 5 seconds?



> Q4
> (10:08) [BOS] Baker Jump Shot: Missed
> (10:06) [CHI] Robinson Rebound (Off:1 Def:2)
> (10:00) [CHI 73-65] Crawford Jump Shot: Made (2 PTS)


Improvement. 6 seconds.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Jamal didn't have the best night last night at shooting within the offense, of course he only took 4 shots. I paid attention and 3 were bad shots outside the offens, of which he hit 2, and 1 was a good shot within the offense that he missed.

BTW, I don't like Jamal because I think he is "flashy". I could care less about that. If I want to watch flash I will watch an And 1 mix tape or an EBC game. I like Jamal because he is a very talented and effective player, sure he has room to grow but he is still pretty young.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> http://scores.nba.com/games/20031112/CHIBOS/PlayByPlayPrint.html
> 
> 
> ...


First of all on the 1st one Pippen grabbed the rebound he pushed the ball hard and drew Crawfords man and kicked it to him for a wide open 3 .


On the second Crawford had 6 inch height advantage on Banks saw a seam in the defense and took a shot from the ft line .

The game is being replayed right right now but youre so obviously biased its not even funny anymore .


----------

