# Some Bulls Love from the NY Press



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.nysun.com/article/45387

The Chicago Bulls made some highprofile changes this off-season, but their current hot streak — they've won 11 of 12 after a 3–9 start — has been fueled by the holdovers.

When the Bulls visit the Knicks on Friday, the attention will be focused on center Ben Wallace and with good reason. After an even slower start than his team, Wallace has been playing well (probably not well enough to justify his four-year and $60 million contract but performance and payroll rarely coincide) and his play has helped turn the Bulls from a good defense, sixth in Defensive Efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions) last season to a stellar one ranked third this season. And his last three games must have made his fantasy league owners grin from ear to ear: 15 points, 20 rebounds, five blocks against Seattle on Wednesday; 10 points, 27(!) boards, six assists, and three blocks versus Milwaukee on Friday, and six points, 15 rebounds, eight assists, and three blocks Saturday against Atlanta.

That spat between him and coach Scott Skiles seems like ancient history now.

The best Bulls blogger, www.blogabull.com, published an interesting study over the weekend noting that Wallace's presence has changed the style of the Bulls defense, which is counterintuitive since Wallace is typically regarded as a superior — albeit older — version of the man he replaced, Tyson Chandler. In the past two seasons, the Bulls defense was built on a foundation of holding teams to a low shooting percentage; now they excel in limiting second shots and forcing turnovers. If they begin forcing bad shots, too, then they could move up further among the top defenses.

The Bulls figured to be a strong defensive team, since it's been their forte in the Skiles era, but what's somewhat unexpected is their offensive improvement. No one is going to confuse them for the Suns anytime soon, but for the first time since the championship years, the Bulls are in the top 10 in Offensive Efficiency. Has Wallace impacted that too?

A little. Just as the Bulls are much better at keeping opponents off the offensive glass, they are now good at rebounding their own misses. The Bulls have moved to eighth from 19th in offensive rebounding. But the biggest change in the Bulls attack is in shooting percentage. Last season the Bulls shot 44.6%, this season, despite their early season woes, Chicago has already improved that mark to 46%, which can account for as much as four points a game. Since Wallace is one of the worst shooters in the NBA, he can't claim credit for that.

Instead, kudos to the continued development of key wing players like Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, and Andres Nocioni. Look at their shooting percentages:

These three players account for 47.5% of the Bulls' shots. While Wallace probably does set very good picks, the real story is the continued maturation of Chicago's youth movement. All three players are still on the upward arcs of their careers, and Deng, who is only 21 has significant room for improvement.

Since John Paxson took over for Jerry Krause, the Bulls have drafted key players from perennial top college teams and signed Nocioni, a well regarded Argentine player from the Euroleagues. As a result, Chicago has a group of young players, who were already rugged defenders, finding their offensive games all at once — in harmony, given their current winning streak.

With the early season losing streak an increasingly distant memory, the question turns to the Bulls future. I'd like to see how well they fare against their next steady diet of Western Conference opponents before punching their ticket to the Finals. However, with their current roster, the Bulls do seem like a near lock to be a force for years to come. While their nucleus is young, rookies Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha are waiting in the wings. Both look to be substantial contributors soon. And then there's that Knick draft choice this summer.

A few years ago, a good friend of mine used to lament that she wished the Knicks could be more like the Bulls. At the time, the comment mystified me; Chicago was still a league laughingstock while the Knicks were in the mix for a low-level playoff spot. Her point was that the Bulls were willing to rebuild from the ground up while the Knicks were content tread water. Her point has been made abundantly clear by now, and Knicks fans can take heart; while the Bulls staggered in the dark for six seasons, their current unit was built in three drafts, one Euro signing, and three shrewd trades. The Knicks will start a true rebuilding plan in about 18 months at the latest, and they've already drafted well, so progress could come sooner than later.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> The Bulls figured to be a strong defensive team, since it's been their forte in the Skiles era, but what's somewhat unexpected is their offensive improvement. No one is going to confuse them for the Suns anytime soon, but for the first time since the championship years, the Bulls are in the top 10 in Offensive Efficiency. Has Wallace impacted that too?


Not to toot my own horn, but I wrote many a post saying that the Wallace acquisition would help to improve the Bulls' offense because of rebounding, turnovers, and runouts.

Obviously, he isn't solely responsible, as Hinrich and Deng are shooting much better while Gordon is getting to the line more. But no one thing can be segregated from the next. 

It doesn't surprise me in the least. Its exactly what I predicted would happen.

Toot! Toot!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Since John Paxson took over for Jerry Krause, the Bulls have drafted key players from perennial top college teams...



You mean drafting key players from top teams could actually be a GOOD thing?

Wow. I've been hanging around this board long enough that I was actually starting to believe that doing this was a sure sign of GM failure.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean drafting key players from top teams could actually be a GOOD thing?
> 
> Wow. I've been hanging around this board long enough that I was actually starting to believe that doing this was a sure sign of GM failure.


It's amazing comparing the pessimism of this board to the optimism of... pretty much everyone else.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean drafting key players from top teams could actually be a GOOD thing?
> 
> Wow. I've been hanging around this board long enough that I was actually starting to believe that doing this was a sure sign of GM failure.


The author is obviously an "Old White Guy" blind to the crippling effects of those moves.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

But the PER for Chandler on iusetrivialstatstoproveapointonmessageboards.com is much greater than Wallace's. Skiles made Pax trade Chandler because he's going to be a star and Pax hates stars, and any players over 6'9 whose names don't rhyme with "malign".


----------



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

Electric Slim said:


> But the PER for Chandler on *iusetrivialstatstoproveapointonmessageboards.com* is much greater than Wallace's. Skiles made Pax trade Chandler because he's going to be a star and Pax hates stars, and any players over 6'9 whose names don't rhyme with "malign".


So that's VincentVega's dirty little secret.

:clap2: 



> It's amazing comparing the pessimism of this board to the optimism of... pretty much everyone else.


People outside say were good, but with the way the team is organized these outsiders usually mention different reasons as to why were good. 

On NBA 2 Night or whatever that ESPN NBA show is tonight, Allan Houston was talking about how he enjoyed watching Ben Gordon score. Then the white guy who isn't Tim Legler starts talking about Kirk Hinrich and Andres Nocioni, neither of whom played exceptionally well tonight, and the great defense we play. 

And obviously, it's ridiculous for those in national nedia to start talking about whether or not this is a championship team when were in the middle of December.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The impressive thing about the Bulls to any outsider has to be how young they are. Tonight 70% of the minutes played against the Lakers were by players 25 years old or younger. That's a lot of upside, considering that Tyrus Thomas (20 yrs old) only played 4 minutes, and three of the four players on the Bulls roster who did not play were under 25 years of age.

Obviously the Bulls depend heavily on Ben Wallace on the front line, and look to PJ Brown for help there as well. But the Bulls are a championship contender this year, and only a Bynum away from being a perennial championship contender for the next 8-10 years. There's a decent chance they'll get someone like him next summer.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The impressive thing about the Bulls to any outsider has to be how young they are. Tonight 70% of the minutes played against the Lakers were by players 25 years old or younger. That's a lot of upside, considering that Tyrus Thomas (20 yrs old) only played 4 minutes, and three of the four players on the Bulls roster who did not play were under 25 years of age.
> 
> Obviously the Bulls depend heavily on Ben Wallace on the front line, and look to PJ Brown for help there as well. But the Bulls are a championship contender this year, and only a Bynum away from being a perennial championship contender for the next 8-10 years. There's a decent chance they'll get someone like him next summer.


Thanks for the fine post.

And, I'd like to add to your statement about how young the team is -- and this is for everyone -- 

Their youth means that they're still developing and growing as players and as a team.

I know people want to have their opinions about who is good and who is "hindering" their favorite player, but c'mon! Let's look at the reality, shall we? 

We have a team of flawed players, who are learning how to play together in a way that covers up each others' flaws, and accentuates their strengths. 

This has been Skiles' MO since his second season, and its starting to come together again, with 8 new people to work in, including the two front court positions. And for Big Ben to fit in, he had to test the system and break down the barriers to feel comfortable with everyone. And PJ hasn't found it in him to fit in, yet. Still, the team is coming together. 

And check out Kobe's statement about the team from today's trib.




> "Defensively has been the area they've really picked up on," Bryant said. "They're starting to read each other a little bit and understand they have Big Ben [Wallace] back there. It leaves them room to gamble and take more risks defensively because he's on the back line.
> 
> "Their rhythm is completely different from the first time we played them. I'm glad we got them really early in the season and don't have them in March or something."


About working with Skiles...



> "I'm sure I'd enjoy it," Bryant said. "He's a hard-nosed guy, a blue-collar guy. I enjoy hard work. So I'm sure it'd be fine."


The suntimes has this


> ''I think defense has really been an area they've picked up on. *It's gritty. It's intense. They don't allow too many people to get inside the paint. They take charges regularly, and they help each other out tremendously. You've got your work cut out. You can't just isolate them and expect to get something done.*



This team's strength is going to continue to be its defense. And that's why Kirk will continue to be a leader on this team, although he doesn't move the offense as well as some of the others. (Edit: And notice today's comments from Skiles about why Kirk sat most of the game.) And why Ben gets fewer minutes (he still has issues with keeping his focus, edit: though again, check Skiles' comments about Ben's play from today). And why the minutes for the subs goes up and down. They are all working through their flaws and issues, and learning how to help each other win games. 

And that is the main thing. They are learning how to win games. It means nothing for one of them to get the chance to show off what he has. The problem with a star-based system is you rise and fall with the star. And none of our stars, not the Ben(s), not Luol, not Andres or Kirk, are good enough to hitch your cart to and ride. So, we have the alternative. Hitch your cart to team concepts of defense, ball movement, hustle, and let various horses or dogs pull the cart as they have strength to do so. 

I really hope that we as fans can just enjoy this season as this team gels and improves, instead of insisting that one person or another has to go because he is hindering the team. The team is 15-10. They are not being hindered by anyone. They are learning to play together. Root for them to do so. Root for each one to improve and to develop their strengths and shed their weaknesses. :chill: 

Go Bulls!


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Now, we just need to cross our fingers that these players will stick around for the next decade. Looking ahead, Deng and Gordon will command large salaries. Nocioni is not cheap either. 

could we be looking at something like this?

Wallace ($44M over 3 years)
Hinrich ($48M over 5 years)
Deng ($55M over 5 years)
Gordon ($50M over 5 years)
Nocioni ($40M over 5 years)

Then there is Duhon. Thomas, Sefo, and the new guy will share Wallace cash.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

PD said:


> Now, we just need to cross our fingers that these players will stick around for the next decade. Looking ahead, Deng and Gordon will command large salaries. Nocioni is not cheap either.
> 
> could we be looking at something like this?
> 
> ...


Well, Reinsdorf has certainly been saving up money long enough. He'll be looking for excuses to cut at least one of them loose.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean drafting key players from top teams could actually be a GOOD thing?


So can signing guys from Virginia Union, raw athletic 1-year in school FREAKS from LSU and guys from Switzerland.

Perhaps going after the best NBA players is the best route, instead of limiting yourself to college veterans from the top NCAA powers.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> iusetrivialstatstoproveapointonmessageboards.com


Classic!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

What are the non-trivial individual player stats?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What are the non-trivial individual player stats?


In posts written by The Penguin.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In posts written by The Penguin.


Ah.

I always thought they were the ones where Hinrich excelled.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

I can't believe the Bulls would get love from the NY media! I'm surprised they aren't sneering at the Bulls and holding back their laughter after Isaiah Thomas swindled the team for Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford and the opposite directions the teams have moved since those trades.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> So can signing guys from Virginia Union, raw athletic 1-year in school FREAKS from LSU and guys from Switzerland.


I would point out that Tyrus was a key player from a top school.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The Truth said:


> I can't believe the Bulls would get love from the NY media! I'm surprised they aren't sneering at the Bulls and holding back their laughter after Isaiah Thomas swindled the team for Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford and the opposite directions the teams have moved since those trades.


This is the writer's way of pitying us.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I would point out that Tyrus was a key player from a top school.




Who was virtually unrecruited and not on any NBA radar to start the season. 

LSU is no Duke/UCONN.

Tyrus was as jibby and collegiate as JAMAL.

Hard core Paxolytes were calling for Paxson to be fired for drafting Thomas. That's how much a change of direction that pick was for Paxson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> the team for Eddy Curry


The Bulls regressed after trading Curry. Thank goodness the Bulls lucked out and the Knicks were unexpectedly (at least by Paxson) really, really bad last season.


Thank goodness the Pistons decided they didn't want to pay Ben Wallace 4 years / 60 million.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who was virtually unrecruited and not on any NBA radar to start the season.
> 
> LSU is no Duke/UCONN.
> 
> ...


That's not really accurate. Thomas played a key role for a final 4 team. Crawford played half a season on a bad Michigan squad.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Tyrus was as jibby and collegiate as JAMAL.


That is not even remotely accurate. Jamal was suspended by both the NCAA and his coach, didn't get along with his coach at all, and left after one season when everyone was telling him he'd be lucky to get drafted in the top half of the second round. 

Not to mention that Crawford's college team accomplished dick while Tyrus' went to the Final Four in large part because of his spectacular performances on the biggest stage in college basketball. And he left amid (correct) speculation that he was a lock as a high lottery pick.

He's remarkably like Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon and Deng. Is it a perfect match? No. But he's a hell of a lot more like those guys than he was Crawford. 



> Hard core Paxolytes were calling for Paxson to be fired for drafting Thomas. That's how much a change of direction that pick was for Paxson.


They were? I can think of one - TomB. Who else did you have in mind?

I'm as convinced of Paxson's excellence to date as anyone - arguably more than anyone - and I applauded the Thomas selection. It didn't surprise me at all when he picked him. He fits perfectly with the criteria that Paxson had been saying he was looking for - length and athleticism.

And I frankly don't understand your point (what is your point?). It appears that you agree that Paxson doesn't draft with blinders on.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls regressed after trading Curry. Thank goodness the Bulls lucked out and the Knicks were unexpectedly (at least by Paxson) really, really bad last season.


And who was a big part of that lack of success?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That is not even remotely accurate. Jamal was suspended by both the NCAA and his coach, didn't get along with his coach at all, and left after one season when everyone was telling him he'd be lucky to get drafted in the top half of the second round.
> 
> Not to mention that Crawford's college team accomplished dick while Tyrus' went to the Final Four in large part because of his spectacular performances on the biggest stage in college basketball. And he left amid (correct) speculation that he was a lock as a high lottery pick.
> 
> ...


I also liked the Thomas pick.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> That's not really accurate. Thomas played a key role for a final 4 team. Crawford played half a season on a bad Michigan squad.


Feel free to quibble.

I'll stand by saying that Tyrus was as jibby and colligate as JAMAL.

A high-upside, raw, prospect style pick with little NCAA experience.

Tyrus had a few more games under his belt, yes, but was considered an extremely raw, untested player by many. It was a pick for p.p.p.p.p.potential.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> And who was a big part of that lack of success?



All of the remaining Bulls after Curry left.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Feel free to quibble.
> 
> I'll stand by saying that Tyrus was as jibby and colligate as JAMAL.
> 
> ...


You also have to consider the fact that defense was a known strength of Thomas, and you can't say the same for Crawford.

I think you're correct in saying that they were both picks based on potential, but that's a separate argument to the jib factor, since potential (or supposed lack thereof) is only a component of jib.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> *Hard core Paxolytes were calling for Paxson to be fired for drafting Thomas.* That's how much a change of direction that pick was for Paxson.


Not doubting your word, there's a lot I miss on this board, but I'd sure like to see a link.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That is not even remotely accurate. Jamal was suspended by both the NCAA and his coach, didn't get along with his coach at all, and left after one season when everyone was telling him he'd be lucky to get drafted in the top half of the second round.


Both were a lotto picks at the time of the draft, had one year of college experience and were considered to be *extremely* raw and unrefined, but had high upside.




> He's remarkably like Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon and Deng.


No, he's not.

Tyrus is an out-of-nowhere prospect athletic freak who was drafted on potential.

All four of the players you mentioned are from traditional NCAA POWERHOUSES (LSU isn't one), all of those guys were on the radar for years (Tyrus wasn't) and all were considered more proven commodities and players ready to contribute right away (Deng less than the other three... but greater than TT..... Tyrus wasn't).



> Is it a perfect match? No. But he's a hell of a lot more like those guys than he was Crawford.


I disagree.






> He fits perfectly with the criteria that Paxson had been saying he was looking for - length and athleticism.


No doubt.

Thank goodness the criteria shifted from "proven players who have played in the big games that know how to the play the right way." Without the Virgina Union beasts and unproven (this was a knock by many on TT) FREAKS you are sitting at .500.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I think you're correct in saying that they were both picks based on potential, but that's a separate argument to the jib factor, since potential (or supposed lack thereof) is only a component of jib.


Don't you remember post after post after post before the draft railing TT for his strange pre-draft interview and his insistence that he's a SF.

His jib was very much in question by many on this board.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I swear it's groundhog day here every day.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who was virtually unrecruited and not on any NBA radar to start the season.
> 
> LSU is no Duke/UCONN.
> 
> ...


LSU wasn't a top school? Wrong.

Tyrus was not on an NBA radar to start the season? So what? What does that have to do with what TB posted? Not a thing. By the end of the season, he was highly heralded and considered a top prospect by virtually everyone. 

It's incredible the way you are twisting the facts to suit your argument.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Both were a lotto picks at the time of the draft, had one year of college experience and were considered to be *extremely* raw and unrefined, but had high upside.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whatever dude. You either think he drafted consistent with his past selections or you admit that he doesn't draft with blinders, having drafted "proven right way players", athletic unknown upside freaks, and international prospects. 

I still have no idea what your point is, nor have you stated it, nor do I care anymore. This thread is turning into yet another series of FoxNews-ish talking points as opposed to real discussion. 

Later skaters.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> LSU wasn't a top school?


LSU is not a traditional NCAA powerhouse and does not have the "right way" luster of a Duke, Kansas or UCONN.




> Tyrus was not on an NBA radar to start the season?


No, he wasn't. He was the diamond in the rough. He was the swing for the fences pick. The dark horse. The underdog. 




> By the end of the season, he was highly heralded and considered a top prospect by virtually everyone.


By the time of the draft, so was JAMAL.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> he doesn't draft with blinders


Last draft marked a change in Paxson's thinking. Probably from watching the team play last year and only finish .500 despite scrapping it out more than nearly any other NBA team.

The preference for jib above all took a back seat as the inevitable (if you want to win) desire to improve "length and athleticism" took over. As one person posted, BRING ON THE FREAKS!!!



> I still have no idea what your point is, nor have you stated it, nor do I care anymore.


I responded to the pointlessstatsonmessageboards.com post and it went from there.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Last draft marked a change in Paxson's thinking. Probably from watching the team play last year and only finish .500 despite scrapping it out more than nearly any other NBA team.
> 
> The preference for jib above all took a back seat as the inevitable (if you want to win) desire to improve "length and athleticism" took over. As one person posted, BRING ON THE FREAKS!!!


You don't know that. It's entirely possible that Paxson feels comfortable choosing guys like Thomas and Sefolosha because he's laid a foundation he feels good about.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

The Bulls are currently 15-10, playing great ball, and have shown a considerable amount of progression from last season. I am very happy about that. At this point I really don't care whether or not Paxson just lucked into this roster--though I'm not even about to concede that--and I don't think he's going to get fired anytime soon for accidentally putting together a good team. 

That is all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> The Bulls are currently 15-10, playing great ball, and have shown a considerable amount of progression from last season. I am very happy about that. At this point I really don't care whether or not Paxson just lucked into this roster, though I'm not even about to concede that, and I don't think he's going to get fired anytime soon for accidentally putting together a good team.


Yes, but the important question is if Paxson's GM Banner will ever fly high in the UC rafters among the greats like Krause?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Last draft marked a change in Paxson's thinking. Probably from watching the team play last year and only finish .500 despite scrapping it out more than nearly any other NBA team.
> 
> The preference for jib above all took a back seat as the inevitable (if you want to win) desire to improve "length and athleticism" took over. As one person posted, BRING ON THE FREAKS!!!


Interesting take.

Mine is that Paxson didn't depart from his "jib love" at all. He sees Thomas as a "freak" with a great jib. 

A perfect match.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hard core Paxolytes were calling for Paxson to be fired for drafting Thomas. That's how much a change of direction that pick was for Paxson.





Wynn said:


> Not doubting your word, there's a lot I miss on this board, but I'd sure like to see a link.


Bump, since k4e replied to a bunch of other posts but suspiciously failed to document this.

P.S. Please don't try to pretend you're not flaming when you use jeering labels like "Paxolytes."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> Bump, since k4e replied to a bunch of other posts but suspiciously failed to document this.


Do a search. Its already been confirmed by the Penguin.





> P.S. Please don't try to pretend you're not flaming when you use jeering labels like "Paxolytes."


:lol: Lighten up.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> LSU is not a traditional NCAA powerhouse and does not have the "right way" luster of a Duke, Kansas or UCONN.


TB did not say "traditional NCAA powerhouse." He said "top school." LSU was indeed a top school with respect to last year's NCAA season, including being media darlings.




kukoc4ever said:


> No, he wasn't. He was the diamond in the rough. He was the swing for the fences pick. The dark horse. The underdog.


Read the next three sentences of my post.



kukoc4ever said:


> By the time of the draft, so was JAMAL.



So? And is there a particular reason why Jamal's first name is better written in all capital letters?


Good grief.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> :lol: Lighten up.



You don't think Paxolytes is a pejorative term? Perhaps that's why some of your criticisms are perceived as flaming.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You don't think Paxolytes is a pejorative term? Perhaps that's why some of your criticisms are perceived as flaming.




I don't think its anything worse than PaxsonFanatic, PaxsonFan or something like that. I've seen the term Paxolyte used before on this site. It seemed like it was part of the accepted lexicon. 

Do you think the term "Cameron Crazy" or something like that is pejorative? What about the term "fan," which is short for fanatic? Is that pejorative? What about "devoted follower of Paxson?" 

What is the intent of posts such as this
http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4307332&postcount=3
this
http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4307385&postcount=5
or this?
http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4309588&postcount=6


I don’t have any problem with it. Just call it both ways.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> TB did not say "traditional NCAA powerhouse." He said "top school."


Right, but he was referring to the article in the first post.

Based on the context of the article, I don't think the author was referring to Tyrus and LSU.

For one, the intent of the article was to say the holdovers are fueling the Bulls success. Tyrus is not a holdover.

Then he goes on and on about Ben Wallace, offensive and defensive efficiency, and the improvement of Hinrich, Deng and Nocioni.

Then comes the paragraph that TB was referring to.



> Since John Paxson took over for Jerry Krause, the Bulls have drafted key players from *perennial top college teams* and signed Nocioni, a well regarded Argentine player from the Euroleagues. As a result, Chicago has a group of young players, who were already rugged defenders, finding their offensive games all at once — in harmony, given their current winning streak.


I think its open to interpretation if he was referring to last year’s draft with this statement. For one, Tyrus is certainly not in the process yet of finding his offensive game. Secondly, Thabo is not from a top college program. Paxson broke the mold the author is describing with this year's draft. Finally, the author says "perennial top college teams." Kansas, Duke and UCONN fit this description. LSU does not.

I’m sure all the lawyer-types around here can spin this one however they want, but that’s my interpretation.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> What are the non-trivial individual player stats?


Like finding out that Tony Battie is the most effective NBA rebounder in between the 3rd and 4th minute of 2nd quarters in back to back games that take place on weekends in months that have less than 31 days.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Like finding out that Tony Battie is the most effective NBA rebounder in between the 3rd and 4th minute of 2nd quarters in back to back games that take place on weekends in months that have less than 31 days.


link?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I can't believe how you can hold a grudge this long over Jamal Crawford. C'mon, JAMAL FRIGGIN CRAWFORD!!! I don't get it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I can't believe how you can hold a grudge this long over Jamal Crawford. C'mon, JAMAL FRIGGIN CRAWFORD!!! I don't get it.


Does Crawford have a high PER?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Does Crawford have a high PER?


After his 6-26 shooting effort the other night, probably not.:yay:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> After his 6-26 shooting effort the other night, probably not.:yay:


Yah, but with how useless PER is, 6-26 might make it higher.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Good Hope said:


> And notice today's comments from Skiles about why Kirk sat most of the game.)


What would those comments be? Got a link plz?


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hard core Paxolytes were calling for Paxson to be fired for drafting Thomas.
> [...]
> Do a search. Its already been confirmed by the Penguin [with TB#1 as one of them].


I'm sorry, but this seems a complete fantasy.

I thought the story sounded odd when two other regulars seemed to have no recollection of it either, and TB#1 has never seemed like a "hard core Paxolyte" to me, but a moderate. Pre-draft, he wanted Brandon Roy instead of Tyrus Thomas and made a few half-serious jokes, sure. But anyway, the smoking gun on the story of TB#1 supposedly going ballistic on the TT pick can be found on the Grade the Draft thread where you'll notice TB#1 gave Paxson a B.

So I'm going to ask you again to please show link(s) of when this crowd of hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool Pax fanatics suddenly became enraged at the draft pick of Tyrus Thomas and began calling for his head. Can you please do that for me?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> I'm sorry, but this seems a complete fantasy.
> 
> I thought the story sounded odd when two other regulars seemed to have no recollection of it either, and TB#1 has never seemed like a "hard core Paxolyte" to me, but a moderate. Pre-draft, he wanted Brandon Roy instead of Tyrus Thomas and made a few half-serious jokes, sure. But anyway, the smoking gun on the story of TB#1 supposedly going ballistic on the TT pick can be found on the Grade the Draft thread where you'll notice TB#1 gave Paxson a B.
> 
> So I'm going to ask you again to please show link(s) of when this crowd of hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool Pax fanatics suddenly became enraged at the draft pick of Tyrus Thomas and began calling for his head. Can you please do that for me?


Interesting find. 158 people voted. 151 gave Paxson a C or higher. I don't know how many of the 7 that graded the draft a D or lower wanted Paxson fired. I also don't know how many of that crowd can be considered "hardcore Paxolytes". I also don't care. This is tired. Oh well.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

k4e, why continue to ignore the fact that LSU was not only a highly ranked team throughout last season, but that Tyrus Thomas was a big reason why the Tigers went deep into the tournament? From what I recall, the Jamal Crawford lead Wolverines didn't even sniff the the big dance.

Paxson stuck to his principles and didn't veer far from his drafting philosophy. And the fact that he "took a risk" by drafting a young'n more known for his athleticism than his skills is more a testament to already solidifying a solid foundation for a basketball team.

The risk, if any, he took was minimal. He drafted yet another winner out of college at a point in our development where we not only could afford to gamble on a "high potential" type of guy, but in fact needed more length and athleticism. Pax's drafting of Tyrus wasn't out of frustration or out of losing faith in his core values of what he wants in a Chicago Bull. You make it seem like Paxson's philosophy has been shook and decided to "go another direction." This is simply not the case.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> So I'm going to ask you again to please show link(s) of when this crowd of hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool Pax fanatics suddenly became enraged at the draft pick of Tyrus Thomas and began calling for his head. Can you please do that for me?


The important threads are the "pre-draft" threads.

Once Paxson made his decision, shockingly, opinion started to shift. 

See the recent whipsaws over the Ben Wallace headband controversy and the PJ Brown suckiness / trade demand for other examples.

There was a fair amount of anti-Tyrus sentiment, enough so that at least one poster actually said they would join the "Fire Pax" club if Tyrus was drafted.

I have no obligation to provide an assortment of links to you. If you have a problem with that, I don't care. I'm pretty sure whatever I manage to dig up won't be enough to change your mind.


The enjoyable part about reading the thread you linked to was all the gushing over Khryapa. Almost every year it seams, be it Basden, Songo, whoever, there is some guy who does not play much that Paxson is praised for nabbing.

Once Khryapa isn't on the team anymore the lone benefit of that trade will be a cheaper TT contract.

Also, there was at least one poster who was picking up on the vibe I was talking about.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=3737811&postcount=64

I guess this was a "fantasy" for him as well. LOL.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

HINrichPolice said:


> k4e, why continue to ignore the fact that LSU was not only a highly ranked team throughout last season, but that Tyrus Thomas was a big reason why the Tigers went deep into the tournament?


Each didn't play for a perennial top college team.
Each only played one year in college.
Each was a raw, unpolished product drafted on upside.
Each was off the NBA radar to start their freshman year. (Tyrus likely more than JAMAL)
Each skyrocketed up the charts as the draft approached.

Like I said, Tyrus was a lot closer to the JAMALs of the world than the Duhons, Hinrichs and Dengs of the world in terms of college pedigree, "right way" luster. Those jib guys have been through the vetting process. Tryus was more of a gamble.

I remember saying that the NCAA games that TT played it were a feather in his cap to justify drafting him. I agree that those games were important.



> Paxson stuck to his principles and didn't veer far from his drafting philosophy. And the fact that he "took a risk" by drafting a young'n more known for his athleticism than his skills is more a testament to already solidifying a solid foundation for a basketball team.


That's one way to look at it. I feel that the philosophy shifted from "low downside players from the top college programs who have played in the big games and play the 'right way'" to rolling the dice on "length and athleticism."




> The risk, if any, he took was minimal.


Tyrus was considered by many to be one of the riskier picks at the top of that draft.




> Pax's drafting of Tyrus wasn't out of frustration or out of losing faith in his core values of what he wants in a Chicago Bull. You make it seem like Paxson's philosophy has been shook and decided to "go another direction." This is simply not the case.


I disagree. Hearing Paxson talk last season during our .500 meandering, it was clear he was frustrated. Remember his interview on THE SCORE. He knew "we lost our size." He knew undersized and jibby wasn't enough. I'm happy he became a little less risk averse this off-season. I would not use a term as strong as "losing faith in his core values" since I don't think he did, but I do think he realized he needed to go a different direction from the one he was on the previous years. Whether this shift was all part of the "master plan" is open to debate. I don't think it was.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

K4E, what is the point you are trying to make? I am completely lost. (We all know you can't stand Paxon even for one second. Other than that, what is that you are trying to prove by trying to debunk even one positive note from media, even one from out of town?)


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> K4E, what is the point you are trying to make? I am completely lost. (We all know you can't stand Paxon even for one second. Other than that, what is that you are trying to prove by trying to debunk even one positive note from media, even one from out of town?)


LOL!!!!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I’m sure all the* lawyer-types* around here can spin this one however they want, but that’s my interpretation.


I also consider that pejorative.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> We all know you can't stand Paxon even for one second.


Erroneous!!!


I was a big fanatic of the Tyrus Thomas draft pick.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I also consider that pejorative.


How so?

When technical issues have come up, I've read people use terms such as "techie-types" or "computer-types."

When issues of basketball stats have come up, I've read "stat-heads."

When its time to craftily turn a phrase or cut apart a paragraph, I'd turn to a lawyer-type.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How so?



Because, I believe you are using that as a criticism. As in, "Oh, those lawyer types can spin anything for their argument." It's implying those types aren't being truthful.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> "Oh, those lawyer types can spin anything for their argument."


I would not call it a criticism. I'm often impressed by it. I don’t have skillz like that.



> It's implying those types aren't being truthful.


If that kind of implication is considered a negative around here, I feel posters very directly make that implication about me all the time. And I'm actually a paying customer of this business.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> And I'm actually a paying customer of this business.


As long as ads are foisted on the user community, everyone else is too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> As long as ads are foisted on the user community, everyone else is too.


Perhaps true.

Depending on their model, the foisting may or may not get them paid. You may have to actually click on them.

This thread seems to have a lot of views.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Each didn't play for a perennial top college team.
> Each only played one year in college.
> Each was a raw, unpolished product drafted on upside.
> Each was off the NBA radar to start their freshman year. (Tyrus likely more than JAMAL)
> ...


I've concluded that much (if not all) of the disagreement with your Tyrus/Crawford comparison relies on the difference in value put forth on NCAA Tournament success. That's the one thing you continue to ignore while for everyone else, it's the one thing I (we?) keep pointing out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for you, the several NCAA Tourney games that Tyrus showed well in weren't that much of a factor in deciding just how good of a prospect Tyrus was/is while for others, those Tourney games stick out and helped solidfy the view of Tyrus as a big-time player.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

HINrichPolice said:


> That's the one thing you continue to ignore while for everyone else, it's the one thing I (we?) keep pointing out.


Its not an exact comparison. He's closer to JAMAL than Duhon, Hinrich and Gordon though. 

I'm not ignoring his NCAA run. I addressed it in a few posts.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4313963&postcount=59
http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4311093&postcount=26






> Correct me if I'm wrong, but for you, the several NCAA Tourney games that Tyrus showed well in weren't that much of a factor in deciding just how good of a prospect Tyrus was/is while for others, those Tourney games stick out and helped solidfy the view of Tyrus as a big-time player.


No, those were a big factor in my wanting to draft Tyrus Thomas. Tyrus Thomas was the guy I wanted to draft. I didn't want Roy. I didn't want Morrison. I didn't want Aldridge. I wanted Tyrus Thomas.

Those good NCAA performances were a great indicator that he could perform on a big stage. But, it was only for a short burst. Could be a leader? Could he carry that kind of performance across an entire college career? Is he just an athlete thats a good NCAA player or does he have and NBA skills. Does he have a NBA position? Does he have a NBA body? What's with his attitude? What's with that interview? Why does he have the balls to actually admit wanting to be a SF? The nerve!! Is this going to be another p.p.p.p.potential pick or are we drafting an actual basketball player? These were most of the anti-Tyrus statements being mentioned before the draft.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

12 out of 13.

I'm not worried. Who's with me?

:biggrin:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> 12 out of 13.
> 
> I'm not worried. Who's with me?
> 
> :biggrin:


Hey, it's a hell of a lot better than last year at this time.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> 12 out of 13.
> 
> I'm not worried. Who's with me?
> 
> :biggrin:


How the Bulls are doing now is not important. K4E has convinced me that Pax is a hypocrite. Pax said he wants to employ proven winners from high-profile programs as to justify running Jamal out of town. Then in turn he drafts a raw, red shirt freshman with a long way to go in skill development. So it's OK for Tyrus and not OK for Jamal? NOT FAIR!!!!!! Pax should be the mosted hated man in Chicago for this hypocrisy, but instead you all continue to drink the kool-aid like good little sheep. Meanwhile, Jamal's leadership has yielded two OT wins this week. If Jamal hadn't shown his love for the headband, he might be winning OT games for the Bulls today.

Your witness, counselor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Your witness, counselor.


Oh Yah!!?!?!?!

Well Electim Slim thinks this about the Bulls....

Wait. He rarely has anything to say about the Bulls. Usually just other posters.

(BTW, I wholeheartedly disagree with nearly everything you wrote)


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh Yah!!?!?!?!
> 
> Well Electim Slim thinks this about the Bulls....
> 
> ...


pot/kettle


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Zeb said:


> pot/kettle


Wrong. Almost all of my posts deal with the Chicago Bulls.

For instance, you would not see me making a post like this very often, if at all.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4255459&postcount=7

If you disagree with my thoughts about Paxson's draft strategy and why he made the picks he did, feel free.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wrong. Almost all of my posts deal with the Chicago Bulls.
> 
> For instance, you would not see me making a post like this very often, if at all.
> 
> ...


I don't deny posting about you. You fill this board up with so much negativity, its hard not to. I barely know what your argument is other than you're trying your best to find the negative in every positive. Carry on.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Electric Slim said:


> How the Bulls are doing now is not important. K4E has convinced me that Pax is a hypocrite. Pax said he wants to employ proven winners from high-profile programs as to justify running Jamal out of town. Then in turn he drafts a raw, red shirt freshman with a long way to go in skill development. So it's OK for Tyrus and not OK for Jamal? NOT FAIR!!!!!! Pax should be the mosted hated man in Chicago for this hypocrisy, but instead you all continue to drink the kool-aid like good little sheep. Meanwhile, Jamal's leadership has yielded two OT wins this week. If Jamal hadn't shown his love for the headband, he might be winning OT games for the Bulls today.
> 
> Your witness, counselor.


Take it easy on the baiting, please.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Zeb said:


> I don't deny posting about you. You fill this board up with so much negativity, its hard not to. I barely know what your argument is other than you're trying your best to find the negative in every positive. Carry on.


:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Zeb said:


> pot/kettle



Take it easy everyone. Back on topic, please.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Take it easy everyone. Back on topic, please.


Which topic? The positive article or the resulting nonsense?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean drafting key players from top teams could actually be a GOOD thing?
> 
> Wow. I've been hanging around this board long enough that I was actually starting to believe that doing this was a sure sign of GM failure.


TB#1 you're responsible for how this thread played out. 
You know better than to rattle K4E's cage. 

Maybe listening to all the Chrismas music has made you long to hear some disharmony.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

look everyone, I want to nip this in the bud before it gets any worse - I disagree with k4e quite a bit myself, but let's keep the conversation on basketball and not individual posters. If k4e can do it (and he's right - he does stick to basketball unless someone calls him out) despite often being outnumbered, everyone else can too. There's plenty of issues that can be discussed regarding his posts about basketball without attacking him personally.

This goes for everyone - not just those in this thread. If you are so put off by someone else's point of view on the Bulls that you are tempted to make a post about them and not about basketball, try other threads or skip over his posts.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> look everyone, I want to nip this in the bud before it gets any worse - I disagree with k4e quite a bit myself, but let's keep the conversation on basketball and not individual posters. If k4e can do it (and he's right - he does stick to basketball unless someone calls him out) despite often being outnumbered, everyone else can too. There's plenty of issues that can be discussed regarding his posts about basketball without attacking him personally.
> 
> This goes for everyone - not just those in this thread. <b>If you are so put off by someone else's point of view on the Bulls that you are tempted to make a post about them and not about basketball, try other threads or skip over his posts.</b>


Don't you find it ironic though when it was usually revolved around the same poster for the last couple of years? Just coincidence? Sure that poster tends to stick to the basketball story but almost always to bash/belittle/mock what a GM was doing. It gets very tiresome and people snap.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> Don't you find it ironic though when it was usually revolved around the same poster for the last couple of years? Just coincidence? Sure that poster tends to stick to the basketball story but almost always to bash/belittle/mock what a GM was doing. It gets very tiresome and people snap.


If you want to raise these issues, please do so over PM. Let's not have any further calling out of posters please.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> look everyone, I want to nip this in the bud before it gets any worse - I disagree with k4e quite a bit myself, but let's keep the conversation on basketball and not individual posters. If k4e can do it (and he's right - he does stick to basketball unless someone calls him out) despite often being outnumbered, everyone else can too. There's plenty of issues that can be discussed regarding his posts about basketball without attacking him personally.
> 
> This goes for everyone - not just those in this thread. If you are so put off by someone else's point of view on the Bulls that you are tempted to make a post about them and not about basketball, try other threads or skip over his posts.


Absolutely right of course. But it must be noted that even in sticking to basketball one still can find ways to antagonize other posters...for example by insulting and belittling known _opinions_ but directing the insult elsewhere...like at Paxson or the coach or certain players. Less of that would be highly welcomed. It's readily obvious when it is done and by reading the replies who it was directed to.

Theres plenty in the first post to make for a great thread.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Anyhoo...

Bulls and Knicks at the Knicks coming up

This should be regarded as a statement game given the recent histories between the two clubs 

Curry,Frye and Lee have been playing incredibly well upfront the last few games and if IT can manage to sought their backcourt out going forward - these 3 upfront with the back ups they have in James, Jeffries and Balkman are set

Lee in particular brings a mental toughness that this team needs . I love this guy. 

But this is a chance for us to keep the foot on their neck and show them who's boss and really grind them down 

Looking forward to the game


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Machinehead said:


> But this is a chance for us to keep the foot on their neck and show them who's boss and really grind them down
> 
> Looking forward to the game


Me too. My only regret is that Nate Robinson won't be there to diminish the effectiveness of the Knicks with his special brand of basketball-stupid.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Me too. My only regret is that Nate Robinson won't be there to diminish the effectiveness of the Knicks with his special brand of basketball-stupid.


Thats right, that was my exact thoughts when he got suspended. I think he actually makes the team worse with his constant bone-headed mistakes every single game. Not only is he one of the shortest players, but his face is also the ugliest. I've never seen a face where you look, chringe, become perplexed, confused, disgusted and angry all at the same time.. lets suspend him for the rest of the season just because of his face.

Im loving the friendly banter between posters, it just brings out the Christmas spirit within doesn't it?? Please resume..


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kulaz3000 said:


> lets suspend him for the rest of the season just because of his face.


That's a terrible idea - it could add 3-5 wins to the Knicks' season total. I could never advocate such a plan. :biggrin:


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That's a terrible idea - it could add 3-5 wins to the Knicks' season total. I could never advocate such a plan. :biggrin:


Very true my friend, very true.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kulaz3000 said:


> I've never seen a face where you look, chringe, become perplexed, confused, disgusted and angry all at the same time..


I have:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Absolutely right of course. But it must be noted that even in sticking to basketball one still can find ways to antagonize other posters...for example by insulting and belittling known _opinions_ but directing the insult elsewhere...


... this is an excellent point, and of course it goes both ways. As this thread indicates. Several points in the first few posts of this otherwise "positive" thread seemed to nicely fall into that description. If you're going to tease the dog, don't complain when it bites you. 

Maybe that's a simple comparison, but I think people should stop and consider what a boring place this would be if everyone agreed all the time. The people you disagree with, more than anyone else, are usually what makes this an interesting place.



> Theres plenty in the first post to make for a great thread.


I totally agree. 

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

Now back to our regularly scheuled programming.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> What would those comments be? Got a link plz?


Sorry, here they are, as an example.



> KIRK CUT SHORT: Skiles sat starting guard Kirk Hinrich for the final 18 minutes and 39 seconds.
> 
> ''It doesn't happen that much,'' Skiles said. ''I just didn't feel like he looked like himself out there.''
> 
> ...


I regret that this thread became about something other than how young, hopeful and potentially awesome this team is. But in the meantime, let's bear with their faults, and with each others'...:chill: 

I can't imagine a more devoted fan than K4E, and this board would be worse off by far if he didn't post here.

Merry Christmas, everyone!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> I can't imagine a more devoted fan than K4E, and this board would be worse off by far if he didn't post here.


Absolutely true.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> look everyone, I want to nip this in the bud before it gets any worse - I disagree with k4e quite a bit myself, but let's keep the conversation on basketball and not individual posters. If k4e can do it (and he's right - he does stick to basketball unless someone calls him out) despite often being outnumbered, everyone else can too. There's plenty of issues that can be discussed regarding his posts about basketball without attacking him personally.
> 
> This goes for everyone - not just those in this thread. If you are so put off by someone else's point of view on the Bulls that you are tempted to make a post about them and not about basketball, try other threads or skip over his posts.



I agree with this wholeheartedly. K4E rarely strays from basketball into personal stuff. 

He and I see things completely differently most of the time.

Yet, I respect him as a poster and I consider him a friend. I often look forward to our exchanges, as frustrating as they can be at times. He is smart, knowedgeable and funny.

If I was still in Chicago, I would love to hang out and watch games with him. I'm sorry I never got a chance before we moved.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I have no obligation to provide an assortment of links to you [about the supposed Tyrus Thomas outrage by hardcore Pax supporters]. If you have a problem with that, I don't care. I'm pretty sure whatever I manage to dig up won't be enough to change your mind.


Please don't assume I'm closed-minded. All you have to do is provide the link(s). Don't do it for my sake, though; heck, Wynn and the Penguin were the ones to get the ball rolling on this. But I think it'd be easy to prove this point of yours if what happened was so obvious.

You already tried to claim TB#1 as one of these people and the post-digging I did quite clearly shows otherwise. Maybe that's why you didn't mention anything about it in the last post. Or maybe TB#1's grade of B for Pax's draft is equivalent to him demanding that Pax to be fired in your book. I dunno.



kukoc4ever said:


> Also, there was at least one poster who was picking up on the vibe I was talking about.
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=3737811&postcount=64
> 
> I guess this was a "fantasy" for him as well. LOL.


I don't see what this proves. Nobody's arguing that there isn't a Fire Pax club or that there are people that thought the Tyrus Thomas pick sucked for whatever reason. What I'm interested in seeing is evidence of these supposed "die hard Paxolytes" suddenly jumping the Fire Pax train en masse because of the TT pick.

That's it; that's all I want to see, please. You keep seeming to want to go off on a half-dozen tangents about PJ Brown's suckage, Headbandgate, "Oh look people thought Khyrapa would be good and he's not," and whether Pax would ever have his name raised to the rafters like Krause.

You don't have to provide the links, but I hope you can understand why I'd stay skeptical. And it's pretty clear to me that this is just revisionist history in an attempt to mount an all-out assault on TT's pedigree, implicating Pax (as usual).


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> I think people should stop and consider what a boring place this would be if everyone agreed all the time. The people you disagree with, more than anyone else, are usually what makes this an interesting place.


That's an interesting take. 

In forums I follow in other topics people gather to commiserate with people who share the same passions and swap and exchange notes with a bigger audience than they have an opportunity to do so with in real life. A positive tone is usually maintained and the message board thrives for it. Cars, finance, etc.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> That's it; that's all I want to see, please.


this post
http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=3686158&postcount=8
from this thread
http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=280715&highlight=Tyrus+Fire



TB said:


> If this turns out to be true, I will be first in line to finally go to the Dark Side and join the Fire Pax club.
> 
> Yes, you heard it here first. Mr. Homer. Mr. Glass Half Full.
> 
> If the Bulls take Tyrus Thomas with the #2 pick of the 2006 NBA Draft, I will officially turn my back on John Paxson and call for his head as a GM.


As you can see.... some people were quite suprised.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=3687038&postcount=48

If you read through the whole thread, you'll see plenty of TT angst.

(BTW, it took me 5 minutes to find this thread. How long were you really searching for?)


(BTW, I'm not posting this to bash TB in any way, cause he's a cool guy expect when he's claiming that i'm tilting at windmills. Just to hopefully quiet you. But my money is on you asking for more links. LOL.)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I certainly did not want Thomas at #2. I felt he did not fill one of the 2 big needs -- a tall guard or a banging center.

Pax filled those needs with Thabo and Wallace.

All in all I still wish Pax had taken Roy, but as I've readily admitted, Mr. Freak has Pax kind of moxie that I wasn't aware of at the time. He has grown on me, I ate crow and recinded my call for Pax' head.

Nonetheless, the point that TT was actually a key player in a big time program was well taken -- the objection was more that he was a raw freshman who very well could have been one of those tourny flash-in-the-pans and he didn't fill a need. 

Objections overruled. TT is cool with me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Tyrus Thomas
21 games
40.9 FG%
47.4 FT%
2.7 RPG
0.4 APG
0.7 BPG
3.4 PPG

Impressive!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Tyrus Thomas
> *21 games*


Not a surprise.


----------

