# Crawford Update



## MichaelOFAZ

As promised, I am back to post the line of Jamal Crawford for those of you who may not be aware.

Based on the box score, JC appears to have a decent night, but nothing spectacular. 

JC scored 22 points and was 10 for 23 from the field (for a respectable .433 FG%) and was 2-4 from 3-pt land. As an off guard he chipped in with 3 rebs, 3 assists, 3 steals, and 1 block and didn't have any TOs.

He appears to have held his own on D too, holding Spreewell to 11 points in 39 combined minutes. 

Unfortunately stats don't mean a lot when your team loses, but losing by 6 to the Western Conference semi-finalists is nothing to be ashamed of.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> As promised, I am back to post the line of Jamal Crawford for those of you who may not be aware.
> 
> Based on the box score, JC appears to have a decent night, but nothing spectacular.
> 
> JC scored 22 points and was 10 for 23 from the field (for a respectable .433 FG%) and was 2-4 from 3-pt land. As an off guard he chipped in with 3 rebs, 3 assists, 3 steals, and 1 block and didn't have any TOs.
> 
> He appears to have held his own on D too, holding Spreewell to 11 points in 39 combined minutes.
> 
> Unfortunately stats don't mean a lot when your team loses, but losing by 6 to the Western Conference semi-finalists is nothing to be ashamed of.


Nice game by Crawford. 

I also saw that Jalen Rose was a key contributor in Toronto's 95-88 upset win over the highly touted Houston Rockets.

Jalen played a team high 40 minutes, had 17 points, 3 boards, 4 assists, 2 steals and 2 TOs. 3-10 FGs are not great, but he was a perfect 10-10 from the FT line.

Donyell came off the bench to play 27 minutes, with 9 points, 4 boards and a steal. 4-11 shooting.


----------



## Kramer

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> As promised, I am back to post the line of Jamal Crawford for those of you who may not be aware.
> 
> Based on the box score, JC appears to have a decent night, but nothing spectacular.
> 
> JC scored 22 points and was 10 for 23 from the field (for a respectable .433 FG%) and was 2-4 from 3-pt land. As an off guard he chipped in with 3 rebs, 3 assists, 3 steals, and 1 block and didn't have any TOs.
> 
> He appears to have held his own on D too, holding Spreewell to 11 points in 39 combined minutes.
> 
> Unfortunately stats don't mean a lot when your team loses, but losing by 6 to the Western Conference semi-finalists is nothing to be ashamed of.


Thanks for the update! Great to know! Please keep us updated on every single game he has for the rest of his career! 

"Pathetic" and "counseling" are two words that come to mind when I see your posts. But hey.. if you're this desperate for attention, post away.

P.S. If you have even more time on your hands- which, let's face it, you obviously do- you might want to find a Bush board and post Kerry updates.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

*Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the update! Great to know! Please keep us updated on every single game he has for the rest of his career!
> 
> "Pathetic" and "counseling" are two words that come to mind when I see your posts. But hey.. if you're this desperate for attention, post away.
> 
> P.S. If you have even more time on your hands- which, let's face it, you obviously do- you might want to find a Bush board and post Kerry updates.


Typical response. I would expect nothing less from someone as brainwashed as you. You obviously are offended by a simple post about an ex-Bull. And yet you say I am pathetic and need counseling? How ironic. Evidently we have the same amount of free time on our hands if you have the time to respond to my post. Oh but of course you'll make an excuse for your behavior (which is no big surprise). 

While I can't promise you that I'll keep you updated on every game for the rest of his career, I will do my best to let you know how he's doing from time to time.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> stats don't mean a lot when your team loses


You're right. End of discussion.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

Right now, he's still got a way to go to prove he can have an effect on winning and losing.

Even Ron Mercer punched up closed to 20PPG one season.


----------



## Future

Seriously, 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=110785

Stick by your word

Yippee, Crawford scored 22 pts. Rose scored 17, donyell 9, mercer 9, brad miller had 6, artest had over 30.... and michael jordan got a hole in one playing golf today.


WHO GIVES A ****.... GO POST YOUR CRAWFORD UPDATE AT THE KNICKS BOARD. I'M SURE THEY'D GLADLY APPRECIATE IT.


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> 
> Yippee, Crawford scored 22 pts. Rose scored 17, donyell 9, mercer 9, brad miller had 6, artest had over 30.... and michael jordan got a hole in one playing golf today.


hey, now don't forget about rick brunson! he's scored 8 whole points tonight for the clippers in what looks like a blow-out of the sonics.

whoohooo. 

seriously mikearizona, the schtick is getting really stale but if it helps you sleep at night then knock yourself out man. whatever. 




 :laugh:


----------



## Johnny Mac

He had a nice game tonight, according to the stats. Of course, that just means he'll have a dud next game.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic

Crawford will be an all-star this season....


----------



## Johnny Mac

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> Crawford will be an all-star this season....


I would bet 1000 dollars that hes not.


----------



## remlover

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> He had a nice game tonight, according to the stats. Of course, that just means he'll have a dud next game.


I watched a good majority of the game and Jamal hasnt changed a thing about the way he plays. He was just firing up Jumpers early in the shot clock. Not driving to the basket. In the time i watched i dont even remember him getting to the line...he might have once, not positive. 

So MichaelOFOZ, are we going to have 82 seperate Jamal threads?


----------



## deranged40

Probably not, just the games he does well in.


----------



## spongyfungy

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I watched a good majority of the game and Jamal hasnt changed a thing about the way he plays. He was just firing up Jumpers early in the shot clock. Not driving to the basket. In the time i watched i dont even remember him getting to the line...he might have once, not positive.
> 
> So MichaelOFOZ, are we going to have 82 seperate Jamal threads?


well hopefully not games where he plays us.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

I have ragged on Michael before for having Crawford Boo-itis, but telling us about Crawford's first regular season game for another NBA team is well within the bounds of good taste, I think.

I watched the game, and I have to say Jamal looked really good. My initial reaction is that Jamal is going to play somewhat better for the Knicks than he did for the Bulls. The sole reason is Marbury. Marbury is more than strong and willing enough to get into the lane, which is how he gets a lot of assists when the defense collapses. 

It's somewhat surprising the Marbury and Crawford have some kind of ESP thing going this early. They really made some pretty astounding passes to each other. 

I'm going to bring up street ball now, and I'm not going to do it as an insult: Crawford has found someone in Marbury who has some of the same streetball elements he does. Specifically compatible is the flashiness, particularly in the passing. It's as if Crawford understands "if I was passing to myself in a flashy way, I would be right...here" and Marbury makes that pass to him, whereas the same play wouldn't work with two other guards. 

I wouldn't be suprised in these guys become the next QRich and Darius Miles non sexual life partners. Seriously though, the have a vibe together on the court. What's very important is that aside from the the few eratic shots that Jamal put up tonight and will probably continue to, I think Wilkins will let the two of them play their game the way they do best as opposed to forcing a more rigid system on top of them. Thus with Marbury and the coaching, basketball should be more free flowing for Crawford than it was with the Bulls, and more fun. 

Thus, I expect improved production from Crawford. (This is of course based on one game of analysis.) And keep in mind I think Jamal will be better for the Knicks than he would have been continuing with the Bulls. He isn't a Skiles/Paxson type player. Put the limits on him and he's not the same player. Jeff Van Gundy and Larry Brown would probably do the same thing with him too.


----------



## garnett

*Re: Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I will do my best to let you know how he's doing from time to time.


please dont.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Good lord, you people who are complaining and obviously don't really like Jamal realize that you actually had to go out of your own way by deciding to click, read this update of Jamal's progress by good ole MichaelOFaz, take some more time just to say how much you dislike his style of posting, and you're complaining about how he's wasting your time ?

You guys post on a message boards ! You don't have anything better to do !

Me personally, I saw the thread "Crawford Update", and to my amazement I saw an update on Jamal Crawford. I came in and got what I expected. I don't know about you guys.


----------



## giusd

I am a sometimes Knicks fan now i live in washington and watched most of the game (80%) last night. First JC had a great first quarter and was really lighting it up. He scored 8 pts (i think) on 4 for 5 shotting. In the last 3 quarters he was 6 for 18? He missed his last 5 shots of the 4th quarter. 10 for 23 total and no FT thro he did go to the hope a couple of times. He toke 8 more shots than any other player and 4 more shots than the knicks starting front court. In the first quarter he really did look great, under control, and was even playing good D but as he shot and his shot selection started going down so did his D.

As for the SG match up he played mostly against Spree and Freddy Hiolberg and they were a combined 7 for 13 on FG and scored a total of 19 points on 10 less shots.

So, and stop the i hate JC stuff, JC game last night was pretty much what we saw last year. Up and down on O (great first quarter and good first half, awful second half) and still working on his D. I did think he matches up well with Marbury and i also hope he develops some thick skin because the NY press is going to be a lot tougher that here in chicago.

One last thing, the biggest surprise of the night was the play of Trevor Ariza. He looked great and i think will get a lot of time at both SG and SF. His D was super and really hustles.

david


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I am a sometimes Knicks fan now i live in washington and watched most of the game (80%) last night. First JC had a great first quarter and was really lighting it up. He scored 8 pts (i think) on 4 for 5 shotting. In the last 3 quarters he was 6 for 18? He missed his last 5 shots of the 4th quarter. 10 for 23 total and no FT thro he did go to the hope a couple of times. He toke 8 more shots than any other player and 4 more shots than the knicks starting front court. In the first quarter he really did look great, under control, and was even playing good D but as he shot and his shot selection started going down so did his D.
> 
> As for the SG match up he played mostly against Spree and Freddy Hiolberg and they were a combined 7 for 13 on FG and scored a total of 19 points on 10 less shots.
> 
> So, and stop the i hate JC stuff, JC game last night was pretty much what we saw last year. Up and down on O (great first quarter and good first half, awful second half) and still working on his D. I did think he matches up well with Marbury and i also hope he develops some thick skin because the NY press is going to be a lot tougher that here in chicago.
> 
> One last thing, the biggest surprise of the night was the play of Trevor Ariza. He looked great and i think will get a lot of time at both SG and SF. His D was super and really hustles.
> 
> david


i agree with you on alot of what you wrote JC played great in the 1st half and not that well in the 2nd .

his defense was good on the ball and bad off of it , garnett was just killing everyone and JC kept doubling him ...and garnett found hoiberg a few times for 3's but his on the ball defense was pretty good though sprewell was held pretty much in check . 10 points in nearly 30 min. is not a good game for him.

ariza was very good , he has been clearly exceptional ever since the knicks drafted him , if he could shoot at all he'd be their starting 3 .


----------



## lorgg

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> As promised, I am back to post the line of Jamal Crawford for those of you who may not be aware.
> 
> Based on the box score, JC appears to have a decent night, but nothing spectacular.
> 
> JC scored 22 points and was 10 for 23 from the field (for a respectable .433 FG%) and was 2-4 from 3-pt land. As an off guard he chipped in with 3 rebs, 3 assists, 3 steals, and 1 block and didn't have any TOs.
> 
> He appears to have held his own on D too, holding Spreewell to 11 points in 39 combined minutes.
> 
> Unfortunately stats don't mean a lot when your team loses, but losing by 6 to the Western Conference semi-finalists is nothing to be ashamed of.


The question is and always will be...under the Bulls current circumstances....Paxson not being allowed to go into luxury tax...could the Bulls have kept him and the two bigs? If not, then which big should have been shipped to keep JC? 

The bottom line here is, wishy-washy, it would have been great to be able to pay JC what he wanted, but Pax couldn't b/c JR(Pax's boss) would not allow it. So keep your stats about JC unless you have found a way to get this stinkin' ownership team to either change philosophy, or sell the team.

I think everyone on this board knows JC has talent.


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i agree with you on alot of what you wrote JC played great in the 1st half and not that well in the 2nd .
> 
> his defense was good on the ball and bad off of it , garnett was just killing everyone and JC kept doubling him ...and garnett found hoiberg a few times for 3's but his on the ball defense was pretty good though sprewell was held pretty much in check . 10 points in nearly 30 min. is not a good game for him.
> 
> ariza was very good , he has been clearly exceptional ever since the knicks drafted him , if he could shoot at all he'd be their starting 3 .


OT, but I can anyone else see Tommy Smith playing like Ariza?


----------



## Hustle

Everyone is praising Jamal for these stats but did you notice these things.(oh, I didn't read giusd's post until after I wrote this, this is the same Jamal we had but with a slightly above average shooting night.))

No Free Throw Attempts

He took more shoots than he scored points.

His team lost.

His shooting average is ussually 10/25 or 40%, so his 10/23 43% is a step up that I really doubt continues.

And how about JYD getting no PT


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Hustle</b>!
> Everyone is praising Jamal for these stats but did you notice these things.(oh, I didn't read giusd's post until after I wrote this, this is the same Jamal we had but with a slightly above average shooting night.))
> 
> No Free Throw Attempts
> 
> He took more shoots than he scored points.
> 
> His team lost.
> 
> His shooting average is ussually 10/25 or 40%, so his 10/23 43% is a step up that I really doubt continues.
> 
> And how about JYD getting no PT


Jamal looked incredible last night. He did peter out towards the end but he was one of the main reasons NY gave powerhouse Minny such a tough game in the first place. ANyone who watched the game...with an unbiased eye will tell you Crawford played extremely well. He blocked one of Cassells shots, he defended KG on one possession and made him miss! He had 3 steals, he was en fuego early in the game and did a lot more driving to the hole, he actually embarrassed Sprewell on one drive. His defense appeared much improved. Crawford played exceedingly well. His shot selection could have perhaps been a little better and he needs to play this way consistently for NY to play well but he looked head and shoulders above anyone last night not named Marbury, KG, or Cassell.


----------



## rlucas4257

Jamal played great last night. Anyone who argues with that is totally clueless. Nitpick all you want. but he outplayed his counterpart by 12 pts. Not bad considering his counterpart is Latrell Sprewell


----------



## truth

If he can take 3 less shots per game,and we all know which 3 i am talking about,he will be an All Star talent...

I do have a question...JC said after the game,he needs sto bulk up and will be hittting the weights hard this summer..

Why does it take a trade to NY for him to realize that..Doest the BUlls have a strength and conditioning coach???What do your players do in the off season??


----------



## L.O.B

2 other ex Bulls had better games yesterday then Jamal and their teams won.

I still miss Elton and Crazy Ron but I won't post their numbers.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> If he can take 3 less shots per game,and we all know which 3 i am talking about,he will be an All Star talent...
> 
> I do have a question...JC said after the game,he needs sto bulk up and will be hittting the weights hard this summer..
> 
> Why does it take a trade to NY for him to realize that..Doest the BUlls have a strength and conditioning coach???What do your players do in the off season??


Maybe he actually *likes* playing for the Knicks. He's happy to be out of the minor leagues and realizes the Knicks want him to be a star. Unlike the Bulls who drafted his replacement nearly every year.

Oh well.

AD hits the weights, that’s for sure.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 2 other ex Bulls had better games yesterday then Jamal and their teams won.
> 
> I still miss Elton and Crazy Ron but I won't post their numbers.


They've been gone for a while, and their identities are interlocked with their current teams now. Jamal is still in the process of "getting the Chicago out of him."


----------



## giusd

We can simply agree to disagree about his game last night. I think "Jamal looked incredible last night" is not the game i saw. What i saw was he looked incredible for 1 quarter and played a excellent 1st half. His second half was any thing but incrediable. he scored 22 points on 23 shots. He was 6 for 9 the first halg and 4 for 14 the second half. While he did hit a couple of big shot in the 2nd half the game was close and he missed his last 5 shots. If he hits one or two og those NY could have won. Now i am not saying he played bad, i am glad he is gone, or what ever but to say he was incredible last night is just not correct.

KG was incredible. Marbary was incredible. JC had at best an up and down game. As for outplaying Spree whatever. Spree had 10 pts on only 8 shots played great D. Many of JC second Half shot were very poot shot selection and even the announers were saying this. And it wasn't just 3 shots.

JC overall preformence last night at SG was average how can he be called anything else.

david


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>Hustle</b>!
> Everyone is praising Jamal for these stats but did you notice these things.(oh, I didn't read giusd's post until after I wrote this, this is the same Jamal we had but with a slightly above average shooting night.))
> 
> No Free Throw Attempts
> 
> He took more shoots than he scored points.
> 
> His team lost.
> 
> His shooting average is ussually 10/25 or 40%, so his 10/23 43% is a step up that I really doubt continues.
> 
> And how about JYD getting no PT


........and he had a worse shooting % than almost every other Knick who got useful minutes.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Crawford had a good game. 

He's 40th in the NBA right now in EFF out of all players. 

His team lost, but they were not favored to beat the mighty TWolves. It was a close game.

Stop the hate.


----------



## Chicago N VA

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> Good lord, you people who are complaining and obviously don't really like Jamal realize that you actually had to go out of your own way by deciding to click, read this update of Jamal's progress by good ole MichaelOFaz, take some more time just to say how much you dislike his style of posting, and you're complaining about how he's wasting your time ?
> 
> You guys post on a message boards ! You don't have anything better to do !
> 
> Me personally, I saw the thread "Crawford Update", and to my amazement I saw an update on Jamal Crawford. I came in and got what I expected. I don't know about you guys.


That pretty much sums it up for me.. if you don't like the thread.. don't read it!


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Crawford had a good game.
> 
> He's 40th in the NBA right now in EFF out of all players.
> 
> His team lost, but they were not favored to beat the mighty TWolves. It was a close game.
> 
> Stop the hate.


Why is it hate? I haven't really read any "hate" in this thread. It's pretty much Jamal had an OK game and his team lost. I watched bits and pieces of the game and Jamal was patently average. Heaven forbid anybody should have even the slightest negative thing to say about Crawford and you've got to label it hate. Is it at all within the realm of possibility that he had an OK game, nothing to write home about, and his team lost and it not be hate? If that's hating, you're in for a looonnnggg season for Jamal cause that's pretty much going to be a representative stat line for the guy.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Why is it hate? I haven't really read any "hate" in this thread. It's pretty much Jamal had an OK game and his team lost. I watched bits and pieces of the game and Jamal was patently average. Heaven forbid anybody should have even the slightest negative thing to say about Crawford and you've got to label it hate. Is it at all within the realm of possibility that he had an OK game, nothing to write home about, and his team lost and it not be hate? If that's hating, you're in for a looonnnggg season for Jamal cause that's pretty much going to be a representative stat line for the guy.



And thats coming from a long time hater folks :laugh:


----------



## Chicago N VA

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Why is it hate? I haven't really read any "hate" in this thread. It's pretty much Jamal had an OK game and his team lost. I watched bits and pieces of the game and Jamal was patently average. Heaven forbid anybody should have even the slightest negative thing to say about Crawford and you've got to label it hate. Is it at all within the realm of possibility that he had an OK game, nothing to write home about, and his team lost and it not be hate? If that's hating, you're in for a looonnnggg season for Jamal cause that's pretty much going to be a representative stat line for the guy.


Because I think, a certain Bull Player isn't held to that same standard.

I will see 100 excuses how his ok or subpar games are actually great games or if he has a bad night it's just an off night.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> And thats coming from a long time hater folks :laugh:


Really? I thought I've been pretty objective about Jamal. He's a good, but not great player. Never will be great. If that's hate, so be it, go ahead and label me. I've got to wonder about folks like yourself who so vehimatly stand behind a player who, in four years, has yet to play even one-half a season of consistant basketball. Who, after four years, are STILL making excuses for him. Who, after four year, still slap the "potential" label on him. The man will be 30 years old, a carreer 40% shooter and you'll still be calling him great.

Mainly, I take what seems to be a hateful stance on the guy because of posters like yourself who are wholly unobjective about him. He'll never make an all-star team. He'll never be much more than a streaky shooter who makes poor decisions but he'll have games when he's downright unstoppable. The problem is all the other games inbetween those great games.

You :laugh: at my "hate" I :laugh: at your blindness and complete lack of objectivity.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Really? I thought I've been pretty objective about Jamal. He's a good, but not great player. Never will be great. If that's hate, so be it, go ahead and label me. I've got to wonder about folks like yourself who so vehimatly stand behind a player who, in four years, has yet to play even one-half a season of consistant basketball. Who, after four years, are STILL making excuses for him. Who, after four year, still slap the "potential" label on him. The man will be 30 years old, a carreer 40% shooter and you'll still be calling him great.
> 
> Mainly, I take what seems to be a hateful stance on the guy because of posters like yourself who are wholly unobjective about him. He'll never make an all-star team. He'll never be much more than a streaky shooter who makes poor decisions but he'll have games when he's downright unstoppable. The problem is all the other games inbetween those great games.
> 
> You :laugh: at my "hate" I :laugh: at your blindness and complete lack of objectivity.



So you think a persons ability to improve stops at age 24 ? because thats all I ever read any fan of jamal Crawfords argue .

No one is saying hes a complete player no one ever has thats what people like yourself have to say in order to have any type of basis to in which even argue about him .

You keep saying "he will never be more" and "he cant do this" "he wont do this" like you lknow the future .By the way you got the mega million numbers for Saturday  . All the while screaming your objectivity .

I stand behind the fact that I see a 24 yr old player who has gotten better every year hes been in the league and can continue to improve.How many players who have shown improvment from ages 20-24 dont show improvment from ages 24 -27 ?

Dont blame me for your bias and your need to get back at me though a player I dont even know by making ridiculous claims that you yourself know are over the top exagerrations.

By your standards no player has ever gotten better after the age of 24 oh thats right thats only applies to Crawford and your only believe that because people who like him make you. :laugh:


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> If he can take 3 less shots per game,and we all know which 3 i am talking about,he will be an All Star talent...
> 
> I do have a question...JC said after the game,he needs sto bulk up and will be hittting the weights hard this summer..
> 
> Why does it take a trade to NY for him to realize that..Doest the BUlls have a strength and conditioning coach???What do your players do in the off season??


He said before he was even traded that he needed to bulk up in the offseason and wanted to develop a post up game. He seems slightly larger now but I haven't seen him post anyone up yet.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> So you think a persons ability to improve stops at age 24 ? because thats all I ever read any fan of jamal Crawfords argue .
> 
> No one is saying hes a complete player no one ever has thats what people like yourself have to say in order to have any type of basis to in which even argue about him .
> 
> You keep saying "he will never be more" and "he cant do this" "he wont do this" like you lknow the future .By the way you got the mega million numbers for Saturday  . All the while screaming your objectivity .
> 
> I stand behind the fact that I see a 24 yr old player who has gotten better every year hes been in the league and can continue to improve.How many players who have shown improvment from ages 20-24 dont show improvment from ages 24 -27 ?
> 
> Dont blame me for your bias and your need to get back at me though a player I dont even know by making ridiculous claims that you yourself know are over the top exagerrations.
> 
> By your standards no player has ever gotten better after the age of 24 oh thats right thats only applies to Crawford and your only believe that because people who like him make you. :laugh:


Ehh.

I had typed up this really long, well written, reply but I got a couple of calls between it and by the time I hit the Submit Reply button, it had timed out and I lost the whole damn thing!

I don't have time to argue with you and it truly is pointless. You want to see Jamal as some future all-star, that's your perrogative. I choose to see him as Larry Hughes - Part II. Time will tell how he turns out. That's called a difference of opinion. I may well be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last. I can live with being called a "hater" just because I don't happen to think Jamal is going to be the next great thing. I guess that means I have no objectivity and that you do. Whatever works for you to make sure your world keeps spinning.

Have a nice day.


----------



## bullet

Bottomline - knicks lost


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Bottomline - knicks lost



Yeah to the T-Wolves! The fact that they were competetive says something.


----------



## HINrichPolice

Quick question for the Chicagoans... How were some of you guys able to watch the game? DirecTV?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Ehh.
> 
> I had typed up this really long, well written, reply but I got a couple of calls between it and by the time I hit the Submit Reply button, it had timed out and I lost the whole damn thing!
> 
> I don't have time to argue with you and it truly is pointless. You want to see Jamal as some future all-star, that's your perrogative. I choose to see him as Larry Hughes - Part II. Time will tell how he turns out. That's called a difference of opinion. I may well be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last. I can live with being called a "hater" just because I don't happen to think Jamal is going to be the next great thing. I guess that means I have no objectivity and that you do. Whatever works for you to make sure your world keeps spinning.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Again with the "next great thing " comments who has said that ?Where did I say he was some future all star as if its a fact already written at stone ? Ive always said he had the potential to develop into one hell Cassell didnt make his first allstar game until he was 34 but that didnt mean he wasnt considered a pretty damn good player before then and he even won a coupleo f titles .

You somehow have decided to place this lid on how far he can go based on what he has done with the Bulls when in reality how a player performs on the Bulls is no indication of how good they can be when they get into the NBA.

I see Jamal as 24 yr old guard who can play 2 positions who has improved every year in the league and refuse top hold his time with the Bulls against him just I havent Artest,Brand or Miller or Hassell or Hoiberg or Barry and wont do it for Tyson or Eddy or Kirk when his time comes as well.


----------



## spongyfungy

> Originally posted by <b>HINrichPolice</b>!
> Quick question for the Chicagoans... How were some of you guys able to watch the game? DirecTV?


league pass is on free preview


----------



## evalam23

From NY times, it is the same old thing about Jamal shot selection

Crawford was hot early, scoring 17 points by halftime on 8-of-13 shooting. But he went 2 for 10 in the second half, 0 for 4 in the fourth quarter, and was probably the one Wilkens had in mind when he talked about taking better shots.

"The big thing is, be patient with yourself and be able to utilize your teammates," Wilkens said of Crawford. "Don't feel like you have to do it by yourself. That's a growing thing. I think he will learn and pick up on it."

I think that was the same problem as last year, but if he finally listens to someone who knows a thing or two about basketball (ie Lenny Wilkens) he will be that all-star that Isiah Thomas thinks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*last nights game*

No one claims it was a perfect game... merely a good game.

Rose had a good game too… and beat the Rockets.


----------



## giusd

NO that is not true. Several posts stated JC and an incrediable game. I watched the game and JC had a great 1st half and an awful 2nd half and of course that was followed with the usual we didn't watch the same game. 

Sometimes i think people on this broad are angry and Krause and the othter parts of management (for which i think they have very good cause) but instead of just expressing their anger they use JC as a person to take a run at management.

Yo, if you are pissed at Krause, paxson, ect go after them they are fair game. But in many ways putting all these expectations on JC is unfair to, yes that right, JC. He is having a hard time finding his place in the NBA, what position he plays, how to improve his game, ect. Stop with all these how great JC will be and let the poor guy a break and stop putting all this pressure on him to be some all star. 

david


----------



## notbeat

Give the 'poor' guy a break?

I think that's going to far...

:grinning:


----------



## chefboyarg

thanks to the guys who saw the game last night/ gave their thoughts about it. much appreciated


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

Geez. Please stop crying (most of you). What is wrong with me voicing my opinion and perspective about an ex-Bull. Why does it bother you so much? Maybe because there's a bit of truth to it? If you don't want to hear/read another person's opinion, you're in the wrong place. The last time I checked this was a free-speech country and this is a public forum.


----------



## lgtwins

And I expect about four thread on Jamal's horrible game from you in between one of the game he shoot the light out. 

It's only fair, right? If you keep your mouth closed every time Jamal had awful night, then I wonder what your agenda is for starting this thread in the first place.


----------



## Chicago N VA

It seems like only:

Pro-Hinrich
Pro-Paxson
Pro-Skiles

..threads are welcomed.

Anything else is damned to hell.


----------



## PC Load Letter

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> Geez. Please stop crying (most of you). What is wrong with me voicing my opinion and perspective about an ex-Bull. Why does it bother you so much? Maybe because there's a bit of truth to it? If you don't want to hear/read another person's opinion, you're in the wrong place. The last time I checked this was a free-speech country and this is a public forum.


So, let's get this straight. It's ok for you to use your right to free speech to post the Jamal threads, but you complain about others using their own right to free speech to complain about it? Having the right to free speech doesn't mean you're exempt from any backlash and ridicule. After all, nobody's stopping you from posting. They're just telling you how they feel about it. There's nothing wrong with you voicing your opinion, just like there's nothing wrong with others coming right back and voicing theirs. Period. It works both ways, man.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> So, let's get this straight. It's ok for you to use your right to free speech to post the Jamal threads, but you complain about others using their own right to free speech to complain about it? Having the right to free speech doesn't mean you're exempt from any backlash and ridicule. After all, nobody's stopping you from posting. They're just telling you how they feel about it. There's nothing wrong with you voicing your opinion, just like there's nothing wrong with others coming right back and voicing theirs. Period. It works both ways, man.


Why complain about something that you don't even have to bother reading if you don't want to? Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. If your a Crawford hater just pass on by and leave it to some other folks! Sheesh!:upset:


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> So, let's get this straight. It's ok for you to use your right to free speech to post the Jamal threads, but you complain about others using their own right to free speech to complain about it? Having the right to free speech doesn't mean you're exempt from any backlash and ridicule. After all, nobody's stopping you from posting. They're just telling you how they feel about it. There's nothing wrong with you voicing your opinion, just like there's nothing wrong with others coming right back and voicing theirs. Period. It works both ways, man.


_exactly_. mama always said don't dish it out if you can't take it back!





:rock:


----------



## rlucas4257

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> It seems like only:
> 
> Pro-Hinrich
> Pro-Paxson
> Pro-Skiles
> 
> ..threads are welcomed.
> 
> Anything else is damned to hell.


This is 100% true. Say something bad about any of the above mentioned people and prepare for the onslaught.


----------



## PC Load Letter

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Why complain about something that you don't even have to bother reading if you don't want to? Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. If your a Crawford hater just pass on by and leave it to some other folks! Sheesh!:upset:


Ace, why are you responding to me? Seriously, why bother? You're trying to put out a fire that wasn't burning in the first place. Chill out.

I wasn't complaining about anything. I'm responding to Michael because he's using the "free speech" argument inaccurately. It's wrong and I'm calling him out on it. It's as simple as that. Do you also not understand free speech? Do I have to spell it out for you slowly? Let me know. I'd be glad to help out. I'm merely posting my opinion. Why is that such a big deal to you? Sheesh yourself, quite frankly.

Also, to even insinuate I'm a Jamal hater, if that's what you were doing, is ridiculous. I've been a huge Jamal fan since day one and was not happy when he was traded. Personally, I've moved on, but that's not even the point. I can't believe I have to waste my time explaining myself to you.


----------



## GB

Jamal was 3-9 with 3 assists negated by 3 turnovers on his way to 11 points in the largest margin of defeat in a home opener in New York Knicks team history.

*107-73*


----------



## GB

Paris wasn't impressed by And1 and friends either...


----------



## HKF

GB you are a fool. LMAO. :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## mizenkay

GB you are a clever one!!

:laugh:



> The Garden started booing Saturday night when the Knicks fell behind 20 points to the Celtics in the second quarter, and 25 in the third and their worst, 34 points, in the fourth period of the 107-73 obliteration. *Paris Hilton* had just plopped down beside Howard Stern on celebrity row, and the boos thundered down on the Knicks. "I would've booed," Stephon Marbury said. "We deserved to be booed."
> 
> 
> The Garden had no choice but to stand and boo louder and louder, because the Knicks never made a stop, never made a run and most disturbingly of all, never made a stand on opening night at the Garden. The curtain was raised, and the Knicks laid down. "I thought my teammates played hard," Jamal Crawford said.
> 
> 
> *If getting beat back on defense, resisting trying to take charges on driving Celtics and getting manhandled on the boards is playing hard, Isiah and Wilkens have a long way to go trying to transform this soft, mentally weak roster.*



i am not so secretly _loving_ this i have to admit. 





http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr...lRUV5eTY2MTAyMjMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

(fyi - this is a registration site)


----------



## spongyfungy

> "For me, personally, it's a nervous night," Thomas said. "Because you know, you've got all the right people in the building -- you've got the fans, you've got the entertainers -- it's a hot night for everybody."


blaming the fans now?



> NOTES: Thomas confirmed he has interest in 6-9 swingman Eddy Robinson, who was bought out of his contract by the Chicago Bulls on Monday.
> 
> "It's my job to be interested," Thomas said. "Whenever there are players that are let go by teams... what I've always said since I took the job is that, we've got to find unconventional ways to try to find talent. If we just depended on the draft to find talent, then we would be sitting, five years from now, still waiting on Santa Claus to come. So whenever there's a player out there that's a pretty decent player, my job is to look under the rocks and to beat the bushes and to see if there's something there."
> 
> Thomas categorized his interest in Robinson, 32, as "preliminary" and said he doesn't know whether he will bring him in for a workout.
> 
> Asked whether the performance of rookie Trevor Ariza might make him less likely to bring Robinson in -- in order that he not risk stunting Ariza's growth -- Thomas said it would not. .


spelled eddie wrong

http://www.silive.com/sports/advance/index.ssf?/base/Sports/1099837282192740.xml


----------



## Chicago_Cow

Here's Jamal reaction to the game: 
Jamal Crawford 

Can't understand what went wrong: 
I was asking my teammates what they saw because I thought we were playing pretty hard, but we didn't always play smart. We took some quick shots that gave them a chance to get some easy buckets.


Does anyone know why we only won 23 games last season? I can't pipoint the cancer but Crawford is part of the problem. When you're dumb enough not to know what's the problem, something is wrong. Basically, this quote means that I'm going to come out again with my half *** effort and hope for a W. Jamal is right about not playing smart. However, he has the wrong version. Playing smart means playing with control both offensively and defensively.


----------



## kukoc4ever

wait... i thought rose was the cancer?

that "cancer" happens to be 2-0 right now so we don't hear about him.

its a long season and the knicks will finish ahead of the also 0-2 bulls.


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> Here's Jamal reaction to the game:
> Jamal Crawford
> 
> Can't understand what went wrong:
> I was asking my teammates what they saw because I thought we were playing pretty hard, but we didn't always play smart. We took some quick shots that gave them a chance to get some easy buckets.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why we only won 23 games last season? I can't pipoint the cancer but Crawford is part of the problem. When you're dumb enough not to know what's the problem, something is wrong. Basically, this quote means that I'm going to come out again with my half *** effort and hope for a W. Jamal is right about not playing smart. However, he has the wrong version. Playing smart means playing with control both offensively and defensively.


I don't know about that... he's asking the right questions... I'd be more concerned if he wasn't.


----------



## transplant

I don't like any NY teams...it's my upbringing, so I can't say I feel bad that the Knicks got waxed so badly in their home opener.

This said, as a Bulls' fan, we've seen our share of trainwrecks over the past 6 years. I can't laugh too hard, even if it is the Knicks.

As for Crawford, he's probably just trying to be a good teammate. However, my advice to him is that he avoid this sort of editorial after future blowouts. The NY press and fans will paint a big ol' target on his back and make his life a living hell...they're really good at this.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> I don't like any NY teams...it's my upbringing, so I can't say I feel bad that the Knicks got waxed so badly in their home opener.
> 
> This said, as a Bulls' fan, we've seen our share of trainwrecks over the past 6 years. I can't laugh too hard, even if it is the Knicks.
> 
> As for Crawford, he's probably just trying to be a good teammate. However, my advice to him is that he avoid this sort of editorial after future blowouts. The NY press and fans will paint a big ol' target on his back and make his life a living hell...they're really good at this.


I think what would be interesting to trace in Jamal would be if he faces the same psychological pressures in New York from the fans and the organization as opposed to that in Chicago. 

Personally, I thought Chicago the organization did just about everything we could legally do to mentally torture him. I don't think it's fandom he's concerned about namely because he apparently reads realgm/bulls4ever and there are some pretty brutal comments.


----------



## johnston797

> If getting beat back on defense, resisting trying to take charges on driving Celtics and getting manhandled on the boards is playing hard, Isiah and Wilkens have a long way to go trying to transform this soft, mentally weak roster.


That's a fine team you got there for $103M, Isiah!!!

You da Man!

p.s. I really hope IT cans Wilkins and returns to the bench. That would be the sweetest!


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> wait... i thought rose was the cancer?
> 
> that "cancer" happens to be 2-0 right now so we don't hear about him.


Well gee golly whiz, I wonder why we don't hear about the almighty Jalen Rose and the Toronto Raptors. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact he was traded nearly a year ago, people have moved on, and 95% of the people over here on the Chicago Bulls board could really give a $%^&.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> Well gee golly whiz, I wonder why we don't hear about the almighty Jalen Rose and the Toronto Raptors. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact he was traded nearly a year ago, people have moved on, and 95% of the people over here on the Chicago Bulls board could really give a $%^&.


Why are you on a Jamal thread then? Have you not moved on?


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Why are you on a Jamal thread then? Have you not moved on?



Since I'm reading this thread, I clearly must not be over him. :|


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Since I'm reading this thread, I clearly must not be over him. :|


Then don't complain. Jamal. Jalen. Donyell. Its all the same decision.

The Bulls are 0-2 and the players that Pax dumped for nothing are key contributors on a 2-0 team.

The Knicks are off to a bad start.

Does anyone think the Bulls will have a better record than the Knicks?

Really?


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Then don't complain. Jamal. Jalen. Donyell. Its all the same decision.
> 
> The Bulls are 0-2 and the players that Pax dumped for nothing are key contributors on a 2-0 team.


Let's not kid ourselves. If the Raptors go anywhere, it will be b/c of Vince Carter and Chris Bosh. You can go down the line and make a case that Rose is their 4th or 5th most important player behind those two, Donyell, and Alston, who looks like he's having a nice start to the season. I wasn't a big fan of getting rid of Donyell, but I'm ok with it since it got Rose out of town. Donyell was never really in the longterm plans, though I would have liked to get a bit more for him, but oh well. 








> The Knicks are off to a bad start.
> 
> Does anyone think the Bulls will have a better record than the Knicks?
> 
> Really?



Does it really make a difference? If the Knicks have a better record, does that somehow conclude the Jamal trade was a complete bust? These guys are a veteran team that won 39 games last year and probably would have had a few more with Marbury the whole year. Coming into this season, having a whole training camp with each other, and adding a supposed up and coming all star, they should win more games, especially considering they have a payroll that is exceeding 100 million dollars. 

And even with that in mind, I really don't think they are going to have more than a handful more of wins. I really like what I see from these Bulls even in their 2 losses (playing without arguably their best player nonetheless) and I really think once they get a feel for each other, the wins will come. We got 18 of 23 at home after the circus trip (though a rough start to that homesteand) that should help. That article that said something about the Knicks being a "mentally, soft team" I think really hit the nail on the head. I would much rather be in our situation than theirs.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves. If the Raptors go anywhere, it will be b/c of Vince Carter and Chris Bosh.


Raptors win today over Portland to go to 3-0.
Bosh
1-9 FG
2-4 FT
5 rbs

Yah right. 

     

You can spout all the Pax Platitudes you want.

The team he's put together sucks *** while rose and marshall are key players on a 3-0 team.

Enjoy all the losing.

Maybe you will be right in 3 years or so.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Raptors win today over Portland to go to 3-0.
> Bosh
> 1-9 FG
> 2-4 FT
> 5 rbs
> 
> Yah right.
> 
> 
> 
> You can spout all the Pax Platitudes you want.
> 
> The team he's put together sucks *** while rose and marshall are key players on a 3-0 team.
> 
> Enjoy all the losing.
> 
> Maybe you will be right in 3 years or so.


Again, don't be ridiculous. There will be exceptions. The Raptors will NOT make the playoffs if Bosh goes 1-9 every night. He is their 2nd best player.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, don't be ridiculous. There will be exceptions. The Raptors will NOT make the playoffs if Bosh goes 1-9 every night. He is their 2nd best player.


You are the one being ridiculous.

Blindly supporting a losing team... while the GM dumps players that are the main components to their new winning team.... for NOTHING.

Pax very well may be the losingest GMs in NBA history.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You are the one being ridiculous.
> 
> Blindly supporting a losing team... while the GM dumps players that are the main components to their new winning team.... for NOTHING.
> 
> Pax very well may be the losingest GMs in NBA history.


Main components? I'm blind?


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> Main components? I'm blind?


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Could someone define "main component" for me? Because I am confused, too.


----------



## Future

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You are the one being ridiculous.
> 
> Blindly supporting a losing team... while the GM dumps players that are the main components to their new winning team.... for NOTHING.
> 
> Pax very well may be the losingest GMs in NBA history.


Isn't it a fan's job to support his team.... because if you don't, your essentially not a fan, right?

And in your previous post, you showed us Bosh's stats. Why didn't you post Vince Carter's stats? The Raptors depend on Vince Carter like ChiBulls said. 

And quit crying about Jamal. The Knicks are 0-2 and have spent a considerable amount on their product, while the Bulls are just as competitive without spending the kind of money the Knicks have (Though it is early...) Right now I like the makeup of our team. The only thing I don't like about this team is Skile's game management (Not starting Luol Deng, not putting in good free throw shooters to ice the game, playing zone when you are being killed by the 3).... but hey, thats another post. 

The only players I have regretted losing are Brand, Artest, and Miller... and I'm pretty sure Krause is the one who has initiated those trades. You can say Reinsdorf pressured him all you want, but it was Krause who pulled the trigger.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> Could someone define "main component" for me? Because I am confused, too.



Right now Jalen is at least #3 on his undefeated team in minutes, points, assists, 3 point %, FT% and steals.

Would that suffice?

Blind as a bat.


----------



## Kramer

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You are the one being ridiculous.
> 
> *Blindly supporting a losing team*... while the GM dumps players that are the main components to their new winning team.... for NOTHING.
> 
> Pax very well may be the losingest GMs in NBA history.


Kukoc, you're a nice guy... but who's the one supporting a losing team? *You are a season ticket holder!* Reinsdorf doesn't give a **** about what you post, he cares about what's in his pocketbook. As far as he's concerned, you're a loyal Bulls fan and everything about the Bulls franchise is perfect. I'd think about that next year when they ask for your hard earned money again.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Kukoc, you're a nice guy... but who's the one supporting a losing team? *You are a season ticket holder!* Reinsdorf doesn't give a **** about what you post, he cares about what's in his pocketbook. As far as he's concerned, you're a loyal Bulls fan and everything about the Bulls franchise is perfect. I'd think about that next year when they ask for your hard earned money again.


Thanks for the tip! 

We all invest leisure time following the team.... which is just as valuable. 

yah, i'm supporting a losing team... no doubt.

but at least i'm realistic and objective about what it is i'm choosing to follow.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Right now Jalen is at least #3 on his undefeated team in minutes, points, assists, 3 point %, FT% and steals.
> 
> Would that suffice?


And a decent 6th man?

3 wins at home to start the season is not bad.

If the Raptors lose the next 4 games on the road, what's your argument then? Or do you hope that Crawford has a decent game and you can switch gears again?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> And a decent 6th man?
> 
> 3 wins at home to start the season is not bad.
> 
> If the Raptors lose the next 4 games on the road, what's your argument then? Or do you hope that Crawford has a decent game and you can switch gears again?


My argument is that Jalen Rose can be a key contributor on a playoff team.

We'll see how the season plays out.

The Raptors are off to a good start.


----------



## ScottMay

Here's a Crawford update of another kind:

Page Six


----------



## GB

22 points on 8 for 19 shooting, 3 assists and 3 steals negated by 3 turnovers tonight---as the Knicks squeeze past the 76'rs 96-88.

He was a difference maker tonight.












GB--Fair and Balanced


----------



## remlover

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 22 points on 8 for 19 shooting, 3 assists and 3 steals negated by 3 turnovers tonight---as the Knicks squeeze past the 76'rs 96-88.
> 
> He was a difference maker tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GB--Fair and Balanced



I watched the first Q of the game and Crawford did look sharp out there. Started the game shooting 3-3... i guess that means he finished the game shooting 5-16.


----------



## remlover

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 22 points on 8 for 19 shooting, 3 assists and 3 steals negated by 3 turnovers tonight---as the Knicks squeeze past the 76'rs 96-88.
> 
> He was a difference maker tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GB--Fair and Balanced



I watched the first Q of the game and Crawford did look sharp out there. Started the game shooting 3-3... i guess that means he finished the game shooting 5-16.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> i guess that means he finished the game shooting 5-16.


:devil2:


----------



## NYKBaller

Can't wait till we play the bulls and crawford goes for 30/////


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the first Q of the game and Crawford did look sharp out there. Started the game shooting 3-3... i guess that means he finished the game shooting 5-16.


8-19  Better than ANY Bull last night I believe...


----------



## GB

> NDIANAPOLIS, Nov. 13 - Jamal Crawford walked away from Conseco Fieldhouse feeling woozy and battered, and such was the state of his team as the Knicks left the Midwest on Saturday night and wandered into a week that could wreck more than their bodies.
> 
> The Knicks lost the opener of a four-game trip, 103-97, to the Indiana Pacers and lost Crawford long before the game had been decided. Crawford left in the second quarter after snapping his neck in a collision with Indiana's Stephen Jackson.
> 
> Crawford was still feeling woozy hours later, and his status for the Knicks' game Tuesday at San Antonio was uncertain. A team spokesman said no tests were scheduled.
> --
> So an eight-day span that included a 34-point loss at home and the dismissal of an assistant coach, followed by two victories, ended with the Knicks again feeling besieged. Their best shooter, Allan Houston, is on the injured list, and his replacement is now a question mark.
> 
> And after Jermaine O'Neal worked them over for 33 points and 12 rebounds, there is little reason to believe the Knicks can contend with the gantlet of All-Star big men that awaits them next week in Texas. They get San Antonio's Tim Duncan on Tuesday, Houston's Yao Ming on Thursday and Dallas's Dirk Nowitzki and Erick Dampier on Friday.
> --
> A victory would have given them a winning record for the first time in nearly three years. Instead, they head to Texas for three games with the threat of an 0-4 trip looming.
> --
> He was cutting around a Kurt Thomas screen when he was whacked in the face by Jackson with 6:16 left in the first half. He tumbled awkwardly to the floor and lay there for a few minutes.


http://nytimes.com/2004/11/14/sports/basketball/14knicks.html



> "I was coming off a screen and Jackson got me," Crawford, too dizzy to meet with reporters, said through a Knick spokesman after the game.
> 
> "My neck snapped back. I don't think it hit the ground. I tried to stop it from hitting the ground, and that's how I hurt my neck."
> 
> Crawford went scoreless in 11 minutes, did not return, icing his neck on the bench in the second half, looking woozy.
> 
> He's unsure if he'll be able to play Tuesday.


http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/31981.htm


----------



## bullet

Zero points - no new thread on this one???


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Zero points - no new thread on this one???


He was injured. I'm not surprised that you would expect him to score from the bench or locker room. Meanwhile, the Bulls lose another one and become the only winless team in the NBA. ROFLMAO:jump: 

My prediction of 62 losses this season, may come earlier than I anticipated. Losing to the Clippers? At Home? After having a 24 pt lead? LET THE EXCUSES BEGIN!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> He was injured. I'm not surprised that you would expect him to score from the bench or locker room. Meanwhile, the Bulls lose another one and become the only winless team in the NBA. ROFLMAO:jump:
> 
> My prediction of 62 losses this season, may come earlier than I anticipated. Losing to the Clippers? At Home? After having a 24 pt lead? LET THE EXCUSES BEGIN!


If you're going to gloat at our losing, at least get your facts right. New Orleans hasn't won yet either. 

You may now resume your negativity.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> If you're going to gloat at our losing, at least get your facts right. New Orleans hasn't won yet either.
> 
> You may now resume your negativity.


I apologize, you're right on both accounts. New Orleans hasn't won either AND I have been gloating, and I shouldn't.

It really serves no purpose to dog Bulls fans for support their team. Heck, I was one of the hopeless Bulls fans for several years before Jordan and several years after. People used to rip me for supporting the Bulls and I would argue that we are building toward the future. I guess after a while the perpetual rebuilding and development draftees just to give them away to other teams has soured me to the point that I can no longer blindly support them. However that shouldn't cause me to ruin for the rest of you. I don't need to come here and tell you that the Bulls are bad again. I think their record shows that. I don't/won't need to come here and remind you that Crawford is playing well. The box scores will show that as well. 

I am now turning over a new leaf. Out with the negativity and in with positivity. From now on, I wll try to only post positive comments and will refrain from venting my frustrations on this board. I think most of you will know that I am frustrated.

Peace


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> I apologize, you're right on both accounts. New Orleans hasn't won either AND I have been gloating, and I shouldn't.
> 
> It really serves no purpose to dog Bulls fans for support their team. Heck, I was one of the hopeless Bulls fans for several years before Jordan and several years after. People used to rip me for supporting the Bulls and I would argue that we are building toward the future. I guess after a while the perpetual rebuilding and development draftees just to give them away to other teams has soured me to the point that I can no longer blindly support them. However that shouldn't cause me to ruin for the rest of you. I don't need to come here and tell you that the Bulls are bad again. I think their record shows that. I don't/won't need to come here and remind you that Crawford is playing well. The box scores will show that as well.
> 
> I am now turning over a new leaf. Out with the negativity and in with positivity. From now on, I wll try to only post positive comments and will refrain from venting my frustrations on this board. I think most of you will know that I am frustrated.
> 
> Peace


I apologize to Michael. I am frustrated with the team, and I should not take it out on you either!


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I apologize to Michael. I am frustrated with the team, and I should not take it out on you either!


Thanks, but no apology necessary. You're not the only one who has called me to the carpet about my negativity as of late. You just did it in manner that got through to me. I sincerely wish the Bulls and their fans the best. I hope the complement of players that they have today will be competitive in the future. 

I think that Luol Deng will be a special player someday. As will Curry, just not with the Bulls. I hope I am wrong about that one. I hope he re-signs with the Bulls and acheives his true potential.


----------



## Wynn

As most of you know, I'm not a fan of Crawdaddy. That said, I want to wish him the best in this injury situation and hope it is just a slight sprain and not anything more serious.


----------



## GB

> Parker had 18 points and a season-high nine assists, leading San Antonio to a 99-81 win over the New York Knicks on Tuesday night. The slick point guard, who signed a $66 million contract extension just before the season began, was held to four points or less and four assists in two of his previous three games.
> --
> The Knicks' starting five shot only 38 percent, but Marbury blamed the one-sided outcome on New York's inability to get back against the Spurs' running game.
> 
> ``The transition defense was horrendous tonight,'' he said. ``You have to do it on both ends. Your offense can't create your defense -- your defense creates your offense.''
> --
> *Jamal Crawford led the Knicks with 16 and Tim Thomas had 15, but together they made only 11 of 30 shots.*


----------



## GB

Nytimes take on the game:



> Jamal Crawford led the Knicks (2-4) with 16 points, but *he scored just 5 in the second half* and was 6 of 15 from the field.
> --
> Crawford had just worked out the last kinks in his neck from Saturday's tumble in Indiana, but *the physical abuse began anew*. The Spurs flipped their defensive assignments, sending the defensive pit bull Bowen after Crawford while Manu Ginóbili guarded small forward Tim Thomas.
> 
> Bowen is renowned as a defensive stopper, but also as a physical player whose style borders on wrestling. *Crawford shot a couple of air balls*, thought he drew contact and glanced at the referees, waiting for a whistle that never came. He attempted just two free throws in the game, and *he was called for a technical foul for pushing over Bowen while running downcourt late in the fourth quarter*.


http://nytimes.com/2004/11/17/sports/basketball/17knicks.html




> ...Jamal Crawford (15 points) scored just four second-half points. A spate of Knick third-quarter turnovers led to a series of Spurs' fastbreaks that broke open a close game in which the Knicks trailed by two points with 8:01 left in the third. In fact, the Knicks held the lead for the game's first 14 minutes.
> 
> "We weren't executing," said Marbury, who shot just 4 of 12 for 13 points, his mindset on distributing the ball.
> 
> "We weren't going all the way through our plays. I don't understand it, how you can break a play when you're scoring when you do run a play? We don't play to our third and fourth option."
> 
> Marbury said when one player breaks the play "it totally destroys the offense, whether I do it, Tim does it or Jamal does it."


http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/34324.htm


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Nytimes take on the game:
> 
> 
> 
> http://nytimes.com/2004/11/17/sports/basketball/17knicks.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/34324.htm


if you watched the game you would know the guy who was running outside of the offense was tim thomas .

timmy would not pass the ball even if he was double teamed , anf that killed the knicks offense not JC's avg. night of 16 points ...and he did drive to the hoop last night , in fact one of his drives was on the nbatv's top 10 plays of the night, where he shook manu pretty badly and took it in for a layup.


----------



## GB

> Jamal Crawford banked in a 3-pointer at the buzzer to send the New York Knicks to their first road win of the season, 93-92 over the *reeling Houston Rockets* on Thursday night.
> 
> Crawford finished with 19 points, going 5-of-11 from the 3-point arc, and Kurt Thomas added 23 points and 14 rebounds *to hand the Rockets their fourth loss in five games*.
> 
> New York, which ends a four-game trip against Dallas on Friday, came back from an 11-point deficit to start the fourth quarter, getting *plenty of clutch baskets from Crawford* and Thomas down the stretch.


----------



## Da Grinch

crawford 
26 points(10-21 FG, 6-14 from 3pt range ) 5 rebs 6 assists 4 turnovers 1 steal 3 blocks, in a 103-101 loss.

season avg.
FG. .418 3pt .423. pts 17.1 reb.2.4 ast. 4.0 to's 2.0 st. 1.9 blocks 0.5


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> crawford
> 26 points(10-21 FG, 6-14 from 3pt range ) 5 rebs 6 assists 4 turnovers 1 steal 3 blocks, in a 103-101 loss.


Did they win?

:jump:
:laugh: :laugh: 
:jump:


----------



## remlover

[email protected] 3 point shots!!!! damn

I didnt see any part of the game, but coming w/in 3 points in Dallas i guess is a good thing.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Did they win?
> 
> :jump:
> :laugh: :laugh:
> :jump:


Man GB, it takes a lot of chutzpah for a Bulls fan to poke fun at a 3-5 team for not winning against one of the best teams in the league on their home floor. If this makes Crawford a joke worthy of laughing at, what are the Bulls?


----------



## ScottMay

And especially when for a better part of that game, Crawford was the answer to the question, "Who is the best player on the court right now?"


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> a 3-5 team


...are both under .500

It's like saying " yeah, we didn't get into the playoffs, but we won 24 games and you only won 19 "

WHO cares?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> ...are both under .500
> 
> It's like saying " yeah, we didn't get into the playoffs, but we won 24 games and you only won 19 "
> 
> WHO cares?


I care whether the Bulls win, even if it doesn't get them in the playoffs. I would hope the Bulls players care, the Bulls coaches care, and the Bulls front office cares. And I bet there are a number of Bulls fans who would love to be a half game out of the last playoff spot in the East rather than 0-7 and already three games back.

It sure would be nice for these players to be playing meaningful games in January. Don't you agree?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> ...are both under .500
> 
> It's like saying " yeah, we didn't get into the playoffs, but we won 24 games and you only won 19 "
> 
> WHO cares?


No its not because the Bulls have yet to win a game to even try and hint at the Bulls being aon a level with any team besides the injury ravaged hornets because said team is under .500 when the Bulls are WINLESS is in the words of jackie Chiles "That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable and


> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> ...are both under .500
> 
> It's like saying " yeah, we didn't get into the playoffs, but we won 24 games and you only won 19 "
> 
> WHO cares?


No its not because the Bulls have yet to win a game to even try and hint at the Bulls being aon a level with any team besides the injury ravaged hornets because said team is under .500 when the Bulls are WINLESS is in the words of jackie Chiles "That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable".


----------



## ace20004u

Bottom line is Crawford was once again spectacular. 3 blocks! wow. The only guy in the whole game who had a better line was Nowitski, thats saying something. Sure, they lost but I am surprised they kept it so respectable against Dallas, they're a damn good team.


----------



## truth

i had no idea JC is such a good spot up shooter..he is unbelievable


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> i had no idea JC is such a good spot up shooter..he is unbelievable


Yep. I told you that you guys got a real steal. He is still improving too. Btw, if Curry does come to the Knicks expect to see really good chemistry between him and Crawford. They are best friends and Jamal is good at getting him the ball in the right place.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Bottom line is Crawford was once again spectacular. 3 blocks! wow. The only guy in the whole game who had a better line was Nowitski, thats saying something. Sure, they lost but I am surprised they kept it so respectable against Dallas, they're a damn good team.


those 3 blocks were more than the bulls team had against denver...but who needs defense on the bulls when we have scrappers.


----------



## rlucas4257

Its pretty clear Jamal is worth every cent that the Knicks are paying him. We certainly got ripped off in that deal. I understand Paxs logic, even agree with it to a degree, but it clearly wasnt the appropriate thing to do in hindsight. Jamal is exactly what the Bulls need now, not the Polish Rifle


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wow, what a game by Crawford.

Not really a surprise though. 

The Knicks just finished a brutal stretch of their schedule.

Look for their record to improve in the next 2 weeks.

Jamal is on his way to stardom while some Bulls fans seem to want to bench Kirk for Duhon. Strange.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep. I told you that you guys got a real steal. He is still improving too. Btw, if Curry does come to the Knicks expect to see really good chemistry between him and Crawford. They are best friends and Jamal is good at getting him the ball in the right place.


Ace will testify that I have been saying the same things about Crawford all along. I also agree that the best of JC is yet to come. I'm still convinced that he is not playing his most appropriate position, PG. At SG he'll hold his own in about 60% of the match ups, but will struggle with other 40%. However, if he played his natural position night in and night out, he would win about 80-85% of his match ups. I concur with Ace again and believe that Crawford and Curry have good chemistry together. I could build a strong play off team with Crawford and Curry as my cornerstones.

On another note (and not to be overly negative), but did Kirk play any defense last night? Earl Boykins had 33 pts? That's ridiculous. That smurf shouldn't score more than 10 pts a game. And Hinrich's offense has disappeared so far this season. Which begs the question, was Hinrich's rookie success attributed to Crawford's play in any way?


----------



## ChiBron

JC tonight once again proved y his former team's GM is an idiot.

NY beat the Cavs today who were on a 6 game winning streak. JC, whose def. been NY's best player this season, led the way with *24 pts(9-19 FG), 5 assists and 2 stls*.


----------



## NYKBaller

Jc is crazy right now, he was the difference maker tonight. Crossover jump shot swish, loving this kid! He puts on some weight and maybe adds a post game and it's a wrap!


----------



## GB

Good win for the Knicks...but full of aberrations.

<I>Stephon Marbury contributed 12 points and 10 assists for <B>the Knicks, who shot 53 percent</b> (40-of-75). </i>

This team is shooting 42% from the field for the season.

<I>Cleveland's LeBron James collected 13 points, 10 assists and nine rebounds but <b>shot just 5-of-15</b>. He scored <b>only two points in the first quarter</b> while blanketed by Tim Thomas and <b>was held scoreless in the fourth quarter</b> by Penny Hardaway. </i>

Tim Thomas, Penny Hardaway?  

He didn't score because it was an off night for him. We all know that neither player is his equal, and we know Jamal isn't a better basketball player than he his. How quickly we forget that little Dr. J reference from a few days ago.

They caught the Cav's and especially James on a down night...and did what they were supposed to do. The Bulls probably would have beaten them too.

Nothing special here folks...move on.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Good win for the Knicks...but full of aberrations.
> 
> <I>Stephon Marbury contributed 12 points and 10 assists for <B>the Knicks, who shot 53 percent</b> (40-of-75). </i>
> 
> This team is shooting 42% from the field for the season.
> 
> <I>Cleveland's LeBron James collected 13 points, 10 assists and nine rebounds but <b>shot just 5-of-15</b>. He scored <b>only two points in the first quarter</b> while blanketed by Tim Thomas and <b>was held scoreless in the fourth quarter</b> by Penny Hardaway. </i>
> 
> Tim Thomas, Penny Hardaway?
> 
> He didn't score because it was an off night for him. We all know that neither player is his equal, and we know Jamal isn't a better basketball player than he his. How quickly we forget that little Dr. J reference from a few days ago.
> 
> They caught the Cav's and especially James on a down night...and did what they were supposed to do. The Bulls probably would have beaten them too.
> 
> Nothing special here folks...move on.


ya gotta love it when analysis is done by people who didn't watch the game, because it is so on point  

LBJ didn't have a bad game just because , he had one because the knicks made him have one. he didn't get many easy shots the knicks kept him outside for the most part, but to you it seems it was luck. the cvas as a whole shot 47% but to you that was also an off night., the truth is the cavs have beaten mostly nobodies this season (the bobcats 2 times , hawks & wizards) they came into the garden and the knicks pretty much beat them from the opening buzzer. the knicks were just a better team tonight.

crawford isn't any better he is just i guess in your mind lucky , despite not watching it. even though he is now shooting .425 from the field from .386 last year, to you thats no improvement. he also scored 13 points in the 4th quarter to make sure they kept the lead.

i guess thats an abberration too.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> they came into the garden and the knicks pretty much beat them from the opening buzzer. the knicks were just a better team tonight.


Didn't attack Jay?see...and you basically agreed with what I said.

Interesting.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't attack Jay?see...and you basically agreed with what I said.
> 
> Interesting.


not even close.


----------



## ScottMay

This thread is approaching a point where it'll need to be renamed "The Bizarro World."

Crawford had a phenomenal game tonight. If Allan Houston thinks he's waltzing back into the starting lineup, he's crazy.

The guy has walked into the toughest market in the league and he's thrived, completely risen to the challenge. And yet Paxson and Skiles just wrote him off.

I guess they (0-8) knew what they were doing, right?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> This thread is approaching a point where it'll need to be renamed "The Bizarro World."
> 
> Crawford had a phenomenal game tonight. If Allan Houston thinks he's waltzing back into the starting lineup, he's crazy.
> 
> The guy has walked into the toughest market in the league and he's thrived, completely risen to the challenge. And yet Paxson and Skiles just wrote him off.
> 
> I guess they (0-8) knew what they were doing, right?


It was sweet at the end of Q2, I believe. Marbury dribbled across half court and gave it to Crawford. Crawford dribbled away the rest of the game clock and did his cross-over and hit a 2 with 2 seconds left.


----------



## Johnny Mac

It would have been wonderful to have a guard rotation of Hinrich, Crawford, Duhon and Iguodala, with Deng, Nocioni, Chandler and Harrington at the forward spots. Ahh well.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> It would have been wonderful to have a guard rotation of Hinrich, Crawford, Duhon and Iguodala, with Deng, Nocioni, Chandler and Harrington at the forward spots. Ahh well.


how does a team get harrington iggy JC and deng all at the same time?


----------



## Johnny Mac

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> how does a team get harrington iggy JC and deng all at the same time?


Great question. I'm trippin' balls. Subtract Harrington, add JYD. Draft Iggy instead of Gordon. Resign Crawford.


----------



## HAWK23

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Great question. I'm trippin' balls. Subtract Harrington, add JYD. Draft Iggy instead of Gordon. Resign Crawford.



Iggy- 29 min, 8 ppg, 5 reb, 2 ast

Gordon- 17 min, 8 ppg, 2 reb, 1 ast


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> This thread is approaching a point where it'll need to be renamed "The Bizarro World."
> 
> Crawford had a phenomenal game tonight. If Allan Houston thinks he's waltzing back into the starting lineup, he's crazy.
> 
> The guy has walked into the toughest market in the league and he's thrived, completely risen to the challenge. And yet Paxson and Skiles just wrote him off.
> 
> I guess they (0-8) knew what they were doing, right?


houston has started practicing , he says hopefully he rejoins the team in 2 weeks.

so we'll see then who starts , but the way tim thomas has been playing they might just go w/ a 3 guard lineup.


----------



## Johnny Mac

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> Iggy- 29 min, 8 ppg, 5 reb, 2 ast
> 
> Gordon- 17 min, 8 ppg, 2 reb, 1 ast


Iggy is a legit 6'7 and a very good defender. That would go a long way on a team that gets lit up by shooting guards every night, because we have to stick guys who are 6'1 to 6'3 on them.


----------



## ScottMay

Well, the Knicks got a visit from "Bad" Jamal tonight -- make that "Very Bad" Jamal. 

28 minutes, 3-14	FG, 1-7	3pt FG, 0-0 FT,	2 reb, 1 ast,	3 TO,	2 stl,	7 pts in a blowout loss to the Raptors.

I didn't see any of the game, so I can't speak to the specifics, but this is by far Jamal's worse performance of the season and it's probably worse than his worst game as a Bull last year.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Well, the Knicks got a visit from "Bad" Jamal tonight -- make that "Very Bad" Jamal.
> 
> 28 minutes, 3-14	FG, 1-7	3pt FG, 0-0 FT,	2 reb, 1 ast,	3 TO,	2 stl,	7 pts in a blowout loss to the Raptors.
> 
> I didn't see any of the game, so I can't speak to the specifics, but this is by far Jamal's worse performance of the season and it's probably worse than his worst game as a Bull last year.


I didn't watch, but I deduce from the box score that Jalen Rose shut him down.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't watch, but I deduce from the box score that Jalen Rose shut him down.


think again the raptors played zone most of the night and it killed the knicks , most of marbury's points came after the games was out of reach only nazr played well all game.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> think again


I was waiting for you to come and set things straight.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I was waiting for you to come and set things straight.


just being fair.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> just being fair.


...and biased. Uh...balanced.


----------



## giusd

I watched most of the game and JC did struggle on offensive but that was mostly due to he was being guarded by Carter and not by rose. But this was by far his worst game of the season due to his awful defensive. For most of the game he was covering the raptors PG's and Marbery had to cover Carter or wilkins but him on carter. JC was getting smoked on the pick and roll all night but Alston and Palacio who had 27 points on only 17 shots.

I will continue to say this until proved otherwise. JC matches up very well with Marbary and they have good chemistry and because of that Marbery is playing better this year. JC is playing somewhat better this year, taking better shots, is not rushing it as much, and looks more comfortalbe.

On the other hand, still playing awful D, stands around to much on offensive, to much dribble, and is still wildly inconsistent. And like last night (*and with the bulls) when his shot is off he lets it negatively effect his whole game. Finally, if you look at his stats it really doesn't seem that different than last year. Around 40% form the field, slightly better for 3's at roughly 38%, aournd 17ppg on 16 shots, and a couple of FT per game.

I sitll think we should have signed him, if for nothing else to trade him if it did not work out this year. If i had my way we would have traded him to GS for pietrus who i think is a stud. I think what we are seeing from him this year is what he is, kind of a vinnie johnson player who when he is hot is unstoppable but when he is not plays badly.

david


----------



## mizenkay

not to rub it in or anything...but this is why i simply love the new york post. particularly the backpage sports headlines. got any stuffing to go with that turkey?

anyway...all in good fun.



a very happy turkey day to everyone on the bulls forum. going to go watch the parade.


----------



## ChiBron

JC shows how to bounce back after a poor showing the other day.

*30 pts(11-22 FG), 7 rebs, 3 assists, 1 block AND ONLY 1 TURNOVER in 46 mins.* as his Knicks beat the Raptors 108-102 a few minutes ago.

He's having a great season. NY is back to .500 again.


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> JC shows how to bounce back after a poor showing the other day.
> 
> *30 pts(11-22 FG), 7 rebs, 3 assists, 1 block AND ONLY 1 TURNOVER in 46 mins.* as his Knicks beat the Raptors 108-102 a few minutes ago.
> 
> He's having a great season. NY is back to .500 again.


That's a great stat line. Good for Jamal. Good for the Knicks. Bad for me, 'cause I hate the Knicks.


----------



## truth

by far jamals best game...is really starting to gel with marbury and its very interesting how jamal gives the rock to marbury in the backcourt to set things up..

BTW,JC is not a point guard by any stretch of the imagination...Hes a dam good 2 guard and will be great with 20 more pounds on him..Didint Eddie share his happy meals with JC???


----------



## DaBullz

How about Marbury? 18 points, 15 assists, 4 rebounds.


----------



## giusd

Am i the only one who thinks JC game and stats are basically unchanged from last year. If JC is having a great season wasn't he having a great season last year?

He did have a great game on offensive today and looked really smooth. He also forced marbery to cover carter because i assume wilkens thinks and knows he cannot cover carter. He also got burned most of the game on the pick and roll much like on wed night.

JC is gone we need to stop this thread. As for his game and his soon to be stardom. He is shoting under 40% FG's. at roughly 36% from 3's, and still weak on D. Same as last year and IMHO this is what his career wil be. Lets talk about some bulls not stop all tis JC stuff.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> 
> 
> JC is gone we need to stop this thread. As for his game and his soon to be stardom. He is shoting under 40% FG's. at roughly 36% from 3's, and still weak on D. Same as last year and IMHO this is what his career wil be. Lets talk about some bulls not stop all tis JC stuff.
> 
> david




Actually, after today's game he is shooting 41% FG.

And his team is .500... and will be over .500 soon enough due to their easier schedule coming up.


----------



## son of oakley

I can't say I saw a lot of Crawford last year but I can imagine him much the same and suffering a lot of criticism. The difference would appear to be that he's actually less under the magnifying glass here than in Chi (contrary to many's expectations). 

In NY the magnifying glass is ultimately on Isiah, as this team is almost wholly his creation. It would be foolish to attach too much credit or blame to any one player when Isiah is such a lightening rod for attention.

I suppose it will become the same for Paxson eventually, like later this year, when he makes his conclusions about Curry and Chandler and sets them in contractual stone. But in the meanwhile he just has everyone's sympathy, and a fair chance to try an approach or two. 

In the meanwhile blame in Chicago seems to spread to all corners. People don't know where to point their fingers anymore. I really think what you guys need is some stability in your player development, but ironically, first a change of players. If you could swing a Curry/Chandler trade for Sweetney and Nene I'd say do it. Whatever those Cs will become it's clear they wont become much in Chi where the blame plays favorites and undermines everyone else. Get those "right players", get someone like Hakeem, or David Robinson, or similar, on staff to develop them, get another nice lotto pick this summer, and then stand pat for a while.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Am i the only one who thinks JC game and stats are basically unchanged from last year. If JC is having a great season wasn't he having a great season last year?
> 
> He did have a great game on offensive today and looked really smooth. He also forced marbery to cover carter because i assume wilkens thinks and knows he cannot cover carter. He also got burned most of the game on the pick and roll much like on wed night.
> 
> JC is gone we need to stop this thread. As for his game and his soon to be stardom. He is shoting under 40% FG's. at roughly 36% from 3's, and still weak on D. Same as last year and IMHO this is what his career wil be. Lets talk about some bulls not stop all tis JC stuff.
> 
> david


nobody asked for the thread to stop when he had a couple of bad games...and truth be known i'd rather just 1 thread, instead of what teands to hapen when people who dont like crawford will take a thread that isn't about him and turn a thread about ...lets say eddy curry about crawford , or paxson or skiles or whatever.

but anyway marbury was guarding carter in the 1st raptor game as well, he is the stronger player out of him and JC , there may only be 1 point guard stronger than him (baron davis ) if there are more , they are relatively few of them , basically strength wise he is just a short 2 guard not really on the level on point guards , in truth i dont think it matter all that much who crawford would defend , they could have just as easily put him on rose(for instance rose was guarded by crawford last season and the bulls let whoever was playing small forward guard carter) , i think it was done that way to keep tim thomas on rose who is the least quick of the 3 in both rose out of rose , vince and alston , and thomas out of JC marbury and thomas.

it was done to mixed results anyway seeing they split the games


----------



## johnston797

Oh, someone can crank up a Fizer thread, too.

He shot 4 of 5 from the field today.


----------



## ace20004u

Ex-Bull report: This is how bad things have gotten for the Bulls: New York is off to a 6-6 start, and Jamal Crawford feels like he's playing for the '72 Lakers compared to all the losing he experienced in Chicago. 

"When you lose like that the days seem longer," Crawford said in the New York Daily News. "Everything seems worse; the food doesn't taste as good. You have a lot of time to think. The whole city is like, 'What's going on.' I'm just glad I'm not there." 

The 6-foot-5 shooting guard is the Knicks' second-leading scorer at 17.8 points. He's shooting 40.7 percent from the field


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Ex-Bull report: This is how bad things have gotten for the Bulls: New York is off to a 6-6 start, and Jamal Crawford feels like he's playing for the '72 Lakers compared to all the losing he experienced in Chicago.
> 
> "When you lose like that the days seem longer," Crawford said in the New York Daily News. "Everything seems worse; the food doesn't taste as good. You have a lot of time to think. The whole city is like, 'What's going on.' I'm just glad I'm not there."
> 
> The 6-foot-5 shooting guard is the Knicks' second-leading scorer at 17.8 points. He's shooting 40.7 percent from the field


We all know Crawford can put up numbers on any given day. his career highs are all still with the Bull. Has his presence significantly affected the won-loss record of the Knick? They appear to be en route to the same roughly .500 season they've had for the past decade.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> We all know Crawford can put up numbers on any given day. his career highs are all still with the Bull. Has his presence significantly affected the won-loss record of the Knick? They appear to be en route to the same roughly .500 season they've had for the past decade.


They haven't had a .500 record since 01 and yes, Jamal IS definitley a large part of what they are doing.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> We all know Crawford can put up numbers on any given day. his career highs are all still with the Bull. Has his presence significantly affected the won-loss record of the Knick? They appear to be en route to the same roughly .500 season they've had for the past decade.


Jamal is a key contributor on a .500 team. Teams can win with Jamal being one of the main guys.


----------



## truth

Crawford is having his best game by far tonight..He penetrating and dishing..% assists in the first quarter and totally breeaking down the D from the 2 guard position

He definetly catching on


----------



## deranged40

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> Crawford is having his best game by far tonight..He penetrating and dishing..% assists in the first quarter and totally breeaking down the D from the 2 guard position
> 
> He definetly catching on


Wow and shooting 4-20 from the field, what a night!


----------



## ChiBron

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow and shooting 4-20 from the field, what a night!


Great night INDEED. He hit the game winning 3 pointer with 3 seconds left. NY wins 110-109 in OT! Now that's what i call confidence. He was struggling ALL night long but made the biggest shot of the game! Clutch baby! *24 pts, 4 rebs, 6 assists and 8-11 from the line.*

NY now 1 game above .500. Where are those who were questioning whether JC could be a difference maker on a winning team? He's been huge this season!


----------



## ScottMay

What a crazy game from Crawford.

He was absolutely atrocious in the second half of this one. He literally shot the Knicks out of the game, but for some reason, Wilkens didn't pull him. It was getting embarrassing at points.

Marbury comes in and saves the day and the game goes to OT, where Jamal hits what amounts to a game-winning 3 with 3.4 seconds left.

Say what you want about Jamal, but the Knicks believe in this guy. He sure as hell isn't going to be apprenticing to Allan Houston when Houston comes back. Isiah got Jamal to be his two guard for the next 7 years.

7/28 shooting, including an astounding 2/12 on 3s.


----------



## badfish

That's really not giving enough credit to the rest of the Knicks who kept them in the game, especially Starbury. But, go ahead and spin it anyways.

EDIt: By the way, my post is in response to SPMJ. SHould have quoted it.


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> 
> Great night INDEED. He hit the game winning 3 pointer with 3 seconds left. NY wins 110-109 in OT! Now that's what i call confidence. He was struggling ALL night long but made the biggest shot of the game! Clutch baby! *24 pts, 4 rebs, 6 assists and 8-11 from the line.*
> 
> NY now 1 game above .500. Where are those who were questioning whether JC could be a difference maker on a winning team? He's been huge this season!



Great use of spin. :laugh: 

Crawford put the Knicks in the game, then took them out of it, then won it for them. I'm not sure if overall that's a good thing or a bad thing. But since they won....whatever it takes, I suppose. :whoknows:


----------



## ChiBron

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> That's really not giving enough credit to the rest of the Knicks who kept them in the game, especially Starbury. But, go ahead and spin it anyways.


I was just commenting on JC's play. Afterall, the topic is abt HIM. 

And yes, his teammates we great tonight. There!


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on JC's play. Afterall, the topic is abt HIM.
> 
> And yes, his teammates we great tonight. There!


Hey, meant no disrespect to Crawsover. He's been exactly as I expected. A little better than last year. I mean, I thought he was a pretty good player when we had him. Now he has better talent around him and it shows. Don't know if I can go with your "huge" assessment though.


----------



## ScottMay

And in other ex-Bulls' news, Jalen Rose actually outhustled Eddie Jones to a loose ball (a missed Donyell 3), was fouled, and hit both shots for the winning margin as Toronto upset Miami 94-92 (with Shaq having an old-school kind of dominating night).


----------



## Da Grinch

If jamal was on the bulls and had this game the bulls would have lost , there would have been no overtime , and no game saving spurts or what was essentially a game winning shot.

but he isn't and when it came down to it , they put their faith in him and he rewarded them again , and the knicks are very happy with their trade aquisition on a day when paxson is forced to defend making such a trade.As it appears moreso by the day even when houston comes back crawford will still start.

any game that ends 110-109 in overtime is a great game no matter who won it.

and nazr continued on his tear of late with 22 points and 15 boards 2 steals, a block.


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> If jamal was on the bulls and had this game the bulls would have lost , there would have been no overtime , and no game saving spurts or what was essentially a game winning shot.
> 
> but he isn't and when it came down to it , they put their faith in him and he rewarded them again , and the knicks are very happy with their trade aquisition on a day when paxson is forced to defend making such a trade.As it appears moreso by the day even when houston comes back crawford will still start.
> 
> any game that ends 110-109 in overtime is a great game no matter who won it.
> 
> and nazr continued on his tear of late with 22 points and 15 boards 2 steals, a block.


Couldn't agree more with your first point. That's kind of what I was intimating with my posts.

And, of course they're happy with him. He's a pretty good player on a pretty good team that is going nowhere in the playoffs for the next 5 years.

And yes, I know we suck so you don't have to make the comparison to our team. I'm just not ready to jump ship on this phase of rebuilding yet. Despite our record, my opinion is that it is our best one yet. It's too early yet to write it off. I'm not a "what have you done for me lately" type of fan.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more with your first point. That's kind of what I was intimating with my posts.
> 
> And, of course they're happy with him. He's a pretty good player on a pretty good team that is going nowhere in the playoffs for the next 5 years.
> 
> And yes, I know we suck so you don't have to make the comparison to our team. I'm just not ready to jump ship on this phase of rebuilding yet. Despite our record, my opinion is that it is our best one yet. It's too early yet to write it off. I'm not a "what have you done for me lately" type of fan.


this is the thing i cant understand . 

Why are people so sure the knicks cant possibly win because of their high payroll?

they have ending contracts to deal every year for players who are better and until the rules change on trades and the cap its always going to be that way. Their best scorer hasn't even stepped on the court yet. and after next season they will lose something like 40 mil. off the cap so they will probably pull of a blockbuster for another star at some point in the next offseason.

high payrolls dont stop mobility, dallas' payroll is almost as high as is portland's and they trade their talent around the league non-stop.

its the poor teams that are forced to live with their mistakes ...or the teams with cheap/poor owners.


----------



## truth

Now i can understan the Bull fans love hate with JC..

In the first quarter,he had five assists and was playing his best game of the year...

He then hoised up about 25 shots mad about 6 and showed no shame...

and to top it off the guy takes an off balance 24 footer to win it...

If nothing else JC has ALOT of confidence.....

BTW,his teamates love him and almost seem amused by his antics...

On another note,I dont think I am willing to throw Naz in as filler with Sweetney for curry anymore:no:


----------



## truth

> Why are people so sure the knicks cant possibly win because of their high payroll?


High payroll means nothing to the Knicks..I go thru this all the time on the NY board...

The only thing Zeke cares about is DURATION of contract..The knicks are in cap hell due to the hellacious H20 signing.Until his contract is up,it doesnt matter how much over the cap we are..20 million,40 million,its irrelavant.What is relevant is the duration of the contracts we take on..Penny is tolerabl because he comes off next year with TT..H20 the next...

Zeke believes in JC,and he is young.Same with marbury...I cant quite figure out why we locked up KT for so long,and Junkyard also has a long contract..But if you notice,all our huge contracts are expiring in the next 2 years which will leave the knicks with a core of JC,marbury,Sweetney and aRiza..In the meantime early exits in the playoffs are the reality


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

Crawford relentlessly shoots like crap, but makes it when it counts.


----------



## The True Essence

yeah i was about to hang myself when he kept shooting 3 after 3 like hes been making them. If this was any other team then the hawks, we woulda got blown out. 

but hey, he made the game winner, and got us the W, so whatever.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> High payroll means nothing to the Knicks..I go thru this all the time on the NY board...
> 
> The only thing Zeke cares about is DURATION of contract..The knicks are in cap hell due to the hellacious H20 signing.Until his contract is up,it doesnt matter how much over the cap we are..20 million,40 million,its irrelavant.What is relevant is the duration of the contracts we take on..Penny is tolerabl because he comes off next year with TT..H20 the next...
> 
> Zeke believes in JC,and he is young.Same with marbury...I cant quite figure out why we locked up KT for so long,and Junkyard also has a long contract..But if you notice,all our huge contracts are expiring in the next 2 years which will leave the knicks with a core of JC,marbury,Sweetney and aRiza..In the meantime early exits in the playoffs are the reality


exactly, it doesn't matter if you are over the cap by a dollar or 60 million of them , if you are over the cap , the best you can do is an MLE deal for free agents, someone is always looking to rid themsevles of some high salaried player for whatever reason, so with expiring deals you can really improve your talent base.

and if you need to know why kurt was resigned take a look at his defense on walker in the 4th quarter and OT , those stops were important .


----------



## truth

people dont seem to grasp that 1 dollar over the cap is no better than 50 million over..i think zeke is playing his hand really well,and it doesnt hurt that he has MSG and cablevision handing out money...

it appears the mandate is,be competitive and entertaining for the next 2 years and when cap space clears,land the big kahuna..

BTW,you guys are playing with fire regarding Curry...reSigning him to a near max deal is exactly whjat killed us with h20..not too mention shandone and Eisly...


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> people dont seem to grasp that 1 dollar over the cap is no better than 50 million over..i think zeke is playing his hand really well,and it doesnt hurt that he has MSG and cablevision handing out money...
> 
> it appears the mandate is,be competitive and entertaining for the next 2 years and when cap space clears,land the big kahuna..


Knicks are 2.5 to 3.5 years away from cap space IF they don't add any salary. That's a big if.

I don't see them ever having cap space.


----------



## MemphisX

Knicks are not looking for cap space now, or two years from now. They have more money than anyone in the league and a willingness to spend. They are effectively playing on a different level than everyone in the league. Now everyone is laughing at the knicks because of past bad decisions but they are getting more young players and they still have an actual salary cap twice as much as every other team.

Next year look for Zeke to do the same thing and get another young piece by taking on some bad contracts. Will it be Curry, Chandler, Kwame Brown, or some other inside player to add to that young core? You have to get lucky to build a title contender but a consistent playoff team can be bought.


----------



## giusd

The knicks are going no where and if they make the playoffs they are sure first round losers. They will not be in a position to build via the draft and do not have enough talent to get much better.

they play weak D, TT is a joke at SF, and they have the worst defensive backcourt in the nba. The only player with toughness is thomas and he is already on the down side due to his age.

They have had a very easy nov and dec will be much harder for them. They will be lucky to be 500. And most of this is due to there cap problems.

david


----------



## futuristxen

I would trade places with the Knicks in a heartbeat. I'm tired of being the laughing stock of the league.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Knicks are not looking for cap space now, or two years from now. They have more money than anyone in the league and a willingness to spend. They are effectively playing on a different level than everyone in the league. Now everyone is laughing at the knicks because of past bad decisions but they are getting more young players and they still have an actual salary cap twice as much as every other team.


'

If you follow the link in my sig, you'll see that while the Knicks DO generate more revenue than any other team, it's not by as wide a margin as you imply here. MSG doesn't have any (by modern standards) luxury suites, which greatly diminishes what they take in at the gate.

I think the Knicks have done their fans a great disservice by not going through a Bulls-style dismantling. Chicago's not enough of a draw for free agents, but New York and LA sure are. If the Knicks had gotten under the cap, they could have Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant playing for them now, together, plus a bunch of high lottery picks.


----------



## giusd

Well of course that is up to you and lord knows you let your constant negative feelings known every time you post. As for the knicks i have this to say compared to the bulls.

The knicks have started with one of the lightest schdedules in the league. They have played 13 games and only 6 have winning records. The teams they have played have a very weak combined record.

The bulls on the other hand have played 11 games and 9 of those on the road. They have only played 2 teams with losing records, NJ the first game with curry and AD out and GS on the second of a back to back. now i am not make excuses for the bulls or anyone. But seriously, ever since JC went to the knicks it is the same thing as last year, how great JC is, now how great the knicks are. BS. The knicks are awful and as their season goes on and they play rougher teams they will start losing.

The bulls, IMHO, have had an awful start of the season against 9 teams with winning reconds. As the season goes on they will improve and get better. The Knicks are going no where. Oh, but JC is on their team, the greatest player on earth with huge upside, with a 38% FG, 34% for 3, and his great defensive, he looks great going between his legs, yada, yada, yada.

Please, david


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Well of course that is up to you and lord knows you let your constant negative feelings known every time you post. As for the knicks i have this to say compared to the bulls.
> 
> The knicks have started with one of the lightest schdedules in the league. They have played 13 games and only 6 have winning records. The teams they have played have a very weak combined record.
> 
> The bulls on the other hand have played 11 games and 9 of those on the road. They have only played 2 teams with losing records, NJ the first game with curry and AD out and GS on the second of a back to back. now i am not make excuses for the bulls or anyone. But seriously, ever since JC went to the knicks it is the same thing as last year, how great JC is, now how great the knicks are. BS. The knicks are awful and as their season goes on and they play rougher teams they will start losing.
> 
> The bulls, IMHO, have had an awful start of the season against 9 teams with winning reconds. As the season goes on they will improve and get better. The Knicks are going no where. Oh, but JC is on their team, the greatest player on earth with huge upside, with a 38% FG, 34% for 3, and his great defensive, he looks great going between his legs, yada, yada, yada.
> 
> Please, david



Wed 3 @ Minnesota 
Sat 6 Boston 
Tue 9 Philadelphia 
Fri 12 L.A. Clippers 
Sat 13 @ Indiana 
Tue 16 @ San Antonio 
Thu 18 @ Houston 
Fri 19 @ Dallas 
Sun 21 Cleveland 
Tue 23 Atlanta 
Wed 24 @ Toronto 
Sat 27 Toronto 
Tue 30 @ Atlanta 


Out of those 11 teams I count 9 teams that figure to be in the playoffs or fighting for a spot come April so how is that a light schedule ?Out of 13 games they have played 6 at home 

The knicks have a winning record and the Bulls have one win but somehow the knicks are going nowhere but the Bulls are gonna get better.When you are as bas as the Bulls is there another way to go besides up.

Do your know how you sound ?Since when does being mediocre and having one win somehow give you more chance at improvement than a team that in all likelyhood will be in the playoffs ?Are you saying you would rather have one win than be 7-6 ?

I dont know how you can be expected to be taken seriosuly when you say the knicks are awful and going no where but the Bulls are on the rise ?

The knicks are a better team than the bulls in fact just about every team in the league with the exception of 2 is a better team than the Bulls.The only imrpovement that can and should be measured is wins and losses all the other crap pax and skiles supporters will try to sell we have heard for the last 6 years and it just doesnt mean much anymore .


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Well of course that is up to you and lord knows you let your constant negative feelings known every time you post. As for the knicks i have this to say compared to the bulls.
> 
> The knicks have started with one of the lightest schdedules in the league. They have played 13 games and only 6 have winning records. The teams they have played have a very weak combined record.
> 
> The bulls on the other hand have played 11 games and 9 of those on the road. They have only played 2 teams with losing records, NJ the first game with curry and AD out and GS on the second of a back to back. now i am not make excuses for the bulls or anyone. But seriously, ever since JC went to the knicks it is the same thing as last year, how great JC is, now how great the knicks are. BS. The knicks are awful and as their season goes on and they play rougher teams they will start losing.
> 
> The bulls, IMHO, have had an awful start of the season against 9 teams with winning reconds. As the season goes on they will improve and get better. The Knicks are going no where. Oh, but JC is on their team, the greatest player on earth with huge upside, with a 38% FG, 34% for 3, and his great defensive, he looks great going between his legs, yada, yada, yada.
> 
> Please, david


the differnce between the 2 teams are night and day.

the knicks if the season ended today are a 3rd seed in the playoffs .

the bulls are dead last in the conf. with 2 less wins than the bobcats

the knicks have had tough games too(road games vs indy before suspensions , dallas san antonio , minny, hou.), but they won basically the games they are supposed to win, the bulls haven't 

the knicks beat the cavs and the clippers when they faced them the 2 other teams the bulls and knicks have in common this season, so its not just a matter of schedule, also allan houston has still not played a game for them, a player if he were a bull would be the best player by a significant margin.in fact they may have 5 players better than our best player, kirk (stephon , JC , k.thomas nazr and houston).

i would trade rosters in a minute .


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I would trade places with the Knicks in a heartbeat. I'm tired of being the laughing stock of the league.


I don't believe that for a second. No one is forcing you to stay here, but yet you do. If you'd trade places with the Knick, then why haven't you?


----------



## giusd

If the season ended today the knicks would in fact be in the place in the east and not 3rd place, see yahoo sports page. The knicks have played 9 of 11 teams fighting for the playoffs, please.

Only 6 of the 11 games have been against teams with winning records period. Again check yahoo sports page, standings, period.

The knicks have had one of the easest schedules, period. The bulls have on the other hand had one of the hardest schedules with 9 of 11 games against winning teams, period. In time the bulls will improve, tho since you are self hating bulls fans that will never be enough and you will find some else on the team but belittle. The knicks will be lucky to be a 500 team, period. 

david


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> If the season ended today the knicks would in fact be in the place in the east and not 3rd place, see yahoo sports page. The knicks have played 9 of 11 teams fighting for the playoffs, please.
> 
> Only 6 of the 11 games have been against teams with winning records period. Again check yahoo sports page, standings, period.
> 
> The knicks have had one of the easest schedules, period. The bulls have on the other hand had one of the hardest schedules with 9 of 11 games against winning teams, period. In time the bulls will improve, tho since you are self hating bulls fans that will never be enough and you will find some else on the team but belittle. The knicks will be lucky to be a 500 team, period.
> 
> david


Well, according to Jeff Sagarin's computer model, the Bulls have indeed had the most difficult schedule up to this date. But the Knicks have had the 12th most difficult, so I am not sure we can say they have had an easy schedule.

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/nbasend.htm


----------



## Happyface

you guys are delirious to use the schedule as an excuse, and act like the Bulls will all of a sudden start winning. I'm not surprised since this is a Bulls forum and i should expect that type of bias, but still doesnt take away from some of you being delirious to think they have the talent on that team or play together well enough to start winning games all of a sudden. 

If this is a comparison between the Knicks and the Bulls, the Knicks hands down would win. The Bulls dont have a goto player, the closest thing is Curry, who still isnt playing to potential. Even then half the time the team as a whole doesnt show up to play. Hell, i dont think Skiles uses his players too well to suit their strengths so the blame goes all around.

Jamal is turning out to be a better player than alot of people here expected. This forum has in general always hated on Jamal, and many people here wanted him to fail and be a bust. Now the excuses are coming constantly to take away from what hes been doing for the Knicks. Meanwhile the same people make constant excuses for the Bulls poor play, and now its schedule. Heh, i guess there will be a new one come after the all-star break since that one wont work forever. Not saying Jamal is an all-star at this point, but his improvement from being in Chicago is DEFINITELY noticeable.


----------



## son of oakley

I don't really see the Knicks trying to get under the cap. It's not feasible when you have a max contract player getting into the latter (expensive) years of his contract like, Marbury. Offering cap relief to other teams is much easier, as you don't have to dump talent to do it, like we would to get under the cap.

And while nobody's gonna trade KG, or Duncan, you probably stand a better chance of getting a big fish thru trade than FA anyway. Look at this year: Shaq, T-Mac, Rasheed, vs Nash, K-Mart, Boozer. 

That's not to argue against a traditional rebuild, which I believe in and would have supported, but given where the Knicks are now, we simply aren't positioned for it. But with over 40M coming off the books '05-06, we are positioned to make an unprecedented offering of expiring contracts. Portland is in the same position this year and it will be interesting to see how they play it. My suspicion is they will let some of it come off the books whereas the Knicks will move it all if it will net them a big fish.

But that huge sum will be Isiah's big opportunity to score, he needs to use it widely. He'll trade a Nazr now for Curry, or TT for Artest, or any other one-sided deal that fills a need, but otherwise I see him sticking with this squad all season, developing the talent, making it more trade worthy, and holding all his chips for a big score. Which of course requires luck that a team wants to divest themselves of talent and rebuild at just the right time. But I guess even IF all that fails, then you let some money come off the books.

Knicks fans are justified in expecting their team to improve. Most of the team is on the early side of it's prime, they have good youth in Ariza and Sweetney, the have a good developmental guy in Aguirre, and an aggressive GM with free reign. How high they will ascend is anybody's guess, but with the first winning record in 3 years there's little room for doubt that the upward movement has begun. And this with TT in a total funk (btw, in case you guys haven't heard, he's dealing with two deaths in the family and serious medical concerns for his wife and mom).

As for Crawford, we're used to his type - he's like Starks. These guys are a roller coaster ride, but they play with heart and that's always endearing. I could see how Crawford would be so controversial in Chicago, where your team lived and died by his decision making. There's a weird disconnect between his reputed "coachability" vs all these chucks coming right after a time-out, where you just know that wasn't the play coach drafted up. That said, the notion that a good team can't win with Crawford seems extreme. Give us 1994's Ewing with Marbury and Crawford and I think we'd do quite well, thank you.


----------



## RoRo

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Well, according to Jeff Sagarin's computer model, the Bulls have indeed had the most difficult schedule up to this date. But the Knicks have had the 12th most difficult, so I am not sure we can say they have had an easy schedule.
> 
> http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/nbasend.htm


the knicks have had a cupcake schedule. wait til they play our bulls


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> If the season ended today the knicks would in fact be in the place in the east and not 3rd place, see yahoo sports page. The knicks have played 9 of 11 teams fighting for the playoffs, please.
> 
> Only 6 of the 11 games have been against teams with winning records period. Again check yahoo sports page, standings, period.
> 
> The knicks have had one of the easest schedules, period. The bulls have on the other hand had one of the hardest schedules with 9 of 11 games against winning teams, period. In time the bulls will improve, tho since you are self hating bulls fans that will never be enough and you will find some else on the team but belittle. The knicks will be lucky to be a 500 team, period.
> 
> david



If the season ended today the knicks would be 3rd because the division champs get the 3 top seeds you need to check this stuff before you speak so adamantly about it.

They are only 2 and ahalf games out of first place in the conference but the way you sound you make it seem as though they are no better than the Bulls .

I cant believe Im arguing in favor of the knicks but I guess the losing is destroying my veil of homerisim :laugh:


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> you guys are delirious to use the schedule as an excuse, and act like the Bulls will all of a sudden start winning. I'm not surprised since this is a Bulls forum and i should expect that type of bias, but still doesnt take away from some of you being delirious to think they have the talent on that team or play together well enough to start winning games all of a sudden.
> 
> If this is a comparison between the Knicks and the Bulls, the Knicks hands down would win. The Bulls dont have a goto player, the closest thing is Curry, who still isnt playing to potential. Even then half the time the team as a whole doesnt show up to play. Hell, i dont think Skiles uses his players too well to suit their strengths so the blame goes all around.
> 
> Jamal is turning out to be a better player than alot of people here expected. This forum has in general always hated on Jamal, and many people here wanted him to fail and be a bust. Now the excuses are coming constantly to take away from what hes been doing for the Knicks. Meanwhile the same people make constant excuses for the Bulls poor play, and now its schedule. Heh, i guess there will be a new one come after the all-star break since that one wont work forever. Not saying Jamal is an all-star at this point, but his improvement from being in Chicago is DEFINITELY noticeable.


Do you mean delusional? yeah, that's possibly true and hard to argue. But, like you said you have to expect a little homerism here.

By the way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out that the Knicks are better than the Bulls RIGHT NOW, but thanks for driving that home.  But, that doesn't mean that some of us can't be excited about the future. I mean, how fun is it to dwell on the negative all the time?

By the way, I think a lot of us thought that Jamal was pretty good. He just didn't fit into our mold and certainly not at his asking price. And I agree that Crawford has improved, largely because of the talent around him. By a huge amount? Nah, I don't think so. His weaknesses and mistakes are more easily covered up.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> If the season ended today the knicks would be 3rd because the division champs get the 3 top seeds you need to check this stuff before you speak so adamantly about it.


It only speaks to how terrible we are that leading the absolute worst of the SIX divisions by a game is some badge of honor.

The knicks are not any better than last year. They were better than .500 with Marbury and doing about the same this year.

JC has been about as effective as he was with the Bulls last year and about as effective as Alan Houston was for the Knicks last year.

Is that enough to get so worked up about?


----------



## MemphisX

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> It only speaks to how terrible we are that leading the absolute worst of the SIX divisions by a game is some badge of honor.
> 
> The knicks are not any better than last year. They were better than .500 with Marbury and doing about the same this year.
> 
> JC has been about as effective as he was with the Bulls last year and about as effective as Alan Houston was for the Knicks last year.
> 
> Is that enough to get so worked up about?


Chronic denial.

He is a 24 year old, 6'5" SG/PG who is growing as a player every game. What makes you look silly is the return question: What the heck did the Bulls get for him?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> It only speaks to how terrible we are that leading the absolute worst of the SIX divisions by a game is some badge of honor.
> 
> The knicks are not any better than last year. They were better than .500 with Marbury and doing about the same this year.
> 
> JC has been about as effective as he was with the Bulls last year and about as effective as Alan Houston was for the Knicks last year.
> 
> Is that enough to get so worked up about?


so now the divison isnt good enough :laugh: 

that sounds really pathetic 

the knicks are in 3rd in the east regardless of what reasoning seem to want to think it doesnt matter it does because we are in last place.

The knicks were 4-9 after 13 games last so I would say they are better and on pace to win 45-50 games.

It takes some serious hate to for someone whose team is in last place to try and diminish the record of a team who is first in its division.

Before the season jamal and marbury would be fighting and he would never get off the bench with his play and the knicks wer so capped out they couldnt do anything and they arent a playoff team and ............... 

now it doesnt matter because the division is weak ,hes not playing better hes not doing ....... but all he is doing is WINNING and no matter how much hate and nonsense some of you try tio spin into it he actually is a big part of it.Which blows out of the water the Crawford haters clubs motto of a team cant be successful with jamal as a main piece .

I look forward to hearing you all adjust your excuses as the season continues some of you have already done it 3-4 times since the trade already :laugh:


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> He is a 24 year old, 6'5" SG/PG who is growing as a player every game.


At this pace of growth, he would be an All-Star in the year 3103.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that enough to get so worked up about?


I think a better question to ask is:

Is Jamal Crawford significantly better than any 2 guard or combination of 2 guards on our roster?

By every objective measure -- not jib ratings or the "by playing the right way, we'll nip all this nasty losing in the bud, and we won't have to embrace that bad element in the league" bull**** propagated by Skiles and Paxson -- yes.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> At this pace of growth, he would be an All-Star in the year 3103.
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


And that would be about a thousand years before the next time the Bulls make the playoffs.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> At this pace of growth, he would be an All-Star in the year 3103.
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Downright silly.

NYC has a pretty big population and if they wanted to vote for Crawford to be an all-star, he has a real chance long before 3103.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I think a better question to ask is:
> 
> Is Jamal Crawford significantly better than any 2 guard or combination of 2 guards on our roster?
> 
> By every objective measure -- not jib ratings or the "by playing the right way, we'll nip all this nasty losing in the bud, and we won't have to embrace that bad element in the league" bull**** propagated by Skiles and Paxson -- yes.


Maybe that's the better question. I agree with your anwser.

But an even better question is if the Bulls do better with cap space.

And thats' what we just don't know at this time.


----------



## giusd

I must need some help with my math but the knicks do in fact have the 5th best record in the east. But maybe you will be telling me 2 +2 is really 5. The team is 6 and 5 please. 

I have never said the bulls are better than the knicks what i have said is the bulls will get better but the knicks are stuck as a first round lose in the playoffs and have no where to go but down.

The bulls have potential. But i forget potential is only when it has to do with JC. Stop being a self hating bulls fan.

david


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I have never said the bulls are better than the knicks what i have said is the bulls will get better but the knicks are stuck as a first round lose in the playoffs and have no where to go but down.


We are a lock to have the worst seven-year record in the HISTORY OF THE NBA. Think about that for a minute.

Maybe we should set our sights a little lower than establishing a ten-year title-winning dynasty and get ourselves out of that rut first.


----------



## giusd

Stop being a self hating bulls fan.

david


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Stop being a self hating bulls fan.
> 
> david


Who is self-hating?

We have the worst seven-year record in the history of a league that's had some really amazingly bad teams. You want things to stay the same. I want them to change.

Who is self-hating?


----------



## GB

I'm moderately impressed with Jamal and the Knicks. I'm not suprised at much he's done. I've always considered him as talented.

It's not a championship team by any stretch, and Jamal still has a lot to work on--but it's a good start for both.


----------



## The True Essence

> The knicks have had one of the easest schedules, period


They played the following teams ON THE ROAD so far:
Minnesota, Dallas, Houston, Indiana, San antonio. yeah, one of the easiest schedules, period!


----------



## truth

> It's not a championship team by any stretch, and Jamal still has a lot to work on


But Zeke has built a young solid core to build from..Marbury and crawford is a great backcourt and hopefully Sweetney and Ariza will soon follow.

JC is the real wild card as his game is so up and down.But he appears to be willing to work,and the talent is there.

Whats really interesting about him is,you dont realize how bad a point guard he is until marbury leaves and JC plays the point.He is really bad as a 1.Did you guys have him as your point guard last year or was it KH??


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe that's the better question. I agree with your anwser.
> 
> But an even better question is if the Bulls do better with cap space.
> 
> And thats' what we just don't know at this time.


How's ol' Cap Space shooting from behind the arc these days?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> But Zeke has built a young solid core to build from..Marbury and crawford is a great backcourt and hopefully Sweetney and Ariza will soon follow.
> 
> JC is the real wild card as his game is so up and down.But he appears to be willing to work,and the talent is there.
> 
> Whats really interesting about him is,you dont realize how bad a point guard he is until marbury leaves and JC plays the point.He is really bad as a 1.Did you guys have him as your point guard last year or was it KH??


JC started out as our PG. With him, we would be real close at half time and then he'd start gunning and shooting us out of games. We lost several like that by ~30 points.

Hinrich had some sort of virus at the start of the season and lost a lot of weight. He was unable to play. As soon as he was able to play, JC got moved to SG.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> But Zeke has built a young solid core to build from..Marbury and crawford is a great backcourt and hopefully Sweetney and Ariza will soon follow.
> 
> JC is the real wild card as his game is so up and down.But he appears to be willing to work,and the talent is there.


My earlier comments not withstanding, I will stick with a statement I made earlier:

Jamal won't start the fourth year of this contract in a Knicks uni. 

A couple of more seasons before he starts a Jalen like tour around the league.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> JC started out as our PG. With him, we would be real close at half time and then he'd start gunning and shooting us out of games. We lost several like that by ~30 points.


BLASHPHEMER!!!!! How dare you even suggest that Jamal shot us out of games at any time during his stay with the Bulls!

Be so warned. If you continue with these unwarranted and unsubstantiated instances of Jamal-Hate, you will be required to return your gold-plated Crawford Jock to the Society and your membership will be terminated without recourse!


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> BLASHPHEMER!!!!! How dare you even suggest that Jamal shot us out of games at any time during his stay with the Bulls!
> 
> Be so warned. If you continue with these unwarranted and unsubstantiated instances of Jamal-Hate, you will be required to return your gold-plated Crawford Jock to the Society and your membership will be terminated without recourse!


I hope people see that I call 'em as I see 'em.

He's suited to some minutes at PG. He may have been able to become a fine PG. He wasn't for us. 

As an SG, he was much better. He wasn't able to take the offense out of its rhythm or prevent it from getting started. And Hinrich was able to avoid passing to him whenever he felt like it.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I hope people see that I call 'em as I see 'em.
> 
> He's suited to some minutes at PG. He may have been able to become a fine PG. He wasn't for us.
> 
> As an SG, he was much better. He wasn't able to take the offense out of its rhythm or prevent it from getting started. And Hinrich was able to avoid passing to him whenever he felt like it.


I'm just playing with ya. You "call them as you see them". I'm supposedly a hater. This whole subject is comical. I'm hoping after this season this whole Crawford subject dies out much like Jordan being on the Wiz took a year or two to finally run its course.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich had some sort of virus at the start of the season and lost a lot of weight. He was unable to play. As soon as he was able to play, JC got moved to SG.


Not to shift gears too much here, but I believe the intention last year (before the Rose/Marshall trade) was to have Crawford and Rose start in the backcourt (with Pippen, Chandler, and Curry filling out the starting lineup). This of course was a disaster of a lineup; go back and look at the boxscores. Crawford wasn't running the offense as a true point guard should, but he still showed a knack for scoring. And since Hinrich was showing signs of being a starting caliber PG, then a Hinrich-Crawford pairing made loads of sense. This also was part of the reasoning for the Rose trade; I believe they call this addition by subtraction because it opened up huge minutes for Hinrich/Crawford.


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm just playing with ya. You "call them as you see them". I'm supposedly a hater. This whole subject is comical. I'm hoping after this season this whole Crawford subject dies out much like Jordan being on the Wiz took a year or two to finally run its course.


Is there anything we can do to speed up the process? I'm not a "hater," but I just don't care about Crawford anymore.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Is there anything we can do to speed up the process? I'm not a "hater," but I just don't care about Crawford anymore.


Maybe just ignoring this thread would be your best bet then


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Is there anything we can do to speed up the process? I'm not a "hater," but I just don't care about Crawford anymore.



:worship: :cheers:


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe just ignoring this thread would be your best bet then


I don't think its title is sufficiently conspicuous or unambiguous. Clearly any poster, even a frequent one, might open it looking for Skiles's latest comments on the situation in Darfur or instructions to John Paxson's summer sailing camp.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> Chronic denial.
> 
> He is a 24 year old, 6'5" SG/PG who is growing as a player every game. What makes you look silly is the return question: What the heck did the Bulls get for him?


Ok, there are some hard truths in the NBA, and one of these truths is that sign-and-trades almost never land you equal quality players in return. What did the Bulls get for Pippen when we sign-and-traded him to the Rockets? That might've been an even bigger joke of a trade. 

And to back up the last couple posts, I also am completely sick and tired of the Jamal Crawford update post being bumped. Likewise with that Jalen Rose/Donyell Marshall post. The Raptors and Knicks are completely irrelevent to what is going on in Bulls land right now.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, there are some hard truths in the NBA, and one of these truths is that sign-and-trades almost never land you equal quality players in return. What did the Bulls get for Pippen when we sign-and-traded him to the Rockets? That might've been an even bigger joke of a trade.
> 
> And to back up the last couple posts, I also am completely sick and tired of the Jamal Crawford update post being bumped. Likewise with that Jalen Rose/Donyell Marshall post. The Raptors and Knicks are completely irrelevent to what is going on in Bulls land right now.


easy answer...don't like the thread don't read it or post in it...problem solved. See how simple that was?  

I'm a problem solver! a unificator!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b> The Raptors and Knicks are completely irrelevent to what is going on in Bulls land right now.


And I would say that the success of Jamal in New York and the solid play from Rose and Marshall in Toronto has a lot to do with what is going on in Bulls land right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> easy answer...don't like the thread don't read it or post in it...problem solved. See how simple that was?
> 
> I'm a problem solver! a unificator!


yer a uniter, not a divider


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, there are some hard truths in the NBA, and one of these truths is that sign-and-trades almost never land you equal quality players in return. What did the Bulls get for Pippen when we sign-and-traded him to the Rockets? That might've been an even bigger joke of a trade.


Outstanding point.

The Rockets couldn't have paid Pippen what he got without the Bulls being willing to do a sign and trade. Krause got a lot of cap space a year down the road (which he didn't/couldn't use very effectively) and Pippen got his big payday.

Crawford didn't receive any straight free agent offers approaching what he ended up getting from the sign-and-trade. In return, Paxson was able to get rid of a contract he didn't want (Williams).

As you pointed out, sign-and-trades are seldom "talent-for-talent" deals. In both of these cases, the Bulls got something that _might_ prove useful (future cap relief) for a talent they didn't want to commit to. In both cases, the exiting Bulls' players were big winners.


----------



## mizenkay

well when you live in nyc it's kinda hard to avoid...but here is what len berman on wnbc4 just said on the news as the highlights of the knicks/hawks game was played...

"jamal for three...miss
jamal for three...miss
and one more time...miss

(cut to shot of lenny just shaking his head in utter disgust)

but when the game was on the line, he makes it.

jamal crawford - the classic playground chucker, never met a shot he didn't like."

that made me laugh. 

and yes, i know, they won.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

update: the rumor mill is suggesting that Jamal did in fact decide to wear pants today. More on this as it develops.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> update: the rumor mill is suggesting that Jamal did in fact decide to wear pants today. More on this as it develops.


See......... I knew Jamal and I had something in common! I am also wearing pants today!

Jamal and Kirk have a lot in common too. Got to NBA.com and pull up their player comparisons. Jamal is scoring 5 more ppg than Kirk, meanwhile Kirk is dishing 4 more apg than Jamal. Otherwise, every other difference appears to be statistically insignificant. It's amazing to me how so many fans can hate one and love the other as far as their statistics are concerned.

FWIW -- Kirk has a higher efficiency rating. This point aimed at all posts asking "what guard or combo of guards do we have on the Bull who come close to JC?"

Interesting to compare JC and Deng, too.


----------



## kukoc4ever

crawford's team
7-6

hinrich's, deng's team
1-10

really interesting.

A PG with more assists than a SG? Shocking! 




> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> See......... I knew Jamal and I had something in common! I am also wearing pants today!
> 
> Jamal and Kirk have a lot in common too. Got to NBA.com and pull up their player comparisons. Jamal is scoring 5 more ppg than Kirk, meanwhile Kirk is dishing 4 more apg than Jamal. Otherwise, every other difference appears to be statistically insignificant. It's amazing to me how so many fans can hate one and love the other as far as their statistics are concerned.
> 
> FWIW -- Kirk has a higher efficiency rating. This point aimed at all posts asking "what guard or combo of guards do we have on the Bull who come close to JC?"
> 
> Interesting to compare JC and Deng, too.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> crawford's team
> 7-6
> 
> hinrich's, deng's team
> 1-10
> 
> really interesting.
> 
> A PG with more assists than a SG? Shocking!


And the award for missing the point goes to..................


----------



## ace20004u

I watched the game last night and I have to say that in spite of not having great shooting night Jamal Crawford still had a good floor game. He did a nice job of finding open guys and generaly helped the Knicks pull out a win.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> crawford's team
> 7-6
> 
> hinrich's, deng's team
> 1-10
> 
> really interesting.
> 
> A PG with more assists than a SG? Shocking!


This quote interests me. The inference I get is that the Knicks would not be 7-6 (or even 8-6 as of this writing) without Crawford and the reason the Bulls are 1-10 (or now 2-10 as of this writing) is because Jamal is no longer a Bull.

I'm wondering, Kukoc4Ever, do you think the Knicks would have a similar record this far into the season if Crawford was not on the Knicks? Would their record be more like 3-10 or 4-9?


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> This quote interests me. The inference I get is that the Knicks would not be 7-6 (or even 8-6 as of this writing) without Crawford and the reason the Bulls are 1-10 (or now 2-10 as of this writing) is because Jamal is no longer a Bull.
> 
> I'm wondering, Kukoc4Ever, do you think the Knicks would have a similar record this far into the season if Crawford was not on the Knicks? Would their record be more like 3-10 or 4-9?


they would be worse that much is for certain, crawford is still much better than penny or ariza , its pretty reasonable to assume they would be a few games worse without him, they are 8-6 so maybe down to 5-9, how many teams can lose a guy who avg. lets say 18-20 a game and nothing to replace and still be a decent team , the knicks aren't one of them , if nothing else JC is plugging a void that houston left, when houston comes back we'll see crawford's value even more , because they will be even less reliant of his inconsistency, when he plays well he'll play more when that isn't the case he'll play less , houston is as steady as they come as is marbury this season , add to that any combo of kurt thomas tim thomas nazr and JC , how much does a team need to play well to win games usually 3 will do it on any given night as long as the rest play their roles.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> This quote interests me. The inference I get is that the Knicks would not be 7-6 (or even 8-6 as of this writing) without Crawford and the reason the Bulls are 1-10 (or now 2-10 as of this writing) is because Jamal is no longer a Bull.
> 
> I'm wondering, Kukoc4Ever, do you think the Knicks would have a similar record this far into the season if Crawford was not on the Knicks? Would their record be more like 3-10 or 4-9?


Its hard to say. 

I think if you replace Crawford with Pike/Gordon that they are under .500, yes. But... I can't prove it. 

EDIT: Penny was out for the start of the season , yes? I'm from the camp that a winning NBA team consists of several good/great NBA players and that Crawford is an asset.

EDIT2: I think the Bulls would be better off with Jamal.


----------



## giusd

I think JC has clearly helped the knicks win a couple of more games but some of that is due to houston being out. If he is on the bulls what we are 3 and 9, ? maybe 4 and 8, maybe just 2 and 10.

I have tried to watch the knicks since they are on early on the east coast. I still say this, JC's game is much unchanged from last year. He does however, IMHO, make marbery a much better player and they have great chemistry and marbery has hugely elevated his game this year and i think JC has a lot to do with this. IN addition, i think JC is not rushing it as much this year and looks more comfortable, but he is also on a veteran team.

On the other hand if you look at his stats they are mostly unchanged from last year. Around 39% FG's, 35% from 3, but his rebounds and dimes are down but i think this mostly due to marbery's game. You can say what you want, this is his 5th year, IMHO this is his game, up and down, weak D, strong O, around 40% FG% and a couple of FT per game. 

david


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> they would be worse that much is for certain, crawford is still much better than penny or ariza , its pretty reasonable to assume they would be a few games worse without him, they are 8-6 so maybe down to 5-9, how many teams can lose a guy who avg. lets say 18-20 a game and nothing to replace and still be a decent team , the knicks aren't one of them , if nothing else JC is plugging a void that houston left, when houston comes back we'll see crawford's value even more , because they will be even less reliant of his inconsistency, when he plays well he'll play more when that isn't the case he'll play less , houston is as steady as they come as is marbury this season , add to that any combo of kurt thomas tim thomas nazr and JC , how much does a team need to play well to win games usually 3 will do it on any given night as long as the rest play their roles.


This is the response that I was looking for. Thank you. I'll agree with the later part of this quote, that when Houston comes back and Jamal takes a back seat to the more consistant player that the Knicks will transform from a pretty average team in a weak division to a top three or four Eastern Conference team. I also agree with the reasons that you cite - when Jamal is hot, play him, when he's off you have the luxury of playing Houston more. That will make the Knicks a very good ballclub.

Where I will disagree with you is in the initial part of your post. Last season the Knicks finished with a 39-43 record. Slightly below average if you determine that .500 defines average. The Knicks were 14-21 before the arrival of Stephon Marbury and 25-22 after it. They were 7 games below .500 before Stephon and 3 games above .500 with him. The Knicks were 21-27 when Allan Houston went down. (He did play a few games in March but then went right back to the IL and for simplicitys purposes I'm just glossing over those games). He was replaced by a platoon of players like Shandon Anderson, Penny Hardaway, Frank Williams and Moochie Norris. The Knick record during that time was 18-16, or 2 games over .500 while losing a 18-20 ppg scorer.

It seems to me that the 2003-04 Knicks did just fine without Houston and were playing on a clip similar to what they are playing now. If I'm looking at the numbers I'd arrive at the conclusion that Crawford is similar to Anderson, Hardaway, Norris or Williams. In other words, Jamal hasn't really effected the Knicks fortunes one way or the other because the 2004-05 version of the Knicks is pretty much the same as the 03-04 version.

When Houston comes back and Crawford takes his role as a gunner off the bench, I agree that you'll see the Knicks really start to play well.

I read all these posts about Crawfords' successes in New York and I wonder what folks are talking about. I get the feeling that certain posters attribute the Knicks record to Jamal being on the team and from what I can see it stands to reason that the Knicks would pretty much be playing at the same clip with or without Jamal. Then I think maybe they say he's playing better and I look at those stats. Is his shooting percentage better? Let's see... He's 38.1% from the field and 33.7% from 3-point land this year. He shot 38.6% last year and 31.7% from behind the arc. Nope, not a whole lot there. How about scoring? This year 17.6ppg. Last year 17.3ppg. Maybe I'm missing something. Do you, or anyone else, realize that Jamal has almost half the three point attempts on the Knicks? They have taken 203 attempts for the year and Jamal has 98 of those.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Jamal is on a team winning more games because *gasp* he's got better teammates. Maybe, just maybe, the Knicks are 2 games above .500 not because of him but despite him because from what I can tell, the Knicks without Houston or Crawford but with Marbury were playing at the same clip they are now. It'd be quite refreshing to simply view Crawford as a decent complimentary player and not as this franchise saviour that some (not necessarily you Grinch) portray him as.

It'd also be nice to move on. I've written my peace and you or any other Crawford supporter can call me whatever names you'd like. Hater. Whatever. Stick Crawford on a good team and that team will continue to have a good record.  Place him on a poor team and that team would continue to have a poor record.

Have a nice day!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> This is the response that I was looking for. Thank you. I'll agree with the later part of this quote, that when Houston comes back and Jamal takes a back seat to the more consistant player that the Knicks will transform from a pretty average team in a weak division to a top three or four Eastern Conference team. I also agree with the reasons that you cite - when Jamal is hot, play him, when he's off you have the luxury of playing Houston more. That will make the Knicks a very good ballclub.
> 
> Where I will disagree with you is in the initial part of your post. Last season the Knicks finished with a 39-43 record. Slightly below average if you determine that .500 defines average. The Knicks were 14-21 before the arrival of Stephon Marbury and 25-22 after it. They were 7 games below .500 before Stephon and 3 games above .500 with him. The Knicks were 21-27 when Allan Houston went down. (He did play a few games in March but then went right back to the IL and for simplicitys purposes I'm just glossing over those games). He was replaced by a platoon of players like Shandon Anderson, Penny Hardaway, Frank Williams and Moochie Norris. The Knick record during that time was 18-16, or 2 games over .500 while losing a 18-20 ppg scorer.
> 
> It seems to me that the 2003-04 Knicks did just fine without Houston and were playing on a clip similar to what they are playing now. If I'm looking at the numbers I'd arrive at the conclusion that Crawford is similar to Anderson, Hardaway, Norris or Williams. In other words, Jamal hasn't really effected the Knicks fortunes one way or the other because the 2004-05 version of the Knicks is pretty much the same as the 03-04 version.
> 
> When Houston comes back and Crawford takes his role as a gunner off the bench, I agree that you'll see the Knicks really start to play well.
> 
> I read all these posts about Crawfords' successes in New York and I wonder what folks are talking about. I get the feeling that certain posters attribute the Knicks record to Jamal being on the team and from what I can see it stands to reason that the Knicks would pretty much be playing at the same clip with or without Jamal. Then I think maybe they say he's playing better and I look at those stats. Is his shooting percentage better? Let's see... He's 38.1% from the field and 33.7% from 3-point land this year. He shot 38.6% last year and 31.7% from behind the arc. Nope, not a whole lot there. How about scoring? This year 17.6ppg. Last year 17.3ppg. Maybe I'm missing something. Do you, or anyone else, realize that Jamal has almost half the three point attempts on the Knicks? They have taken 203 attempts for the year and Jamal has 98 of those.
> 
> Perhaps, just perhaps, Jamal is on a team winning more games because *gasp* he's got better teammates. Maybe, just maybe, the Knicks are 2 games above .500 not because of him but despite him because from what I can tell, the Knicks without Houston or Crawford but with Marbury were playing at the same clip they are now. It'd be quite refreshing to simply view Crawford as a decent complimentary player and not as this franchise saviour that some (not necessarily you Grinch) portray him as.
> 
> It'd also be nice to move on. I've written my peace and you or any other Crawford supporter can call me whatever names you'd like. Hater. Whatever. Stick Crawford on a good team and that team will continue to have a good record. Place him on a poor team and that team would continue to have a poor record.
> 
> Have a nice day!



A team is 8-6 with Crawford logging the 2nd most minutes and taking the most shots. This would have been considered an impossibility I think by many on this board.

Yes, of course his teammates matter. I don't think anyone would claim that Crawford can single-handedly carry a franchise on his back. Very few players in the NBA can do this, if any. 

The Bulls have one less good player on the roster and replaced him with NOTHING.

An NBA team can win with Crawford being one of the main contributors. These are the types of players the Bulls need.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> The Bulls have one less good player on the roster and replaced him with NOTHING.


Sometimes you can add by subtracting...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Sometimes you can add by subtracting...


And that's what many anti-crawford people think.

But... if he's such a negative... than i'm surprised that Knicks are 8-6 with him playing the 2nd most minutes and taking the most shots. Nazr must *really* be picking up Jamal's slack.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> This is the response that I was looking for. Thank you. I'll agree with the later part of this quote, that when Houston comes back and Jamal takes a back seat to the more consistant player that the Knicks will transform from a pretty average team in a weak division to a top three or four Eastern Conference team. I also agree with the reasons that you cite - when Jamal is hot, play him, when he's off you have the luxury of playing Houston more. That will make the Knicks a very good ballclub.
> 
> Where I will disagree with you is in the initial part of your post. Last season the Knicks finished with a 39-43 record. Slightly below average if you determine that .500 defines average. The Knicks were 14-21 before the arrival of Stephon Marbury and 25-22 after it. They were 7 games below .500 before Stephon and 3 games above .500 with him. The Knicks were 21-27 when Allan Houston went down. (He did play a few games in March but then went right back to the IL and for simplicitys purposes I'm just glossing over those games). He was replaced by a platoon of players like Shandon Anderson, Penny Hardaway, Frank Williams and Moochie Norris. The Knick record during that time was 18-16, or 2 games over .500 while losing a 18-20 ppg scorer.
> 
> It seems to me that the 2003-04 Knicks did just fine without Houston and were playing on a clip similar to what they are playing now. If I'm looking at the numbers I'd arrive at the conclusion that Crawford is similar to Anderson, Hardaway, Norris or Williams. In other words, Jamal hasn't really effected the Knicks fortunes one way or the other because the 2004-05 version of the Knicks is pretty much the same as the 03-04 version.
> 
> When Houston comes back and Crawford takes his role as a gunner off the bench, I agree that you'll see the Knicks really start to play well.
> 
> I read all these posts about Crawfords' successes in New York and I wonder what folks are talking about. I get the feeling that certain posters attribute the Knicks record to Jamal being on the team and from what I can see it stands to reason that the Knicks would pretty much be playing at the same clip with or without Jamal. Then I think maybe they say he's playing better and I look at those stats. Is his shooting percentage better? Let's see... He's 38.1% from the field and 33.7% from 3-point land this year. He shot 38.6% last year and 31.7% from behind the arc. Nope, not a whole lot there. How about scoring? This year 17.6ppg. Last year 17.3ppg. Maybe I'm missing something. Do you, or anyone else, realize that Jamal has almost half the three point attempts on the Knicks? They have taken 203 attempts for the year and Jamal has 98 of those.
> 
> Perhaps, just perhaps, Jamal is on a team winning more games because *gasp* he's got better teammates. Maybe, just maybe, the Knicks are 2 games above .500 not because of him but despite him because from what I can tell, the Knicks without Houston or Crawford but with Marbury were playing at the same clip they are now. It'd be quite refreshing to simply view Crawford as a decent complimentary player and not as this franchise saviour that some (not necessarily you Grinch) portray him as.
> 
> It'd also be nice to move on. I've written my peace and you or any other Crawford supporter can call me whatever names you'd like. Hater. Whatever. Stick Crawford on a good team and that team will continue to have a good record. Place him on a poor team and that team would continue to have a poor record.
> 
> Have a nice day!


allan houston played in most of those games last season with stephon marbury.

from the tone of your post i kind of gathered you missed that pretty important fact., he missed all of training camp made it in for opening day played something like 47 minutes in the 1st game got injured soon thereafter due to playing too much too soon, he was hurt when stephon was traded to them and had been out for a couple of weeks minimum.

houston played more games with marbury than he missed , an important fact when gathering that 25-22 record.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And that's what many anti-crawford people think.
> 
> But... if he's such a negative... than i'm surprised that Knicks are 8-6 with him playing the 2nd most minutes and taking the most shots.


Ok...lets give them KH and let us take Marbury...and see if that 8-6 and 2-10 holds up...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok...lets give them KH and let us take Marbury...and see if that 8-6 and 2-10 holds up...


Marbury has not shown in the past that he can be the main man on a winning basketball team (KG, Matrix).

If there are a host of NYK ballers that are considered "better" than Crawford, then they must be close to mutiny given that Jamal has the most FGA and 2nd most minutes.

I'm content to say that so far, a team with Crawford taking the most shots and playing the 2nd most minutes is a winning, division leading, bound for the NBA playoffs team and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I'm content to say that so far, a team with Crawford taking the most shots and playing the 2nd most minutes is a winning, division leading, bound for the NBA playoffs team and....


...it's all in spite of Jamal.  

Seriously K4...for them to go deep into the playoffs, Jamal is going to have to slide to the third option. They simply can't get the bling with him "taking the most shots and playing the 2nd most minutes".


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> ...it's all in spite of Jamal.
> 
> Seriously K4...for them to go deep into the playoffs, Jamal is going to have to slide to the third option. They simply can't get the bling with him "taking the most shots and playing the 2nd most minutes".


The Knicks need an another very strong player in order to be a great team, I agree. Right now they are just decent. I wish the Bulls were decent.

Allan Houston already has some bling.


----------



## GB

In other words: Jamal is playing the 2nd most minutes and taking the most shots and the team is only decent because of it.

Interesting.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> allan houston played in most of those games last season with stephon marbury.
> 
> from the tone of your post i kind of gathered you missed that pretty important fact., he missed all of training camp made it in for opening day played something like 47 minutes in the 1st game got injured soon thereafter due to playing too much too soon, he was hurt when stephon was traded to them and had been out for a couple of weeks minimum.
> 
> houston played more games with marbury than he missed , an important fact when gathering that 25-22 record.


You really ought to check your statements before you make them, but then again, that's noting new for you...

Marbury’s first game with NY was Jan 6 @ Cleveland. Their record prior to that game was 14-21. 35 games without Marbury AND Houston.

They played together: Jan 6 loss to Cleveland
Jan 8 loss to Houston
Jan 10 win to Mil
Jan 12 loss to Dallas
Jan 14 win to Orlando
Jan 16 win to Seattle
Jan 17 win to Chicago
Jan 19 win to Toronto
Jan 21 loss to Houston
Jan 23 win to Atlanta
Jan 24 loss to Miami
Jan 27 loss to San Antonio
Jan 30 Houston DNP Knick win to Boston
Jan 31 Houston DNP Knick win to Pheonix
Feb 3 Houston on IL Knick win to Indiana
Feb 7 Houston on IL Knick win to Miami
Feb 8 Houston on IL Knick win to LAC
Feb 10 Houston on IL Knick loss to Dallas
Feb 11 Houston on IL Knick loss to New Orleans
Feb 17 Houston on IL Knicks over Detroit
Feb 20 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Utah
Feb 22 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Cleveland
Feb 24 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Sac
Feb 25 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Pheonix
Feb 27 Houston on IL Knicks loss to LAC
Feb 29 Loss to Denver – Houston back
Mar 3 win to Philly
Mar 5 win to Toronto
Mar 7 win to Wash.
Mar 9 loss to Boston
Mar 12 loss to Philly
Mar 14 win to Milwaukee
Mar 16 win to Wash. (Houston 9 mins)
Mar 19 Houston DNP Win to NJ
Mar 20 Houston DNP Loss to Chi.
Mar 22 Houston DNP Win to Atlanta
Mar 24 Houston DNP Loss to Memphis
Mar 26 Win to Toronto (Houston 8 mins)
Mar 27 Houston DNP Loss to Det.
Mar 29 Houston DNP Win to Portland
April 7 games Houston on IL (4 wins 3 losses)

Games w/Marbury and Houston: 21 Record: 12-9
Games w/out marbury and houston: 26 Record: 13-13
Games prior to Marbury: 35 Record: 14-21
Total games 82. Total record: 39-43

From where I stand Marbury and Houston played in a total of 21 games together and in two of those Houston barely played and I'm giving those to you. While Marbury was with the team, he played WITHOUT Houston in 26 games. Last time I checked, 26 games WITHOUT Houston was more than 21 games WITH Houston. But what the hell, you've never been one to actually take the time to make sure about much of anything. It's hard for me to miss this supposed pretty important FACT that you say I missed when it's been PROVEN that your FACTUAL statement above about Houston and Marbury playing more games together than they missed is pretty much a moot point. 

I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd at least put forth a modicum of effort to make sure of your supposed FACTS.

Thank you and still have a nice day!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> In other words: Jamal is playing the 2nd most minutes and taking the most shots and the team is only decent because of it.
> 
> Interesting.


You'll never hear me say Crawford is a superstar.

He's not paid like a superstar either.

Like I said... I wish the Bulls were as good as the Knicks are. How many years until we get to be 8-6?


----------



## kukoc4ever

.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I wish the Bulls were as good as the Knicks are. How many years until we get to be 8-6?


Not at the price that the Knicks have paid though.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> You really ought to check your statements before you make them, but then again, that's noting new for you...
> 
> Marbury’s first game with NY was Jan 6 @ Cleveland. Their record prior to that game was 14-21. 35 games without Marbury AND Houston.
> 
> They played together: Jan 6 loss to Cleveland
> Jan 8 loss to Houston
> Jan 10 win to Mil
> Jan 12 loss to Dallas
> Jan 14 win to Orlando
> Jan 16 win to Seattle
> Jan 17 win to Chicago
> Jan 19 win to Toronto
> Jan 21 loss to Houston
> Jan 23 win to Atlanta
> Jan 24 loss to Miami
> Jan 27 loss to San Antonio
> Jan 30 Houston DNP Knick win to Boston
> Jan 31 Houston DNP Knick win to Pheonix
> Feb 3 Houston on IL Knick win to Indiana
> Feb 7 Houston on IL Knick win to Miami
> Feb 8 Houston on IL Knick win to LAC
> Feb 10 Houston on IL Knick loss to Dallas
> Feb 11 Houston on IL Knick loss to New Orleans
> Feb 17 Houston on IL Knicks over Detroit
> Feb 20 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Utah
> Feb 22 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Cleveland
> Feb 24 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Sac
> Feb 25 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Pheonix
> Feb 27 Houston on IL Knicks loss to LAC
> Feb 29 Loss to Denver – Houston back
> Mar 3 win to Philly
> Mar 5 win to Toronto
> Mar 7 win to Wash.
> Mar 9 loss to Boston
> Mar 12 loss to Philly
> Mar 14 win to Milwaukee
> Mar 16 win to Wash. (Houston 9 mins)
> Mar 19 Houston DNP Win to NJ
> Mar 20 Houston DNP Loss to Chi.
> Mar 22 Houston DNP Win to Atlanta
> Mar 24 Houston DNP Loss to Memphis
> Mar 26 Win to Toronto (Houston 8 mins)
> Mar 27 Houston DNP Loss to Det.
> Mar 29 Houston DNP Win to Portland
> April 7 games Houston on IL (4 wins 3 losses)
> 
> Games w/Marbury and Houston: 21 Record: 12-9
> Games w/out marbury and houston: 26 Record: 13-13
> Games prior to Marbury: 35 Record: 14-21
> Total games 82. Total record: 39-43
> 
> From where I stand Marbury and Houston played in a total of 21 games together and in two of those Houston barely played and I'm giving those to you. While Marbury was with the team, he played WITHOUT Houston in 26 games. Last time I checked, 26 games WITHOUT Houston was more than 21 games WITH Houston. But what the hell, you've never been one to actually take the time to make sure about much of anything. It's hard for me to miss this supposed pretty important FACT that you say I missed when it's been PROVEN that your FACTUAL statement above about Houston and Marbury playing more games together than they missed is pretty much a moot point.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd at least put forth a modicum of effort to make sure of your supposed FACTS.
> 
> Thank you and still have a nice day!




Great info and great post.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Not at the price that the Knicks have paid though.


Wow I doubt they would think that 5.8 million is too much to above .500 for the first time in 3 years especially since they were capped out anyway .

Jamal Crawford has not saved the knicks but he is a huge part of their success this year .

Is he single handedly carrying them ?No he is not but I dont think anyone is saying that .In fact all anyone has said was that he has improved their team and if he was still on the Bulls we would be a better team as well.


----------



## GB

I was talking about the capped out Knicks paying for a barely above .500 team...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Dallas is second in payroll to the knicks and they are second in their division .The Twolves are 5th and they are second in their division. 

I dont know why capspace always get equated to the franchise doing good.

The Hawks have a 39 million dollar payroll and they have the second worst record in the league and everyone talks as though they are accountants and its their money.I could care less whether the payroll is 1 dollar of 1 billion dollar as long as we have a winning product oin the floor .


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> You really ought to check your statements before you make them, but then again, that's noting new for you...
> 
> Marbury’s first game with NY was Jan 6 @ Cleveland. Their record prior to that game was 14-21. 35 games without Marbury AND Houston.
> 
> They played together: Jan 6 loss to Cleveland
> Jan 8 loss to Houston
> Jan 10 win to Mil
> Jan 12 loss to Dallas
> Jan 14 win to Orlando
> Jan 16 win to Seattle
> Jan 17 win to Chicago
> Jan 19 win to Toronto
> Jan 21 loss to Houston
> Jan 23 win to Atlanta
> Jan 24 loss to Miami
> Jan 27 loss to San Antonio
> Jan 30 Houston DNP Knick win to Boston
> Jan 31 Houston DNP Knick win to Pheonix
> Feb 3 Houston on IL Knick win to Indiana
> Feb 7 Houston on IL Knick win to Miami
> Feb 8 Houston on IL Knick win to LAC
> Feb 10 Houston on IL Knick loss to Dallas
> Feb 11 Houston on IL Knick loss to New Orleans
> Feb 17 Houston on IL Knicks over Detroit
> Feb 20 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Utah
> Feb 22 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Cleveland
> Feb 24 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Sac
> Feb 25 Houston on IL Knicks loss to Pheonix
> Feb 27 Houston on IL Knicks loss to LAC
> Feb 29 Loss to Denver – Houston back
> Mar 3 win to Philly
> Mar 5 win to Toronto
> Mar 7 win to Wash.
> Mar 9 loss to Boston
> Mar 12 loss to Philly
> Mar 14 win to Milwaukee
> Mar 16 win to Wash. (Houston 9 mins)
> Mar 19 Houston DNP Win to NJ
> Mar 20 Houston DNP Loss to Chi.
> Mar 22 Houston DNP Win to Atlanta
> Mar 24 Houston DNP Loss to Memphis
> Mar 26 Win to Toronto (Houston 8 mins)
> Mar 27 Houston DNP Loss to Det.
> Mar 29 Houston DNP Win to Portland
> April 7 games Houston on IL (4 wins 3 losses)
> 
> Games w/Marbury and Houston: 21 Record: 12-9
> Games w/out marbury and houston: 26 Record: 13-13
> Games prior to Marbury: 35 Record: 14-21
> Total games 82. Total record: 39-43
> 
> From where I stand Marbury and Houston played in a total of 21 games together and in two of those Houston barely played and I'm giving those to you. While Marbury was with the team, he played WITHOUT Houston in 26 games. Last time I checked, 26 games WITHOUT Houston was more than 21 games WITH Houston. But what the hell, you've never been one to actually take the time to make sure about much of anything. It's hard for me to miss this supposed pretty important FACT that you say I missed when it's been PROVEN that your FACTUAL statement above about Houston and Marbury playing more games together than they missed is pretty much a moot point.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd at least put forth a modicum of effort to make sure of your supposed FACTS.
> 
> Thank you and still have a nice day!


you know what you are right i made mistake i though marbury was traded in mid december , that was my mistake.

but lets get to your supposed point , there was a point to this right? Mine is the knicks are a better team with crawford than they would have been without him, my contention a few games or so . Its an easy way to see it, he has 2 game winning shots and another game he scored 30 in a 6 point win.

winning % last year w/ marbury & houston .571% (12-9)

just marbury .500


this season jc and marbury winning % .571(8-6)

and this is not to say crawford is as good as houston , but it is worth noting the last few days the knicks have been hinting the starting spot belongs to crawford whenever houston comes back (most likely next week) I happen to believe houston is a pretty good player , as do most people who you know have heard of nba basketball, so maybe that crawford guy is too.


since its is suppoosedly your belief that crawford is just a gunner, who is no better than shandon anderson, frank williams, moochie norris or penny hardaway is just silly , if he were no better why isn't shandon a knick, or penny starting , after all penny makes max $, frank williams has spent most of the season the IL of a 2-10 team and moochie norris in currently on the IL basically their 4th string pg behind Marbury JC, and jamison brewer .All the while crawford is 2nd on the bulls in minutes playing more than anyone currently on the chicago bulls(and thats with him leaving a game in the 1st quarter due to injury) but wait the knicks are in a conspiracy with me right just to prove a point on an internet message board. 

get real.

and for your information , when you wish someone a nice day , it helps if it actually daytime for effect , not 10:19 pm, it sounds foolish, like wishing somebody a happy thanksgiving on valentine's day.

have a nice day.


----------



## lorgg

I'll say it once..I'll say it again...

From the press I've read, Pax was to stay under the luxury tax. I believe this is an edict from his boss. Pax couldn't have kept him.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Dallas is second in payroll to the knicks and they are second in their division .The Twolves are 5th and they are second in their division.
> 
> I dont know why capspace always get equated to the franchise doing good.
> 
> The Hawks have a 39 million dollar payroll and they have the second worst record in the league and everyone talks as though they are accountants and its their money.I could care less whether the payroll is 1 dollar of 1 billion dollar as long as we have a winning product oin the floor .


Cap space doesn't equate to being good. But what maximum cap space does is give lowly teams a chance to make a one-season turnaround by signing a true impact player. We witnessed this last season with the Heat signing Odom. We're witnessing it this season with the Suns signing Nash and to a lesser extent Q. It's a gamble and obviously many teams strike out with their cap space. But if you're realistic with your target and get a little lucky with a certain free agent pool, then your team's fortunes can take a 180-degree turn.


----------



## yodurk

*Jamal update*

Here's a lesson on the law of averages and how it pertains to Jamal the Great. People get all hyped up about him being an all-star quality player because he's shooting a whopping 42% from the field while pouring in 18 ppg. Well, as of today (Dec. 3rd), the law of averages has dragged Mr. Crawford's numbers to almost identical production to last year. He's currently shooting 38.1% FG, 33.7% 3pt, 82.5% FT, 17.6 ppg, 3.1 reb, 3.9 asst, 2.3 TO, and 1.6 stl. So I ask you, how is this guy showing signs of playing on another level? Other than being on a mediocre team that's sitting atop the weakest division in the NBA?


----------



## ace20004u

*Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> Here's a lesson on the law of averages and how it pertains to Jamal the Great. People get all hyped up about him being an all-star quality player because he's shooting a whopping 42% from the field while pouring in 18 ppg. Well, as of today (Dec. 3rd), the law of averages has dragged Mr. Crawford's numbers to almost identical production to last year. He's currently shooting 38.1% FG, 33.7% 3pt, 82.5% FT, 17.6 ppg, 3.1 reb, 3.9 asst, 2.3 TO, and 1.6 stl. So I ask you, how is this guy showing signs of playing on another level? Other than being on a mediocre team that's sitting atop the weakest division in the NBA?


Maybe you should watch him play. He had a bad shooting night their last game but contributed in other ways. And I am pretty sure he will have a good night or two soon and push his average back up which will undoubtedly frustrate all of his detracting bean counters.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe you should watch him play. He had a bad shooting night their last game but contributed in other ways. And I am pretty sure he will have a good night or two soon and push his average back up which will undoubtedly frustrate all of his detracting bean counters.


You're right, he'll definitely have more big games where he shoots the ball great. And then the law of averages will kick in once again and he'll have another couple of nights where he's shooting 5-20. I'm saying that he'll be struggling his whole career to be over 40% from the field. That's the nature of jumpshooting guards who don't get to the basket enough. Your exceptions here are the real pureshooter types like Jeff Hornacek or Allan Houston, which Jamal is not. 

Btw, I thought that Knicks and Bulls fans were supposed to be natural enemies after the rivalry of the 90's. I really don't understand why all these Bulls fans are taking sides with anything Knick-related. Let's stand by our team, people.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Not at the price that the Knicks have paid though.


What does it cost you? I'm not rooting for my team to climb the Forbes list, I'm rooting for them to climb the NBA standings.

You think the ticket prices are going to be lower due to his frugalness?

Your team may be in the playoffs... but we're.... we're.... MORE FRUGAL!!! Yah!! WE'RE DOWNRIGHT CHINCEY!! Y'all a bunca SPENDTHRIFTS!!!


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Maybe you should watch him play. He had a bad shooting night their last game but contributed in other ways. And I am pretty sure he will have a good night or two soon and push his average back up which will undoubtedly frustrate all of his detracting bean counters.


His average is nearly identical to his career average. The bean counters may have a point.

The true belivevers could be wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> His average is nearly identical to his career average. The bean counters may have a point.
> 
> The true belivevers could be wrong.


8-6.
He can be a key guy on a winning team.
The guy who traded him for NOTHING is one of the worst GMs W-L wise in NBA history.


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> you know what you are right i made mistake i though marbury was traded in mid december , that was my mistake.
> 
> but lets get to your supposed point , there was a point to this right? Mine is the knicks are a better team with crawford than they would have been without him, my contention a few games or so . Its an easy way to see it, he has 2 game winning shots and another game he scored 30 in a 6 point win.
> 
> winning % last year w/ marbury & houston .571% (12-9)
> 
> just marbury .500
> 
> 
> this season jc and marbury winning % .571(8-6)
> 
> and this is not to say crawford is as good as houston , but it is worth noting the last few days the knicks have been hinting the starting spot belongs to crawford whenever houston comes back (most likely next week) I happen to believe houston is a pretty good player , as do most people who you know have heard of nba basketball, so maybe that crawford guy is too.
> 
> 
> since its is suppoosedly your belief that crawford is just a gunner, who is no better than shandon anderson, frank williams, moochie norris or penny hardaway is just silly , if he were no better why isn't shandon a knick, or penny starting , after all penny makes max $, frank williams has spent most of the season the IL of a 2-10 team and moochie norris in currently on the IL basically their 4th string pg behind Marbury JC, and jamison brewer .All the while crawford is 2nd on the bulls in minutes playing more than anyone currently on the chicago bulls(and thats with him leaving a game in the 1st quarter due to injury) but wait the knicks are in a conspiracy with me right just to prove a point on an internet message board.
> 
> get real.
> 
> and for your information , when you wish someone a nice day , it helps if it actually daytime for effect , not 10:19 pm, it sounds foolish, like wishing somebody a happy thanksgiving on valentine's day.
> 
> have a nice day.


I just don't have the time to waste on you or this subject anymore. If you want to believe that Jamal is this wonderfully talented career 38% shooter who is making a great deal of difference with the Knicks - go right ahead. It simply is no longer worth my time or effort. I'm doing the exact thing I didn't want to do and that is to reply to the talking heads in this thread who are convinced beyond all reason that Crawford is much better than an average basketball player. I'm done with it. 

Have a nice life!

(Is that better? It's more ambiguous and as such it is not dependant on the time of day it was written or read. I'm ever-so-glad that there are people like yourself who feel the need to exercise and enforce correct grammar on these boards. When people flippantly use such vitally important turns of phrases like "have a nice day" and they're written after sunset, they SHOULD be called out. I appreciate you for putting me properly in my place.)


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I just don't have the time to waste on you or this subject anymore. If you want to believe that Jamal is this wonderfully talented career 38% shooter who is making a great deal of difference with the Knicks - go right ahead.




He's a career 40% shooter, based on conventional rounding. 

39.6% to 1 decimal place.

Sometimes the hate can blind you. 

Perhaps you were confusing him with Kirk Hinrich. He's a career 38.5% shooter.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> Here's a lesson on the law of averages and how it pertains to Jamal the Great. People get all hyped up about him being an all-star quality player because he's shooting a whopping 42% from the field while pouring in 18 ppg. Well, as of today (Dec. 3rd), the law of averages has dragged Mr. Crawford's numbers to almost identical production to last year. He's currently shooting 38.1% FG, 33.7% 3pt, 82.5% FT, 17.6 ppg, 3.1 reb, 3.9 asst, 2.3 TO, and 1.6 stl. So I ask you, how is this guy showing signs of playing on another level? Other than being on a mediocre team that's sitting atop the weakest division in the NBA?


Its a shame that Hinrich appears to be doomed to a life of 38.5% shooting.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 8-6.
> He can be a key guy on a winning team.
> The guy who traded him for NOTHING is one of the worst GMs W-L wise in NBA history.


I really don't get this whole "he can be a key guy on a winning team" argument. There are hundreds of NBA players who can be a key guy on a winning team. HUNDREDS. Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, and Andres Nocioni ALL could be "key guys on winning teams". They just need to be put on a winning team. For instance, take any of those guys and put them on, say, the Spurs. Any of them could start on the Spurs and be "key guys", and they most certainly would win. Anyone in this league can win in the right situation. The Bulls need a star. Knicks have one in Marbury; the Bulls don't. 

Btw, Rose and Marshall are now officially key guys on a losing team. Those Raptors are doing just great after their 3-0 start.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I really don't get this whole "he can be a key guy on a winning team" argument. There are hundreds of NBA players who can be a key guy on a winning team. HUNDREDS. Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, and Andres Nocioni ALL could be "key guys on winning teams". They just need to be put on a winning team. For instance, take any of those guys and put them on, say, the Spurs. Any of them could start on the Spurs and be "key guys", and they most certainly would win. Anyone in this league can win in the right situation. The Bulls need a star. Knicks have one in Marbury; the Bulls don't.


Fine. I'll use "guy that plays the 2nd most minutes and takes the most shots." There are not 100s of those.

Jamal is a winner now. I'm happy for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Hooray for Jamal*

Crawford really has joined elite company so far in the 2004-2005 NBA Season.

Check out this list of players.

Ron Artest
Lebron James
Steve Francis
Dwayne Wade
Antawn Jamison
Tim Duncan
Dirk Nowitzki
Ray Allen
Kevin Garnett
Zach Randolph
Carmelo Anthony
Shawn Marion
Chris Webber
Elton Brand
Kobe Bryant
Jamal Crawford

These players are the current guys in the NBA that are on above .500 teams with winning records. EDIT (and take the most shots!)

Wow!

Good for Jamal! Those are some pretty good players!


----------



## MemphisX

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Not at the price that the Knicks have paid though.


Did Chicago lower ticket prices as they strolled that crap on the court every gameday? What difference does it make to you, in real terms, whether the Bulls are $10 million under or $50 million over the cap?


----------



## GB

*Re: Hooray for Jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Crawford really has joined elite company so far in the 2004-2005 NBA Season.
> 
> Check out this list of players.
> 
> Ron Artest
> Lebron James
> Steve Francis
> Dwayne Wade
> Antawn Jamison
> Tim Duncan
> Dirk Nowitzki
> Ray Allen
> Kevin Garnett
> Zach Randolph
> Carmelo Anthony
> Shawn Marion
> Chris Webber
> Elton Brand
> Kobe Bryant
> Jamal Crawford
> 
> These players are the current guys in the NBA that are on above .500 teams with winning records,


Don't forget Michael Olowakandi.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Hooray for Jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't forget Michael Olowakandi.



HAHA. Damn. I take the time to come up with that list and I mess up the last sentence. 


should be....

These players are the current guys in the NBA that are on above .500 teams with winning records and have the highest FGA average per game on their team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Jamal update:

Jamal got out of bed and was astonished to see that the sun rose today. He then proceeded to AGAIN wear pants.


----------



## GB

*Re: Re: Re: Hooray for Jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA. Damn. I take the time to come up with that list and I mess up the last sentence.
> 
> 
> should be....
> 
> These players are the current guys in the NBA that are on above .500 teams with winning records and have the highest FGA average per game on their team.


What player on that list would a GM trade for Jamal and feel that he got equal or better talent?


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Hooray for Jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> What player on that list would a GM trade for Jamal and feel that he got equal or better talent?


Are we talking about Paxson or a winning GM?


----------



## GB

What player on that list would a GM trade to obtain Jamal and feel that he got equal or better talent?


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> What player on that list would a GM trade to obtain Jamal and feel that he got equal or better talent?


Antwan Jamison in a heartbeat for one.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I just don't have the time to waste on you or this subject anymore. If you want to believe that Jamal is this wonderfully talented career 38% shooter who is making a great deal of difference with the Knicks - go right ahead. It simply is no longer worth my time or effort. I'm doing the exact thing I didn't want to do and that is to reply to the talking heads in this thread who are convinced beyond all reason that Crawford is much better than an average basketball player. I'm done with it.
> 
> Have a nice life!
> 
> (Is that better? It's more ambiguous and as such it is not dependant on the time of day it was written or read. I'm ever-so-glad that there are people like yourself who feel the need to exercise and enforce correct grammar on these boards. When people flippantly use such vitally important turns of phrases like "have a nice day" and they're written after sunset, they SHOULD be called out. I appreciate you for putting me properly in my place.)



fl_flash ...you are the one who says crawford is no better than anyone on this list 

penny hardaway 
frank williams 
moochie norris
shandon anderson

the funny thing is you were the one making accusations of someone else making claims that were wrong 

but hey i am not even going to tell you , that your wrong i just want to give you the chance to back up such a claim.

you know instead of what you did instead in your last post ...avoid the whole thing by concentrating on your somewhat silly showupish statement you made that was begging to be ridiculed.


----------



## transplant

*Re: Hooray for Jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Crawford really has joined elite company so far in the 2004-2005 NBA Season.
> 
> Check out this list of players.
> 
> Ron Artest
> Lebron James
> Steve Francis
> Dwayne Wade
> Antawn Jamison
> Tim Duncan
> Dirk Nowitzki
> Ray Allen
> Kevin Garnett
> Zach Randolph
> Carmelo Anthony
> Shawn Marion
> Chris Webber
> Elton Brand
> Kobe Bryant
> Jamal Crawford
> 
> These players are the current guys in the NBA that are on above .500 teams with winning records. EDIT (and take the most shots!)
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Good for Jamal! Those are some pretty good players!



And he's not the only one of the above who doesn't lead his team in scoring (Marion and Webber don't either).

And he doesn't have the lowest shooting % of the above (Anthony does at 37.7% vs Crawford's 38.1%).

Wow indeed.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Antwan Jamison in a heartbeat for one.


Yeah, I agree with that. But... I'm not looking to say that Jamal is the best player on that list.... just that he's among those types of players given the search parameters.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree with that. But... I'm not looking to say that Jamal is the best player on that list.... just that he's among those types of players given the search parameters.


Obviously I agree with you. Of course, the good thing for Jamal is he isn't a finsihed product yet either...just like a lot of other people on that list.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously I agree with you. <b>Of course, the good thing for Jamal is he isn't a finsihed product yet either</b>...just like a lot of other people on that list.


By this logic, exactly who is a finished product then? Are you going to sing the same tune till JC is what 30 years old? Of course he won't be a finished priduct even by then considerinf his progress rate. So in a way I got your point.


----------



## Da Grinch

people like to overconcentrate on stats and there are 2 sides to this equation , for one Crawford is not really the caliber of player that the great majority of the players on that list are(the shot attpemts list)

but his impact is better than his stats, his presence allows for better play from the other spots on the floor, he lessens the load on marbury , which lets stephon pick his spots better , who is having by far the most efficient season of his career.

he runs the pick and roll excellently with kurt thomas who is also having a pretty good year avg. the 1st double double of his career

nazr is having the best year of his career, as a player that gets most of his points off of offensive rebounds and passes off of penetration he is definitely helped by crawford's presence.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> By this logic, exactly who is a finished product then? Are you going to sing the same tune till JC is what 30 years old? Of course he won't be a finished priduct even by then considerinf his progress rate. So in a way I got your point.


Thats ridiculous. Of course some players are finished products and others aren't..duh. Thats a reality not a fantasy. Jamal only played 2 years of hs ball and 1 of college ball...he isn't where he's gonna end up yet...he will likely reach his apex in 2-3 seasons.


----------



## mizenkay

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/023sd2.htm


_New York Knicks guard Jamal Crawford misfired on 21 of 28 field-goal tries but scored 24 points — including the game-winning 3-pointer — in an overtime victory against the Atlanta Hawks on Tuesday night. It was a performance that didn't go unnoticed by his former team.

"Jamal will never change," one member of the Bulls organization said. "He's fine in a role where he's asked to shoot the ball a lot, and that's what the Knicks have asked him to do. That's good for him."_

so good for him. whatever. sounds like the bulls thought he was a "finished product". i agree.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/023sd2.htm
> 
> 
> _New York Knicks guard Jamal Crawford misfired on 21 of 28 field-goal tries but scored 24 points — including the game-winning 3-pointer — in an overtime victory against the Atlanta Hawks on Tuesday night. It was a performance that didn't go unnoticed by his former team.
> 
> "Jamal will never change," one member of the Bulls organization said. "He's fine in a role where he's asked to shoot the ball a lot, and that's what the Knicks have asked him to do. That's good for him."_
> 
> so good for him. whatever. sounds like the bulls thought he was a "finished product". i agree.


The Bulls aren't the panecea of basketball.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Antwan Jamison in a heartbeat for one.


1. Jamison
2. ?
3. ?

?


(I'm not sure the Wiz would move Jamison for Jamal right now...)


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/023sd2.htm
> 
> 
> _New York Knicks guard Jamal Crawford misfired on 21 of 28 field-goal tries but scored 24 points — including the game-winning 3-pointer — in an overtime victory against the Atlanta Hawks on Tuesday night. It was a performance that didn't go unnoticed by his former team.
> 
> "Jamal will never change," one member of the Bulls organization said. "He's fine in a role where he's asked to shoot the ball a lot, and that's what the Knicks have asked him to do. That's good for him."_
> 
> so good for him. whatever. sounds like the bulls thought he was a "finished product". i agree.


Completely and thoroughly awesome quote.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> "The Bulls will never change," one member of the organization said. "They are fine in a role where they can make money and not worry about winning, and that's what the current owner is continuing to do so good for them.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal update*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine. I'll use "guy that plays the 2nd most minutes and takes the most shots." There are not 100s of those.



 Basketball is a team game. All this talk of shots per game and second most minutes is way overblown. Jamal takes more shots than any other player on his team but it's still only 20% of the _team's_ shots. That means 4 out of every 5 shots from the Knicks are not from Jamal. And thank God for that (if you're a Knicks fan) b/c Jamal is shooting 38% from the field. You can put Jamal on the Spurs and have him take 25% of the team's shots and they'll be one of the top teams in the league. Or you can put him on the Hawks and they'll continue to stink up the joint. The Knicks were decent before Jamal and at this point, with him, they're still a decent team. But whatever floats your boat....


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> What does it cost you? I'm not rooting for my team to climb the Forbes list, I'm rooting for them to climb the NBA standings.
> 
> You think the ticket prices are going to be lower due to his frugalness?
> 
> Your team may be in the playoffs... but we're.... we're.... MORE FRUGAL!!! Yah!! WE'RE DOWNRIGHT CHINCEY!! Y'all a bunca SPENDTHRIFTS!!!





> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> Did Chicago lower ticket prices as they strolled that crap on the court every gameday? What difference does it make to you, in real terms, whether the Bulls are $10 million under or $50 million over the cap?


It matters b/c it's going to affect future tranactions with the team. I think that's pretty straight forward.


----------



## GB

> "Jamal will never change," one member of the Bulls organization said. "He's fine in a role where he's asked to shoot the ball a lot, and that's what the Knicks have asked him to do. That's good for him."


It occurs to me that the Knicks have turned him into Ron Mercer + range if this is indeed the case...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> so good for him. whatever. sounds like the bulls thought he was a "finished product". i agree.


This is the same Bulls organization that built a 2-10 team that has struggled in large part due to its guard play. 

If Jamal will never change, and that’s enough for a team to win their division and make the playoffs, then I'll take it. Beats being the worst team in the league.

What credibility does anyone in the current Bulls administration have now-a-days anyway?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters b/c it's going to affect future tranactions with the team. I think that's pretty straight forward.


Only if the cap space is put to good use.

History indicates otherwise.

We'll see.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> This is the same Bulls organization that built a 2-10 team that has struggled in large part due to its guard play.
> 
> If Jamal will never change, and that’s enough for a team to win their division and make the playoffs, then I'll take it.


They've got sixty something games to go.

Stop speaking like it's a fact.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It occurs to me that the Knicks have turned him into Ron Mercer + range if this is indeed the case...


Except that Mercer has never logged heavy minutes on a winning team. The only time he was close was 2002-2003 Pacers where he had the 7th most minutes. 

Mercer is a loser.

Jamal, at least so far this season, is a winner. 

Maybe he just needed to get the Chicago out of him?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> They've got sixty something games to go.
> 
> Stop speaking like it's a fact.


I agree.... its still early. 

I'll be on this thread all season, so if the tides turn you can fire away!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> What player on that list would a GM trade to obtain Jamal and feel that he got equal or better talent?


How many GMs in the league would trade a player on this list away

Ron Artest
Lebron James
Steve Francis
Dwayne Wade
Antawn Jamison
Tim Duncan
Dirk Nowitzki
Ray Allen
Kevin Garnett
Zach Randolph
Carmelo Anthony
Shawn Marion
Chris Webber
Elton Brand
Kobe Bryant
Jamal Crawford

for Othella Harrington, The Polish Pistol, Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski?


----------



## DaBullz

I'm glad our last REAL coach didn't ask Jordan to take less shots.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> How many GMs in the league would trade a player on this list away
> 
> Ron Artest
> Lebron James
> Steve Francis
> Dwayne Wade
> Antawn Jamison
> Tim Duncan
> Dirk Nowitzki
> Ray Allen
> Kevin Garnett
> Zach Randolph
> Carmelo Anthony
> Shawn Marion
> Chris Webber
> Elton Brand
> Kobe Bryant
> Jamal Crawford
> 
> for Othella Harrington, The Polish Pistol, Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski?


how many people ACTUALLY think that Jamal is in the same class as any of the players named above him? I don't even think ace would make that claim, with the exception of Jamison I guess.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm glad our last REAL coach didn't ask Jordan to take less shots.


Jackson did that very thing according to the Jordan Rules. FWIW.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> how many people ACTUALLY think that Jamal is in the same class as any of the players named above him? I don't even think ace would make that claim, with the exception of Jamison I guess.


I'm not sure if Anthony is way overrated. Pretty much statistically the same as Crawford these days.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if Anthony is way overrated. Pretty much statistically the same as Crawford these days.


true. But he is dwarfing what Crawford was doing at the same point in his career and at a similar age (I guess for JC that's year 3 due to the ACL), despite his struggles. Overrated or not, I still like his likely career trajectory better than Jamal's at the moment.

eh, this thread gives me a headache.


----------



## rlucas4257

Id personally take JC over Marion. But thats just me


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Jamal, at least so far this season, is a winner.




:laugh: 

He's on a team that is crap for 4 years, and then after a whopping total of 14 games for a new team in which they are a enormous 8-6, he's a winner? Yes, I can see the disclaimer there in the middle of your sentence. It doesn't stop the entire premise of the sentence as being........well, crap.


----------



## son of oakley

Guys, Marbury is a lot bigger cause for Knicks success than Crawford. Scoring not wothstanding, Marbury and KT have been our cornerstones, along with our bench. Right now JC is working his way from accessory to cornerstone. Though many would argue he's there already he could easily be 6th man if Houston _really_ returns.

What I find interesting is that for all the talk of the right attitude in Chi, nobody even talks about the JYD component of the deal. This guys is a quintessential role player. I understand the financial reasons for dumping him, but NO love from the fans? Isn't he an old bull at heart?


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> What I find interesting is that for all the talk of the right attitude in Chi, nobody even talks about the JYD component of the deal. This guys is a quintessential role player. I understand the financial reasons for dumping him, but NO love from the fans? Isn't he an old bull at heart?



Way too many missed layups and brick jump shots for me to handle personally. I think his defense was a little overrated. He had a few nice games, maybe none better than his first, but I just thought his game was ugly. Great attitude toward the game though.


----------



## remlover

In the interest of "Fair and Balanced" Jamal updates:

Jamal started off hot in the 1st Q. Shot 6-8 from the field. 

Finished the game shooting 4-16. Also committed a HUGE turnover when he threw the inboundn pass away. 

As someone who is labeled a "crawford" hater i d ont take any satisfaction in jamal's performance. Frankly i dont really care, but since so many people highlight the greatness of Jamal i feel its my sworn duty to give the other side. :grinning:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> He's on a team that is crap for 4 years, and then after a whopping total of 14 games for a new team in which they are a enormous 8-6, he's a winner? Yes, I can see the disclaimer there in the middle of your sentence. It doesn't stop the entire premise of the sentence as being........well, crap.


You may not like it, but its true.

Sometimes the truth hurts.


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You may not like it, but its true.
> 
> Sometimes the truth hurts.



It's a statistic, and a bloody pointless one at that. But you keep spinnig that beaut in your favour honey, and I'll keep calling em as I see em. :greatjob:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> In the interest of "Fair and Balanced" Jamal updates:
> 
> Jamal started off hot in the 1st Q. Shot 6-8 from the field.
> 
> Finished the game shooting 4-16. Also committed a HUGE turnover when he threw the inboundn pass away.
> 
> As someone who is labeled a "crawford" hater i d ont take any satisfaction in jamal's performance. Frankly i dont really care, but since so many people highlight the greatness of Jamal i feel its my sworn duty to give the other side. :grinning:


Jamal had a decent game tonight.
23 points.
10-24 FG (41.7%) 
2-2 FT
2 rebounds
5 assists
4 TOs

Yah, a couple too many TOs... but overall not bad.

The inbounds pass was bad... but it should not even have come down to that if Marbury hits some FTs.

Nice game for Jamal. Tough loss for the Knicks, but the Magic are tough this season.

Meanwhile... the Bulls lost by 24 at home. Another embarrassment. Nice job Pax.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> It's a statistic, and a bloody pointless one at that. But you keep spinnig that beaut in your favour honey, and I'll keep calling em as I see em. :greatjob:


I guess we'll just have to check back in later in the season. I predict more winning for Jamal and the Knicks. 

I guess you are predicting otherwise? What's your prediction?


----------



## Sham

I predict Jamal to put up 18 + 4, with percentages of 38 and 30 respectively. 

I predict him to lead his team in shots and be the second leading scorer. 

I predict the Knicks to finish a wee bit above .500, make the playoffs, and lose in the first round 4-1 to Detroit.

I predict that in spite of Jamal apparently being awesome, the Knicks will bust their nuts for the remainder of this season and next offseason to acquire a star calibre shooting guard.

I basically predict that the Knicks and Jamal will do exactly what they are already doing, but throughout the entire season. 


And I do not consider either what the Knicks or Jamal are doing as "good". 


Good with the right comparisons? (i.e. compare Knicks to us, and Crawford to Piatkowksi) Yes, they are doing good. 



But in the grand scheme of things....what am I supposed to be impressed about again? Being the leading shot taker on a highly talented team? Hardly impressive when you're shooting 38 percent is it......


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> I predict Jamal to put up 18 + 4, with percentages of 38 and 30 respectively.
> 
> I predict him to lead his team in shots and be the second leading scorer.
> 
> I predict the Knicks to finish a wee bit above .500, make the playoffs, and lose in the first round 4-1 to Detroit.
> 
> I predict that in spite of Jamal apparently being awesome, the Knicks will bust their nuts for the remainder of this season and next offseason to acquire a star calibre shooting guard.
> 
> I basically predict that the Knicks and Jamal will do exactly what they are already doing, but throughout the entire season.
> 
> 
> And I do not consider either what the Knicks or Jamal are doing as "good".
> 
> 
> Good with the right comparisons? (i.e. compare Knicks to us, and Crawford to Piatkowksi) Yes, they are doing good.
> 
> 
> 
> But in the grand scheme of things....what am I supposed to be impressed about again? Being the leading shot taker on a highly talented team? Hardly impressive when you're shooting 38 percent is it......


40.65%.

If he shot 38%, he'd be shooting 1.6% lower than his career average.

38% is closer to Hinrich-land.

We pretty much agree on everything else.... that the Knicks and Crawford are doing better than Paxson and the Bulls.

Yes... "in the grand scheme of things" its not that impressive... but then what in the NBA is really?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> He's on a team that is crap for 4 years, and then after a whopping total of 14 games for a new team in which they are a enormous 8-6, he's a winner?


Closing in on .500 again...


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal had a decent game tonight.
> 23 points.
> 10-24 FG (41.7%)
> 2-2 FT
> 2 rebounds
> 5 assists
> 4 TOs



L


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> L


PLAYOFFS

(and... unlike a Paxson guarantee... this one is actually going to happen)


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> PLAYOFFS


...and then? :laugh:

1 and done...


Besides, nothing is certain in December my friend.


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 40.65%.
> 
> If he shot 38%, he'd be shooting 1.6% lower than his career average.



He was 90-236 going into tonight, and 10-24 tonight. That's 100-260 overall, which using simple mathematics equates to 
38.46 percent, or 38% using the basic mathematical law of rounding stuff.

I am not interested in arguing the tiny minute micro-percenatges of it. I did it because you did. I will however debate your notion that he is the number one option on his team, as evident by that great long list of people who are better than Jamal but who shoot alot you busted out. You can argue that he's the number one option if you like. My argument is that he shouldn't be. No one who shoots 38% and who is only second in points scored should.





> Yes... "in the grand scheme of things" its not that impressive... but then what in the NBA is really?



Winning something?


----------



## remlover

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal had a decent game tonight.
> 23 points.
> 10-24 FG (41.7%)
> 2-2 FT
> 2 rebounds
> 5 assists
> 4 TOs
> 
> Yah, a couple too many TOs... but overall not bad.
> 
> The inbounds pass was bad... but it should not even have come down to that if Marbury hits some FTs.
> 
> Nice game for Jamal. Tough loss for the Knicks, but the Magic are tough this season.
> 
> Meanwhile... the Bulls lost by 24 at home. Another embarrassment. Nice job Pax.


Overall boxscore numbers he didnt do that bad, but jamal started off really well that COOLED off big time. He kept settling for jumper after jumper. His D on Mobley was non-existent.

But i dont want to get into a p*ssing contest over jamal and his game. Seems like this thread has turned into "jamal had a bad game, bulls were right not to re-sign him." Or "jamal had a good game, bulls were idiots for trading him."


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> He was 90-236 going into tonight, and 10-24 tonight. That's 100-260 overall, which using simple mathematics equates to
> 38.46 percent, or 38% using the basic mathematical law of rounding stuff.
> 
> I am not interested in arguing the tiny minute micro-percenatges of it. I did it because you did. I will however debate your notion that he is the number one option on his team, as evident by that great long list of people who are better than Jamal but who shoot alot you busted out. You can argue that he's the number one option if you like. My argument is that he shouldn't be. No one who shoots 38% and who is only second in points scored should.


yah... i entered it wrong. my bad. thanks for the math lesson!  His career average is 39.6.

I've never said he's the #1 option on his team... I only noticed he takes the most shots on his team... and that his team currently is a winning team. 




> Winning something?


The Knicks are currently winning their division and they are winning a trip to the playoffs.

I wish the Bulls could do these things.


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The Knicks are currently winning their division and they are winning a trip to the playoffs.
> 
> I wish the Bulls could do these things.



We had Jamal, and we didn't, so we decided not to piss money away on him.

See how it goes?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> We had Jamal, and we didn't, so we decided not to piss money away on him.
> 
> See how it goes?


Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Brad Miller.

Yes, I do.


----------



## johnston797

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...one&qual=true&season=2005&seasontype=2&pos=sg

in-freaking-despensible.


----------



## ScottMay

Once again, I'm simply stunned by otherwise level-headed posters looking down their noses at the Knicks, or just about any other team that's not a front-runner for a ring this year.

For the millionth time, we are carrying the worst seven-year record in the history of the league. There is precious little evidence to suggest that we aren't going to make it the worst eight-year record, then worst nine-year record, and so on. 

Have a little humility, for crying out loud. Put down the Kool-Aid. After X number of years of this, I just don't see how any Bulls fan is in a position to poo-poo how ANY other team -- including the Clippers and Hawks and all those other so-called laughingstocks -- is going about its business, when by definition ALL of them are more successful than we are. 

Or, alternatively, ask yourself the following question: just how many more years of crushing, mind-numbing losing will it take for you to say to yourself, "You know, a quick first-round exit might not be such a bad thing?"


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> in-freaking-despensible.


This is the first time indispensable was used. I'm certainly not saying that. 

The Bulls are horrible.


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Once again, I'm simply stunned by otherwise level-headed posters looking down their noses at the Knicks, or just about any other team that's not a front-runner for a ring this year.
> 
> For the millionth time, we are carrying the worst seven-year record in the history of the league. There is precious little evidence to suggest that we aren't going to make it the worst eight-year record, then worst nine-year record, and so on.
> 
> Have a little humility, for crying out loud. Put down the Kool-Aid. After X number of years of this, I just don't see how any Bulls fan is in a position to poo-poo how ANY other team -- including the Clippers and Hawks and all those other so-called laughingstocks -- is going about its business, when by definition ALL of them are more successful than we are.
> 
> Or, alternatively, ask yourself the following question: just how many more years of crushing, mind-numbing losing will it take for you to say to yourself, "You know, a quick first-round exit might not be such a bad thing?"



I haven't poo-pooed the Knicks. I have mentioned their playoffs and first round exit last year, and have predicted the same for this year. And I have mentioned that in comparison to the Bulls, they're streets ahead. So, unless you regard that as poo-pooing em......:whofarted:


I got nothing against the Knicks. I got nothing against Jamal. I got nothing against the trade. I got nothing against any posters here. I just hate stupid logic, is all.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I just hate stupid logic, is all.


I just can't abide even the slightest tinge of schadenfreude when our own house is in such laughable disarray. Nuthin' personal.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> I got nothing against the Knicks. I got nothing against Jamal. I got nothing against the trade. I got nothing against any posters here. I just hate stupid logic, is all.



Voice of reason. :clap:


----------



## Sham

Hey, if we're crap, we're still allowed to call others crap. To quote the phrase I just made up, you can call a stick a stick, even if you're a stick yourself. As you can tell, I'm no philosopher, but still.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Hey, if we're crap, we're still allowed to call others crap. To quote the phrase I just made up, you can call a stick a stick, even if you're a stick yourself. As you can tell, I'm no philosopher, but still.....


A winning, division leading, playoff team is crap.

Gotcha.


----------



## Sham

Didn't say it was. See, the quote you just took had no mention of the Knicks in. It was a general analogy. But this below, right, DOES mention the Knicks. And if you read it verrrrrry carefully, you can see where you've owned yourself. :greatjob:



> I haven't poo-pooed the Knicks. I have mentioned their playoffs and first round exit last year, and have predicted the same for this year. And I have mentioned that in comparison to the Bulls, they're streets ahead. So, unless you regard that as poo-pooing em......




Hope this helps.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> A winning, division leading, playoff team is crap.
> 
> Gotcha.


The knicks have won a playoff spot already?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Didn't say it was. See, the quote you just took had no mention of the Knicks in. It was a general analogy. But this below, right, DOES mention the Knicks. And if you read it verrrrrry carefully, you can see where you've owned yourself. :greatjob:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.


Ah OK. I was assuming you were not making this silly discussion personal. I guess that was faulty reasoning.

I'll call it a night.


----------



## GB

KC:

>>Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf has allowed general manager John Paxson to make other personnel moves based on the premise of addition by subtraction. The moves to rid the franchise of Jalen Rose, Jamal Crawford and Eddie Robinson come to mind most quickly.<<


----------



## Sham

Personal? I've refuted all your points with facts, and logic you haven't proved fallable. You've refuted my points by.....misreading them. :| 

Oh well.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> Personal? I've refuted all your points with facts, and logic you haven't proved fallable. You've refuted my points by.....misreading them. :|
> 
> Oh well.






> He's on a team that is crap for 4 years, and then after a whopping total of 14 games for a new team in which they are a enormous 8-6, he's a winner? Yes, I can see the disclaimer there in the middle of your sentence. It doesn't stop the entire premise of the sentence as being........well, crap.


I said Crawford's team is a winner this season. Did you refute that?

Seems more like you drew your own conclusion as to what the premise was and decided it was.... "crap."

Then you said Jamal has to show you something by winning something.



> Winning something?


I said his team currently is above .500, leading their division and bound for the playoffs.

Did you refute this?

Then you caught my typo into a spreadsheet. Nice one.

Then you said this 



> I got nothing against the Knicks. I got nothing against Jamal. I got nothing against the trade. I got nothing against any posters here. I just hate stupid logic, is all.


then this



> Hey, if we're crap, we're still allowed to call others crap. To quote the phrase I just made up, you can call a stick a stick, even if you're a stick yourself. As you can tell, I'm no philosopher, but still.....


I assumed that "others" meant the Knicks... given the context of the discussion... but then you said 



> Didn't say it was. See, the quote you just took had no mention of the Knicks in. It was a general analogy. But this below, right, DOES mention the Knicks. And if you read it verrrrrry carefully, you can see where you've owned yourself.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.


Correct me where I'm wrong. Also, could you please point out these facts you speak of?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> KC:
> 
> >>Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf has allowed general manager John Paxson to make other personnel moves based on the premise of addition by subtraction. The moves to rid the franchise of Jalen Rose, Jamal Crawford and Eddie Robinson come to mind most quickly.<<




If we have added by subtracting, then where are the wins?


----------



## Sham

The facts are that the Knicks with Jamal are no better than the Knicks without Jamal. And yes I'm talking post-Thomas. The facts are that Jamal may be leading his team in field goal attempts by a distance, as you loved to highlight, yet he is not the leading scorer on his team. The facts are that you should not lead a team in shots if you are shooting a field goal percentage that can be only described as "poor", whilst playing alongside a team mate who not only scores more, but whom does so at a way-above-average percentage. The facts are that Jamal's stats across the board are nigh-on identical to his ones of last year, and yet he's having the aforementioned minimal impact on his team's overall performance.


And as for correcting you were you were wrong - in the passage I quoted, orginially written to ScottMay, I pointed out how I was NOT calling the Knicks "crap", then you come in and say that I called the Knicks "crap", whereas I did not in fact call the Knicks "crap", and even went to lengths I did not have to in a bid to show that I was not calling the Knicks "crap". Your honour. :worship:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> The facts are that the Knicks with Jamal are no better than the Knicks without Jamal.


This is a fact? (Houston)



> And yes I'm talking post-Thomas. The facts are that Jamal may be leading his team in field goal attempts by a distance, as you loved to highlight, yet he is not the leading scorer on his team.


How does this refute anything I said?




> The facts are that you should not lead a team in shots if you are shooting a field goal percentage that can be only described as "poor", whilst playing alongside a team mate who not only scores more, but whom does so at a way-above-average percentage.


Why do you think Marbury is shooting 5% higher than his career average this season while taking fewer shot attempts per game than any time in his career since his rookie season?

As for your statement about FG% and “poor”… what makes it a fact?



> The facts are that Jamal's stats across the board are nigh-on identical to his ones of last year, and yet he's having the aforementioned minimal impact on his team's overall performance.


Its a fact he's having a minimal impact? How so? You really think a guy that logs the 2nd most minutes and shoots the most on a basketball team has a minimal impact on the outcome of the games?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> The knicks have won a playoff spot already?


Last year they were a playoff team, and if the season ended today they are a playoff team.

i'll use "bound-for-the-playoffs" if it makes you happy


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have added by subtracting, then where are the wins?


Wrong first question.

The first question is whether it was meant to be a long or short term move.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> i'll use "bound-for-the-playoffs"


Much more accurate.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong first question.
> 
> The first question is whether it was meant to be a long or short term move.


Short term seems like a failure.

So it must be long term addition by subtraction, which is going to be preceded for an indefinite period of time with subtraction by subtraction. 

"through thick and thin"


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Short term seems like a failure.
> 
> So it must be long term addition by subtraction, which is going to be preceded for an indefinite period of time with subtraction by subtraction.
> 
> "through thick and thin"


Unfortunately short-term losing destroys players and their value in the long-run.

In the long run you can trade away a guy you think will only be a short-run help.

Yes, you want guys with the "right" attitude, but it's pretty silly to focus only on that and ignore the fact that losing itself breeds the "wrong" attitudes. All the talk about jibs at the expense of talking about talking about what guys can and can't do on a basketball court is counterproductive.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately short-term losing destroys players and their value in the long-run.
> 
> In the long run you can trade away a guy you think will only be a short-run help.
> 
> Yes, you want guys with the "right" attitude, but it's pretty silly to focus only on that and ignore the fact that losing itself breeds the "wrong" attitudes. All the talk about jibs at the expense of talking about talking about what guys can and can't do on a basketball court is counterproductive.


very well said.


----------



## giusd

I have this to say about last nights game. Mobley kicked JC butt. JC had 14 pts on 6 of 8 FG until mobley came in and then mobley just beat his butt the hole game. Even the announcers were talking again about JC up and down game. And by the way that would be Walt Frazer, Hall of Famer.

Mobely scored 34 pts on only 21 shots and after the first quarter JC was 4 for 16 and scored only 7 pts in the last three quarters.

So who won that match up last night. Mobley.
Who would i rather have as my SG. Mobley.

david


----------



## spongyfungy

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I have this to say about last nights game. Mobley kicked JC butt. JC had 14 pts on 6 of 8 FG until mobley came in and then mobley just beat his butt the hole game. Even the announcers were talking again about JC up and down game. And by the way that would be Walt Frazer, Hall of Famer.
> 
> Mobely scored 34 pts on only 21 shots and after the first quarter JC was 4 for 16 and scored only 7 pts in the last three quarters.
> 
> So who won that match up last night. Mobley.
> Who would i rather have as my SG. Mobley.
> 
> david


Mobley's a free agent. :grinning:


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Ron Artest *25.14*
> Lebron James *27.81*
> Steve Francis *20.93*
> Dwayne Wade *26.40*
> Antawn Jamison *22.29*
> Tim Duncan *28.29*
> Dirk Nowitzki *30.25*
> Ray Allen *21.65*
> Kevin Garnett *34.27*
> Zach Randolph *21.86*
> Carmelo Anthony *12.86*
> Shawn Marion *26.19*
> Chris Webber *23.44*
> Elton Brand *22.31*
> Kobe Bryant *24.76*
> Jamal Crawford *13.33*


Took the liberty of including the efficiency ratings as provided by NBA.com. Including Crawford in this list when you consider any factor other than just plain "leading their above .500 teams in shot attempts" is really ridiculous. Crawford is the same player for the Knick that he was for the Bull. He is an average NBA player who thinks he's a star. The majority of the players on this list are also able to play defense, something to which Jamal appears to have an aversion.

JC is a one dimensional shooter.

We have plenty of players on the Bull who shoot better than (or at least as well as) Crawdaddy, but also rebound and attempt to play defense. When we get more of these types of players, we'll start winning ballgames. Please don't kid yourself into thinking that Jamal would lead this Bull team to a better record than it already has.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Took the liberty of including the efficiency ratings as provided by NBA.com. Including Crawford in this list when you consider any factor other than just plain "leading their above .500 teams in shot attempts" is really ridiculous. Crawford is the same player for the Knick that he was for the Bull. He is an average NBA player who thinks he's a star. The majority of the players on this list are also able to play defense, something to which Jamal appears to have an aversion.
> 
> JC is a one dimensional shooter.
> 
> We have plenty of players on the Bull who shoot better than (or at least as well as) Crawdaddy, but also rebound and attempt to play defense. When we get more of these types of players, we'll start winning ballgames. Please don't kid yourself into thinking that Jamal would lead this Bull team to a better record than it already has.


I don't think Jamal is in the same league as most of those guys either.

Just thought it was an interesting list. At least Crawford is not the worst guy on that list. Also, I think his EFF would be higher if he was the PG... but that's another story. His assists are down this year as compared to last year... must be the role the Knicks are asking him to play.

I’m glad to see him winning.


----------



## ChiBron

JC is tearing it up tonight. 

*27 pts(11-13 FG)*, 2 assists, 1 stl and 1 blk *IN THE FIRST HALF!*

Good to see him play consistent ball and help a team play winning basketball.


----------



## ChiBron

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I have this to say about last nights game. Mobley kicked JC butt. JC had 14 pts on 6 of 8 FG until mobley came in and then mobley just beat his butt the hole game. Even the announcers were talking again about JC up and down game. And by the way that would be Walt Frazer, Hall of Famer.


For someone who hates JC and keeps telling everybody to 'move on', u sure watch a lot of Knick games.


----------



## ChiBron

Jamal's just going NUTS!

*37 pts(15-18 FG)* at the end of the 3rd qtr.

Has a decent shot at his 2nd 50 pt game of his career. This is a close game.


----------



## Greg Ostertag!

It's probably a good thing that the Bulls are looking good against the Wiz tonight, then...


----------



## ChiBron

JC's big night could be gone to waste. NY down 4 with a minute left in the game.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> JC is a one dimensional shooter.


JC did have an amazing shooting night tonight.


----------



## Benny the Bull

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> JC's big night could be gone to waste. NY down 4 with a minute left in the game.


Knicks lose 107-101. Crawford with a great shooting night. 41pts on 17-25 shooting.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> JC is tearing it up tonight.
> 
> *27 pts(11-13 FG)*, 2 assists, 1 stl and 1 blk *IN THE FIRST HALF!*
> 
> Good to see him play consistent ball and help a team play winning basketball.


They fell back to .500 tonight...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Tough loss for the Knicks but great game for Jamal.

41% FG now. Nice.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Tough loss for the Knicks but great game for Jamal.
> 
> 41% FG now. Nice.




Great game for Jamal indeed. But 41% shooting is not "nice" in any way, shape or form. And yes that includes any Bulls player shooting at or below that rate.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great game for Jamal indeed. But 41% shooting is not "nice" in any way, shape or form. And yes that includes any Bulls player shooting at or below that rate.


bulls as a whole shoot below that rate, specifically kirk, duhon , gordon, AD, nocioni, frank williams , janero pargo and adrian griffin.

this is a brand new league , a league in which 41% is a lot more acceptable for a 2 guard that it would have been 10 years ago.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> bulls as a whole shoot below that rate, specifically kirk, duhon , gordon, AD, nocioni, frank williams , janero pargo and adrian griffin.
> 
> this is a brand new league , a league in which 41% is a lot more acceptable for a 2 guard that it would have been 10 years ago.




I'm aware. It still doesn't make it "nice".


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware. It still doesn't make it "nice".


i will agree the word wasn't the best description.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware. It still doesn't make it "nice".


I was referring more to the single day rise.

He also raised his career FG% to 39.8 from 39.6. He's closing in on 40.... but its going to take some time to erase the weighting from last season.

Mr 38% really isn't a good name... since after rounding he's a career 40% shooter. 

If you take last season out of the mix, where he was asked to do way too much for a bad team IMO, he's a career 41.2% shooter.


----------



## DaBullz

Our best guard is shooting 38.1% FG and 35.6% in 3's.

Glass house. Stones.


----------



## ace20004u

I still say giving Jamal away was stupid. How much better the Bulls would be with a Kirk/Jamal backcourt...we sure could use someone who has the ability to play the 2 and can score...Jamal should have been that guy. I bet we would have about 4 more wins by now if we had kept Jamal.


----------



## giusd

I think the player to compare JC to is really Larry Hughes. If you look at the stats they are very similar and Hughes is a better defend, more consistent but of course will never have the huge games that JC has.

david


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I was referring more to the single day rise.
> 
> He also raised his career FG% to 39.8 from 39.6. He's closing in on 40.... but its going to take some time to erase the weighting from last season.
> 
> Mr 38% really isn't a good name... since after rounding he's a career 40% shooter.
> 
> If you take last season out of the mix, where he was asked to do way too much for a bad team IMO, he's a career 41.2% shooter.


You do realize Jamal's pattern of inconsistency here. He blows up for big games occasionally, he has a fair string of decent games, and then has the occasional stinkers to balance it all out. The result is a player that you never know what he's gonna do in a given night. He played a hell of a game in this Knicks loss. But tomorrow's another day where he might shoot his team out of the game. Jamal's simply a roller-coaster ride. If you think that's worth throwing away 6 years of your team's salary that could be going to more valuable pieces, then you're free to feel that way. I still don't think the Bulls would be too much better with him here. That's the bottom line.


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> You do realize Jamal's pattern of inconsistency here. He blows up for big games occasionally, he has a fair string of decent games, and then has the occasional stinkers to balance it all out.


Isn't that pretty much true of 90% of the players in the league?


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't that pretty much true of 90% of the players in the league?


I don't think so....

I think Crawford statistically has more great shooting games and more terrible shooting games than just about anyone.

With all the stat jocks on here, an ideas on how to measure this. We are just talking about variance from a mean.

I would think games comparing shooting under 30% and over 65% with at least 10 shot attempts compared to total games might be interesting?


----------



## ace20004u

One of the NY announcers commented that Jamal's fg% is "on the way up if you graph it out". I'm not sure what he meant since I'm not a stat geek but I felt compelled to point that out for all of you stat geeks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think so....
> 
> I think Crawford statistically has more great shooting games and more terrible shooting games than just about anyone.
> 
> With all the stat jocks on here, an ideas on how to measure this. We are just talking about variance from a mean.
> 
> I would think games comparing shooting under 30% and over 65% with at least 10 shot attempts compared to total games might be interesting?


Yah, it should just be STDDEV. I'd like to see both points, fg% and EFF.... I'm still too lazy to have imported the NBA stats into access or something like that.  Lazy, lazy, lazy.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> You do realize Jamal's pattern of inconsistency here. He blows up for big games occasionally, he has a fair string of decent games, and then has the occasional stinkers to balance it all out. The result is a player that you never know what he's gonna do in a given night. He played a hell of a game in this Knicks loss. But tomorrow's another day where he might shoot his team out of the game. Jamal's simply a roller-coaster ride. If you think that's worth throwing away 6 years of your team's salary that could be going to more valuable pieces, then you're free to feel that way. I still don't think the Bulls would be too much better with him here. That's the bottom line.


1.) Can you prove that a player becomes less valuable as his STDDEV of production increases? I don't think I can at this point.

2.) I don't think the Bulls are going to be able to sign anyone that is better than Crawford.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I think the player to compare JC to is really Larry Hughes. If you look at the stats they are very similar and Hughes is a better defend, more consistent but of course will never have the huge games that JC has.
> 
> david


Other than being combo guards, Hughes and Crawford are not much alike. Hughes is a terror on defense (leading the league in steals with 13 in his last two games) and is a strong rebounding SG who attacks the basket. Crawford is a shooter/scorer who tends to shy away from contact on both the offensive and defensive end.


----------



## ace20004u

I think Crawford looks an awful lot like a young Penny Hardaway myself.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think Crawford looks an awful lot like a young Penny Hardaway myself.


But Penny had a fabulous post-up game. Can you imagine Crawford ever having that?


----------



## giusd

I heard that too and it was pretty funny. In fact his FG% has been slowly going down until his 17 for 15 game sent in up again to around 41%. But his 3pt % has also gone down as well.

Still Walt Frazer is great and i wish he was doing the bulls.

david


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I heard that too and it was pretty funny. In fact his FG% has been slowly going down until his 17 for 15 game sent in up again to around 41%. But his 3pt % has also gone down as well.
> 
> Still Walt Frazer is great and i wish he was doing the bulls.
> 
> david


I was watching a Knicks broadcast when Walt called somebody a "precocioius neophyte." :laugh:


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> But Penny had a fabulous post-up game. Can you imagine Crawford ever having that?


Yeah. He said prior to this summer that he wanted to work on his post up game. I am guessing he still needs to add about 20lbs before that comes around but I think eventually Crawford will have a post game as well.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah. He said prior to this summer that he wanted to work on his post up game. I am guessing he still needs to add about 20lbs before that comes around but I think eventually Crawford will have a post game as well.


But even wimpy Sam Cassell has some good post moves. Sure it depends who's guarding you, but you don't have to be big and strong to have a few post moves.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> But Penny had a fabulous post-up game. Can you imagine Crawford ever having that?


Penny gave everyone (MJ included) fits from the time he entered the league at age 22. JC will never get to that level.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> But even wimpy Sam Cassell has some good post moves. Sure it depends who's guarding you, but you don't have to be big and strong to have a few post moves.


Yeah but you have to have some strength. Sam's a pretty strong guy for his size believe it or not. Jamal isn't.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I was watching a Knicks broadcast when Walt called somebody a "precocioius neophyte." :laugh:


That is an old standby of Clyde's. His classic line when a young guy is getting lit up or beat down is, "Baptism by fire for the [precocious] neophyte."

He is a fantastic analyst, and Mike Breen is without question my favorite play-by-play guy in the league. I like Kevin Calabro a lot, too, and Chuck Swirsky, but Breen is atop the mountain imo.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> But Penny had a fabulous post-up game. Can you imagine Crawford ever having that?


Would require too much contact. :grinning: 

Seriously, I don't think Jamal is patient enough at this point in his career. In fact, I don't think he's a very patient person at all, and it bleeds through into his game. I mean, for example, it takes next to no time at all to learn how to do a drop step. 

I think he'll slow down and stop pressing so so much as time goes on, and learn to get more out of his athletic talent. He could be a wicked scorer if he wanted to apply himself to doing so.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Penny gave everyone (MJ included) fits from the time he entered the league at age 22. JC will never get to that level.


Can you give me the winning lottery #'s while your at it?


----------



## johnston797

..


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Can you give me the winning lottery #'s while your at it?


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Ace,

Hey bud, I like you but as far as Crawford is concerned, YOU are the one playing NOSTRADOMUS.

It's not a big gamble to doubt that Crawford fails to have the type of career that gets him named to that a 1st TEAM ALL-NBA 

94-95 All-NBA Teams

First Team
Karl Malone, Utah
John Stockton, Utah
David Robinson, San Antonio
Anfernee Hardaway, Orlando (AGE 23)
Scottie Pippen, Chicago

95-96 All-NBA Teams

First Team
Karl Malone, Utah
Scottie Pippen, Chicago
David Robinson, San Antonio
Anfernee Hardaway, Orlando (AGE 24)
Michael Jordan, Chicago


----------



## Da Grinch

supposedly penny has been giving crawford tips on posting up, it was one of the 1st things penny talked anbout when asked about crawford's ability , he was shocked that Jc wanted to learn how to do but basically he said jamal had no clue, so he gave him some pointers , ...i haven't seen him post up as a knick yet i remember him posting boykins as a bull to mixed results.

so whether or not crawford can post up is basically one of those things we'll know in time.


----------



## lgtwins

JC only has shown two moves offensively and I believe that is all he has as of now. Pullup jump shot and running floater. Only these two move and zilch.

For this year he is even using less of his floater. He is like 80% s point jump shot these days.

I don't see anybody with this kind of limited move becomes an allstar any time soon like ACE dreams about.

Not going to happen. To do so, he has to shoot the lights out from 3 point line and we ALL know he is at best 40% shooter and that is not entirely from 3 point line.

Amazing some people lamented about JC having to have a ball in his hand to be most effective and cry over Bulls trying to turn him into spot up jump shooter.

Yet when he becomes a Knick and turns into a completly spot up jump shooter, no complaint whatsoever. IF anything , nothing but a praise.

We are looking at the same JC and if any improvemend there it is more due to better player around him. Not his own development, per se.

So all JC fans, get over it.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> JC only has shown two moves offensively


The ill-timed shot and the what was he thinking shot?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> The ill-timed shot and the what was he thinking shot?


Coming soon... the playoff game shot.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Coming soon... the playoff game shot.


Knicks was a playoff team (at least 8th seed) before they got JC. Combined that with the alarming amount of shot JC attempt, sonner or later so-called playoff game shot is bound to happen.

Not because of JC's excellency but because of pure probability. You put up that much of shot, some of them is bound to be game-wining shot.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 1.) Can you prove that a player becomes less valuable as his STDDEV of production increases? I don't think I can at this point.
> 
> 2.) I don't think the Bulls are going to be able to sign anyone that is better than Crawford.


Who says we need someone at SG better than Crawford? In a team system, the Bulls could win just as easily with a defensive specialist at the 2-guard, and for probably hafl the price (and don't say Trenton Hassell, ugh). Personally, I think the Bulls' biggest weaknesses are in the frontcourt. I think our money is better spent on upgrading the 4 and 5 positions. Neither Curry nor Chandler are proving to us that they are the answer.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Knicks was a playoff team (at least 8th seed) before they got JC.



Shhhhhhhh. He doesn't know that.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah. He said prior to this summer that he wanted to work on his post up game. I am guessing he still needs to add about 20lbs before that comes around but I think eventually Crawford will have a post game as well.


Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Despite "beefing up" to 190 lbs, or whatever Crawford is now, the kid is still mostly skin and bones. You need explosive power in the legs to post-up effectively. Crawford has twig-legs; I just don't see post-up ever being there. Crawford's potential has and always will be somewhat limited because of his strength issues. There's only so much muscle mass you can add to a slight frame.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhhhhhh. He doesn't know that.




The funny thing is, you fellers are saying that the guy that plays the 2nd most minutes, takes the most shots, get the 2nd most assists, gets the 2nd most steals, the 2nd highest scorer and the 4th most blocks on a team is not having an impact. 

I find this to be an odd opinion.... but you are entitled to it.

This season, the Knicks do better when Jamal is on the court.

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4D.HTM

The Knicks are a winning team when Jamal is on the court.

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4A.HTM

Their top 5 man units are when Jamal is on the court.

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4B.HTM

EDIT: Looks like I had the wrong link for the 5-man units.....

http://www.82games.com/0405NYK2.HTM

Better way to say it seems to be...

out of those 5-man units with 10 or more minutes together.... 6 out of the 7 positive units have Jamal on it.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

Of course he's making an impact. A guy who's shooting the most and playing the 2nd most minutes of course has an impact on the outcome of the game. But what I'm getting at is that the outcome in terms of Ws and Ls is not being completely altered once you look at what the Knicks did last year. 25-22 post Marbury. Yes he's hit a game winner against Houston and the go ahead shot against Atlanta, but the Knicks still had this kind of record last year without him and were well on their way to that kind of season without him. 

What kind of record do you think the Knicks would have without Jamal and what kind of record do you see them ending up with btw?


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Who says we need someone at SG better than Crawford? In a team system, the Bulls could win just as easily with a defensive specialist at the 2-guard, and for probably hafl the price (and don't say Trenton Hassell, ugh). Personally, I think the Bulls' biggest weaknesses are in the frontcourt. I think our money is better spent on upgrading the 4 and 5 positions. Neither Curry nor Chandler are proving to us that they are the answer.


What teams in the league are winning with a "defensive specialist at the 2-guard"? 

The Wolves already had Spree and are still paying good bucks for Hassell.

And why is having a sub-standard starter preferable at one postition rather than another? 

----------------------------------------------
Here is my take....


To play .500 in the EAST, you need at least one above starter and four other average starters and a good bench.

For the Knicks, Marberry is above average, Craw is an average SG so the team can play .500.

The Bulls were screwed last year and this b/c they had no above average starters.

The Bulls decided that signing an average starter would screw up their chance to get an above average\outstanding player via FA.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> This season, the Knicks do better when Jamal is on the court.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/04NYK4D.HTM
> 
> The Knicks are a winning team when Jamal is on the court.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/04NYK4A.HTM
> 
> Their top 5 man units are when Jamal is on the court.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/04NYK4B.HTM



Dude, Marbury is driving that train....

Marbury +18.9
Crawford +5.9

We need Dan to run his regressions and see how much of Crawford's good +/- is due to being on the floor with Marbury.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> Of course he's making an impact. A guy who's shooting the most and playing the 2nd most minutes of course has an impact on the outcome of the game. But what I'm getting at is that the outcome in terms of Ws and Ls is not being completely altered once you look at what the Knicks did last year. 25-22 post Marbury. Yes he's hit a game winner against Houston and the go ahead shot against Atlanta, but the Knicks still had this kind of record last year without him and were well on their way to that kind of season without him.
> 
> What kind of record do you think the Knicks would have without Jamal and what kind of record do you see them ending up with btw?




OK cool.

All I'm saying is that Crawford is a heavy contributor to a playoff-bound team. Sounds like you don't disagree with me.

As for comparing this year's Knicks to last year's.... that's a difficult argument to make either way.

Houston definitely played a part in the post Marbury record. Thomas was playing much better last season compared to this season as well.

I'll never say that Jamal is they type of player than can turn a franchise around himself. Just that he can be one of the better players on a successful team. The Bulls could use these types of players.

I think the Knicks will be a slightly above .500 team, although the Penny injury hurts


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Marbury is driving that train....
> 
> Marbury +18.9
> Crawford +5.9
> 
> We need Dan to run his regressions and see how much of Crawford's good +/- is due to being on the floor with Marbury.


I'm not saying that Jamal is the top player on the team.

The 4th best 5 man rotation for the Knicks +/- wise seems to be

Crawford-Hardaway-Ariza-Sweetney-Williams

which is lacking the Starchild.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Marbury is driving that train....
> 
> Marbury +18.9
> Crawford +5.9
> 
> We need Dan to run his regressions and see how much of Crawford's good +/- is due to being on the floor with Marbury.



Who has ever said Marbury wasnt driving that train ?Its like some posters change there stance so much they dont remember what the original argument was.

Jamal Crawford is a MAJOR contributor to a playoff bound team something in which some of you said he could never do .Also let it be said that some of you were claiming he and marbury would be at each others throats by now and Jamal would be buried on the bench somewhere and the list goes on .

So many wild accusations and staments and then months of backtracking


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What teams in the league are winning with a "defensive specialist at the 2-guard"?
> 
> The Wolves already had Spree and are still paying good bucks for Hassell.
> 
> And why is having a sub-standard starter preferable at one postition rather than another?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------


Greg Buckner for the Nuggets. Bruce Bowen also plays this role for the Spurs at SF. It's all too easy to find guys who like to shoot in this league, and they end up getting paid alot more for it. In the right system, you get alot more bang for your buck with these defensive specialist types. 

To answer your last question though, it's not preferable. But when you are coming off a 21 win season, it's suicide to make long-term financial commitments. With Crawford, you're committing 6 years of money to a guy who seems mostly one-dimensional (a guy who shoots). That severely limits the Bulls financial flexibility in the future. If I'm looking to spend alot of money, I'll spend it on the hard to find types, like a good 4 or 5. There are plenty of winning teams through NBA history that have put a very mediocre 2-guard out there and done just fine.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>! There are plenty of winning teams through NBA history that have put a very mediocre 2-guard out there and done just fine.


Really?

I don't see it. Certainly, again, no more so than any other position.

Per the one example you mentioned, Greg Buckner only plays 22 minutes a game. And this wasn't by plan. Leonard got hurt. And Denver is going to be looking big time to upgrade the position.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Coming soon... the playoff game shot.


Correction:

The "John Starks Part 2: He Shot Us Out the Game" playoff shot.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> he can be one of the better players on a successful team


Not hard in the East if you have a superstar.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Jamal Crawford is a MAJOR contributor to a playoff bound team something in which some of you said he could never do .Also let it be said that some of you were claiming he and marbury would be at each others throats by now and Jamal would be buried on the bench somewhere and the list goes on .
> 
> So many wild accusations and staments and then months of backtracking


Link please.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Not hard in the East if you have a superstar.


Might be harder than you think.

1998-1999
EAST
Nets
16-34 .320
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=1998

1999-2000
EAST
Nets
31-51 .378
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=1999

2000-2001
EAST
Nets
26-56 .317
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=2000


----------



## GB

3?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 3?


u said EAST.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Might be harder than you think.
> 
> 1998-1999
> EAST
> Nets
> 16-34 .320
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=1998
> 
> 1999-2000
> EAST
> Nets
> 31-51 .378
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=1999
> 
> 2000-2001
> EAST
> Nets
> 26-56 .317
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=2000


Funny how that $80M supporting cast can make a difference, ain't it?


----------



## GB

> Q: One of the reasons you went to Michigan was you loved the Fab Five.
> 
> A: They helped change college basketball, with the black socks and everything.


 



> Q: What drives you?
> 
> A: To be great. I want to see how good I can be. You only go through this one time.
> 
> Q: Which NBA player reminds you of you?
> 
> A: Charles Oakley said Micheal Ray Richardson. Walt Frazier said Earl Monroe.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/32490.htm


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Might be harder than you think.
> 
> 1998-1999
> EAST
> Nets
> 16-34 .320
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=1998
> 
> 1999-2000
> EAST
> Nets
> 31-51 .378
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=1999
> 
> 2000-2001
> EAST
> Nets
> 26-56 .317
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NJN&lg=N&yr=2000


I don't know how relevent Marbury's playing days with the Nets are to this discussion. Marbury's Nets were in a completely different Eastern Conference, he played in a totally different system w/ different coaches and players around him, and he was younger, more immature, and less established. The same can not be said when discussing last year's Knick team before Crawford ever arrived. You have essentially the same Knicks team as last year except with Crawford there instead of Allan Houston and they are doing pretty much the same (.500 ball). My argument is simply that Jamal isn't elevating his game or his team to any higher level, and that he's doing the same thing for them that he did for us.


----------



## GB

His teammates are starting to grumble...



> the Knicks lost those games because they were content to shoot it out with the Magic and the Bobcats. *"You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper," Williams said after watching the Knicks waste Jamal Crawford's 41-point performance in Charlotte. "You've got to live by defense and die by defense.* That's what we've got to understand."
> 
> Crawford made 17 of his first 20 shots before missing his last five in the fourth quarter as the Bobcats rallied down the stretch to win. But *the game was lost in the third quarter when Crawford still was filling the basket. Instead of getting the stops they needed to pull away, the Knicks were content to trade baskets*, effectively keeping the Bobcats in the game.
> 
> In one stretch, the two teams combined to score on 11 straight possessions. "I just felt like we had to up our level of intensity in order to push away and get some distance," Williams said. "But we weren't able to do that."
> 
> Added Thomas: "*You can't get into a run-and-gun, up-and-down type of game and not get any stops down the stretch.*"


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Funny how that $80M supporting cast can make a difference, ain't it?




Not really this season.

Houston: 17.5 million
Thomas: 12.9 million (horrible if you look at the #s... perhaps the main reason the Knicks don't have a better record)
Anderson: 7.3 million
Moochie: 3.8 million
Vin Baker: 3.4 million


That's 32 million for players that just are not contributing.

44.9 million if you count thomas... who is a drag on that team so far.

Lotsa misspent money on the Knicks.


5.8 million on jamal is a freaking bargain.

AD is making 12.8 million for the Bulls.
Pippen is raking in 5 million.
Pistol..... 2.7 million.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> His teammates are starting to grumble...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines


Nice quotes... but the Knicks still play better when Crawford is on the court. 

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4D.HTM


PaxSkiles have trouble winning a game period. The Bulls don't have to worry about series.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice quotes... but the Knicks still play better when Crawford is on the court.


>>But the game was lost in the third quarter when Crawford still was filling the basket. Instead of getting the stops they needed to pull away, the Knicks were content to trade baskets<<


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> >>But the game was lost in the third quarter when Crawford still was filling the basket. Instead of getting the stops they needed to pull away, the Knicks were content to trade baskets<<


Why didn't they get the stops?

Its all on Crawford?


----------



## GB

>>Houston's return will give Wilkens more options in the backcourt - among them, benching Crawford if he takes too many ill-advised shots<<

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/sports/basketball/06knicks.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> >>Houston's return will give Wilkens more options in the backcourt - among them, benching Crawford if he takes too many ill-advised shots<<
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/sports/basketball/06knicks.html


The Knicks play better when Crawford is on the court.

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4D.HTM


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know how relevent Marbury's playing days with the Nets are to this discussion. Marbury's Nets were in a completely different Eastern Conference, he played in a totally different system w/ different coaches and players around him, and he was younger, more immature, and less established. The same can not be said when discussing last year's Knick team before Crawford ever arrived. You have essentially the same Knicks team as last year except with Crawford there instead of Allan Houston and they are doing pretty much the same (.500 ball). My argument is simply that Jamal isn't elevating his game or his team to any higher level, and that he's doing the same thing for them that he did for us.



Thats not true about last years knicks team the ywere rolling along great after the Marbury trade unti lthey traded KVH and then lost 6 of their next 7 which put them on the playoff bubble for the rest of the season and they limped into the playoffs clinching that birth with a win against who else ? The Bulls on apr 7 with 3 games left in the season and the Cavs lost to the Grizzlies which was their 6th loss of 7 in a row in a row that they would suffer during their collapse.

the knicks made the playoffs but they were not the team youre describing .


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Why didn't they get the stops?
> 
> Its all on Crawford?


Mostly. It was outside their average scoring by Steve Smith and other perimeter players that really hurt.

>>If they had found someone who could lock down Orlando's Cuttino Mobley on Friday night and then recognized on Saturday that any significant defensive effort would have gotten them past expansion Charlotte, the Knicks would be 10-6 and riding a five-game winning streak.<<
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines

>>


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The Knicks play better when Crawford is on the court.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/04NYK4D.HTM


Teams have a chance to win when Crawford is on the court too.

See Charlotte.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Mostly. It was outside their average scoring by Steve Smith and other perimeter players that really hurt.
> 
> >>If they had found someone who could lock down Orlando's Cuttino Mobley on Friday night and then recognized on Saturday that any significant defensive effort would have gotten them past expansion Charlotte, the Knicks would be 10-6 and riding a five-game winning streak.<<
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines
> 
> >>


Crawford was the only guy guarding these guys?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Teams have a chance to win when Crawford is on the court too.
> 
> See Charlotte.



See standings.

See playoffs.

Look down. 

No, Further.

See Bulls.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford was the only guy guarding these guys?


The team was looking to Crawford all night. A prime time to lead.

Instead he milked it for jumpshots, and didn't try to inspire them on the defensive end.

He failed to use his capital.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> His teammates are starting to grumble...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines



:laugh: Of course he was talking about jamal and no one else .They are not the Bulls where they will scapegoat one player out of town every year .

The knicks two best defenders said they have to get better defensively and cant win a run and gun game without getting stops and that somehow is being pushed as them grumbling about Crawford ?

talk about reeeaaaaachhhhhhhhhiiiiiiing :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> Instead he milked it for jumpshots, and didn't try to inspire them on the defensive end.
> 
> He failed to use his capital.




You are basing this opinion on what? Anything?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> See standings.
> 
> See playoffs.
> 
> Look down.
> 
> No, Further.
> 
> See Bulls.


>>*It's hard to take the Knicks seriously when they can't close out an expansion team that had lost 10 of its first 13 games - even though Charlotte is now 4-4 at home.*<<

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/259112p-221960c.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> >>*It's hard to take the Knicks seriously when they can't close out an expansion team that had lost 10 of its first 13 games - even though Charlotte is now 4-4 at home.*<<
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/259112p-221960c.html



8-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-12


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing this opinion on what? Anything?


On his teammate:

>>"You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper," Williams said after watching the Knicks waste Jamal Crawford's 41-point performance in Charlotte. "You've got to live by defense and die by defense.<<


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Mostly. It was outside their average scoring by Steve Smith and other perimeter players that really hurt.
> 
> >>If they had found someone who could lock down Orlando's Cuttino Mobley on Friday night and then recognized on Saturday that any significant defensive effort would have gotten them past expansion Charlotte, the Knicks would be 10-6 and riding a five-game winning streak.<<
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines
> 
> >>


The knicks lost those games because they turned the ball over 20 times to Orlandos 16 and 18 times to the Bobcats 6 .

Twist on :laugh:


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 8-8


instead of 10-6.

With a loss to an expansion team.:sigh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> On his teammate:
> 
> >>"You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper," Williams said after watching the Knicks waste  Jamal Crawford's 41-point performance in Charlotte. "You've got to live by defense and die by defense.<<



The knicks rode jamals hot hand but they didnt play the defense needed to get them the win that includes jamal but ..

Twist on


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> On his teammate:
> 
> >>"You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper," Williams said after watching the Knicks waste Jamal Crawford's 41-point performance in Charlotte. "You've got to live by defense and die by defense.<<


Where does it say Jamal was the reason they were not getting stops? I must be missing this, please point it out.

I see the part where it says Jamal scored an astounding 41 points and that the Knicks wasted it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> With a loss to an expansion team.:sigh:


A team that is sadly better than Paxson's vision.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> The knicks lost those games because they turned the ball over 20 times to Orlandos 16 and 18 times to the Bobcats 6 .


I guess thats the 20,000 foot view.

But Crawford turned the ball over and shot them into a loss in the last 5 minutes.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> A team that is sadly better than Paxson's vision.


We're talking about Jamal.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess thats the 20,000 foot view.
> 
> But Crawford turned the ball over and shot them into a loss in the last 5 minutes.



Damn he turned the ball over 38 times in 2 games ?

You really are getting outraegous .:laugh:


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I see the part where it says Jamal scored an astounding 41 points and that the Knicks wasted it.





> It was Smith's 3-pointer that broke a 96-96 tie and gave the Bobcats the lead for good. And after Kurt Thomas hit one of two free throws, Smith stretched the lead to 101-97 with 1:52 left on a fadeaway jumper from 20 feet away, above and to the left of the foul circle.
> 
> Crawford tried to answer, but couldn't. After hitting 17 of his first 20 shots, he missed his final five. Crawford had the ball stripped by Brevin Knight as he tried to drive to the basket with 45 seconds to play and the Knicks down by four.
> --
> Crawford, who on Friday threw away the inbounds pass to Orlando's Cuttino Mobley with the Knicks down 99-96 with 18.7 seconds left to play in a 104-98 loss


http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/110222701150270.xml


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> We're talking about Jamal.


Spinning Jamal's Saturday game into a negative 

=

hatin'


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn he turned the ball over 38 times in 2 games ?


Might as well have, with turnovers in the last two games on final possessions.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/110222701150270.xml



Yes... but where does it say that it was Jamal's shoddy D that cost them the game, like you are trying to show?

Where's the beef? Lotsa hand waving going on. Its like listening to Paxson.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Spinning Jamal's Saturday game into a negative


>>* "Honestly, it doesn't even matter," he said. "If we had won, we'd have something to talk about, but we didn't."*<<

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/110222701150270.xml

I'd suggest it's YOU who have nothing to talk about.

:laugh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Might as well have, with turnovers in the last two games on final possessions.


but when he hits the game winner hes lucky or its because he plays with Marbury.

You seem to love passing him the blame but none of the credit


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... but where does it say that it was Jamal's shoddy D that cost them the game,


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1705275#post1705275

Who was the one doing the jump shooting?

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> >>* "Honestly, it doesn't even matter," he said. "If we had won, we'd have something to talk about, but we didn't."*<<
> 
> http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/110222701150270.xml
> 
> I'd suggest it's YOU who have nothing to talk about.
> 
> :laugh:


Its a team game.

I thought we were talking about Jamal?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

What would be interesting is if GB would apply his Jamal Crawford standards to any player on the Bulls for two weeks or so. GB would ridicule that player any time (a) the Bulls lost, (b) that player shot less than 40 percent, or (c) someone who played on the opposing team that might have been guarded by that player had a decent night. I wonder if there is any Bulls player who would look reasonably good under such scrutiny.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1705275#post1705275
> 
> Who was the one doing the jump shooting?
> 
> :laugh:


jump shooting = defense?

once again....

Yes... but where does it say that it was Jamal's shoddy D that cost them the game, like you are trying to show?

Where's the beef? Lotsa hand waving going on. Its like listening to Paxson.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Mostly. It was outside their average scoring by Steve Smith and other perimeter players that really hurt.
> 
> >>If they had found someone who could lock down Orlando's Cuttino Mobley on Friday night and then recognized on Saturday that any significant defensive effort would have gotten them past expansion Charlotte, the Knicks would be 10-6 and riding a five-game winning streak.<<
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,4217395.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines
> 
> >>


I'm still hoping for a Bulls' 3 game win streak. Hasn't happened in at least this season or last.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its a team game.


Jamal didn't get the memo that night.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> What would be interesting is if GB would apply his Jamal Crawford standards to any player on the Bulls for two weeks or so. GB would ridicule that player any time (a) the Bulls lost, (b) that player shot less than 40 percent, or (c) someone who played on the opposing team that might have been guarded by that player had a decent night. I wonder if there is any Bulls player who would look reasonably good under such scrutiny.


We're talking about Jamal.

Start a new thread.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal didn't get the memo that night.



haha... ok man i'm done. going to the game tonight to watch paxson's wretched brainchild. hope they play deng.

peace!


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> jump shooting = defense?


Are you really that ====== ? Are you serious?


----------



## kukoc4ever

i ask



> Yes... but where does it say that it was Jamal's shoddy D that cost them the game,


u say



> Who was the one doing the jump shooting?


with a link to



> On his teammate:
> 
> >>"You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper," Williams said after watching the Knicks waste Jamal Crawford's 41-point performance in Charlotte. "You've got to live by defense and die by defense.<<


i ask



> jump shooting = defense?


since the original ? was



> Yes... but where does it say that it was Jamal's shoddy D that cost them the game,



then u reply with



> Are you really that ====== ? Are you serious?


Still waiting for some real information about how jamal's individual defense cost them the game.

Where's the beef? Quotes are nice... but the one you are posting does not say anything about Jamal.... how about some facts?

waiting, waiting, waiting.........


----------



## GB

You understand full well K4.

Full well.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> You understand full well K4.
> 
> Full well.


GB , you cant answer his question because , you are wrong , his 41 point game was a good game by him and it would have been a good game by every single player in the nba. 

the knicks lost that game for 2 reasons , no one else had a good game except JC and mohammed(12 points 17 boards) and their defense stunk .

99% of the time they win that game with that kind of play from any player on their team.

crawford didn't cost them the game if anything he almost saved it for him, if you are so big on quotes from the game why dont you include the ones from marbury in which he said they put too much of a burden on JC in that game , that they didn't help him enough.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> GB , you cant answer his question because , you are wrong , his 41 point game was a good game by him and it would have been a good game by every single player in the nba.
> 
> the knicks lost that game for 2 reasons , no one else had a good game except JC and mohammed(12 points 17 boards) and their defense stunk .


"
It was a good game....by him. But:

"You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper" 

If JC had taken it upon himself to lock down Smith

If JC had decided that he was going to be as amazing defensively as he was offensively...

...do you think it could have made a difference?


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> "
> It was a good game....by him. But:
> 
> "You live by the jumper; you die by the jumper"
> 
> If JC had taken it upon himself to lock down Smith
> 
> If JC had decided that he was going to be as amazing defensively as he was offensively...
> 
> ...do you think it could have made a difference?


spoken like someone who didn't see the game.

for one Steve smith down the stretch and for a good portion of the game of the game being guarded by Tim Thomas, JC for the most part was switching back and forth between jason hart,brevin knight and keith bogans, and secondly do you honestly believe any player thinks along the lines of "well I am shooting well , so I'll take it easy on defense"

thats crazy.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> do you honestly believe any player thinks along the lines of "well I am shooting well , so I'll take it easy on defense"


spoken like someone out of touch with the NBA.


----------



## truth

> you live by the jumper,you die with the jumper


when you are sizzling hot and shooting lights out,you live by the jumper...

do my eyes decieve me,or are people actually questioning JC effort and performance..No wonder he took thr first flight out of there:yes:


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> spoken like someone out of touch with the NBA.


really GB?

please enlighten me on your exstensive knowledge on the intellectual mechanisms of the nba player and how they are different from the avg. person ?


----------



## GB

Putting the thread back on subject:

3rd loss in a row tonight. Jamal scores 17 as the Knicks lose 96-88.

Not sure, but I think that ducks them back under .500 . I may have missed a game.


----------



## Showtyme

A now legitimate 20-point scorer, the Knicks are HIS team, completely.

Allan Houston won't eat into his minutes; he'll eat into Penny's.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> A now legitimate 20-point scorer, the Knicks are HIS team, completely.
> 
> Allan Houston won't eat into his minutes; he'll eat into Penny's.


I think houston will eat into a lot of people's minutes , starting with penny's because he is on the IL now and tim thomas , JC's and marbury's . I cant see marbury and JC continuing at their minute pace with a healthy houston around , and houston has been practicing in a 3 guard unit in practice , so i figure this is the line-up wilkens plans to close games with those 3 guards plus nazr and kurt thomas.


----------



## GB

> Lenny Wilkens' team doesn't play enough defense to survive a sub-par offensive game, particularly from their vaunted backcourt. *So as Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford struggled to guard their positions* and score, the Knicks' best alternatives - Houston and Penny Hardaway - were both on the bench and dressed better than their coach.
> 
> The losing streak has reached a season-high three games after the Memphis Grizzlies, under new coach Mike Fratello, defeated the Knicks, 96-88. The 88 points represented their third-lowest total for the season, and the Knicks shot a season-low 34%.
> --
> "Our defense was terrible," Wilkens said after the Knicks, who face the 1-15 Hornets tonight, fell to 8-9. "The Grizzlies kept attacking the basket.* Our first line of defense was very poor*. We have to work on that."


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/260069p-222728c.html



> Crawford had an equally tough night against shooting guard Mike Miller, who used his superior size and strength to good advantage to score 20 points and shoot 8-for-13.
> --
> *Wilkens faulted his guards for their failure to match Watson by exerting enough ball pressure* to cut off Memphis' attack.
> 
> "Our first line of defense was very poor," Wilkens said. "If your first line is good, then you can help. But if your first line of defense is not good, it leaves holes everywhere. It's too much to cover for the big guys."


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,5537310.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines


Jamal might lose his starting position, if not his team:



> Perhaps Dec. 15 will break the Vince Carter stalemate. That's always a target date when players who signed free-agent contracts can be traded.
> 
> It just so happens that Jamal Crawford's contract can be shipped that day.
> --
> In Isiah's favor, few teams want both Carter and Rose's pacts, heavy favorite Portland the exception with billionaire owner Paul Allen.


Marbury, Rose and Vince would be a great trio...if they'd play defense. Got to say something positive about the GM being aggressive. 

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/35973.htm

Line of the night:



> Houston was dressed in a gray suit, playing as little defense as his teammates.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/35979.htm


----------



## kukoc4ever

*in other news....*

Knicks fans get to enjoy a viable team with competent nba players for the rest of the season... as the knicks battle for a division title and a playoff spot.

Bulls fans get to follow their squad on the ESPN worst teams ever list.

Nice job Pax.

Skiles says he does not have the players.

No ****, scott.

They play for New York, Toronto, LA, Indiana and Sacramento.

Tabloids.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: in other news....*

.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/260069p-222728c.html
> 
> 
> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,5537310.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines
> 
> 
> Jamal might lose his starting position, if not his team:
> 
> 
> 
> Marbury, Rose and Vince would be a great trio...if they'd play defense. Got to say something positive about the GM being aggressive.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/35973.htm
> 
> Line of the night:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/35979.htm



I can't believe that even the mere possibility of trading Crawford has even been considered already (at least I think that's what the NY Post was getting at). I find that humorous since it is my belief that Jamal will be labeled another bad contract within the next 3 years. I continue to say that this Knicks team is an average ball club. They're now 8-9, and just because they are leading their division doesn't make them any better than average; they are by far in the worst division in the NBA. 

But since this topic is on Jamal Crawford, I'll just note that Jamal's 5-18 shooting is simply the law of averages taking effect yet again. You can expect the roller coaster ride to contine throughout the season (over 40% one game, under 40% the next game).


----------



## GB

I'm so very disappointed in you K4. :grinning: 

Much Kudos to Isaiah. I'll give him that. He deserves it...especially if he can acquire and coax Vince back to life.

What do you think of Jamal in Toronto land? In a sense it's sad...the Raps just used his contract to the same ends that the Bulls could have.

But this thread isn't about the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I'm so very disappointed in you K4. :grinning:
> 
> 
> But this thread isn't about the Bulls.


I'm not wasting another couple of hours with this again... since you just are going to make **** up like a couple days ago. 

There needs to be a factcheck.org for your posts. 

At the end of the day, the Knicks are in the playoffs and are winning their division.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/standings

Crawford's 5 man units are almost entirely the best ones on the Knicks.

http://www.82games.com/0405NYK2.HTM

And the Knicks are a better team when Crawford is in the game.

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4D.HTM

If you want to post rumors from the post, the enquirer or the world weekly news... feel free....


----------



## GB

Did his coach blame his lack of defense for them falling under .500?


----------



## giusd

I am missing something here... It is skiles and paxson's fault that JK traded away all these players?

As for the knicks this is at best a .500 team and will be for years to come, if you really hate the bulls as much as you post maybe for your own health you should think about stop watching the bulls and posting about them.

As for JC, since this is a tread about him. Same as last year imho. And the sad thing is the NY press is already digging into him and talking about using him to trade for carter and talking about houston coming back and pushing JC to the bench.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I am missing something here... It is skiles and paxson's fault that JK traded away all these players?


Did I say it was?

I mentioned New York and Toronto first. Certainly that was on Paxson's watch, yes?

Then I mentioned LA, Indiana and Sacramento. Those trades happened under JK.

The difference between Pax trades and JK trades is that we get something of value at the time in JK trades. Pax trades are for NOTHING.




> As for the knicks this is at best a .500 team and will be for years to come, if you really hate the bulls as much as you post maybe for your own health you should think about stop watching the bulls and posting about them.


Thanks for the tip!  .500 is much, much better than the Bulls.




> As for JC, since this is a tread about him. Same as last year imho. And the sad thing is the NY press is already digging into him and talking about using him to trade for carter and talking about houston coming back and pushing JC to the bench.
> 
> david


The only difference is that he's on a division leading, playoff-bound team.... and that he's surrounded by other decent NBA players. Unlike the farm team Paxson builds.

JC is not enough for a team to win... I'm the first to say it. Marbury needs to step up. Houston needs to come back and be productive. Tim Thomas really needs to produce more than he has (when he's on the floor, the knicks are bad). 

If the Knicks could get VC for Jamal, I think it would be something they would have to look into. 

Maybe Paxson should have looked into trading Jamal for VC... if the Raptors are so keen on such a deal. Paxson settled for Pike. 

This thread, IMO, is not just about the day-to-day endeavors of Crawford, but what he represents regarding the perpetual failures of the Bulls.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> This thread, IMO, is not just about the day-to-day endeavors of Crawford, but what he represents regarding the perpetual failures of the Bulls.


You should go into politics dude.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I am missing something here... It is skiles and paxson's fault that JK traded away all these players?
> 
> As for the knicks this is at best a .500 team and will be for years to come, if you really hate the bulls as much as you post maybe for your own health you should think about stop watching the bulls and posting about them.
> 
> As for JC, since this is a tread about him. Same as last year imho. And the sad thing is the NY press is already digging into him and talking about using him to trade for carter and talking about houston coming back and pushing JC to the bench.
> 
> david


Just think. We could have signed him and traded him for Carter. Instead, we're going to be stuck trading Curry for Dale Davis.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Just think. We could have signed him and traded him for Carter. Instead, we're going to be stuck trading Curry for Dale Davis.


Is this the organization to resurrect Carters career?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this the organization to resurrect Carters career?


The chances of Carter being an all-star are infinitely better than any Bull since Jordan/Pippen retired.

That means better chance than Kirk or Curry or Chandler or Deng or Gordon.

We may have no draft pick next season to build upon what little base we have, or to hope to draft a sleeper superstar.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The chances of Carter being an all-star are infinitely better than any Bull since Jordan/Pippen retired.
> 
> That means better chance than Kirk or Curry or Chandler or Deng or Gordon.
> 
> We may have no draft pick next season to build upon what little base we have, or to hope to draft a sleeper superstar.


On what basis do we trust that this won't become Toronto Deux for him?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> On what basis do we trust that this won't become Toronto Deux for him?


That it's a better gamble than on a draft pick.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> That it's a better gamble than on a draft pick.


You understand that things could be significantly worse here than they are now if it doesn't work out?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You understand that things could be significantly worse here than they are now if it doesn't work out?


How could they be? We'd have a much better SG than we have now, even at a fraction of his potential production.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> How could they be? We'd have a much better SG than we have now, even at a fraction of his potential production.


Thats the problem. What will be his motivation for playing?

To be a star? He's not interested. It's a job, a paycheck to him.

And as for the UC crowd...they'll cheer for a guy who can't play, but tries...and will boo lustily a guy who can play but doesn't try.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as for the UC crowd...they'll cheer for a guy who can't play, but tries...and will boo lustily a guy who can play but doesn't try.


I heard lotsa booing on Monday night for guys that are playing "the right way."


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I heard lotsa booing on Monday night for guys that are playing "the right way."


I wouldn't dignify most of those guys effort wiith the word "playing".

I'll see it for myself on Saturday night.


----------



## GB

Jamal was 2-10 (20%) from the field for 8 points, but apparently added strong defense and 6 assists on the way to a Knicks 96-89 win over one of the poorer teams in the league.

As for Charlotte: Attendance: 12,542


----------



## GB

*Re: in other news....*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> as the knicks battle for a division title


I just studied the standings.

They should be broken up if they don't win it. Not to take anything away from them, but it's the worst in the league.

And if they get Vince...


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: in other news....*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I just studied the standings.
> 
> They should be broken up if they don't win it. Not to take anything away from them, but it's the worst in the league.
> 
> And if they get Vince...


The Bulls would be in last place in that division.

Should they break up Paxson's team?


----------



## GB

*Re: Re: Re: in other news....*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls would be in last place in that division.
> 
> Should they break up Paxson's team?


Do you have to fight over _everything_?

Once more...


----------



## Happyface

i dont see your point other than trying to paint the best possible picture you can for the Bulls GB, while others are being abit more realistic, but not as one-sided Bulls fan as you. 

Carter, while some may feel is washed up, is still worth alot in terms of value around the league. There have been lots of hypothetical trade rumours involving Carter, for some very good players like Abdur Rahim and others. And to think Toronto and the Knicks are considering a trade for Carter for Jamal and others i assume shows the value lost from the Bulls pretty much throwing Jamal away.

At the very least you have to admit Jamals value is alot higher now than the Bulls got for him. The Bulls wouldnt have even had to take Carter, they could've packaged him and Curry for someone which will probably net the Bulls a much better player than they'd just get for Curry.

Well, thats if Jamal was given consistent playing time, and allowed to play through his mistakes and develop like he has with the Knicks, iinstead of being pulled with different liineups every night with the Bulls. Too bad the Bulls are still doing that with their young players...


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Re: Re: in other news....*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you have to fight over _everything_?
> 
> Once more...


Sorry, I don't mean to fight.

What point did your post have other than to lessen the accomplishment of the Knicks leading their division?

I'm not saying that you are incorrect....


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> 
> 
> Carter, while some may feel is washed up, is still worth alot in terms of value around the league. There have been lots of hypothetical trade rumours involving Carter, for some very good players like Abdur Rahim and others. And to think Toronto and the Knicks are considering a trade for Carter for Jamal and others i assume shows the value lost from the Bulls pretty much throwing Jamal away.


Not to shift gears here too much, but Carter's value is getting lower by the day IMO. The injury is just the real kick in the balls. His career is becoming frighteningly similar to Penny Hardaway...begins his career as an immediate star, rises to maybe a top 5 player in the league (certainly not lower than top 10), signs a big contract, begins to fight injuries, and eventually loses the injury battle until becoming a role player. So far, everything else has happened except the last part I mentioned. Kind of a sad story. Any team would be foolish to give up anything particularly valuable for him at this point. At this point, I certainly don't want the Bulls giving up anything valuable for him (although Eddy Curry for Vince Carter intrigues me...).


----------



## GB

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today...

...4-12...

...preaches defenses, but gives up 27 offensive rebounds...

...sub .500...


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today...
> 
> ...4-12...
> 
> ...preaches defenses, but gives up 27 offensive rebounds...
> 
> ...sub .500...


are you saying jamal crawford gave up 27 offensive rebounds?


----------



## GB

2 in one day. This might be a new record...


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> 
> At the very least you have to admit Jamals value is alot higher now than the Bulls got for him. The Bulls wouldnt have even had to take Carter, they could've packaged him and Curry for someone which will probably net the Bulls a much better player than they'd just get for Curry.


With that contract...yes.


----------



## GB

> ...a team source said that he will start on Sunday for either Thomas or Crawford.
> 
> "It really isn't a discussion," Marbury said. "When Allan comes back and he wants to play 40 minutes and he can, he's going to play 40 minutes, period. I don't even know why we're talking about this, to really be honest."
> 
> Crawford, despite his erratic shooting and defensive lapses, has filled in well for Houston and has already won two games with last-second shots. Because he can play either guard position and can provide instant offense, Crawford would seem better suited for the role as sixth man.
> 
> In recent days, the usually ebullient Crawford has appeared agitated by the media's constant inquiries regarding Houston's imminent return. When a reporter asked Crawford on Wednesday whether playing fewer minutes would be beneficial to him over the long season, Crawford replied: "I know where this is going." He also said he is "numb" to the talk about Houston....
> 
> ...In practice, Marbury, Crawford and Houston have played together as a unit and that group will likely be on the floor in the fourth quarter more often than not.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/260760p-223296c.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

Marbury, Houston, Crawford.

Take any 1 of these 3 players and place them on the Bulls and we're still one of the worst teams in the league.

Place all 3 on a team along with some other solid vets and you'll be in the playoffs.

WARNING... you do have to pay them and treat them like grown men.


----------



## DaBullz

New York 103, Denver 92, game not over yet.

Jamal is 11-19 FG with 31 points.


----------



## kukoc4ever

its over now.

knicks win.

jamal goes off.

man.... hinrich, gordon, crawford could have been sweet.

oh well.....


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Jamal is 11-19 FG with 31 points.


Must have watched his replacement play last night. 

Seriously, he wouldn't have to look over his shoulder and get agitated and all if he'd just settle down and be consistent.


----------



## Wynn

Statement game with Houston coming back to the line-up. Won't be long before he begins sulking about the amount of time Houston gets on the court. Would like to congratulate Jamal for contributing both a rebound *AND* 2 assists in 38 minutes of play.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Statement game with Houston coming back to the line-up. Won't be long before he begins sulking about the amount of time Houston gets on the court. Would like to congratulate Jamal for contributing both a rebound *AND* 2 assists in 38 minutes of play.


He's playing his role.

Knicks win.

Playoff bound.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Statement game with Houston coming back to the line-up. Won't be long before he begins sulking about the amount of time Houston gets on the court. Would like to congratulate Jamal for contributing both a rebound *AND* 2 assists in 38 minutes of play.


Jamal has had a hard NBA life.

El-Amin was better than him to start his NBA career...

Leg injury

Jay Williams took his burn

Hinrich took his position and...

...Gordon made him expendable

The local paper is talking about trading him for another player that plays the same position

And now "Houston!?! We may have a problem" 



If I didn't know better by reading on this board, I'd think he was trending more toward journeyman than anything. 

He'll find his place eventually.


----------



## remlover

What i find most humorous about this thread is when Jamal has a good game, certain posters are lauding his achievements. However, when Jamal has a bad game, they are silent and dont have much to say.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal has had a hard NBA life.
> 
> El-Amin was better than him to start his NBA career...
> 
> Leg injury
> 
> Jay Williams took his burn
> 
> Hinrich took his position and...
> 
> ...Gordon made him expendable
> 
> The local paper is talking about trading him for another player that plays the same position
> 
> And now "Houston!?! We may have a problem"
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn't know better by reading on this board, I'd think he was trending more toward journeyman than anything.
> 
> He'll find his place eventually.


He's happier now.

Winning. Playoffs around the corner.

Being talked about in trades for all-stars.

Better than having the 4-14 architects ripping you for not playing the right way.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> He's playing his role.
> 
> Knicks win.
> 
> Playoff bound.


At what point do you recognize in yourself that you are a Knick fan? I've said before and I'll say here again, this is the worst our team will be all season. We're playing a rotation that uses 8 primary players:

*Curry
Chandler
Davis
Deng
Hinrich
Duhon
Gordon
Nocioni*

Of those eight, four are rookies. The next three off the bench:

*Piatkowski
Griffin
Harrington*

are all completely new to the Bull.

This is a team who is learning each other, learning the NBA game, and getting better every game. How can this not be interesting to you? Do you really think adding Crawford to this max would help anything? He'd be whining about why we drafted Gordon and Duhon. He'd be complaining about the number of shots being taken by Deng. He'd be chafing at instructions from his coach.

NY Knick, on the other hand, is an old team getting older. They have already played their best ball of the season, and are one injury (Marbury) away from going 0 for the rest of the season.

Enjoy being a Knick fan. You and the rest of the Knick faithful are not likely to see anything better than a .500 team for a very long time.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> What i find most humorous about this thread is when Jamal has a good game, certain posters are lauding his achievements. However, when Jamal has a bad game, they are silent and dont have much to say.


Some post when he has a good game... others when he has a bad game.

The interaction between the two sects creates an efficient jamal update system.


----------



## jnrjr79

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Winning. Playoffs around the corner.
> 
> Being talked about in trades for all-stars.


10-10 is much better than the Bulls right now, but that's not a "winning" team. A winning team is over .500, technically. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to switch records.

Also, I don't think JC is being traded for Paul Pierce straight up anytime soon. Plenty of players could be included in trade rumors for an all-star player.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Some post when he has a good game... others when he has a bad game.
> 
> The interaction between the two sects creates an efficient jamal update system.


Such is true. Every time I see the names "GB" or "Wynn" as last posted, I drop the S bomb.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> 10-10 is much better than the Bulls right now, but that's not a "winning" team. A winning team is over .500, technically. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to switch records.
> 
> Also, I don't think JC is being traded for Paul Pierce straight up anytime soon. Plenty of players could be included in trade rumors for an all-star player.


The Knicks are winning their division.

If the season ended today, Jamal would be a on a division champion team.

Would "non-losing" make you happier, captain semantics? 

Crawford was mentioned in the Vince Carter trade talks as well.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> At what point do you recognize in yourself that you are a Knick fan?


 

:laugh: 


Thats a pretty interesting point you raise there.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Such is true. Every time I see the names "GB" or "Wynn" as last posted, I drop the S bomb.


"S" bomb?


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> "S" bomb?


I'm also interseted to know what "S" bomb means. Sect?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> At what point do you recognize in yourself that you are a Knick fan? I've said before and I'll say here again, this is the worst our team will be all season. We're playing a rotation that uses 8 primary players:
> 
> *Curry
> Chandler
> Davis
> Deng
> Hinrich
> Duhon
> Gordon
> Nocioni*
> 
> Of those eight, four are rookies. The next three off the bench:
> 
> *Piatkowski
> Griffin
> Harrington*
> 
> are all completely new to the Bull.
> 
> This is a team who is learning each other, learning the NBA game, and getting better every game. How can this not be interesting to you? Do you really think adding Crawford to this max would help anything? He'd be whining about why we drafted Gordon and Duhon. He'd be complaining about the number of shots being taken by Deng. He'd be chafing at instructions from his coach.
> 
> NY Knick, on the other hand, is an old team getting older. They have already played their best ball of the season, and are one injury (Marbury) away from going 0 for the rest of the season.
> 
> Enjoy being a Knick fan. You and the rest of the Knick faithful are not likely to see anything better than a .500 team for a very long time.


Haha. Damn.

I think the fact that I'll be going to about 20 Bulls games this season and that I watch as many games as I can makes me a Bulls fan. 

When the Bulls play the Knicks... I'll root for the Bulls.

I agree the team is learning eachother.

What makes you think the top two guys on your list of players will be here next season?

Do you think Paxson is competent enough to get something for them? Or... will we trade them for Pike and Othella like Paxson did for Crawford? Crawford is making 6.5 million this season. Pretty cheap.

Most of your points about the Bulls being led mostly by rookies and young players have been true since Jordan left, with the exception of the one 30 win season we've had.

Nearly every year... a new crop of fresh faces to get their brains beaten in. There's hope on the horizon though!  Oh....unless we don't resign the towers or get nothing for them. 

Either way, there will be more "learning" going on next season.

4-14. 4-14. 4-14. 4-14. 4-14.


----------



## madox

NEWS ITEM: Jamal Crawford not a consistent player.

This is a ridiculously hopeless thread. 

Everyone knows perfectly well that Jamal is just as capable of having an outstanding game as he is of having a miserable game. 

This thread makes me think about the gambling addict who will spend half of his life at the track, even though he knows that he is destined to lose. I call him Gamblor.

Trying to argue that Jamal Crawford is a star is just as futile as trying to argue that he is a scrub.

Let's just face it folks. No one is going to "win" this argument because the only reliable thing about JC is that he is unreliable. 
The whole thing just looks like third-person gloating.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> Everyone knows perfectly well that Jamal is just as capable of having an outstanding game as he is of having a miserable game.


Great overall post. I just want to add one small thought based off of what you said:

He's just as capable of having an good season as he is of having a bad one...he's just as capable of leading a team thats in the dumps as he is leading a team to winning a poor division.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Haha. Damn.
> 
> I think the fact that I'll be going to about 20 Bulls games this season and that I watch as many games as I can makes me a Bulls fan.


Fair enough. You've certainly earned your membership card!

 



> What makes you think the top two guys on your list of players will be here next season?


Because so far Pax has made many of the same decisions I would have. I wouldn't have kept either Rose or Crawford. I think they are mentally weak players. Those types of players may put up numbers, but they never really *WIN* in any major sense. If Curry and Chandler continue to play the kinds of games they're showing against the Timberwolf and the Cavalier, they'll be worth the money they ask for. If they don't, they won't. I would be surprised to see Chandler leave unless a really great opportunity came available. Not sure about Curry right now. He seems to sulk too much and place blame everywhere but on himself. Curry really seems to be in the Rose/Crawford mental mold to me. His one saving grace is that he's physically huge. A brontasaurus? Isn't that the huge dinosaur with the tiny brain? Maybe Eddy can do the cartoon voice for one of those big fellas when his NBA career is over.



> Nearly every year... a new crop of fresh faces to get their brains beaten in. There's hope on the horizon though!  Oh....unless we don't resign the towers or get nothing for them.


It's hard to hold Pax responsible for more than this year and last year. As an announcer, he had very little input into personel decisions. The end is in sight. The players on the floor every night now are going to get better and better. I'd be willing to wager the Bull finishes the season within 10 wins of the Knick this year, and have a better record than the Knick next year. I think at this point Pax has many of the players who will be a winning Bull team in the future.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Fair enough. You've certainly earned your membership card!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because so far Pax has made many of the same decisions I would have. I wouldn't have kept either Rose or Crawford. I think they are mentally weak players. Those types of players may put up numbers, but they never really *WIN* in any major sense. If Curry and Chandler continue to play the kinds of games they're showing against the Timberwolf and the Cavalier, they'll be worth the money they ask for. If they don't, they won't. I would be surprised to see Chandler leave unless a really great opportunity came available. Not sure about Curry right now. He seems to sulk too much and place blame everywhere but on himself. Curry really seems to be in the Rose/Crawford mental mold to me. His one saving grace is that he's physically huge. A brontasaurus? Isn't that the huge dinosaur with the tiny brain? Maybe Eddy can do the cartoon voice for one of those big fellas when his NBA career is over.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to hold Pax responsible for more than this year and last year. As an announcer, he had very little input into personel decisions. The end is in sight. The players on the floor every night now are going to get better and better. I'd be willing to wager the Bull finishes the season within 10 wins of the Knick this year, and have a better record than the Knick next year. I think at this point Pax has many of the players who will be a winning Bull team in the future.


Good post.

A couple quick notes.

Rose did lead his Pacers to the NBA Finals. We'll be lucky if any of our Bulls are mentally strong enough to lead us there.

Crawford is currently leading his team to the playoffs right now. We'll be lucky if any of our players are mentally strong enough to lead us there in the next few seasons.

I'm not just holding just Paxson responsible... I think the problems go higher than just him. I don't think he handled last season and off season very well at all.

If we dump Curry/Chandler for NBA fodder... then the end is not in sight for me anymore…. Or at least not an end I’m comfortable with. Like I said in another post... I'm optimistic about the guys we have. I just hope we keep them and develop them.

I’ll take your bet for this season…. Bulls vs. Knicks. Within 10 games in the win column?


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Haha. Damn.
> 
> I think the fact that I'll be going to about 20 Bulls games this season and that I watch as many games as I can makes me a Bulls fan.
> 
> When the Bulls play the Knicks... I'll root for the Bulls.
> 
> I agree the team is learning eachother.
> 
> What makes you think the top two guys on your list of players will be here next season?
> 
> Do you think Paxson is competent enough to get something for them? Or... will we trade them for Pike and Othella like Paxson did for Crawford? Crawford is making 6.5 million this season. Pretty cheap.
> 
> Most of your points about the Bulls being led mostly by rookies and young players have been true since Jordan left, with the exception of the one 30 win season we've had.
> 
> Nearly every year... a new crop of fresh faces to get their brains beaten in. There's hope on the horizon though!  Oh....unless we don't resign the towers or get nothing for them.
> 
> Either way, there will be more "learning" going on next season.
> 
> 4-14. 4-14. 4-14. 4-14. 4-14.


Williams, Piatowski and othella. Hoopshype has Jamal making 5.8 mill this season. Barely above MLE.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I’ll take your bet for this season…. Bulls vs. Knicks. Within 10 games in the win column?


Wanna go with some sort of signature bet? Possibly some Carson's ribs? Maybe a temporary Avatar change? Loser buys supporting membership for winner? Debasement and humiliation for the loser? 

Let's make it something fun.

May the best team be within ten of the other!


----------



## transplant

This thread is a little like a solar eclipse. I know I shouldn't look at it but I can't seem to help myself.

This thing has taken on a life of its own. Some posters may still be sincere (honestly, I can't tell), but it looks to me to be argument for its own sake.

I used to want this thread to go away, but I now want it to keep going until Crawford retires...maybe even after ("If it wasn't for the lousy prescription coverage provided by Medicare, I just know Jamal could make a comeback and own the league.").


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Williams, Piatowski and othella. Hoopshype has Jamal making 5.8 mill this season. Barely above MLE.


Thanks for the factcheck. 

Wow... only 5.8 mil... I think i looked at the next column for some reason cause that's the page I went to. 

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

Yeah... I use "Pike and Othella" as a term for all-but-useless NBA players. Technically, we got Frank, Othella, Pike and Trybanski, correct?


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> This thread is a little like a solar eclipse. I know I shouldn't look at it but I can't seem to help myself.
> 
> This thing has taken on a life of its own. Some posters may still be sincere (honestly, I can't tell), but it looks to me to be argument for its own sake.
> 
> I used to want this thread to go away, but I now want it to keep going until Crawford retires...maybe even after ("If it wasn't for the lousy prescription coverage provided by Medicare, I just know Jamal could make a comeback and own the league.").


Well said, *Tom!* I have been mostly amusing myself on the thread, but I think it's served as an interesting sidebar to a rather lackluster season so far. It would be nice if there were a way to have this thread link to both the Bull and the knick boards at the same time.


----------



## jnrjr79

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Would "non-losing" make you happier, captain semantics?


Yes. I think it's fair to make the point that being 10-10 is not stellar. It is howeve adequate to winning a poor division. It's just like the Rams right now would go to the playoffs at 6-6. Does that mean the Rams are good? No. It's an anomaly.



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Crawford was mentioned in the Vince Carter trade talks as well.


Meaningless.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Wanna go with some sort of signature bet? Possibly some Carson's ribs? Maybe a temporary Avatar change? Loser buys supporting membership for winner? Debasement and humiliation for the loser?
> 
> Let's make it something fun.
> 
> May the best team be within ten of the other!



I like the avatar change idea.

Winner gets to pick the loser's avatar for 3 months?

I'm already keeping score in my sig. 


just to be sure.....
"Within 10 wins" means that

Knicks 41-41
Bulls 31-51
means you are a winner while

Knicks 41-41
Bulls 30-52

means I’m a winner?


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I like the avatar change idea.
> 
> Winner gets to pick the loser's avatar for 3 months?
> 
> I'm already keeping score in my sig.
> 
> 
> just to be sure.....
> "Within 10 wins" means that
> 
> Knicks 41-41
> Bulls 31-51
> means you are a winner while
> 
> Knicks 41-41
> Bulls 30-52
> 
> means I’m a winner?


It's all good! Just make sure you're comfortable with the avatar idea.......... I've had (and still have!) some pretty bad ones. See you at the end of the season!


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Fair enough. You've certainly earned your membership card!


Interesting. I didn't read the original post...I suppose he's going for a dual "citizenship"...NY and Chi?

:yes:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting. I didn't read the original post...I suppose he's going for a dual "citizenship"...NY and Chi?
> 
> :yes:


I've never set foot in MSG. 

But... I've been to nearly 200 games at the UC and the old barn.

I'm a bulls fan.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting. I didn't read the original post...I suppose he's going for a dual "citizenship"...NY and Chi?
> 
> :yes:




Any offspring that *K4E!* and Crawdaddy spawn will certainly have Knick citizenship......


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any offspring that *K4E!* and Crawdaddy spawn will certainly have Knick citizenship......


that's cold.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> This thread is a little like a solar eclipse. I know I shouldn't look at it but I can't seem to help myself.
> 
> This thing has taken on a life of its own. Some posters may still be sincere (honestly, I can't tell), but it looks to me to be argument for its own sake.
> 
> I used to want this thread to go away, but I now want it to keep going until Crawford retires...maybe even after ("If it wasn't for the lousy prescription coverage provided by Medicare, I just know Jamal could make a comeback and own the league.").


Which thread do you think will go on for longer:

1) Official Season is a Wash thread (been going for 3 years now)

or

2) Crawford Update thread


----------



## DaBullz

Actually, the Raptors/Knicks trade is rumored to be:

Rose+Carter for Crawford+filler


----------



## NYKBaller

It'll probably be Houston/Tim Thomas/Kurt Thomas for Jalen Rose/Vince Carter/Alvin Williams. Crawford is untouchable. Did I mention he had 31 today? 17 in the 3rd quarter.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> It'll probably be Houston/Tim Thomas/Kurt Thomas for Jalen Rose/Vince Carter/Alvin Williams. Crawford is untouchable. Did I mention he had 31 today? 17 in the 3rd quarter.


Many people on this thread hate him NYKBaller.

I don't get it either.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Which thread do you think will go on for longer:
> 
> 1) Official Season is a Wash thread (been going for 3 years now)
> 
> or
> 
> 2) Crawford Update thread


----------



## giusd

Is there any real difference between Larry Hughes and JC. Since i live in washington now i try to watch the wiz when i get home a 7pm when the games start.

Hughes shots a higher % (thro not for 3's) and is at around 19 ppg. His D is better than JC but outside of shoting he doesn't do much on O and is not a very good passer at all.

david


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Is there any real difference between Larry Hughes and JC.


Got Asbestos?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Is there any real difference between Larry Hughes and JC. Since i live in washington now i try to watch the wiz when i get home a 7pm when the games start.
> 
> Hughes shots a higher % (thro not for 3's) and is at around 19 ppg. His D is better than JC but outside of shoting he doesn't do much on O and is not a very good passer at all.
> 
> david


They are both main players on soon-to-be-playoff teams?

Hughes plays much better D than Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes. I think it's fair to make the point that being 10-10 is not stellar. It is howeve adequate to winning a poor division. It's just like the Rams right now would go to the playoffs at 6-6. Does that mean the Rams are good? No. It's an anomaly.


It depends on your definition of "good." I think .500 is good. Not great. Not poor.

The Bulls are poor.



> Meaningless.



Meaningless only if you don't want to think Paxson got schooled in the Crawford trade.

If Crawford nets a Vince Carter or a PP... dang... Pike just does not stack up.

Oh wait... I forgot.... we got Othella, Frankie and Trybanski too.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Meaningless only if you don't want to think Paxson got schooled in the Crawford trade.
> 
> If Crawford nets a Vince Carter or a PP... dang... Pike just does not stack up.
> 
> Oh wait... I forgot.... we got Othella, Frankie and Trybanski too.



PP? :laugh: Pierce is on a completely different level than Vince right now. There's not a chance in hell PP gets traded for Jamal. Vince Carter is an allstar b/c he has had the fans behind him at this point. This guy is a *completely* different player than a few years ago. You're trading for the name if you get him b/c you certainly aren't getting the player from 2001. He's scoring 16ppg, ices his knees after every single game, and just went on the injured list again. Come on, you have to know all this. You're just trying to promote that darn agenda of yours. 

You asked a question a while ago, how many GMs would trade Jamal for Othella, Frank, etc. Why not ask the question the way it should be asked? How many GMs out there would trade Jamal and JYD, who's owed 20 some million dollars over the next few years for expiring contracts when you have the chance to be under the cap that year (if things don't work out with the bigs) or for surely the year after that? Would you say Paxson's the only one that would have made that deal?

You still didn't fully answer my question from before either. You said you think the Knicks would have a slightly better than .500 record this year. What record did you see the Knicks having without Jamal? 

And what kind of record do you see the Bulls having this year vs if they had Jamal?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> Vince Carter is an allstar b/c he has had the fans behind him at this point. This guy is a *completely* different player than a few years ago. You're trading the name if you get him b/c you certainly aren't getting the player from 2001. He's scoring 16ppg, ices his knees after every single game, and just went on the injured list again. Come on, you have to know all this. You're just trying to promote that darn agenda of yours.


Err...what happened to Vince? Did his body breakdown or did he just suffer from "big-contractitus"?

I mean, in a complimentary way too, Jamal came back from a bad leg injury. Plenty of player have..

Nice post.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Err...what happened to Vince? Did his body breakdown or did he just suffer from "big-contractitus"?
> 
> I mean, in a complimentary way too, Jamal came back from a bad leg injury. Plenty of player have..
> 
> Nice post.



I don't know man but it sure is sad. He looked like a guy who was going to be a superstar in the league for a very long time. I really hate to bring down Vince like that b/c I used to be such a huge fan of his (actually that's where the 15 comes from in my screen name :angel: ) but it's just like watching a different player now.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know man but it sure is sad. He looked like a guy who was going to be a superstar in the league for a very long time.


They spoke if him in the same way they speak of LeBron:

"The Next MJ?"

That Jamal would be considered a principle in a trade for him shows...

Well, we'll just say Vince isn't who he used to...was going to be.


----------



## The True Essence

you say you would suck with jamal, but hes a young player with great potential. you just dont trade that. you guys messed up a couple of times doing that, and your trying to justify doing it again. sure you would suck with jamal this year. but add another lottery guy to the team next year and with all the young guys getting better, theres no reason you guys wouldnt be good with him. do you think you guys will land a FA next offseason better then Jamal?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> you say you would suck with jamal, but hes a young player with great potential. you just dont trade that. you guys messed up a couple of times doing that, and your trying to justify doing it again. sure you would suck with jamal this year. but add another lottery guy to the team next year and with all the young guys getting better, theres no reason you guys wouldnt be good with him. do you think you guys will land a FA next offseason better then Jamal?


All good questions Penny. I've asked them all before as well... you are barking up the wrong tree.

I've heard the term "addition by subtraction" used a lot.

4-14. Haha.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 4-14. Haha.


This might be a good point to ask when wouldn't you laugh.

The Knicks are no better than last year. Struggling to be .500.

Looks like the Raptors may end up with a better record than the Bulls.

We are 4-6 out of our last 10. 

It's getting close, no?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> PP? :laugh: Pierce is on a completely different level than Vince right now. There's not a chance in hell PP gets traded for Jamal. Vince Carter is an allstar b/c he has had the fans behind him at this point. This guy is a *completely* different player than a few years ago. You're trading for the name if you get him b/c you certainly aren't getting the player from 2001. He's scoring 16ppg, ices his knees after every single game, and just went on the injured list again. Come on,  you have to know all this. You're just trying to promote that darn agenda of yours.
> 
> You asked a question a while ago, how many GMs would trade Jamal for Othella, Frank, etc. Why not ask the question the way it should be asked? How many GMs out there would trade Jamal and JYD, who's owed 20 some million dollars over the next few years for expiring contracts when you have the chance to be under the cap that year (if things don't work out with the bigs) or for surely the year after that? Would you say Paxson's the only one that would have made that deal?
> 
> You still didn't fully answer my question from before either. You said you think the Knicks would have a slightly better than .500 record this year. What record did you see the Knicks having without Jamal?
> 
> And what kind of record do you see the Bulls having this year vs if they had Jamal?


Someone else brought up a rumor about Paul Pierce... I had not heard that one either. The Vince Carter rumors are flying around left and right. Maybe I misunderstood whatever the previous poster was trying to say about Paul Pierce.

It took Bill James about a decade of nearly full time work to come up with "win shares" for baseball. I don't have that done for basketball, sorry.  The Knicks are winning their division and bound for the playoffs with Crawford contributing significantly.... that I know. 

I think it was MikeDC that wrote an interesting post about how the Tampa Bay Bucs were rebuilt from a loser to a respectable team. One of the mantas was to "stop looking for a savior." Yah, Jamal was not the savior.

Would the Bulls still be “bad” this season with Crawford. Yah, probably. 

Would they be better than they are now? Yah, I think so. 

If you took Jamal off the Knicks of this season, I think they are in some trouble. He's been a pretty important part of their team so far.

The Knicks can lead divisions with him and be a respectable, bound-for-the-playoffs team with Crawford. 

We could use players like that on this team.

IF we successfully resolve the towers situation with still having enough cap space to pursue a free agent and IF a free agent better than crawford decides to join the Bulls, then maybe Paxson's move will be considered to be a success. I just don't find this very likely.

That, and I’ve read that Paxson puts us worse off cap wise with Pike trades. That's no good either.


----------



## ScottMay

This has probably already been covered, but today's game vs. Denver was imo Crawford's best game ever. It's at least on the very short list.

He played in control, he played outstanding D on Earl Boykins on some critical possessions in the 4th, he judiciously mixed up his jumpers, pull-ups, and drives, and he was simply unguardable in the third quarter -- and while being guarded by a great defender (Greg Buckner) who had totally taken him out of his game in the first half.

It doesn't hurt as bad because of what Ben Gordon was able to do last night, but man, Jamal just looked terrific today. No nits to pick whatsoever.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This might be a good point to ask when wouldn't you laugh.
> 
> The Knicks are no better than last year. Struggling to be .500.
> 
> Looks like the Raptors may end up with a better record than the Bulls.
> 
> We are 4-6 out of our last 10.
> 
> It's getting close, no?


We're on pace to win 18.2222 games this season. We're still in laughing mode IMO.... especially when we're talking about a "right way" defense. The Knicks are on pace to win 41 games. That's a nearly 23 game difference. That's HUGE.

Gordon's emergence is promising.

Rose and Crawford also won games for this team by scoring 30 points and hitting big shots.


----------



## jnrjr79

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> We're on pace to win 18.2222 games this season. We're still in laughing mode IMO.... especially when we're talking about a "right way" defense. The Knicks are on pace to win 41 games. That's a nearly 23 game difference. That's HUGE.
> 
> Gordon's emergence is promising.
> 
> Rose and Crawford also won games for this team by scoring 30 points and hitting big shots.


Ok, that's what we're on pace for considering the record so far. However, is that the number you actually think we'll end up at? Your calculation doesn't take into account the difficulty of the schedule, the circus trip, the new faces, the relative difficulty of the games in front of us versus the games behind, etc. I mean, if someone was giving me an over/under of 18 or 19 wins for this team this year, I'd take the over on that bet for a pretty penny.


----------



## GB

<i>
We're on pace to win 18.2222 games this season. We're still in laughing mode IMO.... especially when we're talking about a "right way" defense. The Knicks are on pace to win 41 games. That's a nearly 23 game difference. That's HUGE.

Gordon's emergence is promising.

Rose and Crawford also won games for this team by scoring 30 points and hitting big shots.</i>

Someone ask him why he's going to pay 20x to see a laughable team play in person.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, that's what we're on pace for considering the record so far. However, is that the number you actually think we'll end up at? Your calculation doesn't take into account the difficulty of the schedule, the circus trip, the new faces, the relative difficulty of the games in front of us versus the games behind, etc. I mean, if someone was giving me an over/under of 18 or 19 wins for this team this year, I'd take the over on that bet for a pretty penny.


I think I picked 23 as the win total @ the start of the season... so I'll agree with you.

23 still sucks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> <i>
> We're on pace to win 18.2222 games this season. We're still in laughing mode IMO.... especially when we're talking about a "right way" defense. The Knicks are on pace to win 41 games. That's a nearly 23 game difference. That's HUGE.
> 
> Gordon's emergence is promising.
> 
> Rose and Crawford also won games for this team by scoring 30 points and hitting big shots.</i>
> 
> Someone ask him why he's going to pay 20x to see a laughable team play in person.


Why do you go to the UC for "smallball?"

I think there is a separate thread about being a "Bulls-a-holic" BTW.... perhaps that's the place to have this discussion.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

I'm simply asking for an estimate here.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The Knicks are on pace to win 41 games. That's a nearly 23 game difference. That's HUGE.



And all b/c of Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> And all b/c of Crawford.


"looking for a savior"

like i said, crawford is not it.


----------



## Da Grinch

the records for both teams are basically about where they are expected at this point. All the arguing about 10-10 being winning and 4-14 being horrible is getting somewhat old, there is a difference , but its not exactly an unexpected difference.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/2004/11/10-10-optimism.htm

Isiah thomas said the knicks would be lucky to be at 10-10 after 20 games in the preseason. a further look down shows that statisically that was a somewhat optimistic statement given their recent history.

basically in a season where they are supposedly predicted to win in the neighborhood 45-50 they are on pace for that despite the .500 record they have now.

the bulls at 4-14 are also on pace for what was predicted for them when taking their early schedule into account which is about 25 wins (i predicted 27).

the knicks are a better team than the bulls if both teams are healthy , they have good sound vets star players young talent and a proven coach , the bulls basically only have the young talent of which they rely far too heavily on.

wynn you made a bad bet, basically the knicks only have to be little more than a win a month better than the bulls the rest of the way. and their best player a year ago today is not in game shape yet and just started playing on friday. According to 82games.com the knicks are something like +33 with him in the line up in his current condition , that # will obviously come down even as he gets better , if he plays as expected crawford could get hurt today getting his morning paper and you would more than likely still lose.

But on to the thread topic, Jc had a great game i agree with scott may probably one of his best ever , both he and marbury killed the nuggets the duo outscoring the nuggets starting guards by 50 , 56-6, and i think the nuggets have only themseves to blame , they switched andre miller on JC early in the 3rd and crawford just lit him up , and couple of min. later on when buckner was back on him it didn't matter anymore JC was hot and he tore into him too, as well as their backups rodney white and earl boykins who Jc was posting up pretty effectively, i believe there was some discussion earlier this week about crawford posting up , well there is some proof he is capable of doing it when matchups allow it.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> wynn you made a bad bet, basically the knicks only have to be little more than a win a month better than the bulls the rest of the way. and their best player a year ago today is not in game shape yet and just started playing on friday. According to 82games.com the knicks are something like +33 with him in the line up in his current condition , that # will obviously come down even as he gets better , if he plays as expected crawford could get hurt today getting his morning paper and you would more than likely still lose.


It's only a bad bet if you believe the Knick is as good as the media thinks they are. I don't.

It's only a bad bet if you believe the Bull is as bad as the media thinks they are. I don't.

I believe the Knick will be below .500 ball.

I believe the Bull will be above 30 wins.

I believe I made a good bet.

Of course, I'm also an idiot who makes stupid predictions......


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> It's only a bad bet if you believe the Knick is as good as the media thinks they are. I don't.
> 
> It's only a bad bet if you believe the Bull is as bad as the media thinks they are. I don't.
> 
> I believe the Knick will be below .500 ball.
> 
> I believe the Bull will be above 30 wins.
> 
> I believe I made a good bet.
> 
> Of course, I'm also an idiot who makes stupid predictions......


Can I get in on that action too? I don't think you have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Can I get in on that action too? I don't think you have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.


Since my avatar's already on the line, how about the signature for three months?


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Since my avatar's already on the line, how about the signature for three months?


Sounds like a plan to me...confirmed bet, same deal you have w/K4E, but with the signature for 3 mos.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan to me...confirmed bet, same deal you have w/K4E, but with the signature for 3 mos.


It's all good!

Anyone wanna put their screen name on the line?



I'm willing to take on all of you Knick fans!!!


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> It's all good!
> 
> Anyone wanna put their screen name on the line?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to take on all of you Knick fans!!!


Hey now, lets not get carried away I am always a Bulls fan above all else.


----------



## truebluefan

If I was a betting man, I would get in the action. I would side with Wynn. Of course I am Mr. Optimistic. 

Ny has some good guards but we have some guards and swingmen that play decent D. Nazr has tore it up as of late. Can he keep it up? 

NY was a playoff team last year and so far with Crawford added, they are .500 Houston is hurt yes. But he was hurt last year so that can't be an excuse. 

We seem to be getting out act together and if we play like we are capable of, 30 wins is not out of the question. We just came through a brutal opening schedule. We beat the best in the east and have beaten 4 western teams. 

I predict Wynn will win the bet. He will win it big time should Thomas trade for Carter. Rose and Carter in NY will do what they did in Toronto. Sub .500


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> If I was a betting man, I would get in the action. I would side with Wynn. Of course I am Mr. Optimistic.
> 
> Ny has some good guards but we have some guards and swingmen that play decent D. Nazr has tore it up as of late. Can he keep it up?
> 
> NY was a playoff team last year and so far with Crawford added, they are .500 Houston is hurt yes. But he was hurt last year so that can't be an excuse.
> 
> We seem to be getting out act together and if we play like we are capable of, 30 wins is not out of the question. We just came through a brutal opening schedule. We beat the best in the east and have beaten 4 western teams.
> 
> I predict Wynn will win the bet. He will win it big time should Thomas trade for Carter. Rose and Carter in NY will do what they did in Toronto. Sub .500


Doesnt a healthy Houston make the knicks an above .500 team ?i dont think he can win that bet if Houston is healthy .

The knicks have lost several close games themselves and played a pretty tough schedule as well so it will be interesting how they come out after the all star break.

The Bulls played a tough schedule as well but weve seen for the last 5 years than when February rolls around the team packs it in and starts looking toward next season. It will be hard when this team is looking at 30 losses by the midway point.

Also we only have 4 wins not 5


----------



## Wynn

We have played four games this season against teams with losing records. (New Jersey, Philly, Golden State, Utah)

New York has played eleven games against teams with losing records. (Boston, Philly, Houston, Atlanta 2, Toronto 2, Memphis 2, Charlotte, New Orleans)

I think a lot of their early season "success" can be attributed to having an extremely weak schedule. Things will even out.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> We have played four games this season against teams with losing records. (New Jersey, Philly, Golden State, Utah)
> 
> New York has played eleven games against teams with losing records. (Boston, Philly, Houston, Atlanta 2, Toronto 2, Memphis 2, Charlotte, New Orleans)


:sfight:


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> Of course, I'm also an idiot who makes stupid predictions......


Not <I>stupid</I> just <B>bold</B>.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I think a lot of their early season "success" can be attributed to having an extremely weak schedule. Things will even out.


Because they always do right . I mean we always start slow beause of a tough schedule then go on a few 10 game winingstreaks and get our 30-40 wins .This year is no different . :laugh: :yes: 

You sound as though we normally would have had a better record and we only have our current record because of the tough schedule.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> Because they always do right . I mean we always start slow beause of a tough schedule then go on a few 10 game winingstreaks and get our 30-40 wins .This year is no different . :laugh: :yes:
> 
> You sound as though we normally would have had a better record and we only have our current record because of the tough schedule.


Actually, the opponents have made the Knick look stronger than they really are. We were going to start off this poorly anyway. I just think this is going to be our worst stretch of ball all year. When the players get used to each other, discover their roles, get used to the speed of NBA game, etc, I think they;ll surprise a lot of people.

The Knick are going to go through a tremendous slump when Nazr realizes he's........ Nazr, Crawdaddy starts pouting about Houston getting minutes, the Thomases both get injured and Marbury gets fed up and asks for a trade.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> We have played four games this season against teams with losing records. (New Jersey, Philly, Golden State, Utah)
> 
> New York has played eleven games against teams with losing records. (Boston, Philly, Houston, Atlanta 2, Toronto 2, Memphis 2, Charlotte, New Orleans)
> 
> I think a lot of their early season "success" can be attributed to having an extremely weak schedule. Things will even out.


i wouldn't say the knicks schedule is extremely weak at all , they have had the texas triangle already , plus indy on the road before the suspesions, road games vs. minny and wash.

some tough home games vs. cleve, LAC and orl.

they have basically faced what the nba is , some tough teams some avg. and a few bad teams .


----------



## Da Grinch

*.*

.


----------



## giusd

Last time i checked NY had the 22th hardest schedule while the bulls had, by far, the hardest schedule in the NBA. We can debate what that means but i do think bulls will both play better due to experience and a easier schedule.

As for the knicks. The one thing i can say is JC seems to make Marybury a much better PG and imo he is the best pg in the east this year. He just looks super.

But the kincks are a big time jump shot team with their guards being the leading scorers. now maybe that will prove a good thing over the season and into the playoffs but i think they will be up and down because the are a perimeter team, that is somewhat soft, and plays weakish D. As their schedule gets harder, including an upcome west coust trip, i think they will have trouble staying above 500.

I also think houston coming back is bad for their chemisty and i wonder what marybury thinks about JC taking more shots than him. He is one strange dude.

david


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Last time i checked NY had the 22th hardest schedule while the bulls had, by far, the hardest schedule in the NBA. We can debate what that means but i do think bulls will both play better due to experience and a easier schedule.


Through Sunday night, Sagarin has the Bulls with the 2nd most difficult schedule and the Knicks with the sixth easiest.

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/nbasend.htm

The Bulls also have pulled out of the cellar in the computer rankings and are now ahead of the Bobcats.


----------



## giusd

ty, 


Who has the hardest now?

david


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> ty,
> 
> Who has the hardest now?
> 
> david


Toronto has had a slightly more difficult schedule than the Bulls. The "average" team the Bulls have played is like the Cavaliers/Wizards/Lakers at home or Celtics/Knicks/Blazers on the road.

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/nbasend.htm


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> ty,
> 
> 
> Who has the hardest now?
> 
> david


who ever said the knicks schedule was harder than the bulls ?

i know i said it was not extremely weak, 7 teams have according to dan's stats have had weaker, it would seem i was right on that.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> who ever said the knicks schedule was harder than the bulls ?
> 
> i know i said it was not extremely weak, 7 teams have according to dan's stats have had weaker, it would seem i was right on that.


Sounds like you want in in some action, *Grinch!* How about screen name for three months? Join the other Knickerbocker fans in doubting my Bull?


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Through Sunday night, Sagarin has the Bulls with the 2nd most difficult schedule and the Knicks with the sixth easiest.
> 
> http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/nbasend.htm
> 
> The Bulls also have pulled out of the cellar in the computer rankings and are now ahead of the Bobcats.


Am I reading the chart wrong? Looks like the Bull is ahead of the Hornet, the Hawk, the Bobcat, & the Warrior in the ratings column.


----------



## GB

> *Comfortably Mediocre, Knicks Muddle Through*
> 
> With a quarter of the season complete, the Knicks have neither underperformed nor overachieved, and if the N.B.A. had a truth in advertising award, it would probably go to Isiah Thomas.
> 
> Thomas, the Knicks' president, predicted a .500 record after 20 games, and here they are, 10-10, happily dwelling in the land of the unspectacular.
> --
> Like most mediocre teams, the Knicks swing wildly from brilliant to disjointed.
> 
> They have been dominant at home (7-2), disastrous on the road (3-8). They are 3-5 against teams with winning records, 7-5 against everyone else.
> 
> Their offense, fueled by Marbury, Jamal Crawford and the surprising Nazr Mohammed, has been predictably sound. They are 14th in the league in scoring (96.5 points a game) and 12th in field-goal percentage (44.4). But they are also 22nd in assists (19.9 a game), a sure sign of a team that is not always working together.
> 
> Defensively, the Knicks are as woeful as expected.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/sports/basketball/14knicks.html


----------



## ace20004u

Would someone be kind enough to look up the stat of who else this season has had 41 pt plus games? Thanks!


----------



## ScottMay

Here you go:

NBA Season's Best


----------



## Qwst25

I have to admit when I look at those stats, the one thing that stands out for me is that he only grabbed two rebounds and dished out two assists, during the entire game.  

Did NY win or lose that game?


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> I have to admit when I look at those stats, the one thing that stands out for me is that he only grabbed two rebounds and dished out two assists, during the entire game.
> 
> Did NY win or lose that game?


They lost, and Crawford missed his last five or six attempts.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> They lost, and Crawford missed his last five or six attempts.


Which game? They won the Denver game...that was the last one.

btw, since you didn't feel like typing out the list, here it goes:

Mowitski 53
Mcgrady 48
Lebron 43
Jamal 41
Nowitski 41
Shaq 40
AI 40
Kobe 40
Tim Duncan 39


Damn....thats pretty good company huh?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Which game? They won the Denver game...that was the last one.
> 
> btw, since you didn't feel like typing out the list, here it goes:
> 
> Mowitski 53
> Mcgrady 48
> Lebron 43
> Jamal 41
> Nowitski 41
> Shaq 40
> AI 40
> Kobe 40
> Tim Duncan 39
> 
> 
> Damn....thats pretty good company huh?



WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!

You have posted a list of NBA players consisting of Jamal surrounded by many other great NBA stars.

PREPARE TO ENTER LIST DEFENSE MODE!!!


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds like you want in in some action, *Grinch!* How about screen name for three months? Join the other Knickerbocker fans in doubting my Bull?


why not ? 

If i'm wrong it means the bulls are better than i think they are i'd be happy to change my name off of that , if i'm right you'll get what you deserve for calling me knick fan . a win win situation if i ever saw one.


----------



## Da Grinch

i guess i'll do the crawford update today.

8-21fg, 4-9 on 3's, 10-11 ft, 30 points 5 rebs 3 ast 3 steals 6 to's for the now winning new york knicks(11-10)

and wynn i'll spot you tonight's win so there is no thought of me being an opportunist, won't take no for an answer.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> why not ?
> 
> If i'm wrong it means the bulls are better than i think they are i'd be happy to change my name off of that , if i'm right you'll get what you deserve for calling me knick fan . a win win situation if i ever saw one.


Excellent! At least now if I lose no one will even recognize me for three months!!



Excellent game by Crawdaddy tonight. Probably the best line score I've seen from him since going to the Knick. Still the team only mustered 87 points against the Net (13th team with a losing record so far this season?). I just don't think the Knick has it this season.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Excellent! At least now if I lose no one will even recognize me for three months!!
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent game by Crawdaddy tonight. Probably the best line score I've seen from him since going to the Knick. Still the team only mustered 87 points against the Net (13th team with a losing record so far this season?). I just don't think the Knick has it this season.


He's had MUCH beter games and much better lines with the Knicks...just an FYI


----------



## truth

last night may have not been his best game,but it was his flashiest..the guy has an unbeleivable handle..in fact,he shook eric williams so badly on a crossover,he flagrantly swung at him out of embarrassment....

if he ever puts on 15-20 pounds and learns the words "shot selection",he is an perrenial all star..if his elbow joint doesnt fall off from hoisting 25 shots per game..the guy has no fear..or shame...


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Am I reading the chart wrong? Looks like the Bull is ahead of the Hornet, the Hawk, the Bobcat, & the Warrior in the ratings column.


Looks like that to me, too.

Interesting enough, Bulls still have the 2nd hardest record to date.

And they are 3-9 vs. top 10 teams. The 4 teams below us are 0-29.

Wynn, your bet may turn out just fine.


----------



## spongyfungy

I Just Got Here! 

*Crawford as Good as Gone?* 








 *Barbara Barker*  



> So what are the Knicks to do with this glut? Marbury is the one player on the team whom Thomas won't trade. Houston is one whom he can't. If they want to improve drastically, that leaves Crawford - a player in whom a number of teams, including the Vince Carter Raptors, are interested.
> 
> Crawford is 24 and has the ability and temperament to be an All-Star. He could, however, end up being one somewhere else.


This woman tries to use her logic but frankly I think she's insane. If they have a glut of guards, why would you trade just to get another one?


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> I Just Got Here!
> 
> *Crawford as Good as Gone?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Barbara Barker*
> 
> 
> 
> This woman tries to use her logic but frankly I think she's insane. If they have a glut of guards, why would you trade just to get another one?


It's not mizenkay or lizzy so she obviously has no idea what she is talking about.


----------



## truth

either the "ZEKE" steals carter and rose for penny and TT or NOTHING happens....

H20 hasnt played 30 miuntes this year and all of a sudden we have a glut of guards??????

And if we have a glut now,how the $%$$#%$ does bringing in carter and Rose clear it up???

Garbage:upset:


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> He's had MUCH beter games and much better lines with the Knicks...just an FYI


Three other games where he combined a nice shooting night with some rebounds and assists are:

Nov 27 vs. Raptor
Nov 21 vs. Cav
Nov 19 vs. Mav


----------



## transplant

If we can keep this thing going, we've got a shot at having more posts on this thread than the Bucks forum has had in total.

Jamal Sucks!

Jamal's Great!

Go Thread!!!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> This woman tries to use her logic but frankly I think she's insane. If they have a glut of guards, why would you trade just to get another one?


Trading Crawford?.... clearly insane!


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> If we can keep this thing going, we've got a shot at having more posts on this thread than the Bucks forum has had in total.
> 
> Jamal Sucks!
> 
> Jamal's Great!


Thats about the length, breadth and height of it.

I have a scary picture of him winning the bling one day though. With the right players anything is possible.


----------



## ChiBron

Jamal's heating up on National TV(ESPN) tonight. *Four 3's already in the 1st qtr. 12 points on 4-6 shooting.* He's truly one of the most unstoppable players in the league when he's feeling it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> With the right players anything is possible.


If only John Paxson believed this.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Knicks up 16 @ the half against the WORLD CHAMPS.

JAMAL
17 POINTS
6-9 FG
5-7 from 3
3 rebounds
3 assists

Holy Smokes!


----------



## thebizkit69u

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> Jamal's heating up on National TV(ESPN) tonight. *Four 3's already in the 1st qtr. 12 points on 4-6 shooting.* He's truly one of the most unstoppable players in the league when he's feeling it.


One of the most Unstopable players from the 3point line when hes feeling it is more like it.


----------



## yodurk

Jamal sure lit up the stat sheet, mostly in the 1st quarter which seems to be an on-going trend for him. But the ESPN guys (or at least Tolbert) were sure critical of him down the stretch. And I really don't blame them. I saw Jamal take several bad fadeaways with guys in his face at critical points in the game. It was off the rebound of one of these misses that Billups was able to push the ball for the game winning free throw. 6-9 shooting on 3's is certainly impressive, but of equal importance is when you do it. That's why we're all liking Ben Gordon so much, the kid is money down the stretch. Will Jamal ever learn to consistently get to the basket?


----------



## ChiBron

Knicks loses a painful one, 94-93.

JC played well the entire night except for the final 2-3 mins. where he took some really bone headed shots. Finished the game with 25/5/4 on 8-19 FG. The worst was Wilkens' play calling. I don't know y JC got so many isolations when Marbury was so hot down the stretch. Oh well.....Knicks fans must be feeling like the way we felt after the Mavs game. They just gave it away.


----------



## ScottMay

This (vs. Detroit) was the classic, enigmatic good/bad Jamal.

From what I saw, Jamal was unconscious again in the first half of this one.

But he was lit up by Hamilton and took an absolutely atrocious shot with 4 left on the shot clock, 7 left in the game, and the Knicks up 1. It led to a Detroit breakaway and Chauncey Billups hit two free throws to win the game.

I had thought that some of Jamal's really bad tendencies with shot selection were being reined in a bit with the Knicks. His last-second shot tonight shows me that he's still got a long, long way to go.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> Knicks loses a painful one, 94-93.
> 
> JC played well the entire night except for the final 2-3 mins. where he took some really bone headed shots. Finished the game with 25/5/4 on 8-19 FG.


If he sucked the end away for them, then he sucked the game tonight.

No moral victories.


----------



## GB

In the first half, the Knicks outscored the Pistons by 56-40. In the second half, the Pistons outscored the Knicks by 54-37.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> That's why we're all liking Ben Gordon so much, the kid is money down the stretch.


Jamal showed that he could streak us to some wins as well. But that was largely contingent upon some good shooting.

But Ben Gordon does it with a variety of moves and jumpshots. There's a certain authoratativeness in his game that would have made a great complement to Jamal's occasionally unstoppable, but shaky game.

The difference in their games is probably confidence.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Double post.


----------



## bullet

Seems like Knicks fans had enough too.

Check it out - 

NY BBBoard 

RealGMs NY board 



> I think its time for everybody to thank Jamal Crawford for losing the game for us.





> Did anyone see Jamal Crawford force up a TERRIBLE shot that cost us the game?





> please save us from the jumpshooting, nonpumpfaking, non freethrow drawing, low basketball IQ guy known as Jamal Crawford ! sleep tight Allan, rest those knees up and get healthy quickly please!





> Crawford shouldn't have taken it! WHY!?!? Was it Crawford or Lenny? Cause that was disgusting. I'm so **** everygame we blow our lead EVERY game.


Just some of it...

And Yes - we could've done a better trade!

No - I don't miss him!


----------



## ace20004u

He shot 42%from the field and 67%from 3pt land last night...if it wasn't for his hot hand they wouldn't have even been IN the game last night. I don't think it is realistic to expect a guy to hit EVERYTHING.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> He shot 42%from the field and 67%from 3pt land last night...if it wasn't for his hot hand they wouldn't have even been IN the game last night. I don't think it is realistic to expect a guy to hit EVERYTHING.


6 for 9 in the first half

2 for 10 in the second half

Jamal had a nice line score again. Rip Hamilton had a better one. I agree though, that this game should not be on Jamal. His team was unable to step up when Jamal's shot stopped falling. Problem with Jamal, as others have pointed out, is he is so inconsistent. We saw this with the Bull for the last four years. As the Knick continues to lose, we will see infighting and back biting. Jamal will lose the confidence he gained from his early season unleashing, and the Knick will spiral down.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

If you want the glory for wins you have to take some of the blame for losses so Jamal shares blame in this loss .

But I dont get how anyone can overlook that the knicks have blown 4-5 double digit leads in different games this year.Jama blew it at the end of the game last night but did it cost the knicks the game or was it the 16pt blown lead on their home floor that did it ?


----------



## kukoc4ever

interesting thread....

many knicks fans say they would not want to give up crawford for carter... wow. pike?

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130494&forumid=37


----------



## The True Essence

i wouldnt trade Vince for Jamal.

and yeah, crawford screwed up yesterday. but hindsight is 20/20. if he made that shot we wouldnt even be talking about it. 

id blame marbury more then jamal if anything. He played with 0 intensity yesterday, and hardly ever drove to the hoop or looked for his shot. he doesnt know when to shoot or pass. hes either always jacking up shots, or not shooting at all and just passing.



> That's why we're all liking Ben Gordon so much, the kid is money down the stretch.


Jamal made 2 game winners already this season.


----------



## Machinehead

Did any of you actually watch the game 

There were like 3 of the last 4 possessions that Jamal just made appalling choices when the pressure was on 

It wasn't that he missed the shots 

It was more about absolute crap decision making with some of the worst shot selection you are likely to see on a basketball court 

I don't know why Steph just didn't go get the ball and just get it the fU(k out of his hands 

Yeah cool the boy can shoot and has a nice dribble and can bounce off the backboards to himself

But after 5 years in the league he still doesn't know how to play the game notwithstanding his individual skill level 

He is absolutely no point guard and basically he has sh1t for brains when it comes to understand how to play the game of basketball 

John Paxson absolutely did the right thing in letting him go in an effort / need to improve the basketball IQ of the Chicago Bulls which is already labouring behind the slow mental development ( but improving ) of Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler

Jamal had to go . Pure and Simple


----------



## Machinehead

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> 6 for 9 in the first half
> 
> 2 for 10 in the second half
> 
> Jamal had a nice line score again. Rip Hamilton had a better one. I agree though, that this game should not be on Jamal. His team was unable to step up when Jamal's shot stopped falling. Problem with Jamal, as others have pointed out, is he is so inconsistent. We saw this with the Bull for the last four years. As the Knick continues to lose, we will see infighting and back biting. Jamal will lose the confidence he gained from his early season unleashing, and the Knick will spiral down.


I disagree

The Pistons were making runs but the Knicks had their measure until the last 1.30 when it was entirely the bizzare and panicked decision making of Jamal Crawford that did the Knicks in 

You can Ooh and Aah as to his half time buzzer beaters and other array of moves ..but when it gets down to it the guys is a mental pygmy that really can't play pro ball all that well


----------



## Machinehead

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not mizenkay or lizzy so she obviously has no idea what she is talking about.


Is mizenkay a chick ?

So am I actually ( or at least I will be after my operation ) 

Go the Sisterhood !

Yoo Hoo


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> Did any of you actually watch the game
> 
> There were like 3 of the last 4 possessions that Jamal just made appalling choices when the pressure was on
> 
> It wasn't that he missed the shots


if you are going to tell a story try telling what happened on both sides , what about rip hamilton's last 4 possesions , 1 made shot , i shot blocked by jamal , one airball forced by jamal and 1 time stripped going to the hoop when crawford was guarding him.

it wasn't exactly all bad at the end of that game , bottom line , crawford didn't cost them a game , he had a good game on offense and bad one on defense , but absence of his shot going in he got better on the defensive end, that is what winners do , i chalk up that last shot as purely his fault , it was a lazy shot , he should have worked to get a better shot , but he didn't , but if the bounce off the rim had gone different billups wouldn't have had a 1 man fast breat in which marbury fouled billups(a 91% ft shooter) despite he had kurt thomas to back him up , even the announcers said that was stephon's fault, it was chance to trust in his and his teammates defense 2 on 1 and he didn't.

that should ultimately be chalked up to a learning experience , he has won a couple of games with a jumpshot , but that is not a way to win games unless you have no choice or unless you are allan houston, reggie miller or some other absolutely dead eye shooter, crawford is someone who needs to mix things up and he didn't really so the to say thats a bad shot is something i agree with , i cant imagine lenny wilens would have drawn up that play if he had to decided to call a time out, personally i would called time out on a possesion like that and drawn up a play , because they were going to whittle down the clock, the defense was set anyway.


----------



## Machinehead

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> if you are going to tell a story try telling what happened on both sides , what about rip hamilton's last 4 possesions , 1 made shot , i shot blocked by jamal , one airball forced by jamal and 1 time stripped going to the hoop when crawford was guarding him.
> 
> it wasn't exactly all bad at the end of that game , bottom line , crawford didn't cost them a game , he had a good game on offense and bad one on defense , but absence of his shot going in he got better on the defensive end, that is what winners do , i chalk up that last shot as purely his fault , it was a lazy shot , he should have worked to get a better shot , but he didn't , but if the bounce off the rim had gone different billups wouldn't have had a 1 man fast breat in which marbury fouled billups(a 91% ft shooter) despite he had kurt thomas to back him up , even the announcers said that was stephon's fault, it was chance to trust in his and his teammates defense 2 on 1 and he didn't.
> 
> that should ultimately be chalked up to a learning experience , he has won a couple of games with a jumpshot , but that is not a way to win games unless you have no choice or unless you are allan houston, reggie miller or some other absolutely dead eye shooter, crawford is someone who needs to mix things up and he didn't really so the to say thats a bad shot is something i agree with , i cant imagine lenny wilens would have drawn up that play if he had to decided to call a time out, personally i would called time out on a possesion like that and drawn up a play , because they were going to whittle down the clock, the defense was set anyway.


We're not talking about Rip but your comments are noted and accurate 

I would not have credited the steal to Crawford though it was a juggle in traffic 

It wasn't just only the last shot it was the prolonged brain fart on the prior 3 - 4 possessions where he frequently made poor choices - the action of which , provided the glimpse of daylight the Pistons needed to sneak one that they shouldn't have


----------



## yodurk

Here we go again...

Knicks getting their butts kicked by the Sixers.

Jamal line:

4-15 FG, 0-7 three's (ouch), 11 pts, 1 reb, 1 ast, 2 TO

I again say, these Knicks are and will be a .500 team all season. They balance every good win with a bad loss, just how Jamal balances every good game with a bad game. They really need a big man.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> Here we go again...
> 
> Knicks getting their butts kicked by the Sixers.
> 
> Jamal line:
> 
> 4-15 FG, 0-7 three's (ouch), 11 pts, 1 reb, 1 ast, 2 TO
> 
> I again say, these Knicks are and will be a .500 team all season. They balance every good win with a bad loss, just how Jamal balances every good game with a bad game. They really need a big man.


I guess the Knick just need to "get the Chicago out of him".


----------



## remlover

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> Here we go again...
> 
> Knicks getting their butts kicked by the Sixers.
> 
> Jamal line:
> 
> 4-15 FG, 0-7 three's (ouch), 11 pts, 1 reb, 1 ast, 2 TO
> 
> I again say, these Knicks are and will be a .500 team all season. They balance every good win with a bad loss, just how Jamal balances every good game with a bad game. They really need a big man.


Don't tell Thomas that. He was trying to trade for VC.

Knicks just look totally out of it. Perfect summary of this game is Jamal has the ball on and doesnt have numbers : 1 on 3 break, what does jamal do? Does he pull back and run the offense? No, he makes a couple of crossovers and does a fadeaway jumper. Knicks announcers didnt sound pleased w/ that display.


----------



## bullet

That Allan houston 3p might cost Jamal his starters spot...


----------



## Wynn

Knick wins tonight despite every effort of Jamal to give the game away. Huge fourth quarter came up when Jamal was finally put on the bench.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Knick wins tonight despite every effort of Jamal to give the game away. Huge fourth quarter came up when Jamal was finally put on the bench.


 Wow, Sixers choked that one up big time. Last I checked they were up by 18. So Jamal got benched for Houston, eh? I'm sensing another Jamal saga.


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Is mizenkay a chick ?
> 
> So am I actually ( or at least I will be after my operation )
> 
> Go the Sisterhood !
> 
> Yoo Hoo


:yes:   :laugh: 

girlfriend! couldn't resist this. damn, i posted in this thread again. my eyes, my eyes.


----------



## kukoc4ever

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3331/gamelog

streaky.

i guess he sucks too.


----------



## kukoc4ever

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3253/gamelog

what the heck is with this piece of crap paul pierce?

some nights he shoots 5-14, 4-16, 3-13.
other nights he shoots 12-17, 7-13, 9-16.

why can't this bum just shoot a constant % every night???

why do the celtics put up with him? beats me!


----------



## kukoc4ever

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

Why do the Bulls let this Kirk Hinrich character shoot the ball?

Sometimes he shoots 5-15, 3-11.
Other nights 7-15, 10-23.

I just don't get it! He must be a really, really bad basketball player.


----------



## bbertha37

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3331/gamelog
> 
> streaky.
> 
> i guess he sucks too.


He's shooting 47.2% for the year, and he doesn't jack up 18 shots a game.


----------



## bbertha37

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3253/gamelog
> 
> what the heck is with this piece of crap paul pierce?
> 
> some nights he shoots 5-14, 4-16, 3-13.
> other nights he shoots 12-17, 7-13, 9-16.
> 
> why can't this bum just shoot a constant % every night???
> 
> why do the celtics put up with him? beats me!


He's an elite player in this league. When you contribute in as many facets of the game as Paul does, a lower FG% is acceptable. When you're a player like Jamal and not contributing anything else on the court when you're having a bad shooting night, the low FG% and inconsistency is more than a fair complaint.


----------



## bbertha37

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3710/gamelog
> 
> Why do the Bulls let this Kirk Hinrich character shoot the ball?
> 
> Sometimes he shoots 5-15, 3-11.
> Other nights 7-15, 10-23.
> 
> I just don't get it! He must be a really, really bad basketball player.


Again, if you're CONSISTENTLY hustling all over the floor and playing tough D, the player gets a little more lee-way when it comes to a low FG%. I don't deem it acceptable that Hinrich's FG% is still low, but I know that he consistently brings a lot of other things to the table night in and night out. I certainly can't say the same for Jamal.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Huge fourth quarter came up when Jamal was finally put on the bench.


How would Skiles have handled that?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>bbertha37</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, if you're CONSISTENTLY hustling all over the floor and playing tough D, the player gets a little more lee-way when it comes to a low FG%. I don't deem it acceptable that Hinrich's FG% is still low, but I know that he consistently brings a lot of other things to the table night in and night out. I certainly can't say the same for Jamal.


Or at least making it "look" like you're playing tough d.


----------



## Electric Slim

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=fantasyclm&prov=st&type=lgns

Rot Water Cooler - Three things being talked about more than Scott Peterson getting the death penalty: 

The return of Allan Houston: New York is bringing the sharpshooting Houston back slowly to the tune of 20 minutes per game. *But with every wild, off-balance, ill-advised shot Jamal Crawford takes, the chances of Houston playing more minutes get greater.*

Eric Snow's dustup with Paul Silas: Cleveland's backup point man and coach looked like they were going to throw down Thursday night, resulting in Snow getting sent from the bench to the locker room. Since he is averaging 3.6 points and 3.5 assists a game this season, Snow should probably just pipe down. 

The Kobe Bryant/Karl Malone saga: "The Mailman" allegedly said something inappropriate to Kobe's wife. If I were Malone I would have said to Mrs. Bryant, "Hey, how about your husband stops hogging the ball and passes to Lamar Odom more than once every darn leap year!"


----------



## kukoc4ever

*just a recap*

This is where we currently stand.

Jamal Crawford has the *most SHOTS* attempted per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

Jamal Crawford has the *2nd most FREE THROWS* attempted per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

Jamal Crawford has the *2nd most ASSISTS* per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

Jamal Crawford has the *most STEALS* per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

Jamal Crawford has the *2nd most POINTS SCORED* per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

Jamal Crawford has the *2nd most MINUTES PLAYED* per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

Jamal Crawford has the *4th most BLOCKS* per game on a *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* NBA basketball team.

And yes, most of these stats correlate positively with a team beating another team.

You may now resume your discussion of "intangibles" and quoting of tabloids.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*!!*



> Originally posted by <b>bbertha37</b>!
> but I know that he consistently brings a lot of other things to the table night in and night out. I certainly can't say the same for Jamal.


I can help you on this front.

Crawford also has the

2nd most assists
the most steals
2nd most freethrow attempts
and 4th most blocks
on a per game basis
on his *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* team.

"other things"

there they are!

and... if you can show me that individual "consistency" correlates with winning NBA basketball games... i'd be interested. i'm not saying you are wrong, i'm just saying i don't know and i'd like someone to show me.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bbertha37</b>!
> 
> 
> He's shooting 47.2% for the year, and he doesn't jack up 18 shots a game.



He's still more "inconsistant" than Jamal.

You seem to think this is a bad thing.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Or at least making it "look" like you're playing tough d.


Yup.

Crawford is one of the top 16 guards in the NBA in steals per game and one of the top 9 guards in the NBA in blocks per game.

Better than Hinrich.

(yes, there is more to D than blocks and steals, but blocks and steals according to many correlate with winning BIG TIME)


----------



## giusd

YO Man (kukoc4ever you really need to get over this bs. JC is a startin SG but not an all star, not an superstar and lets just get over it. He is a solid but wildly inconsistent offensive player who is weak on the defensive end.

The fact that he is no a playoff team (that is barely over 500) means nothing. As for his game on this PLAYOFF TEAM it is no diffenent than last year and when i watch the knicks that is clear as are his stats. Just under 39% FG, mid 30% from 3s and barely gets to the FT.

As for comparing him to KH there offensive stats are really not that differnent. KH is about 1% less FG and 3 or 4% from 3s. While KH is a outstanding defender with better court sense and makes the team as a whole play better. Three things JC has not learned how to do yet.

As for the knicks, i will say this all year, at best they are a 500 ball club that is SOFT, SOFT, SOFT and i would rather watch the bulls play hard and hustle than a bunch of lazy soft selfish players on the knicks.


david


----------



## lorgg

He's good I wish we coulda kept him.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: !!*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I can help you on this front.
> 
> Crawford also has the
> 
> 2nd most assists
> the most steals
> 2nd most freethrow attempts
> and 4th most blocks
> on a per game basis
> on his *WINNING, DIVISION LEADING, PLAYOFF BOUND* team.
> 
> "other things"
> 
> there they are!
> 
> and... if you can show me that individual "consistency" correlates with winning NBA basketball games... i'd be interested. i'm not saying you are wrong, i'm just saying i don't know and i'd like someone to show me.



Did ya mention the Knicks are a winning division leading playoff bound team?  Good for them. The ESPN guys sure love making fun of how god-awful that division is. At several points in the season, all 5 teams in that division have been under .500. It's legitimate that all the division winner needs to do is play .500 ball all season. When you get to play NJ, Toronto, Boston, and Philly 4 times a piece, that's a nice little boost to you win total as well. I get a good laugh when someone says "Knicks are division champs" because the Bulls have 3 teams in their division alone who are better than NY. (btw, I thought Bulls-Knicks fans were natural enemies...I'm sensing too much Knick loving around here).

And again, I fail to see how anything NY does is relevent to the Bulls. Jamal's a big contributor for them. So what? When they win, they do it as a team with big contributions from everyone. The play of their big men, KT and Nazi, might be more important than anything Jamal does since there's nobody else with much of an inside presence. I don't buy it when people say, "look what Jamal's done, 15 points in the first quarter, blah blah blah." He's in a different situation now, and I get the impression that most (not all) Bulls fans aren't missing him too much. The Bulls play the Knicks 4 times this year; back-to-back games in January, and then another 2 times in mid-April. If you're so wrapped up about how good the Knicks are, why don't we wait and see how they play against our bad Bulls team. Good chance we see a series split there.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: !!*

The Bulls play New Jersey, Toronto, Boston and Philly 4 times each this season as well.

So far we're 0-2 against them.

The Knicks defeated Cleveland when they played. The Knicks lost to DET and IND, but the Knicks have also played 1 more game. If DET loses to Portland tonight and the Bulls beat the Pacers, then all 3 teams are even w-l wise.

I agree that basketball is a team game and that the Knicks are in a weak division.





> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Did ya mention the Knicks are a winning division leading playoff bound team?  Good for them. The ESPN guys sure love making fun of how god-awful that division is. At several points in the season, all 5 teams in that division have been under .500. It's legitimate that all the division winner needs to do is play .500 ball all season. When you get to play NJ, Toronto, Boston, and Philly 4 times a piece, that's a nice little boost to you win total as well. I get a good laugh when someone says "Knicks are division champs" because the Bulls have 3 teams in their division alone who are better than NY. (btw, I thought Bulls-Knicks fans were natural enemies...I'm sensing too much Knick loving around here).
> 
> And again, I fail to see how anything NY does is relevent to the Bulls. Jamal's a big contributor for them. So what? When they win, they do it as a team with big contributions from everyone. The play of their big men, KT and Nazi, might be more important than anything Jamal does since there's nobody else with much of an inside presence. I don't buy it when people say, "look what Jamal's done, 15 points in the first quarter, blah blah blah." He's in a different situation now, and I get the impression that most (not all) Bulls fans aren't missing him too much. The Bulls play the Knicks 4 times this year; back-to-back games in January, and then another 2 times in mid-April. If you're so wrapped up about how good the Knicks are, why don't we wait and see how they play against our bad Bulls team. Good chance we see a series split there.


----------



## ChiBron

JC came up big in the 2nd half today. Knicks win 94-93 against the Jazz. 

*JC's line: 24 pts(7-16 FG), 7-7 FTs, 3 rebs, 2 assists, 3 stls in 38 minutes.*


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> JC came up big in the 2nd half today. Knicks win 94-93 against the Jazz.
> 
> *JC's line: 24 pts(7-16 FG), 7-7 FTs, 3 rebs, 2 assists, 3 stls in 38 minutes.*


He really is a streaky player.

I think I checked the score @ the half and he was 0-5 from the field.

Good game for Jamal. Wow. More like a good half.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ

Here's a excerpt from an on-line article regarding today's game ...


AP - Dec 19, 6:56 pm EST
More Photos 


NEW YORK (AP) -- Not since Michael Jordan broke Bryon Russell's ankles in the 1998 NBA Finals has a member of the Utah Jazz been so thoroughly faked out by a crossover dribble. 

OK, perhaps that's a stretch. But Jamal Crawford's move on Raja Bell was pretty sweet nonetheless. 

Crawford scored 11 of his 24 points in the final five minutes, including a rare four-point play and a crossover move that led to a key basket in New York's 94-93 victory over Utah on Sunday. 

``I was kind of saving that one,'' said Crawford, who had noticed throughout the game that Bell kept expecting him to drive left. ``He thought I was going left, and I went right.'' 

Crawford was his usual erratic self, missing his first six shots before eventually finding his stroke. His running floater after beating Bell made it 90-86 with 27 seconds left, and Stephon Marbury's two free throws with 6.4 remaining gave New York a four-point lead. 

Marbury had 19 points and 12 assists, Michael Sweetney scored 13 and Kurt Thomas grabbed 14 of the Knicks' 29 rebounds as New York won at home over the Jazz for the first time in more than eight years.


----------



## Jim Ian

ESPN- Jazz vs Knicks Recap 

Crawford had been beating himself up over his shot selection toward the end of New York's one-point loss to Detroit four nights earlier when he dribbled 20 seconds off the shot clock late in the fourth quarter before launching an off-balance 17-footer that missed. The Pistons grabbed the long rebound and scored, putting the only blemish on the Knicks' record over the past five games.

Marbury telephoned Crawford later that night.

"I told him it was spilled milk and that there was nothing he could do about it now. He felt like he let the whole city down. That's how much he loves New York," Marbury said.

It was the memory of that jump shot that convinced Crawford to take the ball to the basket.

He had made a 3-pointer for a 79-79 tie with 4:36 left, then gave the Knicks an 83-81 lead on a four-point play with 3:50 left.

Bell's 3-pointer made it 88-86 before Crawford found himself isolated against him on the perimeter. Switching the ball on the dribble from one side to the other, Crawford got Bell to commit one way and quickly darted the other for a running 12-footer that restored a four-point lead.

"The Detroit situation played in my head. I knew I wasn't going to shoot a jumper. I was going to the hole," Crawford said. "I'm glad I learned that in game 20 or 21 instead of the playoffs."
 

Wow. Kinda hard to believe this guy doesn't care about elevating his game. 
Bottom line is he wants to do whatever it takes to win.

He still is quite streaky, but with the game on the line, he really seems to come through more often then not. 

Yeah, good ridance.


----------



## johnston797

The kid has never had a problem talking a good game.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Now he's winning games.

Too bad its for the Knicks.

Must be fun to be above .500.

Someday...... :sigh:


----------



## ogbullzfan

Can some one post a clip of this infamous crossover on Bell?


----------



## ace20004u

People who don't think Crawford could be helping the Bulls win games right now are really missing the boat.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> People who don't think Crawford could be helping the Bulls win games right now are really missing the boat.












Kidding!  


Seriously, though. He might be helping us some, but I still believe the season he is having has as much to do with being on a new team as anything else. He would not be having the same season if he was still here.

Just to be clear: this is more of a criticism of the Bulls, than it is of Crawford.


----------



## truth

First of all,JC's crossover is way better than MJ's And he didnt need to push off with the right arm to sperate from the defender:yes:

secondly,some of you guys are way too hard on him..He is wildly inconsistent,but thats a direct result of his shot selection.I am certainly not blaming the Bulls coaching staff,but one has to wonder why in 4 years he wasnt harnessed a bit..and locked in a weight room...

Even so,the guy is usually money in the final 10 minutes of the game,with the exception of the Detroit game...And you have to love that he took it to the hole after breaking Bells ankles...

The guy is an all start waiting to happen..20 more pounds and a bit better shot selection and you can just pencil him in


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> First of all,JC's crossover is way better than MJ's And he didnt need to push off with the right arm to sperate from the defender:yes:
> 
> secondly,some of you guys are way too hard on him..He is wildly inconsistent,but thats a direct result of his shot selection.I am certainly not blaming the Bulls coaching staff,but one has to wonder why in 4 years he wasnt harnessed a bit..and locked in a weight room...
> 
> Even so,the guy is usually money in the final 10 minutes of the game,with the exception of the Detroit game...And you have to love that he took it to the hole after breaking Bells ankles...
> 
> The guy is an all start waiting to happen..20 more pounds and a bit better shot selection and you can just pencil him in


I've been saying this about Jamal now for a long time. A lot of his inconsistency also stems from him not being a finished project yet. He only took up organized basketball his junior year in HS and only played one partial year at Michigan, so he is pretty far behind compared to a lot of other guys. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Jamal is an all star in a couple of seasons when he finishes developing as a player. Right now the two things he needs to focus on most are adding 20lbs of muscle...and working on his shot selection a little. See, a lot of people think Jamal's shot selection is actually worse than it is. They don't realize that Jamal is actually a better shooter from about 2 feet behind the arc or that that crazy looking shot he is taking is one of his favorites that he will make more often than he misses.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I've been saying this about Jamal now for a long time. A lot of his inconsistency also stems from him not being a finished project yet.












:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

"all star within the next 3 years"

looking like it may be realistic.


----------



## truth

> They don't realize that Jamal is actually a better shooter from about 2 feet behind the arc or that that crazy looking shot he is taking is one of his favorites that he will make more often than he misses


The guy has UNBELEIVABLE range....jamals biggest deficiency is he often doesnt square up to the basket when he shoots,especially when he goes into his bag of tricks...You know,crossover,between the legs,behind the back,then the off balance fadeaway off of one leg.You never see Alan Houston do that.No matter what type of shot he takes,his form is pure.

JC eliminates that problem when he does his shake and then pentrates,which is what he has to learn.Hopefully in time,it will come..You saw it the other night when he froze Raja bell with the crossover and instead of fading away off balance,penetrated and hit the floater


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> Hopefully in time,it will come..


Knicks fan? I'm assuming so because of the Çuse avatar.


----------



## truth

you guessed it GB..

knicks fan who now has the privelage to bear the pain:upset: and pleasure  of JC's game


----------



## The True Essence

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>
> They don't realize that Jamal is actually a better shooter from about 2 feet behind the arc or that that crazy looking shot he is taking is one of his favorites that he will make more often than he misses.


and thats why he shoots 39 percent?


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> 
> 
> and thats why he shoots 39 percent?


He shoots 39% for several reasons. The biggest reason is his shot selection, he definitley needs to work on that and I have said that for a long time. Secondly, Jamal is the type of player that always seems to get teh buzzer beaters, the "beat the shot clock" type shots, and the hurl it from half court to beat the buzzer shots. That obviously hurts your shooting percentage most of the time. When Jamal puts it all together and becomes consistent I think he will be about a 42% shooter.


----------



## Benny the Bull

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy is an all start waiting to happen..20 more pounds and a bit better shot selection and you can just pencil him in


Some people have being saying that for a while now, and it hasn't happened yet. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.


----------



## superdave

Not watching the game but.. who is Crawford guarding tonight against DAL?

Howard has 26/16/3 at the end of the 3rd quarter... Dallas up 40 points at MSG.  There's still another quarter left to play


----------



## GB

123-92

Jamal has seven points, 4 assists on 2-11 shooting.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 123-92
> 
> Jamal has seven points, 4 assists on 2-11 shooting.


All the Knicks stunk in that game.


----------



## PC Load Letter

That was the ugliest game I've ever seen and Ace is somewhat right; all the Knicks stunk. However, not all of them got singled out by the crowd. I've never seen someone get booed for taking a bad shot, but that's what happened. He then followed that up by going one-on-one and taking another bad three on the very next possession. The boos got even louder and, after he committed a frustration foul and then got called for a technical, the crowd was all over him when he came out of the game. Not good times. 

None of the Knicks showed ANY heart in that game, whatsoever. I can't imagine a team can lose that badly at home to anyone and end up being a playoff team, but I suppose anything can happen.


----------



## GB

I was Isaiah's anniversary with the team too.

Oh to be a fly on the locker-room wall yesterday and today.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Yay Crawford is failing, that totally validates my life.


----------



## mizenkay

http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/36988.htm



> In one year, Thomas has remade the roster almost completely, turning the Knicks into a normally exciting squad with the star power of Marbury and the promise of Jamal Crawford. Both guards were invisible when they weren't dismal, much like their teammates.
> 
> Although it's an unfair one-day barometer, the inability of the Knicks to even compete against has-beens Alan Henderson and Shawn Bradley during the second quarter was telling. Last night showed they can be dominated both physically and psychologically even at home, exposure that must infuriate Thomas privately.





http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/264431p-226442c.html 




> Last night, Thomas was patting his players on their backs, telling them to "stick together."
> 
> "I look at the way the guys tried to play," Thomas said. "They tried to do as well as they could tonight. It just wasn't there."
> 
> Thomas was being rather kind because it is debatable whether the team actually tried. The Mavs led wire-to-wire, opening a 12-2 lead that ballooned to 75-36 by halftime.
> 
> *"It felt like an NBA video game," said Josh Howard, who led all scorers with 26 points.*
> 
> Stephon Marbury stared at the scoreboard as the Knicks were being blown out in the first half and couldn't believe his eyes. "I just said, 'We're getting our (butts) kicked,' " Marbury said. "It's kinda like when your mother is giving you a spanking and you just can't wait for it to get over. Then she starts thinking about more stuff to spank you for. You just keep getting whupped and whupped and whupped and eventually it's over with.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> That was the ugliest game I've ever seen and Ace is somewhat right; all the Knicks stunk. However, not all of them got singled out by the crowd. I've never seen someone get booed for taking a bad shot, but that's what happened. He then followed that up by going one-on-one and taking another bad three on the very next possession. The boos got even louder and, after he committed a frustration foul and then got called for a technical, the crowd was all over him when he came out of the game. Not good times.
> 
> None of the Knicks showed ANY heart in that game, whatsoever. I can't imagine a team can lose that badly at home to anyone and end up being a playoff team, but I suppose anything can happen.


Oh c'mon PCLoad. Admit it.. you were happy when Crawford got T'd up :grinning:


----------



## PC Load Letter

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh c'mon PCLoad. Admit it.. you were happy when Crawford got T'd up :grinning:


Hey, I like Jamal and I want him to do well, but I still hate the Knicks and get a bit giddy when they lose. If Jamal getting a T helps them lose, I'm all for it.
(that was my passive-aggressive way of saying "Yes, I was a little happy.")


----------



## kukoc4ever

maybe isiah will trade him for the pistol and othella.

that will fix things.

New York trades: SG Jamal Crawford (19.5 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 3.7 apg in 37.1 minutes) 
New York receives: SG Eric Piatkowski (4.9 ppg, 0.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.7 minutes) 
PF Othella Harrington (5.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.2 apg in 15.3 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -9.2 ppg, +1.4 rpg, and -2.6 apg. 

Chicago trades: SG Eric Piatkowski (4.9 ppg, 0.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.7 minutes) 
PF Othella Harrington (5.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.2 apg in 15.3 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SG Jamal Crawford (19.5 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 3.7 apg in 37.1 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +9.2 ppg, -1.4 rpg, and +2.6 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## madox

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> maybe isiah will trade him for the pistol and othella.
> 
> that will fix things.
> 
> TRADE ACCEPTED



Actually, he'll probably give him a contract extension.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he'll probably give him a contract extension.


If i were a sportswriter, i'd vote for Cap Space for MVP.

Cap Space kicks ***.


----------



## madox

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Cap Space kicks ***.



Not in and of itself. But sometimes it beats the alternative. 

The Bulls are a better team without JC. I really don't understand how anyone can still make the argument that Paxson should have signed him for $60 million or whatever it was. It defies all logic to overpay a player, one that has now been shown to be a player of little to no impact, and do so only because the Knicks and the Knicks alone saw fit to price him there. 

Jamal plays the game like a sixth man is supposed to. IMO that's not enough to warrant $60 M. Paxson can and probably will find a much better use for that amount. 

And Jamal will still be Jamal, the man of a million dribbles and a million shots.


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Not in and of itself. But sometimes it beats the alternative.
> 
> The Bulls are a better team without JC. I really don't understand how anyone can still make the argument that Paxson should have signed him for $60 million or whatever it was. It defies all logic to overpay a player, one that has now been shown to be a player of little to no impact, and do so only because the Knicks and the Knicks alone saw fit to price him there.
> 
> Jamal plays the game like a sixth man is supposed to. IMO that's not enough to warrant $60 M. Paxson can and probably will find a much better use for that amount.
> 
> And Jamal will still be Jamal, the man of a million dribbles and a million shots.



I agree. And just because I think we are a better team without Jamal does not mean I think Jamal has negative value. I think he can be an asset to many teams right now if used in the right way, like a Marquis Daniels or Flip Murray type role. Energy scorer off the bench who, if hot, plays big minutes. Worth 60 mill? Not quite.

If Jamal could somehow make the transition to a Rip Hamilton type player, then I think we would see Jamal at his maximum value and worth every penny of his current contract. A player that would literally run around the court off 2 or three screens before finding that one free shot. I know that Skiles encouraged Jamal to use Rip as a model last year but didn't get anywhere with it except for brief glimpses. I get the sense Jamal is more comfortable taking those two or three dribbles and then rising for the shot, the anti-Rip so to speak. Watching last night's game, I saw zero off the ball movement by everybody on the Knicks, but especially their SGs. That's just incredible to me, with the talent on that team, overpriced or not.

Jamal has talent, but still needs a lot of coaching. It's possible that the Knicks did him a disservice by throwing him into the limelight as quickly as they did. Perhaps they didn't have a choice what with Houston's injury.

End of rambling.


----------



## kukoc4ever

2004/2005 salaries

Antonio Davis 12.9 Mil
Jamal Crawford 5.8 Mil
Scottie Pippen 5 Mil

Yah... Jamal makes 10.2 mil in 2010/2011... but something tells me that its going to be a good deal for the Knicks 6 years from now.... I guess the CBA could drastically change or something. 60 million seems big... but its a SEVEN year deal!

For what the Knicks are getting out of Crawford.... 5.8 mil is a good deal. Joe Smith makes 5.9 million. Jason Caffey makes 6.1 million. Alvin Williams makes 5.9 million. Clarence Weatherspoon makes 5.9 million. Danny Fortson makes 5.9 million. Todd MacCulloch makes 5.9 million.

The Bulls were as good as they are now with Jamal and Jalen... the last time Eddy was producing @ the end of 2002/2003.... but I know many people don't want to recognize that for whatever reason. That's cool...

I'm happy the Bulls are playing well and that Jamal is on a winning team. 

Say what you want about Crawford.... but I don't think even the haters can say he's *overpaid*.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 2004/2005 salaries
> 
> Antonio Davis 12.9 Mil
> Jamal Crawford 5.8 Mil
> Scottie Pippen 5 Mil
> 
> Yah... Jamal makes 10.2 mil in 2010/2011... but something tells me that its going to be a good deal for the Knicks 6 years from now.... I guess the CBA could drastically change or something. 60 million seems big... but its a SEVEN year deal!
> 
> For what the Knicks are getting out of Crawford.... 5.8 mil is a good deal. Joe Smith makes 5.9 million. Jason Caffey makes 6.1 million. Alvin Williams makes 5.9 million. Clarence Weatherspoon makes 5.9 million. Danny Fortson makes 5.9 million. Todd MacCulloch makes 5.9 million.
> 
> The Bulls were as good as they are now with Jamal and Jalen... the last time Eddy was producing @ the end of 2002/2003.... but I know many people don't want to recognize that for whatever reason. That's cool...
> 
> I'm happy the Bulls are playing well and that Jamal is on a winning team.
> 
> Say what you want about Crawford.... but I don't think even the haters can say he's *overpaid*.


They say it all the time but it just seems way off base to me.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 2004/2005 salaries
> 
> Antonio Davis 12.9 Mil
> Jamal Crawford 5.8 Mil
> Scottie Pippen 5 Mil


Why not compare him to Terrel Brandon, too? :greatjob: :


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Why not compare him to Terrel Brandon, too? :greatjob: :


Great point. I guess he is overpaid. 

(gee, maybe pippen is there because paxson signed him to that deal)


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Great point. I guess he is overpaid.
> 
> (gee, maybe pippen is there because paxson signed him to that deal)


I guess you should be comparing him to Nocioni then too, huh.

Or does that not work out quite as well for you?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess you should be comparing him to Nocioni then too, huh.
> 
> Or does that not work out quite as well for you?


Chapu makes what, 3-3.5M? (its not on hoopshype).

No.... I think that works out just fine.

Crawford is fairly paid. Deal with it.


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 2004/2005 salaries
> 
> Antonio Davis 12.9 Mil
> Jamal Crawford 5.8 Mil
> Scottie Pippen 5 Mil
> 
> Yah... Jamal makes 10.2 mil in 2010/2011... but something tells me that its going to be a good deal for the Knicks 6 years from now.... I guess the CBA could drastically change or something. 60 million seems big... but its a SEVEN year deal!
> 
> For what the Knicks are getting out of Crawford.... 5.8 mil is a good deal. Joe Smith makes 5.9 million. Jason Caffey makes 6.1 million. Alvin Williams makes 5.9 million. Clarence Weatherspoon makes 5.9 million. Danny Fortson makes 5.9 million. Todd MacCulloch makes 5.9 million.
> 
> The Bulls were as good as they are now with Jamal and Jalen... the last time Eddy was producing @ the end of 2002/2003.... but I know many people don't want to recognize that for whatever reason. That's cool...
> 
> I'm happy the Bulls are playing well and that Jamal is on a winning team.
> 
> Say what you want about Crawford.... but I don't think even the haters can say he's *overpaid*.


I'm not sure if this post is in response to my post or madox's since there's no quote. But, I am one of those that think Jamal's contract is too big. Just my opinion, but a lot of it has to do with opportunity costs. Also, I think you have to look at the entire contract, not just the first year. Jalen Rose may have been worthwhile at the price he was paid during the first year of his contract but he's an albatross now.


By the way, what is Crawford's value to the Knicks? What role does he play? I'm serious and not being facetious at all. What does Isiah have in mind for Jamal's role now and into the future?

Primary scorer, first option? At 39%?
Distributor? Maybe in a secondary role, Marbury takes care of this adequately.
Glue guy? don't think so.
Energy scorer off the bench? At an avg. of $8.5 per?
Lock-down defender? Nobody would say that.
Finisher, clutch shooter? Maybe. He certainly has hit a few big ones this year.

I still think Crawford is an enigma. I have trouble projecting his game out a few years. I'd rather spend the money on someone else at this point, especially if his contract would have influenced our resigning of the twin towers in any way.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this post is in response to my post or madox's since there's no quote. But, I am one of those that think Jamal's contract is too big. Just my opinion, but a lot of it has to do with opportunity costs.


The opportunity cost will only mean anything from a fan's perspective if they do something positive with the cap relief they received. I think that's doubtful, IMO... but we'll see. 



> Also, I think you have to look at the entire contract, not just the first year. Jalen Rose may have been worthwhile at the price he was paid during the first year of his contract but he's an albatross now.


Rose signed a max deal. 10mil won't be an albatross in 2010/2011... even if he never improves. I'd argue that you have to look at the entire contract. Do you think that Jamal's salary in that contract is *significantly* outpacing what NBA salary growth will be in the next 6 years? His contract seems reasonable to me... but there is a new CBA looming. 5.8 mil certainly is not an albatross in today's NBA dollars.



> By the way, what is Crawford's value to the Knicks? What role does he play? I'm serious and not being facetious at all. What does Isiah have in mind for Jamal's role now and into the future?
> 
> Primary scorer, first option? At 39%?
> Distributor? Maybe in a secondary role, Marbury takes care of this adequately.
> Glue guy? don't think so.
> Energy scorer off the bench? At an avg. of $8.5 per?
> Lock-down defender? Nobody would say that.
> Finisher, clutch shooter? Maybe. He certainly has hit a few big ones this year.


Right now he's the 2nd leading scorer, leading steals guy, 1st in blocks for guards, and 2nd leading assist guy on a winning but not great team. Looking only at the FG% is a mistake, IMO. There are negatives in his game right now, yes. Once his shot selection improves there won't be much left to complain about. Isn't realistic to think that a 24 year old player can improve their shot selection? He sure does get a lot of blocks and steals for being such a horrible, awful defender. I think his role will be “combo-guard.”



> I still think Crawford is an enigma. I have trouble projecting his game out a few years. I'd rather spend the money on someone else at this point, especially if his contract would have influenced our resigning of the twin towers in any way.


I'd rather spend the money on a Ray Allen type. I don't think its realistic to think we'll get one... but we'll see. The Towers comment is a good point... but its really more of a sad statement on the Bulls ownership more than anything, IMO. And... that has nothing to do with whether Jamal is "overpaid" or not.


----------



## superdave

Guys Jamal will be just fine. He's only 24 and didn't start playing organized basketball til his junior year in HS. He has a career shooting percentage of 39% and is shooting 39% this year playing alongside Marbury, but it <b>WILL</b> improve. I mean it haaaaazzzzzz to. He just needs to improve his shot selection. Just wait, once Jamal adds 20 pounds of muscle he'll be driving to the hoop, finishing, playing shut-down defense, blocking shots, and will fo' sho' be an All-Star in 3 years time. Mark it down folks... All-Star in 3 years time plus 20 pounds of muscle.

Did I mention he has a better crossover than MJ? He was even MJ's body-double in a Gatorade commercial?

That should shut up all the Jamal haters... :uhoh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Guys Jamal will be just fine. He's only 24 and didn't start playing organized basketball til his junior year in HS. He has a career shooting percentage of 39% and is shooting 39% this year playing alongside Marbury, but it <b>WILL</b> improve. I mean it haaaaazzzzzz to. He just needs to improve his shot selection. Just wait, once Jamal adds 20 pounds of muscle he'll be driving to the hoop, finishing, playing shut-down defense, blocking shots, and will fo' sho' be an All-Star in 3 years time. Mark it down folks... All-Star in 3 years time plus 20 pounds of muscle.
> 
> Did I mention he has a better crossover than MJ? He was even MJ's body-double in a Gatorade commercial?
> 
> That should shut up all the Jamal haters... :uhoh:


Yah... there are no guarantees.

Its just funny that you ignore all the good things he does on the court... and focus on the *one* negative standard statistic he has.

That's hatin', IMO.

It would be like somebody repeating over and over again that Hinrich is a sub-40% career shooter.... ignoring the positives he brings to the game.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yah... there are no guarantees.
> 
> Its just funny that you ignore all the good things he does on the court... and focus on the *one* negative standard statistic he has.
> 
> That's hatin', IMO.


Kind of like how you treat Paxson, eh?  

I don't hate Jamal or his game and like you... I believe the Bulls are better without him. I'm just making light of the defenses (or excuses) that Crawford fans ram down our throats each and every time such a discussion comes up.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Kind of like how you treat Paxson, eh?


I remember saying that Paxson is OK. 



> I don't hate Jamal or his game and like you... I believe the Bulls are better without him. I'm just making light of the defenses (or excuses) that Crawford fans ram down our throats each and every time such a discussion comes up.


Hinrich sucks. He shoots under 40%. Also... he'll never, ever improve. (see how silly that sounds)

Also.. don't put words in my mouth.  I think the Bulls would be better off if they had Crawford on this team. Last year's team had fat Eddy, rookie Hinrich, gimpy Tyson and the D League all-stars.... not a more mature Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, healthy Chandler and productive Eddy. I don't think the Bulls are better off because Crawford is not on the team.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember saying that Paxson is OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Hinrich sucks. He shoots under 40%. Also... he'll never, ever improve. (see how silly that sounds)
> 
> Also.. don't put words in my mouth.  I think the Bulls would be better off if they had Crawford on this team. Last year's team had fat Eddy, rookie Hinrich, gimpy Tyson and the D League all-stars.... not a more mature Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, healthy Chandler and productive Eddy. I don't think the Bulls are better off because Crawford is not on the team.


Apologies if I misquoted you  however I do remember you saying how the current Raptors would be better off than the Bulls  but maybe I'm misquoting you on that one again too :laugh: 

I think I'm going to start a Jamal is OK thread and make peace with Camp Crawford once and for all. Ace, you out there? Heck, I think I have to make amends with some Hinrich Loyalists too (cough cough GB) after I've been harsh on his shooting and clutch play as of late. Tough to choose one side actually....

Naaahhhh.... I think I'll just keep my style right where it is. Its more fun that way


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The opportunity cost will only mean anything from a fan's perspective if they do something positive with the cap relief they received. I think that's doubtful, IMO... but we'll see.
> 
> 
> 
> Rose signed a max deal. 10mil won't be an albatross in 2010/2011... even if he never improves. I'd argue that you have to look at the entire contract. Do you think that Jamal's salary in that contract is *significantly* outpacing what NBA salary growth will be in the next 6 years? His contract seems reasonable to me... but there is a new CBA looming. 5.8 mil certainly is not an albatross in today's NBA dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now he's the 2nd leading scorer, leading steals guy, 1st in blocks for guards, and 2nd leading assist guy on a winning but not great team. Looking only at the FG% is a mistake, IMO. There are negatives in his game right now, yes. Once his shot selection improves there won't be much left to complain about. Isn't realistic to think that a 24 year old player can improve their shot selection? He sure does get a lot of blocks and steals for being such a horrible, awful defender. I think his role will be “combo-guard.”
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather spend the money on a Ray Allen type. I don't think its realistic to think we'll get one... but we'll see. The Towers comment is a good point... but its really more of a sad statement on the Bulls ownership more than anything, IMO. And... that has nothing to do with whether Jamal is "overpaid" or not.



Thanks for the response. And I agree cap space is only as good as what you do with it. Also, I'm holding out hope that Jerry will open up his "purse" and spend when he feels we've turned a corner not just after we've become a contender. I'm not expecting that he have a $100 million dollar payroll but in the top 1/3 of the league if necessary to keep the team together and add another major piece. Once we go over the cap, there's no turning back so Pax needs to be careful about which pieces(players) he chooses to make our championship run attempt.

Regarding Crawford's realtive worth, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder. I mean Jamal's a BARGAIN compared to many on the Knick's roster and it appears that I.Thomas has no budget so I'm sure it was a no-brainer for their perspective. Most teams don't operate this way which is why Crawford didn't appear to have any suitors lined up for the contract value he was looking for.

Paxson is doing whatever he can to maintain some flexibility for this summer and/or next summer FA crop. Whether we avoid a repeat of that disastrous FA summer a few years back remains to be seen. I think the only way Pax would have signed Crawford was at a price that he believed would be perceived as reasonable, a Donyell Marshall type contract. After all, Pax was and is in asset collecting mode. So, in Pax's mind, right or wrong, Crawford was not asking for a contract that reflected fair value.

Much conjecture on my part here but it's just my take on the situation.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Also.. don't put words in my mouth.  I think the Bulls would be better off if they had Crawford on this team. Last year's team had fat Eddy, rookie Hinrich, gimpy Tyson and the D League all-stars.... *not a more mature Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, healthy Chandler and productive Eddy.* I don't think the Bulls are better off because Crawford is not on the team.


I'm not convinced Hinrich's game has changed significantly from last year to this. In fact, it almost seems as if it's regressed. In addition to YOUR favorite player (Cap Space), we also traded Crawford for MY favorite player (Playing Time). With Crawford on the team, we wouldn't be able to give Gordon and Deng the same amount of time. Even more than time, though, we wouldn't be able to get them the number of shots they'd need to be as effective as they are learning to be.

I am one of the most vocal posters on this board about the fact that Crawdaddy needed to move. I also, though, feel that he is worth his contract in NBA dollars. Problem is, he's not worth it in terms of playing time and opportunity cost. As soon as you show Jamal the money, you don't have that money to give to someobe else. I see Jamal as a fundamentally flawed player that will end up losing for you as many games as he might win. He is mentally soft, makes poor decisions on the court, does not put enough trust in his teammates or coach, and is WAY TOO INCONSISTENT. We've been hearing for years now that consistency comes will come with age. It has. He consistently is mentally soft, makes poor decisions on the court, does not put enough trust in his teammates or coach, and is WAY TOO INCONSISTENT.


----------



## johnston797

Wynn,

Here is one to add to your list....

Our offense runs a lot smoother without all the "between the legs" dribbling, too.


----------



## johnston797

Boy, Crawford's +/- ratio has really gone in the tank.

http://www.82games.com/0405NYK.HTM


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> I'm not convinced Hinrich's game has changed significantly from last year to this. In fact, it almost seems as if it's regressed.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this means he's reached his roof of achievement. I think Kirk has something in the tank left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Jamal as a fundamentally flawed player that will end up losing for you as many games as he might win. He is mentally soft, makes poor decisions on the court, does not put enough trust in his teammates or coach, and is WAY TOO INCONSISTENT. We've been hearing for years now that consistency comes will come with age. It has.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the anciency of age 24 and 2 full seasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Boy, Crawford's +/- ratio has really gone in the tank.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0405NYK.HTM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess Bruno is showing us who's wrong now.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> I guess Bruno is showing us who's wrong now.


I would recommend that you take anyone's rating with a grain of salt unless they have played a lot of minutes.

Bruno - 11 minutes. 

Crawford - 917 minutes.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I would recommend that you take anyone's rating with a grain of salt unless they have played a lot of minutes.
> 
> Bruno - 11 minutes.
> 
> Crawford - 917 minutes.


I would recommend that the stat itself be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## GB

> Nazr Mohammed had 22 points and 18 rebounds, Jamal Crawford scored 25 and Stephon Marbury had 12 points and 10 assists for the Knicks, who were hoping to bounce back from Tuesday's 123-94 loss to the Dallas Mavericks. But the Knicks blew a 14-point, first quarter lead.
> 
> ``I just honestly feel like we played as hard as we possibly could, especially coming back from a 40-point loss,'' Marbury said. ``Things just didn't go our way.''
> 
> Crawford injured his right big toe in the third quarter when Jiri Welsch stepped on it. Crawford is expected to have X-rays on Thursday.


They lost 114-109 to Boston. Scary to hear Marbury say they played as hard as possible. Thats a cry for more talent.


----------



## ScottMay

The Knicks are a stinky mess right now, and I can't say as I'm surprised.

Isiah's rebuild has been splashy and great tabloid/talk radio fodder, but it was fundamentally bogus from the get-go. Every single player on the roster, including (especially) Marbury, was a guy whose previous team(s) wanted to get rid of. I know I've made fun of Paxson's jib-lust, but the Knicks are a great example of how you need at least some jib on a team. 

The Knicks have no real role players and no real leaders (that goes for the coaching, too). The roster is just all messed up, balance-wise. They can't get stops or rebounds when they need them and they don't have enough scoring inside to outgun people.

I still say that the people of NY *would* tolerate a total tear-down of the Knicks. They would have a huge advantage in courting unrestricted free agents because of the allure of the city and the team. Right now, they're just spinning their wheels.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Apologies if I misquoted you  however I do remember you saying how the current Raptors would be better off than the Bulls  but maybe I'm misquoting you on that one again too :laugh:


My stance is that its a toss up... you know this. 

Not a bad showing tonight.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2004122228

Nice game for Donyell.

Jalen's been benched. "Politricks" are to blame.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> They lost 114-109 to Boston. Scary to hear Marbury say they played as hard as possible. Thats a cry for more talent.


just a slightly different mix of talent , trade out an offensive player like tim thomas or penny and get a defensive minded big man and they will be fine , a guy like dale davis would be ideal as he is a an overpaid player who plays defense 1st all other things after that, teams need to be able to go their bench and get things they cant get from their starters , most of the really good teams rarely have have duplication of talent like the knicks have...sadly enough they could use a guy like shandon anderson right about now.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> just a slightly different mix of talent , trade out an offensive player like tim thomas or penny and get a defensive minded big man and they will be fine , a guy like dale davis would be ideal as he is a an overpaid player who plays defense 1st all other things after that, teams need to be able to go their bench and get things they cant get from their starters , most of the really good teams rarely have have duplication of talent like the knicks have...sadly enough they could use a guy like shandon anderson right about now.


So now you are a Knick fan all of sudden. Or you still can't help but defending Jamal that you even have to come up with how to fix the Knicks. :no:


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So now you are a Knick fan all of sudden. Or you still can't help but defending Jamal that you even have to come up with how to fix the Knicks. :no:


----------



## truth

The Knicks are doing fine.Last year under laydumb and an 88 million dollar payroll,we were 11 and 18 and an aging team.
Zeke can not work miracles and he has turned us into a .500 team that is young and exciting.More importantly,we have huge contracts coming off the books next year,and H2o the following.It close to 50 million dollars...

The Knicks desparatly need an athetic 4,like a Camby or other good weakside defender...

But all in all Zeke has taken a .400 team and made it alot better in a very short time...


----------



## rlucas4257

47 pages and counting!

Think what the Bulls would be like now if Jamal were to have been a Bull? A 3 guard rotation of Ben, Jamal and Kirk would be among the leagues best. Jamal has proven one thing this year, he is worth the contract


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So now you are a Knick fan all of sudden. Or you still can't help but defending Jamal that you even have to come up with how to fix the Knicks. :no:


what are you babbling about ?

i am not a knick fan , if i were to say denver needs a 2 guard it wouldn't make me nuggets fan.

you need to check yourself and quit being so blind in your dislike of one player that you'll say anything to justify it.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!Jamal has proven one thing this year, he is worth the contract


I would say this is a deal that benefited both teams.

You know that Pax would make the same deal again in a heartbeat esp. as JYD's contract is gone.

And I am pretty sure IT pulls the trigger again, too.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> what are you babbling about ?
> 
> i am not a knick fan , if i were to say denver needs a 2 guard it wouldn't make me nuggets fan.
> 
> you need to check yourself and <b>quit being so blind </b>in your dislike of one player that you'll say anything to justify it.


Am I the only one blind here? I don't think so. And see it yourself. You are now defending Knick just to defend Jamal. It is you who need to check yourself. 

But hey what do I know? I AM BLIND. 

The point is that Bulls are better of without Jamal now and will be much better off when the time come to pay Chandler and Curry. The very notion that Bulls are better off without Jamal is concept that you will never get but it is becoming hard fact every day as Ben improves his game in his first year. I said it before and I am saying it again, apart from someone's belief, if we still have Jamal in our team there wouldn't be enough playing time to go around and we wouldn’t be witnessing his remarkable contribution from 4 rookies. And that is a fact to me.

I know it's still hard to swallow but yes, we are better off without Jamal. As for how he performs for Knicks, I could care less.

Then you would ask what the hell I am doing in this thread. That is indeed good question


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Am I the only one blind here? I don't think so. And see Then you would ask what the hell I am doing in this thread. That is indeed good question


I think that deep, deep down you miss Jamal. Its okay to admit it.


----------



## YearofDaBulls

Who the heck cares about Jamal. I'm glad hes gone. Its time for us to move on and appreciate what we have in Hinrich and Gordon.


----------



## Killuminati

Wow 700+ posts dedicated to JC. Hard to believe their are still people that miss this guy.  

Gordon is gonna be better than this hack and can already defend better than JC ever will.... even though he's like 4 inches smaller.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that deep, deep down you miss Jamal. Its okay to admit it.


Not one bit. I don't like it when Bulls trade the pick for him 4 years ago. I thought he was clueless in his rookie season. I thought he was hopeless in his third season. And I couldn’t care less for him by his 4th season. 

Well I will even admit it. If you want to call a person hater, yes I was and am a Jamal hater. But more due to Jamal supporters, not JC himself. JC hsan't done anything wrong personally other than not meeting people's expectation and more than occaiosionally shoot the bulls out od ballgame with his jump shots.

Possibly only reason my coming back to this thread is to observe this obsession over JC even after he left. It is sickening. But fun to observe, though.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Possibly only reason my coming back to this thread is to observe this obsession over JC even after he left. It is sickening. But fun to observe, though.


Funny... I come back to observe the behavior of the haters.

Curious.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

The guys on RealGM are reporting Crawford is out 3-6 weeks with turf toe. 

Not cool.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-knicks-crawford&prov=ap&type=lgns


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Am I the only one blind here? I don't think so. And see it yourself. You are now defending Knick just to defend Jamal. It is you who need to check yourself.
> 
> But hey what do I know? I AM BLIND.
> 
> The point is that Bulls are better of without Jamal now and will be much better off when the time come to pay Chandler and Curry. The very notion that Bulls are better off without Jamal is concept that you will never get but it is becoming hard fact every day as Ben improves his game in his first year. I said it before and I am saying it again, apart from someone's belief, if we still have Jamal in our team there wouldn't be enough playing time to go around and we wouldn’t be witnessing his remarkable contribution from 4 rookies. And that is a fact to me.
> 
> I know it's still hard to swallow but yes, we are better off without Jamal. As for how he performs for Knicks, I could care less.
> 
> Then you would ask what the hell I am doing in this thread. That is indeed good question


i post about many different things , you post about 1 , jamal crawford , yet you want to tell others to let him go , in the last 3 weeks you have posted a whopping 8 times but 6 times on this thread in that span , if not for crawford you wouldn't have anything to say.

the least you could do is act like you dont have such a tired and silly agenda.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Funny... I come back to observe the behavior of the haters.
> 
> Curious.


Funny, because your _anything_ but an observer.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i post about many different things , you post about 1 , jamal crawford , yet you want to tell others to let him go , in the last 3 weeks you have posted a whopping 8 times but 6 times on this thread in that span , if not for crawford you wouldn't have anything to say.
> 
> the least you could do is act like you dont have such a tired and silly agenda.


So what?

And what are you doing snooping around like that anyway?


----------



## Wynn

It looks like this thread will go on a three to six week hiatus. Will someone make sure to bump it when he starts playing again? I've got that little wager with our three most recent Knick fans and I plan to collect!



BTW -- I'm getting a little nervous about my side of the bet. As it's worded, the Bull has to be within 10 games of the Knick. I'm afraid with Jamal on the bench and the tremendous click that has happened in the collective brain of the Bull the Bulls may win MORE than 10 games more than the Knick. If that happens, technically I lose.

D'oh!


----------



## The ROY

Are BULLS are slowly becoming a SUCCESSFUL NBA TEAM, do we REALLY need to remain updated on what former BULLS are doing?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> BTW -- I'm getting a little nervous about my side of the bet. As it's worded, the Bull has to be within 10 games of the Knick. I'm afraid with Jamal on the bench and the tremendous click that has happened in the collective brain of the Bull the Bulls may win MORE than 10 games more than the Knick. If that happens, technically I lose.
> 
> D'oh!


Perhaps the Knicks play better without the "overpaid" 5.8 million dollar shot-chucking shooting guard?

I have to admit, I'm nervous about the bet as well. Especially with the injury.... but we'll see what happens.

If the Bulls make the playoffs, you can give me whatever avatar you want! I'll be on cloud nine.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So what?
> 
> And what are you doing snooping around like that anyway?


is it really snooping when all i have to do is click on your name, it isn't like I had to be columbo to know all you do is complain about a certain player.

so in the future do youself a favor and worry less about what i post about a certain topic (because i do post about others and never hear from you) and worry about something ...anything else.


----------



## bullet

NY has to put Houston back in the lineup - they have to realise how damaging Jamal has been to their team.

The only worse player with sugnificant minutes is TT (and he plays only 25 min , net of -14) while Jamal plays 37 minutes and his net is -13.4!!!!!!!!

So actually he's their worst player with over 30 minutes by far!

their options r trading him to a team that thinks he's worthy - or let him backup their gaurd (Stephan and AH) for no more then 22 minutes - he is way too harmfull as a starter!

http://www.82games.com/0405NYK.HTM


----------



## truth

Marbury went off for 34 last night and came out and said this is how he is going to play the rest of the seaason..Meaning,much more agressive...Up till now,marbury has been deferring way too much,and until JC can control himself,or lenny can control him he has to be more selfish.

Which brings us to JC's role and how badly he has been coached by the Bulls AND Lenny..Either that or he is uncoachable,but judging by his personality,that doesnt seem to be the case.

I think JC,s incredible handle is his blessing and his CURSE
Unquestionably,JC is a great SPOT UP shooter....The problem is,he is truly Jeckyl and Hyde.

Hes shoots 85% from the line and is deadly from 25 and in when he catche and shoots. Not as pure as h20,but close.The problem is he is blessed with that great handle and doesnt know what to do with it it....There is a reason why guys like H20,Kerr and Curry shoot so dam well,Thats all they can really do,and if they want to stay in the league,they better keep doing what they do best and are capable of

No JC is our "problem"Lenny has to grab JC by the ear and tell him no more 18-25 footers unless he dribbles 3 x or less.Basically,it should be a catch and shoot from that range.Its that simple.If he dribbles more,it must be on penetrartion and within 10 feet.If he cant do it...Bench him


----------



## giusd

i agree with everything above except why is it skiles and lenny's fault. I mean this is JC 5th year in the nba and he is an adult. He has been told over and over the last 3 years about his shot selection and he still is having a problem with it.

I am sorry to say but the only thing standing between JC and total bball success is JC. Not skiles, not Lenny Wilkens. Until the light bulb goes off in JC head on his game he will always struggle to live up to his potential.

If he would just concentration on 3 or 4 parts of his game and stop everything else he would be great but he still tries to do everything. 

david


----------



## truth

Here is why it is lenny's fault...

Lenny tells him what to do...JC doesnt do it...

BENCH HIM....

I am sure the Bulls went through the exact same scenario...

Did youy coaches ever yank him the way they yank Curry for not hitting the boards???

Lenny does not yank him the way he yanks TT...

JC does what JC is allowed to get away with


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> Did youy coaches ever yank him the way they yank Curry for not hitting the boards???


hehehe........

...every game. That's why he didn't want to return to Chicago. Skiles specifically asked him to model his game after Rip Hamilton. Catch and Shoot. He was benched over and over again for poor decision making and poor shot selection.


----------



## DaBullz

When Gordon fouled out tonight, would you rather have had Pike or Crawford in the game to try to hold that lead?


----------



## VincentVega

Jannero Pargo.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> When Gordon fouled out tonight, would you rather have had Pike or Crawford in the game to try to hold that lead?


My initial reaction is Crawford.... but then I think about Cap Space (#00) and I realize Paxson's master plan.  

In the meantime, another tough loss for the Bulls.


----------



## truth

wynn,did Skiles really bench him every game??


Then I am dead wrong about Skiles and wish lenny would do the same thing...

All JC has to do is watch H20 play to see how to be effective..


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> wynn,did Skiles really bench him every game??
> 
> 
> Then I am dead wrong about Skiles and wish lenny would do the same thing...
> 
> All JC has to do is watch H20 play to see how to be effective..


crawford avg. 35.1 min. a game , if he was getting benched every game , i am wondering how many minutes he should have been playing?


----------



## truth

grinch,i think you missed the post that we were talking about.

I brought up that when Craford takes 2-3 dribbles or less he is a dead eye shooter.he has great range when he cathes and shoots.And hes an 85% foul shooter

When he goes into his bag of dribbling tricks,he is a terrible shooter.

I blamed it on Skiles and Lenny for not benching him and Wynn said Skiles indeed benhed him....

Lenny lets him play 35 minutes regardless of what boneheaded plays or shots he takes.TT certainly doesnt have that luxury,nor Curry for you guys..

As i said earlier,JC's incredible handle is a blessing as well as a curse..If JC can not figure it out on his own,Lenny should bencj his butt until the point sinks in.Hes an unbelievable talent who has to learn,one way or the other


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> grinch,i think you missed the post that we were talking about.
> 
> I brought up that when Craford takes 2-3 dribbles or less he is a dead eye shooter.he has great range when he cathes and shoots.And hes an 85% foul shooter
> 
> When he goes into his bag of dribbling tricks,he is a terrible shooter.
> 
> I blamed it on Skiles and Lenny for not benching him and Wynn said Skiles indeed benhed him....
> 
> Lenny lets him play 35 minutes regardless of what boneheaded plays or shots he takes.TT certainly doesnt have that luxury,nor Curry for you guys..
> 
> As i said earlier,JC's incredible handle is a blessing as well as a curse..If JC can not figure it out on his own,Lenny should bencj his butt until the point sinks in.Hes an unbelievable talent who has to learn,one way or the other


skiles rarely benched him for shot selection , he did bench him for not scoring at times(missing, which is not the same thing) and occasionally for defense , but generally he took the same shots every game , sometimes they went in , sometimes they didn't, its obvious by how much crawford talks about improving his shot selection in new york its stressed alot more than it was in chicago.

crawford has a real issue with what I call "heat checks " when he hits a couple and then just needs to take a stupid shot just to see how hot he actually is, in which everyone on the court and watching knows he is going to shoot it the moment he touches, he wont drive in those situations , he'll just take a 22 fadeaway with defense on him almost it seems by his own design.

i see that as a matter of offensive intensity , the knicks would do themselves a huge favor if they could impress upon him the idea of playing "playoff basketball" on every possession and make him treat every possesion as if it were precious


----------



## truth

if he didnt have that sick handle and killer crossover,he could be really good:grinning:


----------



## yodurk

I'm interested to see how the Knicks do without JC in the lineup for a few weeks. I'm betting that the Knicks don't lose a beat without him, and so far that's been the case (3-0 so far). That right there should be at least some proof that Crawford isn't the star that some of you make him out to be. If he were really such an important figure to this Knicks team, wouldn't the team be sorely missing his presence? He can sure fill up a stat sheet some nights, but when it comes to playing 48 minutes of team basketball, night after night, on both ends of the floor, he's nothing but a complementary player. I could care less if he's scoring 18 ppg...to me, I want to see efficiency, versatility, and a complete arsenal of weapons. Not just the same fadeaway 15-20 footer all night long. It's becoming even more clear IMO that the Gordon/Hinrich backcourt could have some serious long-term success...alot more than a Hinrich/Crawford backcourt would've been. Losing Jamal and his 6-year contract will be money better spent elsewhere for the Bulls when it's all said and done.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> I'm interested to see how the Knicks do without JC in the lineup for a few weeks. I'm betting that the Knicks don't lose a beat without him, and so far that's been the case (3-0 so far). That right there should be at least some proof that Crawford isn't the star that some of you make him out to be. If he were really such an important figure to this Knicks team, wouldn't the team be sorely missing his presence? He can sure fill up a stat sheet some nights, but when it comes to playing 48 minutes of team basketball, night after night, on both ends of the floor, he's nothing but a complementary player. I could care less if he's scoring 18 ppg...to me, I want to see efficiency, versatility, and a complete arsenal of weapons. Not just the same fadeaway 15-20 footer all night long. It's becoming even more clear IMO that the Gordon/Hinrich backcourt could have some serious long-term success...alot more than a Hinrich/Crawford backcourt would've been. Losing Jamal and his 6-year contract will be money better spent elsewhere for the Bulls when it's all said and done.


At this rate he's going to be yet another ex-bull that was let go that is a key contributor for a playoff team.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> At this rate he's going to be yet another ex-bull that was let go that is a key contributor for a playoff team.


But unlike Artest with the Pacers, the Knicks seems to do just as well without him as they do with him. The Knicks are playing well right now because they're finally getting some big man production (Nazi, KT, and Sweets). Crawford is already driving many Knicks fans crazy. Try browsing the Knick board.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

I'm just glad Crawford's actually starting and not buried in the bench.

I think he's going to be an all-star at least once or twice, but not this year at all.

He's still 24, and he's proven that his skills are anything but static and unlikely to improve. He doesn't improve gradually but rather in short bursts. And once that improvement comes, the team's likely to depend more on him.


----------



## Cager

Jamal has to lose his Rucker Park style and do the things that are necessary tto win in the NBA. With all his flashiness he either has minimal real basketball instincts or he just goes brain dead at times in the 4th quarter. Jamal still is a liability defensively and his offense looks the same as it did 4 years ago. 

He probably is best coming off the bench. When Jamal is hot he can score against anybody. You just need to be able to sit him when he is not hot.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>Cager</b>!
> Jamal has to lose his Rucker Park style and do the things that are necessary tto win in the NBA. With all his flashiness he either has minimal real basketball instincts or he just goes brain dead at times in the 4th quarter. Jamal still is a liability defensively and his offense looks the same as it did 4 years ago.
> 
> He probably is best coming off the bench. When Jamal is hot he can score against anybody. You just need to be able to sit him when he is not hot.


I can see why Jamal has so many fans, because he has an aesthetically pleasing style of play. But for me, I don't get sold by style. I want substance. Jamal's game is far too reliant on flashy tricks instead of solid basketball fundamentals. Take his jumpshot for instance. If he actually grew up learning good form, maybe he wouldn't have so many nights going 5-20 from the field. Good form would surely yield more consistency.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> But unlike Artest with the Pacers, the Knicks seems to do just as well without him as they do with him. The Knicks are playing well right now because they're finally getting some big man production (Nazi, KT, and Sweets). Crawford is already driving many Knicks fans crazy. Try browsing the Knick board.



OK.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132880&forumid=37

Yeah... seems like its mostly TT showing up finally. I guess somehow you think its because of Crawford's absence? Seems like a stretch to me.

The Knicks are 3 games over .500 right now. They have been hovering around that mark all season. The Knicks are a deep team. They can lose a Hardaway and a Crawford and still have some horses.... I guess that’s what happens when you spend some money


----------



## deranged40

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132880&forumid=37
> 
> Yeah... seems like its mostly TT showing up finally. I guess somehow you think its because of Crawford's absence? Seems like a stretch to me.
> 
> The Knicks are 3 games over .500 right now. They have been hovering around that mark all season. The Knicks are a deep team. They can lose a Hardaway and a Crawford and still have some horses.... I guess that’s what happens when you spend some money


Well the Knicks aren't just spending "some money". They have the highest payroll in the league, and are just hovering around .500. Seems like overspending to me.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> 
> 
> Well the Knicks aren't just spending "some money". They have the highest payroll in the league, and are just hovering around .500. Seems like overspending to me.


Yeah... but from a fan's perspective... who cares?

(What has Cap Space done for you lately?)


----------



## DaBullz

Using rough numbers...

Knicks payroll $100M / 16 wins = $6.25M/win

Bulls payroll $55M / 9 wins = $6.11M/win


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Using rough numbers...
> 
> Knicks payroll $100M / 16 wins = $6.25M/win
> 
> Bulls payroll $55M / 9 wins = $6.11M/win


Doesn't that indicate that the Bulls are getting the better "bargain"? 

j/k...I'm just entertained how long this Crawford post is getting. I'm proud to be posting just for the sake of making it longer.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Doesn't that indicate that the Bulls are getting the better "bargain"?
> 
> j/k...I'm just entertained how long this Crawford post is getting. I'm proud to be posting just for the sake of making it longer.


Does it?

Would you rather pay that extra $150K and be 3 games over .500, or be cheap and have 9 wins?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Doesn't that indicate that the Bulls are getting the better "bargain"?
> 
> j/k...I'm just entertained how long this Crawford post is getting. I'm proud to be posting just for the sake of making it longer.


OK... on a scale of 1 to 10... how sikkkkkkkk is Jamal's crossover?

My vote is 9.


----------



## Qwst25

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Yeah... seems like its mostly TT showing up finally. I guess somehow you think its because of Crawford's absence? Seems like a stretch to me.


So far this season the Knicks as a team have shot about 44% from the field; in the previous three games they have shot 48%, 53%, and 54%. Jamal Crawford also happens to be one of their worst shooters, but also takes the most shots (other than Marbury there is no one even close). Isn't it logical that their recent upswing in shooting is because Crawford isn't playing? This inturn could be one of the reasons the Knicks have won their last three games.

The Knicks shoot 44%, Jamal shoots 39%, if Jamal is taken out of the equation, what happens to the teams shooting? Should it go up or down?


----------



## yodurk

*KC reflects on the trade...*

K.C. Johnson answers this reader question very well, and tells what I've been trying to say ever since Jamal departed:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...hnson,1,1189203.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines



> Tell me how the Bulls are a better team by trading Jamal Crawford? It seems they basically ended up with a bunch of journeymen, and I am not tremendously impressed with Eric Piatkowski. Crawford is a better shooting guard then Ben Gordon and is 6-foot-5 to boot. What am I missing in the whole deal? -- Will, Tulsa, Okla.
> 
> Defense. Shot selection. Look, I liked Crawford more than most people, but he didn't fit into what the Bulls are trying to do. He's a scorer and often gets into a one-on-one mentality. The Bulls want people who play at both ends and buy into a team mentality rather than looking for shots all the time. Crawford is an unbelievable passer but is happiest when he gets his shots. New York is a perfect fit for him. And he got paid. I'm happy for Jamal on a personal level because I think he's a very good person. But the Bulls didn't think he fit into their plans. As for Gordon, yes, he's a defensive liability right now, too. He gets posted up too easily and is in foul trouble frequently. But I think he has the chance to be a very good player. Also, if you match New York's $56 million offer for Jamal, that doesn't allow you as much financial flexibility, especially if you keep Tyson and Eddy. The trade brought the Bulls cap room. So we'll see how it pans out.


----------



## Sham

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> OK... on a scale of 1 to 10... how sikkkkkkkk is Jamal's crossover?
> 
> My vote is 9.




And his defense?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And his defense?


Harder to say. He gets lots of steals and blocks for a guard. Those correlate with winning.

The other stuff is a lot more subjective.


I'll say 5.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> wynn,did Skiles really bench him every game??


The move spoke louder than any public statement about coach Scott Skiles' decision to make a five-man substitution and keep four starters on the bench for the final 21 minutes 50 seconds of the Bulls' 11th straight loss at Conseco Fieldhouse. 

-- March 22, 2004

Y was Curry on the bench for so long in the 2nd qtr? Y was JC benched in the 3rd? Y does Dupree ever see the court? What more does E-Rob have to do to get some playing time? Y wasn't Hinrich benched after that 4th foul? WTF was Skiles thinking?? 

-- February 10, 2004

Personally i am sick of watching JC get benched. So what was the reason last night. When i watched last night, with my bottle of Aberlour (Tom how did you get the picture of my fav one), it was his total lack of defense. S. Jackson was just eating him up. Jackson scored 11 first quarter points on 5 of 6 shotting and JC was just no where to be seen. He just looked uninterested and not enjoying the game at all. 

-- January 22, 2004

Really what's the point of keeping Crawford and Curry around if they are just going to sit on the bench? We could trade them both for someone that Skiles likes and move on. 

-- January 21, 2004

Jamal sat the entire fourth quarter of back-to-back games and then played the entire fourth quarter of back-to-back games. It's simple: Jamal will be evaluated on a game-by-game basis. Some games, Skiles will sit him because he thinks Jamal is hurting the team with his defense and shot selection. Other games, like [Tuesday night] against Detroit, Skiles left Jamal in there even though he was en route to a 6-for-20 night because they had nobody else to score. Such is the inconsistency of youth. I know it's not the best answer, but how else do you explain having Crawford look like an All-Star one night and an afterthought on another? 

-- January 15, 2004 (KC Johnson)

More recently, the last two games have produced benchings for the entire fourth quarter. Before Thursday's practice came a talk in which Skiles challenged Crawford to attack the rim more and to help teammates more on defense. 

and............

Haven't we heard this very same "don't ask me, ask the coach" stuff every single year when his playing time has been cut? Nothing has really changed apparently. According to JC he thinks he's doing everything that's being asked of him. This is the third straight coach that in Jamal's mind seems to be benching him without justification. 

and.............

One of those could be Crawford, who didn't play for the final 15 minutes 17 seconds after Skiles pulled him following a bad turnover and forced shot early in the shot clock. In Monday night's victory over Phoenix, Crawford didn't play the final 16:34. 

-- January 8, 2004

Crawford was on the bench. He didn't play b/c he just took 3's all night. They weren't forced (some were at the end of the shot clock though) but his shot was way off. He didn't compensate by attacking the basket. If he plays like this, and his jumper isn't falling, he isn't going to get to play. 

-- January 6, 2004

Norm Van Lier said JC has some good looks, some bad shots, the shot is not dropping. He is worried about JC. Agreed with the benching last night. Suppose to come ready to play. No excuse. Said we are short handed but has to get the point across. Set down until you get it. Come back and play with some heart. (his wording)

and...........

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

-- December 23, 2003

JC and e-rob agreed with Skiles. So JC is ok with it. Skiles has only a handful of plays. He said something about this in practice this morning. JC knows why he was benched. He is ok with it.

-- December 22, 2003

"We're talking to him a lot about (Detroit's) Richard Hamilton," Skiles said. "The way Hamilton can work off (screens) and rise up and just catch and shoot. We think Jamal could get to a point like that, but it's just not something he's accustomed to." 

-- December 9, 2003 (Scott Skiles)

Congratulations to Scott Skiles the new coach of the Chicago Bulls on his 1st win with the team. 1-0 record for him. This will be the 1st of many. 

-- December 1, 2004

In looking for references, I just searched the terms "Crawford" and "Bench" on the Bull board. Posts are made by many of our BBB.net all-stars. Am just showing that there were instances of benching last season because of poor shot selection, too much dribbling, no defense, etc. There were even more instances where posters felt Skiles SHOULD have benched JC. I'm sure if I'd searched "JC", "Jamal", "Crawdaddy", etc I might have turned up more. I think it's significant that the first benching happened three weeks into Skiles tenure as coach and that the contentious relationship continued until Crawsover left.

On an aside........... reading through last year's threads on Jamal seem exactly like reading through this thread. Any Knick fan may want to do the search just to see what you have coming.


----------



## bullet

what more to say about Jamal - He's now officially the Knicks worst player - most harmfull for the team anyway - even Tim Thomas past him in the +/-...

Jamal at -13.5 +/- - thank god he ain't with us no more!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> what more to say about Jamal - He's now officially the Knicks worst player - most harmfull for the team anyway - even Tim Thomas past him in the +/-...
> 
> Jamal at -13.5 +/- - thank god he ain't with us no more!


And yet somehow the Knicks managed to win games. A true testement to the rest of the guys I guess.  

In other news, the Bulls need to stop playing Curry and Nocioni right away!!!!!  

http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And yet somehow the Knicks managed to win games. A true testement to the rest of the guys I guess.
> 
> In other news, the Bulls need to stop playing Curry and Nocioni right away!!!!!
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM


Thats like saying the Cavs r winning cause of Diop , or Suns r winning cause of Lampe... - one thing is sure - Jamal is not the reason , even Knicks fans r starting to see the true talented - but no BB iq player he is.

And about your news flash - I've been on the trade Eddy bandwagon for a long time - so I agree.

Chapu is a rookie - and does not speak english - I'll give him a year or 2 before I judge him.

Jamal is all about and only about Jamal and his Jag - person and player.


----------



## Wynn

It's a sick perversion, I know, but somehow I couldn't bear to see this thread fall off of page six. I think it's in the genes. Poppa & Momma *Wynn!* are so ashamed.



My bets with *Kukoc4Ever!, Ace!, and Grinch!* are looking better than ever!

_Also was checking to see if *K4E!* would acknowledge the Knick losing record in his signature......_


----------



## kukoc4ever

Its sad to see the Knicks floundering around without the heart and soul of the team, Jamal Crawford.

The life, the flair, the exuberance... all gone.

He'll be back soon though.

He'll be back......




> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> It's a sick perversion, I know, but somehow I couldn't bear to see this thread fall off of page six. I think it's in the genes. Poppa & Momma *Wynn!* are so ashamed.
> 
> 
> 
> My bets with *Kukoc4Ever!, Ace!, and Grinch!* are looking better than ever!
> 
> _Also was checking to see if *K4E!* would acknowledge the Knick losing record in his signature......_


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Its sad to see the Knicks floundering around without the heart and soul of the team, Jamal Crawford.
> 
> The life, the flair, the exuberance... all gone.
> 
> He'll be back soon though.
> 
> He'll be back......


Your're kidding, right?


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Its sad to see the Knicks floundering around without the heart and soul of the team, Jamal Crawford.
> 
> The life, the flair, the exuberance... all gone.
> 
> He'll be back soon though.
> 
> He'll be back......


What's their record without Jamal anyways? Aren't they like 3-4? Just curious...

I'm also curious about Wynn's bets with K4E, DaBullz, and Grinch.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> What's their record without Jamal anyways? Aren't they like 3-4? Just curious...
> 
> I'm also curious about Wynn's bets with K4E, DaBullz, and Grinch.


Yes... losing without Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Your're kidding, right?


Maybe a little.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> What's their record without Jamal anyways? Aren't they like 3-4? Just curious...
> 
> I'm also curious about Wynn's bets with K4E, DaBullz, and Grinch.


I've bet *kukoc4ever!*, *Ace!*, and *happygrinch!* that the Bull will finish the season within 10 wins of the Knick. If I lose, I must:

...allow *kukoc4ever!* to pick my avatar for 3 months.

...allow *Ace!* to pick my signature for 3 months.

...allow *happygrinch!* to pick my screen name for 3 months (pending administrative approval).

The details are somewhere between pages 35 and 39 of this beast of a thread.



I, of course, think I will win. Also, *happygrinch!* has spotted me the Dallas game, so I only have to be within 11 for his bet to be good. Then again, *Wynn!* is an idiot who makes stupid predictions. Also, I made these bets when we were 4-14 (4-15 for *happygrinch!*), just so people know that I didn't have the benefit of a 5 game win streak to spur on my confidence in the Bull.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe a little.


Just bumping this to point out to k4e that he should take away YET ANOTHER of his question marks, and add that the Bulls are currently the 8th seed.

currently 8th seed...the right way??? damn straight! :yes:


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Just bumping this to point out to k4e that he should take away YET ANOTHER of his question marks, and add that the Bulls are currently the 8th seed.
> 
> currently 8th seed...the right way??? damn straight! :yes:


:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: 

BTW: I like pie. Consider this an application for membership.


----------



## Benny the Bull

In some ways it's a shame Crawford won't be playing the next two games. It would've added something extra to the contest.


----------



## ace20004u

Hey, I will be one happy looser if it pans out that way!


----------



## superdave

Jamal opens his trap 



> Jamal Crawford gave a stronger endorsement for Knick coach Lenny Wilkens than Isiah Thomas ever has. While doing so, he managed a dig at his former Chicago coaches.
> 
> "Lenny's the best coach I've ever played for," Crawford said. "He really is. That's not to say anything bad about Skiles or any of the others, but he's forgotten more than all those guys know."
> 
> Wilkens has been on Crawford all season for poor shot selection.
> 
> "He's a Hall of Famer," Crawford said. "He explains to me what I do wrong. I love him for that. He's really genuine."
> 
> Crawford believes Wilkens should not be fired.
> 
> "I could say he has taken me under his wing more than any other coach has. <b>Skiles was a good coach. Scott knew what he was talking about. But for me, coach Wilkens is better." </b>


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Jamal opens his trap


Thanks for the bulletin-board material, Jamal!

Win both of these games for Skiles, guys.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> In some ways it's a shame Crawford won't be playing the next two games. It would've added something extra to the contest.


:yes:


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks for the bulletin-board material, Jamal!
> 
> Win both of these games for Skiles, guys.


Exactly my thought


----------



## giusd

Boy i think the bulls will be closer than 10 games to the knicks. We are only one game back now and while we have a killer Febuary coming up so do the knicks and lately they have not looked very well.

Looking foward to Sat game since i iwll be in town from washington and have tickets for the game. I will be giving a full report from the visit.

david


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Boy i think the bulls will be closer than 10 games to the knicks. We are only one game back now and while we have a killer Febuary coming up so do the knicks and lately they have not looked very well.
> 
> Looking foward to Sat game since i iwll be in town from washington and have tickets for the game. I will be giving a full report from the visit.
> 
> david


i have it on good authority that a bunch of posters from here will also be at that game! 

i will be at the monday game @ msg.

i am really, really disappointed that jamal isn't going to be playing, and i will be honest with you all, i was really looking forward to ben and kirk LIGHTING HIM THE **** UP!

sorry. had to say it. but i did go to the knicks/kings game last week as a friend had tickets. kings won and jamal looked nice on the sideline with his suit and matching sock in his little booty thing. 

he was watching lenny wilkens forget more about basketball than his former coach who is guiding his team to a SEVEN GAME STREAK ever knew. 

blood on the horns!!!


----------



## The ROY

We're gonna take atleast 1 from NY, that's a given...

honestly, NY sucks though..not saying we're some ELITE team but they aren't either...

I hope we beat em' twice...


----------



## giusd

The problem with the knicks is they don't play and team D as shown by being last in the NBA in opp FG%. I think we can beat them at home but the game at MSG will be different. 

The one think we have going for us is they are and older team, JC and TT are out, and with 2 games in 3 days we might be albe to ware them down.

david


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> The problem with the knicks is they don't play and team D as shown by being last in the NBA in opp FG%. I think we can beat them at home but the game at MSG will be different.
> 
> The one think we have going for us is they are and older team, JC and TT are out, and with 2 games in 3 days we might be albe to ware them down.
> 
> david


I actually believe we should win Both games. Good point about waring them down though.


----------



## mizenkay

haven't seen this posted yet. has some of the quotes from the article *superdave* posted before.

this one is from....lacy banks in the sun-times

:|


----------



## truebluefan

I know I am a homer. The worlds worse, but As far as the Wynn bet is concerned, I wonder if NY will be withing 10 games of us the way we are playing. 

I am kidding of course but there is some truth in that as well. I am concerned that with all of the rookies we have, playing 82 games or more at this level game in and game out might be asking for too much. If they do continue to play at a high level, we indeed have something very special that may last for years to come.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Don't count NY out just yet.

Its not to late for them to claim Eddie Robinson off the waiver wire...


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Don't count NY out just yet.
> 
> Its not to late for them to claim Eddie Robinson off the waiver wire...


NY has the greatest collection of sweater shops I've ever seen.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> I know I am a homer. The worlds worse, but As far as the Wynn bet is concerned, I wonder if NY will be withing 10 games of us the way we are playing.
> 
> I am kidding of course but there is some truth in that as well. I am concerned that with all of the rookies we have, playing 82 games or more at this level game in and game out might be asking for too much. If they do continue to play at a high level, we indeed have something very special that may last for years to come.


We've had a nice stretch of games against weakish team and most of them have been at home. 

This is a great run... but the road coming up is tougher.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> We've had a nice stretch of games against *weakish* team and most of them have been at home.
> 
> This is a great run... but the road coming up is tougher.


The 15 wins in our last 20 games were (average margin +10.5):

Cleveland 21-12 (1st central) *by 28 points*
Minnesota 17-17 (2nd northwest) *by 11 points*
*@* Memphis 18-18 (4th southwest) *by 8 points*
Milwaukee 12-21 (5th central) * by 8 points*
Indiana 17-16 (3rd central) *by 6 points*
Portland 15-19 (3rd northwest) *by 5 points*
*@* Detroit 20-14 (2nd central) *by 7 points*
Orlando 19-15 (3rd southeast) *by 15 points*
*@* New Orleans 4-30 (5th southwest) *by 6 points*
Utah 13-24 (5th northwest) *by 6 points*
Boston 16-20 (2nd Atlantic) *by 11 points*
Golden State 11-25 (5th pacific) *by 11 points*
Philadelphia 15-19 (3rd atlantic) *by 32 points*
New York 17-20 (3rd atlantic) *by 2 points*
New York 17-20 (3rd atlantic) *by 2 points*

Our 5 losses were against (average margin -5):

Philadelphia 15-19 (3rd atlantic) *by 5 points*
Dallas 22-11 (2nd southwest) *by 1 point*
*@* Milwaukee 12-21 (5th central) *by 7 points*
New Jersey 12-22 (5th atlantic) *by 4 points*
Detroit 20-14 (2nd central) *by 7 points*

Noticeably missing are powerhouses Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, Seattle, Houston, Miami, and Washington. Also noticeably missing are bottomfeeding Atlanta, Toronto, Charlotte, Denver, and LAClipp. Basically, we've played the middle of the league. Our seventeen wins this season are against fifteen different teams.

In other words, we've beaten half the league. I think that is a representative sample.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> I've bet *kukoc4ever!*, *Ace!*, and *happygrinch!* that the Bull will finish the season within 10 wins of the Knick. If I lose, I must:
> 
> ...allow *kukoc4ever!* to pick my avatar for 3 months.
> 
> ...allow *Ace!* to pick my signature for 3 months.
> 
> ...allow *happygrinch!* to pick my screen name for 3 months (pending administrative approval).
> 
> The details are somewhere between pages 35 and 39 of this beast of a thread.


Am willing to let any of you three errant Bull fans off the hook on your wagers if you are just willing to publicly concede that *Wynn!* is both a genious and remarkably beautiful (for a very large and slightly hairy man)!


----------



## ChiBulls2315

Reading some of this thread over again is really quite funny.


----------



## truebluefan

Can someone help me? I tried to find it but can't. Does anyone know where the quote is by JC where he called NY a winning organization or a real organization or something to that extent? He meant it as a negative remark to us. Happened right after he was traded. Am I mistaking? 

Reason why I want it is, don't look now Jamal but your seeing our tail lights! 

I really do wish him the best. But I had to mention his comment he made and the fact that indeed as of right now we are ahead of them. Maybe he spoke way too soon.


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> We've had a nice stretch of games against weakish team and most of them have been at home.
> 
> This is a great run... but the road coming up is tougher.


Get those standings updated, buddy. You've been slacking the last couple days!


----------



## dkg1

I try to avoid this thread as much as possible so picking some pages at random and reading what was written is quite interesting. Some of the biggest smack talkers are nowhere to be found now that the Bulls have swept and passed the Knicks. We could quote and drag up old quotes, but what's the point. Hopefully the Bulls will continue to win and this thread will fade into oblivion.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> Get those standings updated, buddy. You've been slacking the last couple days!



Knicks 17-20 9th place-out of playoffs ???

Bulls 17-18 "the right way?" -You better believe it's the right way - 8th seed "PLAYOFFS"

Raptors 16-23-"The Vision"-Way to Go Pax-???????


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Knicks 17-20 9th place-out of playoffs ???
> 
> Bulls 17-18 "the right way?" -You better believe it's the right way - 8th seed "PLAYOFFS"
> 
> Raptors 16-23-"The Vision"-Way to Go Pax-???????



awesome.

:yes: :laugh:


----------



## johnston797

I liked the Crawford trade from the start but here are my latest thoughts.
---------------------------------------
Yes, we would have won some of our first games and yes, the kid is talented, but I am glad that Crawford is not here and taking:

1.) Shots away from Hinrich, Gordon and Deng
2.) A breather on D from time to time
3.) Wild shots occassionally
4.) A big chunk of money that I want to use to keep our current core together and find a big guard that plays D

Anyone notice that the Knicks didn't have anyone back on two of our fast breaks. That happened to us alot time last year. Has it happened to us once this year?

During the last week, after hearing Crawford complain (again) about the Bulls drafting guards does anyone really think he would be happy in a 3 guard rotation with Kirk and Ben especially if it left him on the bench in the 4th quarter?


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> During the last week, after hearing Crawford complain (again) about the Bulls drafting guards does anyone really think he would be happy in a 3 guard rotation with Kirk and Ben especially if it left him on the bench in the 4th quarter?


As DaBullz would say, "Prove it." :laugh: 

Crawford had some nice plays in the game, but three things gave me flashbacks:

(1) Virtually every shot of 14 was contested.

(2) All of his one-on-one moves where side to side, nothing assertive going towards the rim.

(3) When given ample time to get in front of Deng to draw a charge on transition defense, Crawford deliberately stopped and simply reached out to slap at the ball.

That last one was always a pet peeve of mine. I've never seen Jamal Crawford attempt to draw a charge, let alone actually draw one.


----------



## truebluefan

ouch. 

*Or, turn up their defensive intensity. Every time Gordon delivered one of his 13 points in the fourth quarter, he did it against a team that doesn't have a perimeter player who can shut down an opponent. That's something Isiah Thomas has overlooked in rebuilding this team.

He has brought in scoring guards, inconsistent as they are. Yesterday, the Knicks welcomed Jamal Crawford back to the fold. And they weren't half as excited to see No.11 as the Bulls.

During Crawford's nine-game absence because of turf toe, he apparently didn't spend a lot of time watching how other players wait for an opening before attacking the basket. He was back to his old ways: the "volume" shooter they knew so well in Chicago. In 27 minutes he got off 14 shots and missed 10, including an 0-for-7 effort from beyond the arc. But where he really killed the Knicks was on the defensive end.

On the game-winner, Gordon beat Crawford, which was about as difficult for the ex-UConn star as, oh, breathing.*

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/272357p-233206c.html


with all of the praise for Jamal on this thread and yes he has had some good games, it is only fair to get the overall view of Jamal. Every game. True he is coming off an injury. But when I saw Jamal yesterday he looked like the Jamal that played for us. I did some defense where he blocked a shot and poked a pass away. But other than that I saw a Crawford that shot the ball every chance he got. I am pretty sure it was not within the offensive scheme of things most of the time. 

Jamal has all of the talent in the world. Maybe someday he will be a complete player. Right now he is far from it. He still does not take it to the hoop. He does not play good defense all game long. He still takes bad shots. One poster mentioned in another thread he can't remember the last time Jamal took a charge. If and when he does all of these things on a regular basis he will be one of the top guards in the league. 

If Jamal thought the Bulls media was unfair, that being the top scorer was never enough for us, then he will be shocked to read the NY media. They are more brutal. Much more. To them it is what have you done for us lately. Not the 50 pt game you had two months ago. 

Would we be the top defensive team in the NBA with Jamal here? It is a fair question. Would we lose some of the close games we are winning? Another fair question. We may never know and for right now that is a good thing.


----------



## kukoc4ever

An OK first game back from an extended trip on the injured list. 

I heard that he's wearing a shoe with embedded orthotics that is a couple sizes too big. That and a lot of tape.

Man.. the Knicks are one gimpy team right now.

Great game for the Bulls yesterday.


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> An OK first game back from an extended trip on the injured list.
> 
> I heard that he's wearing a shoe with embedded orthotics that is a couple sizes too big. That and a lot of tape.
> 
> Man.. the Knicks are one gimpy team right now.


yeah, he had to wear size 14s on both feet to accomodate the tape and the steel plates (he normally wears size 13)...knicks announcers were saying that he said it felt like he was playing in clown shoes. 

:clown: 


btw: why don't the knicks or the raptors warrant question marks from you in your signature? just curious is all.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Am willing to let any of you three errant Bull fans off the hook on your wagers if you are just willing to publicly concede that *Wynn!* is both a genious and remarkably beautiful (for a very large and slightly hairy man)!


Of course your a genius!  and yes, you probably are slightly hairy. That being said no reason to let me off of the hook!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah, he had to wear size 14s on both feet to accomodate the tape and the steel plates (he normally wears size 13)...knicks announcers were saying that he said it felt like he was playing in clown shoes.
> 
> :clown:
> 
> 
> btw: why don't the knicks or the raptors warrant question marks from you in your signature? just curious is all.



Because they are not talking about "the right way" while dumping talented players for crap.

I'm pleased as punch about the Bulls turnaround... but I still think that every ? there was this off-season went Paxson's way... and there were a whole lot of ?s.

I'll still contend that the Bulls turnaround has a whole lot more to do with healthy, in shape, contract year towers and two home run drafts than "the right way."


----------



## ace20004u

Jamal was definitley rusty after being off so long, he didn't have range on his shots and didn't attack the basket they way he was doing earlier in the season. It will take him some time to acclimate himself and get back in the swing of things. That being said, most of his shots were in the flow of the offense, he did have 2 steals and a block.


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Because they are not talking about "the right way" while dumping talented players for crap.
> 
> I'm pleased as punch about the Bulls turnaround... but I still think that every ? there was this off-season went Paxson's way... and there were a whole lot of ?s.
> 
> I'll still contend that the Bulls turnaround has a whole lot more to do with healthy, in shape, contract year towers and two home run drafts than "the right way."


oh. ok. :|


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Jamal was definitley rusty after being off so long, he didn't have range on his shots and didn't attack the basket they way he was doing earlier in the season. It will take him some time to acclimate himself and get back in the swing of things.


JC is just not smart enough player to adjust. That's always going to be a problem.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I'll still contend that the Bulls turnaround has a whole lot more to do with *healthy, in shape, contract year towers and two home run drafts than "the right way."*


Being "healthy and in shape" is the wrong way?

Two homerun drafts where he drafted players who play the wrong way?

It's easy to take the position you took at the beginning of the season and condemn a man for the moves he made leading to an 0-9 start. It's a lot harder to stick to your convictions and support that team the way Pax did. He supported them because he saw the hard work in practice and stuck to his convictions that if they did it "the right way" it would lead to wins. Now they're winning and it's just a fluke based on "healthy, in shape, contract year towers and two home run drafts".

Whatever.....


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> ouch.
> 
> *Or, turn up their defensive intensity. Every time Gordon delivered one of his 13 points in the fourth quarter, he did it against a team that doesn't have a perimeter player who can shut down an opponent. That's something Isiah Thomas has overlooked in rebuilding this team.
> 
> He has brought in scoring guards, inconsistent as they are. Yesterday, the Knicks welcomed Jamal Crawford back to the fold. And they weren't half as excited to see No.11 as the Bulls.
> 
> During Crawford's nine-game absence because of turf toe, he apparently didn't spend a lot of time watching how other players wait for an opening before attacking the basket. He was back to his old ways: the "volume" shooter they knew so well in Chicago. In 27 minutes he got off 14 shots and missed 10, including an 0-for-7 effort from beyond the arc. But where he really killed the Knicks was on the defensive end.
> 
> On the game-winner, Gordon beat Crawford, which was about as difficult for the ex-UConn star as, oh, breathing.*
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/272357p-233206c.html


the writer is obviously a hater!


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Because they are not talking about "the right way" while dumping talented players for crap.


Vince Carter for who?

Who did NY trade away to get Tim Thomas?

It's a two way street, man. I hate it that your beloved Knick is losing (okay, I lied, I'm loving it), but why is so easy to hate on the Bull and forgive the Knick?! ...and the Raptor?!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Vince Carter for who?


Eric Williams, Aaron Williams and 2 #1 round draft picks.

And... Jamal was not acting like a baby to be traded. Please.



> Who did NY trade away to get Tim Thomas?


They gave up a gimpy underachieving SF and a 2nd round pick to get a gimpy underachieving SF and a decent big man in Nazr.




> It's a two way street, man. I hate it that your beloved Knick is losing (okay, I lied, I'm loving it), but why is so easy to hate on the Bull and forgive the Knick?! ...and the Raptor?!


Forgive the Knicks for what?

Turning Van Horn, Doleac and a 2nd into Tim Thomas and Nazr Mohammad?

Pax was a crappy GM in his first year. Not just from a W-L standpoint but from the moves he made. I'll stand by that.

I’m glad his “master plan” of hitting a HOME RUN in the draft and willing Curry to get and shape and Chandler’s back to be healthy paid off.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Being "healthy and in shape" is the wrong way?
> 
> Two homerun drafts where he drafted players who play the wrong way?
> 
> It's easy to take the position you took at the beginning of the season and condemn a man for the moves he made leading to an 0-9 start. It's a lot harder to stick to your convictions and support that team the way Pax did. He supported them because he saw the hard work in practice and stuck to his convictions that if they did it "the right way" it would lead to wins. Now they're winning and it's just a fluke based on "healthy, in shape, contract year towers and two home run drafts".
> 
> Whatever.....


I wonder how many "right way" enthusiasts around here where ready to show Curry the door?

The "right way" is a platitude. Talent prevails.

Paxson would not have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler.


----------



## kukoc4ever

If you give Curry, Chandler, Deng, Hinrich and Gordon to JWest and Czar... they are just as good.

Pax gets credit for drafting the last 3. 

Other than that… I still don’t like the moves he made.


----------



## Chicago_Cow

> Paxson would not have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler.


How do you know? Do you know the future? How about some lottery numbers here?

Didn't he draft Gordon who was supposed to play pg? It takes balls for Paxson to draft a 6'2 pg when he has Capt Kirk at the helm.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you know? Do you know the future? How about some lottery numbers here?
> 
> Didn't he draft Gordon who was supposed to play pg? It takes balls for Paxson to draft a 6'2 pg when he has Capt Kirk at the helm.


Paxson drafted a "proven" college commodity in Ben Gordon.

Paxson made his opinion on high school players pretty clear.

Its just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Paxson drafted a "proven" college commodity in Ben Gordon.
> 
> Paxson made his opinion on high school players pretty clear.


Pax knew he had enough raw talent. That's avoiding a mistake other GMs like Krause made again and again. 

I look for Pax to take a HS kid in the newt few years now that the mix has changed.



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Its just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.


For a guy that has been proven wrong on just about every opinion to date, you sure don't seem shy about offering new ones.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Pax knew he had enough raw talent. That's avoiding a mistake other GMs like Krause made again and again.


Haha. That mindset resulted in Pippen and Kukoc being on the team. Haha. And Curry and Chandler. 

Please, please, please point out the "again and again" part.

If Pax knew he had enough raw talent... why were Curry and Chandler being offered around the league? Why trade them?




> For a guy that has been proven wrong on just about every opinion to date, you sure don't seem shy about offering new ones.


I've said that the only way the Bulls win is with Curry and Chandler producing. Is that wrong?

Its a long season dude. What was your pre-season prediction?


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson would not have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler.


Shortly after Paxson took over, someone asked him if he would have done the Brand-Chandler trade. He said something to the effect that "Gosh. I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision." The way he said it gave the impression that, while he didn't want to openly second-guess Krause, no, he would not have made that deal.


----------



## superdave

Paxson wouldn't have had the stones to draft Crawford and Fizer either.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Shortly after Paxson took over, someone asked him if he would have done the Brand-Chandler trade. He said something to the effect that "Gosh. I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision." The way he said it gave the impression that, while he didn't want to openly second-guess Krause, no, he would not have made that deal.


Too risk averse. He’s lucky he inherited them.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Paxson wouldn't have had the stones to draft Crawford and Fizer either.


Who would Paxson have drafted that year?

Who should he have drafted?


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Too risk averse. He’s lucky he inherited them.


Actually, I thought Gordon was a pretty gutsy pick.


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Who would Paxson have drafted that year?
> 
> Who should he have drafted?


Let's see, the Bulls had the 4th pick, and assuming we keep Brand, we don't pick Curry...too similar offensively. Probably Jason Richardson of Michigan State.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> If Pax knew he had enough raw talent... why were Curry and Chandler being offered around the league? Why trade them?


I'm not sure if you noticed over the course of the 2 game sweep of your Knicks, but Chandler and Curry play for the Bulls. Paxson hasn't traded them.

But I guess you don't think the GM of an 0-9 team should consider offers from around the league that might imrpove his team. 

Does it count for nothing that Paxson didn't panic and kept the team together? I'm not sure I understand how he could have handled the team better this season, and I don't see you actually offering an suggestions - just general criticism of moves made in years past.

Really, man, I'm having a hard time understanding the arguments you are trying to make on these last 2 pages. Your opinion of Paxson is so obviously linked to the Crawford trade that it makes it hard to take some of this stuff seriously.


----------



## giusd

I have long considered this and the bigger question is not who the bulls would have taken with the 4th pick, if eddy was there JK would have drafted him, the issue is who would the Clippers have taken with the 2nd pick that they traded for Brand. I have no idea but i wonder if it would have been curry instead of chandler.

As for JC, He want to play soo badly against the bulls to show they how much better off he is in NY and stick it to the bulls. But instead he plays like crap, and his man, who he is defending, burns him for the game winner. OOCH.

david


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I thought Gordon was a pretty gutsy pick.


Hmm, this thread is hardly a "Jamal update" anymore...oh well.

I agree, Gordon was a gutsy pick. Scouts called him a tweener, a guy who couldn't play either backcourt position truly. That scares alot of GM's away...it didn't scare Pax obviously. Hardly a sure thing.

As for the Brand trade, I still think it was bad. I love Tyson and all, but Brand is and probably always will be the better player. Maybe not defensively, but he's light years ahead of Tyson offensively; he's no slouch on defense/rebounding either. I think Brand's presence would've taken just a ton of pressure off Eddy Curry, most notably those pesky double teams. And it would've been nice knowing that when Eddy misses a shot, you have Brand's offensive rebounding right there for a sure-fire tip-in. Still a bad trade in my book. But I'm not complaining.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> oh. ok. :|



:laugh: :laugh: 

kukoc, so you acknowledge that a huge part of the Bulls success this year is b/c Curry and Chandler are in shape and healthy, but yet I've never seen you say that a significant part of the Bulls failure last year was b/c they weren't. It was all b/c of Paxson's "terrible moves".


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> kukoc, so you acknowledge that a huge part of the Bulls success this year is b/c Curry and Chandler are in shape and healthy, but yet I've never seen you say that a significant part of the Bulls failure last year was b/c they weren't. It was all b/c of Paxson's "terrible moves".


this is k4e's brilliant evasion tactic where he can be happy the Bulls are winning without acknowledging that Pax's stewardship is a BIG reason why they've improved so much. He still dreams about the "playoff" team that Paxson "had the stones" to dismantle. There's a convenient memory loss where he forgets that they lost by 30 to bad teams, played no defense, tuned out their coach, and moaned and complained after their rare WINS. He then blames Pax for the fact that the queen bee of this attitude (Rose) didn't have any trade value, but had to go. He then blames Pax for allowing this team to lose for a year and a half under his watch, even though his fishing buddy Krause allowed the team to flounder for 5 years and "blew up the team" a handful of times before he was canned. And let's not forget that we got "NOTHING" for JC, except vastly improved flexibility (thanks just as much to dumping JYD the free-throw missing machine) that will allow us to keep Curry and Chandler AND continue to make incremental improvements to the core. 

to that hypothetical situation where he said Pax wouldn't have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler...I say he probably would have kept Brand and drafted Jason Richardson, knowing how he's drafted to this point. And as much as I like Curry and Chandler and want them to succeed, waiting 3+ years for them to realize they're in the NBA was a situation Krause stuck us with, and we probably could have improved more quickly had he not rolled those dice. Are Curry and Chandler the frontline anchors that will lead this team to the finals? I sure hope so, but for one thing I'm not anywhere near convinced of that yet, and for another, Pax deserves credit for NOT trading them when they were struggling. That's another point that gets conveniently forgotten. Pax is the bad guy for listening to offers for guys who, until recently, really weren't helping the team win. Yeah, I don't get it either. 

and let's not forget the anti-christ himself, Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired. 

I've been saying for weeks, if not longer, that some people invested so much emotion into hating Pax and Skiles that nothing short of a 70-win season and 15-0 in the playoffs will satisfy them. It's hard to admit you're wrong, though. That much I understand completely. I was wrong about the 30-win team. I thought they were ready to be a playoff contender last year, but the way they quit on games and showed absolutely no spine convinced me (and Pax) otherwise. Since then, other than cutting Blount a day late, I've been pleased with Pax's decisions and thought they'd pay off eventually.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's see, the Bulls had the 4th pick, and assuming we keep Brand, we don't pick Curry...too similar offensively. Probably Jason Richardson of Michigan State.


Take a look at the message I was replying to.



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Paxson wouldn't have had the stones to draft Crawford and Fizer either.


2000 draft.... not 2001.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I thought Gordon was a pretty gutsy pick.



Who was the safer pick?

Livingston?
Childress?
Deng?
Iggy?

I guess Jackson was safer. That's who he was expecting at #7.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired.


Excellent.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> kukoc, so you acknowledge that a huge part of the Bulls success this year is b/c Curry and Chandler are in shape and healthy, but yet I've never seen you say that a significant part of the Bulls failure last year was b/c they weren't. It was all b/c of Paxson's "terrible moves".


No... of course that was a HUGE reason... that was the MAIN reason.

If the Bulls keep Rose/Marshall last season... they are not much better... the towers are the key IMO.

I would still like to have either Rose/Marshall or Crawford on this team rather than the scrap we received.

There is no reason they can't resign the towers


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the safer pick?
> 
> Livingston?
> Childress?
> Deng?
> Iggy?
> 
> I guess Jackson was safer. That's who he was expecting at #7.


that's right. He "lucked" into Deng. Fire him.  

FWIW, Jackson is on the shelf for the year, with a back problem that has bothered him since minicamp. He's not necessarily the colossal bust that certain partisans have claimed him to be (unless of course he never recovers from the injury).


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I would still like to have either Rose/Marshall or Crawford on this team rather than the scrap we received.


What about the chemistry?

Yes or No (only)

Are you absolutely certain we'd have the same chemistry we have now with "Rose/Marshall or Crawford on this team rather than the scrap we received"?

No conditions. Just yes or no.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> Does it count for nothing that Paxson didn't panic and kept the team together? I'm not sure I understand how he could have handled the team better this season, and I don't see you actually offering an suggestions - just general criticism of moves made in years past.
> 
> Really, man, I'm having a hard time understanding the arguments you are trying to make on these last 2 pages. Your opinion of Paxson is so obviously linked to the Crawford trade that it makes it hard to take some of this stuff seriously.


Paxson did a good job this season not continuing to blow his inheritence.
He also had an excellent draft and instilled a sound work ethic into the team.

Take a look at the last 2 pages and find where I say otherwise.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Take a look at the last 2 pages and find where I say otherwise.


Should we ignore the first 53 where you brag about how much better the Raptors and the Knicks are then the Bulls?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> that's right. He "lucked" into Deng. Fire him.
> 
> FWIW, Jackson is on the shelf for the year, with a back problem that has bothered him since minicamp. He's not necessarily the colossal bust that certain partisans have claimed him to be (unless of course he never recovers from the injury).


Do you hear me saying "fire Pax?"

I think its pretty clear that not many people expected Deng to be there at the #7, yes?

On the other hand... it makes sense to look at things how they actually happened, right?


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is k4e's brilliant evasion tactic where he can be happy the Bulls are winning without acknowledging that Pax's stewardship is a BIG reason why they've improved so much. He still dreams about the "playoff" team that Paxson "had the stones" to dismantle. There's a convenient memory loss where he forgets that they lost by 30 to bad teams, played no defense, tuned out their coach, and moaned and complained after their rare WINS. He then blames Pax for the fact that the queen bee of this attitude (Rose) didn't have any trade value, but had to go. He then blames Pax for allowing this team to lose for a year and a half under his watch, even though his fishing buddy Krause allowed the team to flounder for 5 years and "blew up the team" a handful of times before he was canned. And let's not forget that we got "NOTHING" for JC, except vastly improved flexibility (thanks just as much to dumping JYD the free-throw missing machine) that will allow us to keep Curry and Chandler AND continue to make incremental improvements to the core.
> 
> to that hypothetical situation where he said Pax wouldn't have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler...I say he probably would have kept Brand and drafted Jason Richardson, knowing how he's drafted to this point. And as much as I like Curry and Chandler and want them to succeed, waiting 3+ years for them to realize they're in the NBA was a situation Krause stuck us with, and we probably could have improved more quickly had he not rolled those dice. Are Curry and Chandler the frontline anchors that will lead this team to the finals? I sure hope so, but for one thing I'm not anywhere near convinced of that yet, and for another, Pax deserves credit for NOT trading them when they were struggling. That's another point that gets conveniently forgotten. Pax is the bad guy for listening to offers for guys who, until recently, really weren't helping the team win. Yeah, I don't get it either.
> 
> and let's not forget the anti-christ himself, Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired.
> 
> I've been saying for weeks, if not longer, that some people invested so much emotion into hating Pax and Skiles that nothing short of a 70-win season and 15-0 in the playoffs will satisfy them. It's hard to admit you're wrong, though. That much I understand completely. I was wrong about the 30-win team. I thought they were ready to be a playoff contender last year, but the way they quit on games and showed absolutely no spine convinced me (and Pax) otherwise. Since then, other than cutting Blount a day late, I've been pleased with Pax's decisions and thought they'd pay off eventually.


:rock: :headbang: :woot: :cheers: :swammi: 

Outstanding post.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you hear me saying "fire Pax?"
> 
> I think its pretty clear that not many people expected Deng to be there at the #7, yes?
> 
> On the other hand... it makes sense to look at things how they actually happened, right?


you still say he was a crappy GM last year, even though the moves he made THEN are what set the table for what's happening NOW. And even though we still would have sucked hard had we not made the Rose trade, and had far less chemistry and financial flexibility.

I would consider "lucking into" a player to be when the player you really wanted went ahead of your pick, and you settled on someone else, who turned out to be better. That's not what happened, unless Pax had a jones for Childress. Which there's no proof of, to my knowledge.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Should we ignore the first 53 where you brag about how much better the Raptors and the Knicks are then the Bulls?


You can take any shots you want. I'm right here. Fire away.

Obviously a lot has changed since the start of the season.

I'll stand by my opinion based on the information available at the start of the season. 

I never said that the Knicks and the Raptors would be "so much better" than the Bulls. I thought one of them would be .500 and the Bulls would be under.

Curry, Chandler, Deng and Gordon all paid off. 

That's good for the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> You can spout all the Pax Platitudes you want.
> 
> The team he's put together sucks *** while rose and marshall are key players on a 3-0 team.
> 
> Enjoy all the losing.
> 
> Maybe you will be right in 3 years or so.


Or maybe in 2 months and 12 days.

Good ol' post #73.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Or maybe in 2 months and 12 days.
> 
> Good ol' post #73.


Still waiting....

what was your pre-season prediction?

Still waiting....


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Still waiting....
> 
> what was your pre-season prediction?
> 
> Still waiting....


On FJ's pre-season prediction thread, I was down for 34 wins. +12 over last year.

http://www.basketballboards.net/for...e=15&highlight=Season Prediction&pagenumber=3

Not too many regular posters with a more optimitic (realistic?) prediction than me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is k4e's brilliant evasion tactic where he can be happy the Bulls are winning without acknowledging that Pax's stewardship is a BIG reason why they've improved so much. He still dreams about the "playoff" team that Paxson "had the stones" to dismantle. There's a convenient memory loss where he forgets that they lost by 30 to bad teams, played no defense, tuned out their coach, and moaned and complained after their rare WINS. He then blames Pax for the fact that the queen bee of this attitude (Rose) didn't have any trade value, but had to go. He then blames Pax for allowing this team to lose for a year and a half under his watch, even though his fishing buddy Krause allowed the team to flounder for 5 years and "blew up the team" a handful of times before he was canned. And let's not forget that we got "NOTHING" for JC, except vastly improved flexibility (thanks just as much to dumping JYD the free-throw missing machine) that will allow us to keep Curry and Chandler AND continue to make incremental improvements to the core.
> 
> to that hypothetical situation where he said Pax wouldn't have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler...I say he probably would have kept Brand and drafted Jason Richardson, knowing how he's drafted to this point. And as much as I like Curry and Chandler and want them to succeed, waiting 3+ years for them to realize they're in the NBA was a situation Krause stuck us with, and we probably could have improved more quickly had he not rolled those dice. Are Curry and Chandler the frontline anchors that will lead this team to the finals? I sure hope so, but for one thing I'm not anywhere near convinced of that yet, and for another, Pax deserves credit for NOT trading them when they were struggling. That's another point that gets conveniently forgotten. Pax is the bad guy for listening to offers for guys who, until recently, really weren't helping the team win. Yeah, I don't get it either.
> 
> and let's not forget the anti-christ himself, Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired.
> 
> I've been saying for weeks, if not longer, that some people invested so much emotion into hating Pax and Skiles that nothing short of a 70-win season and 15-0 in the playoffs will satisfy them. It's hard to admit you're wrong, though. That much I understand completely. I was wrong about the 30-win team. I thought they were ready to be a playoff contender last year, but the way they quit on games and showed absolutely no spine convinced me (and Pax) otherwise. Since then, other than cutting Blount a day late, I've been pleased with Pax's decisions and thought they'd pay off eventually.


Well said.

Kukoc4ever, you know I love ya, mand, but ViciousFlogging just dealt you a Vic...well, you know!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is k4e's brilliant evasion tactic where he can be happy the Bulls are winning without acknowledging that Pax's stewardship is a BIG reason why they've improved so much. He still dreams about the "playoff" team that Paxson "had the stones" to dismantle. There's a convenient memory loss where he forgets that they lost by 30 to bad teams, played no defense, tuned out their coach, and moaned and complained after their rare WINS. He then blames Pax for the fact that the queen bee of this attitude (Rose) didn't have any trade value, but had to go. He then blames Pax for allowing this team to lose for a year and a half under his watch, even though his fishing buddy Krause allowed the team to flounder for 5 years and "blew up the team" a handful of times before he was canned. And let's not forget that we got "NOTHING" for JC, except vastly improved flexibility (thanks just as much to dumping JYD the free-throw missing machine) that will allow us to keep Curry and Chandler AND continue to make incremental improvements to the core.
> 
> to that hypothetical situation where he said Pax wouldn't have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler...I say he probably would have kept Brand and drafted Jason Richardson, knowing how he's drafted to this point. And as much as I like Curry and Chandler and want them to succeed, waiting 3+ years for them to realize they're in the NBA was a situation Krause stuck us with, and we probably could have improved more quickly had he not rolled those dice. Are Curry and Chandler the frontline anchors that will lead this team to the finals? I sure hope so, but for one thing I'm not anywhere near convinced of that yet, and for another, Pax deserves credit for NOT trading them when they were struggling. That's another point that gets conveniently forgotten. Pax is the bad guy for listening to offers for guys who, until recently, really weren't helping the team win. Yeah, I don't get it either.
> 
> and let's not forget the anti-christ himself, Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired.
> 
> I've been saying for weeks, if not longer, that some people invested so much emotion into hating Pax and Skiles that nothing short of a 70-win season and 15-0 in the playoffs will satisfy them. It's hard to admit you're wrong, though. That much I understand completely. I was wrong about the 30-win team. I thought they were ready to be a playoff contender last year, but the way they quit on games and showed absolutely no spine convinced me (and Pax) otherwise. Since then, other than cutting Blount a day late, I've been pleased with Pax's decisions and thought they'd pay off eventually.


That's a lot of words you put in my mouth. 

I've never thought Skiles is the "anti-christ." I like what he preached... I didn't think he was going about it the right way last season. Same with Paxson.

I don't like the way Paxson liquidated the team last season. Based on other trades I've seen in the league I think we could have received more. The main players he traded away or let go are going well with their new teams (marshall... craw.. even rose and hassell are doing well in their roles).

I'll still stand by my decision. I think that Curry being in-shape and productive AND Chandler being healthy and productive AND Gordon being good fast AND Deng being good fast AND the players buying into the PaxSkiles system has a low probability of occurring.

I'll take pocket Kings against pocket twos any day. Sometimes the twos win. Does not mean that I'm going to stop playing pocket kings.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take pocket Kings over pocket twos any day. Sometimes the twos win. Does not mean that I'm going to stop playing pocket kings.


...or pocket pool, for that matter...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> On FJ's pre-season prediction thread, I was down for 34 wins. +12 over last year.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/for...e=15&highlight=Season Prediction&pagenumber=3
> 
> Not too many regular posters with a more optimitic (realistic?) prediction than me.


OK. So you agreed with me that the Bulls would be a losing team and probably not make the playoffs. That warms my heart that we agreed with each other. 


I think I picked 23 wins.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> ...or pocket pool, for that matter...


haha


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> OK. So you agreed with me that the Bulls would be a losing team and probably not make the playoffs. That warms my heart that we agreed with each other.


Call me crazy, but crying about Rose and Crawford being traded is a pretty far off spot than from where I am and have been sitting.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> Kukoc4ever, you know I love ya, mand,


I never knew that you loved me. This is a happy moment.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, but crying about Rose and Crawford being traded is a pretty far off spot than from where I am and have been sitting.


Yah... but you thought the Bulls would be losers this season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I never knew that you loved me. This is a happy moment.


I'll give you a ride on my bike. You've got "next."


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you hear me saying "fire Pax?"


You are #27 on the Fire Paxson club. So, yes, I do hear you saying "Fire Pax".

In case you forgot that you joined, here's a link to a recent post by DaBullz showing your affiliation: 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136225&pagenumber=2


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> You are #27 on the Fire Paxson club. So, yes, I do hear you saying "Fire Pax".
> 
> In case you forgot that you joined, here's a link to a recent post by DaBullz showing your affiliation:
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136225&pagenumber=2


I joined the club this off season. 

I've said that I'll leave if I'm happy with the resolution of the towers situation.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll give you a ride on my bike. You've got "next."



Can I wear the hat?


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I joined the club this off season.
> 
> I've said that I'll leave if I'm happy with the resolution of the towers situation.


And? Don't say "do you see me saying 'Fire Pax'"? when you joined a silly "club" whose sole purpose is to ask that he be fired. 

Do you not see the inconsistency in that? 

But I see, now you just want him fired based on something he might do in the future. Logical. :|


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I joined the club this off season.
> 
> I've said that I'll leave if I'm happy with the resolution of the towers situation.


Am I wrong or you just admit that you are on the "Fire Paxon" wagon? You said you will leave if.... this mean you are on "Fire Paxon" wagon as of now. Right?

So which is it? Are you on or off the wagon? Yes or no.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Am I wrong or you just admit that you are on the "Fire Paxon" wagon? You said you will leave if.... this mean you are on "Fire Paxon" wagon as of now. Right?
> 
> So which is it? Are you on or off the wagon? Yes or no.


I'm on the edge of the wagon hoping he'll not screw up the towers situation so I can jump off.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is k4e's brilliant evasion tactic where he can be happy the Bulls are winning without acknowledging that Pax's stewardship is a BIG reason why they've improved so much. He still dreams about the "playoff" team that Paxson "had the stones" to dismantle. There's a convenient memory loss where he forgets that they lost by 30 to bad teams, played no defense, tuned out their coach, and moaned and complained after their rare WINS. He then blames Pax for the fact that the queen bee of this attitude (Rose) didn't have any trade value, but had to go. He then blames Pax for allowing this team to lose for a year and a half under his watch, even though his fishing buddy Krause allowed the team to flounder for 5 years and "blew up the team" a handful of times before he was canned. And let's not forget that we got "NOTHING" for JC, except vastly improved flexibility (thanks just as much to dumping JYD the free-throw missing machine) that will allow us to keep Curry and Chandler AND continue to make incremental improvements to the core.
> 
> to that hypothetical situation where he said Pax wouldn't have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler...I say he probably would have kept Brand and drafted Jason Richardson, knowing how he's drafted to this point. And as much as I like Curry and Chandler and want them to succeed, waiting 3+ years for them to realize they're in the NBA was a situation Krause stuck us with, and we probably could have improved more quickly had he not rolled those dice. Are Curry and Chandler the frontline anchors that will lead this team to the finals? I sure hope so, but for one thing I'm not anywhere near convinced of that yet, and for another, Pax deserves credit for NOT trading them when they were struggling. That's another point that gets conveniently forgotten. Pax is the bad guy for listening to offers for guys who, until recently, really weren't helping the team win. Yeah, I don't get it either.
> 
> and let's not forget the anti-christ himself, Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired.
> 
> I've been saying for weeks, if not longer, that some people invested so much emotion into hating Pax and Skiles that nothing short of a 70-win season and 15-0 in the playoffs will satisfy them. It's hard to admit you're wrong, though. That much I understand completely. I was wrong about the 30-win team. I thought they were ready to be a playoff contender last year, but the way they quit on games and showed absolutely no spine convinced me (and Pax) otherwise. Since then, other than cutting Blount a day late, I've been pleased with Pax's decisions and thought they'd pay off eventually.


Honestly, I don't think anybody can argue against your logic, let alone Kukoc.
Great post, man. It's exactly what I want to tell. Only you write it thousand times better than what i woudl have. Kudo to you.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> And? Don't say "do you see me saying 'Fire Pax'"? when you joined a silly "club" whose sole purpose is to ask that he be fired.
> 
> Do you not see the inconsistency in that?
> 
> But I see, now you just want him fired based on something he might do in the future. Logical. :|





I said fire Pax based on his performance in his first season.

I still think the path he chose is one of low probability... but it looks like he hit it.

That's good for the Bulls... and he should be allowed stay on if the team is successful.

If he manages to not mess up the towers situation... i'll leave.

Seems logical.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm on the edge of the wagon hoping he'll not screw up the towers situation so I can jump off.


Can you give Yes or No answer at all? There is no edge in my answer. You are On or OFF for now.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Can you give Yes or No answer at all? There is no edge in my answer. You are On or OFF for now.


Sorry. No answer now. He still may screw up the towers trade/signing like he did Rose/Marshall/Crawford.

We won't be able to draft our way out of this blunder due to lack of picks.

It should be a no-brainer to just resign them.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> On FJ's pre-season prediction thread, I was down for 34 wins. +12 over last year.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/for...e=15&highlight=Season Prediction&pagenumber=3
> 
> Not too many regular posters with a more optimitic (realistic?) prediction than me.



DANG... after reading that thread I see that I picked 28.

We were only 6 wins apart.

And I'm mister negative?  

hhahahaha


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> That's a lot of words you put in my mouth.
> 
> I've never thought Skiles is the "anti-christ." I like what he preached... I didn't think he was going about it the right way last season. Same with Paxson.
> 
> I don't like the way Paxson liquidated the team last season. Based on other trades I've seen in the league I think we could have received more. The main players he traded away or let go are going well with their new teams (marshall... craw.. even rose and hassell are doing well in their roles).
> 
> I'll still stand by my decision. I think that Curry being in-shape and productive AND Chandler being healthy and productive AND Gordon being good fast AND Deng being good fast AND the players buying into the PaxSkiles system has a low probability of occurring.
> 
> I'll take pocket Kings against pocket twos any day. Sometimes the twos win. Does not mean that I'm going to stop playing pocket kings.


"the anti-christ" was obviously hyperbole, though the tone regarding Skiles did get incredibly bleak for a while. The fact that you chose that point to defend shows me that you know that most of my post is right on the money.

What COULD we have gotten for Rose and Marshall? Toronto has supposedly been in discussions to move Rose for a broken-down Hardaway. Same exact move as us getting AD for him, as far as what they can contribute on the floor and the future monetary savings. Marshall has been linked to Rose as enticement, just like we had to do. I have no idea what you think we could have gotten for them. And I don't see you making any suggestions, so I assume you're just saying that to save face until proven otherwise.

Cutting Hassell was unfortunate. I guess that makes TWO moves Pax made that I don't agree with, though I understood it at the time, as he and LJ BOTH sucked on offense and LJ was bigger and more athletic on defense. Playing next to KG can do wonders for a guy like Hassell.

Craw's doing well...I guess...but we're doing better without him. My personal opinion is that he is very talented, but he would not have fit in with the way this team plays and succeeds. ANd the fact that moving him WITH JYD means we might have substantial cap room even after resigning Tyson and Eddy means that I think Pax made a good move. You never say anything about this part - just that we got "NOTHING", which also isn't true - we got decent role players who have all stepped up and helped us at various times without complaining about spotty minutes. 

And you still refuse to acknowledge that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the buttons Pax and Skiles pushed are a part of the reason why Curry and Chandler are in shape and motivated. And that he drafted Gordon and Deng precisely BECAUSE he thought they could help sooner than some of the other guys out there. And the fact that Pax went out of his way to find competitive, talented players who would play the way their coach teaches them to. Why is that? How can you possibly shrug it all off and say that it's only because of Krause's picks that this team is playing better?

and in WHAT card game are Rose and Marshall and Crawford KINGS? Puhleeease. We tried to win with them. We won 30 games and only after the young guys started to play well late in the year. Then the entire team came out and fell flat on its face last year. That team wasn't a cinche to win as many games as the NBDL All-stars did, given their ridiculous apathy. Maybe SKiles could have helped with that, but given how Jalen has responded to a similar treatment in Toronto, I doubt it.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you hear me saying "fire Pax?"
> 
> I think its pretty clear that not many people expected Deng to be there at the #7, yes?
> 
> On the other hand... it makes sense to look at things how they actually happened, right?


So even though you are denying you said "fire Paxon", you are admitting you are member of "Fire Paxon" as of now and refusing to remove your name until later time.

man, I don't know about you. but it is really confusing to figure out where you stand.

Also I have to give you some compliment since you are lone warrier from anti-Paxon/ Skile camp still fighting on. It is THAT hard to admit that youwere wrong and are wrong, right?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> "the anti-christ" was obviously hyperbole, though the tone regarding Skiles did get incredibly bleak for a while.


I've always been more anti-pax than anti-skiles. I didn't think his criticisms of the players in public helped matters at all and I didn't agree with all the silly benchings last season.... especially if you were planning on trading the guy whose value you are lowering (jamal).



> The fact that you chose that point to defend shows me that you know that most of my post is right on the money.


No... I just didn't have the time/energy to respond to the whole thing. I'll go back there after this one. 



> What COULD we have gotten for Rose and Marshall? Toronto has supposedly been in discussions to move Rose for a broken-down Hardaway. Same exact move as us getting AD for him, as far as what they can contribute on the floor and the future monetary savings. Marshall has been linked to Rose as enticement, just like we had to do. I have no idea what you think we could have gotten for them. And I don't see you making any suggestions, so I assume you're just saying that to save face until proven otherwise.


I don't think we HAD to get rid of rose. And we certainly didn't need to dump them RIGHT AWAY. How much time did Paxson spend trying to get some deals done? He guaranteed playoffs to start the season. @ what point he decide to dump Rose at any cost? How much time did he spend trying to get a deal done? It could not have been that long, given the start of the season playoff prediction.

Toronto is actually playing pretty well post-Carter with Rose coming off the bench. Marshall had a huge game last night. 



> Craw's doing well...I guess...but we're doing better without him.


Yes, from a W-L standpoint. But remember that we have fit Curry, healthy Chandler, good Deng, good Gordon and better Hinrich this season. 




> My personal opinion is that he is very talented, but he would not have fit in with the way this team plays and succeeds.


And I don't know about you... but I think many people here would have said the same thing about Curry at the start of the season. Its a wonder what a winning atmosphere will bring out of a player.



> ANd the fact that moving him WITH JYD means we might have substantial cap room even after resigning Tyson and Eddy means that I think Pax made a good move. You never say anything about this part - just that we got "NOTHING", which also isn't true - we got decent role players who have all stepped up and helped us at various times without complaining about spotty minutes.


I don't think the cap space will result in anything.




> And you still refuse to acknowledge that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the buttons Pax and Skiles pushed are a part of the reason why Curry and Chandler are in shape and motivated. And that he drafted Gordon and Deng precisely BECAUSE he thought they could help sooner than some of the other guys out there. And the fact that Pax went out of his way to find competitive, talented players who would play the way their coach teaches them to. Why is that? How can you possibly shrug it all off and say that it's only because of Krause's picks that this team is playing better?


I've said that Paxson did a good job changing the attitude of the team and that he had a great draft. 



> and in WHAT card game are Rose and Marshall and Crawford KINGS?


Take a look at what I wrote. I said that curryANDchandlerANDgordonANDdengANDlistening to PAXSKILES had a low probability of happening.

Just like 2s beating Ks. Sometimes 2s win. That does not mean that Ks should not be played.

That had more to do with the pre-season win prediction of 28… which was not too far off from most of the people here. Nothing to due with how Paxson dumped Rose/Craw/Yell. 



> Puhleeease. We tried to win with them. We won 30 games and only after the young guys started to play well late in the year. Then the entire team came out and fell flat on its face last year. That team wasn't a cinche to win as many games as the NBDL All-stars did, given their ridiculous apathy. Maybe SKiles could have helped with that, but given how Jalen has responded to a similar treatment in Toronto, I doubt it.


How many games did we try? We started 0-9 this season, should we have blown it up? Yah... there were some high margin games last year... but I don't think that Hinrich/Gordon/Deng would be able to do much without healthy chandler and in-shape/motivated curry, do you? That's what we had at the start of last season. Hurt hand Rose, Jamal and anemic Hinrich. I don't think they gave that team enough time.

All this being said... I'm really happy with the current state of the Bulls.


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So even though you are denying you said "fire Paxon", you are admitting you are member of "Fire Paxon" as of now and refusing to remove your name until later time.
> 
> man, I don't know about you. but it is really confusing to figure out where you stand.
> 
> Also I have to give you some compliment since you are lone warrier from anti-Paxon/ Skile camp still fighting on. It is THAT hard to admit that youwere wrong and are wrong, right?


Actually, I have to give a lot of credit to k4e. He's sticking by his opinions and providing a counter-argument with reasoned responses. Though I disagree with most, if not all , his contentions, I respect him for not disappearing like many voices have since the winning began. That's the mark of a true fan.

On the most recent points of this wildly meandering thread, VFlog has just nailed my thoughts exactly. Wow.

I find it hard to give any credit to Krause for the recent success of Curry and Chandler, despite his drafting of them 4 years earlier. By not putting the pieces around them to enhance their chances for success, in many ways Krause did them, and the Bulls, a huge disservice. It's looking like Pax has made it work. Chandler and Curry are in a system that is helping them succeed. And as a result, they are solid contributors to a great turnaround. I still think the sky's the limit with these two and Pax, not Krause, will be a major reason for their success.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is k4e's brilliant evasion tactic where he can be happy the Bulls are winning without acknowledging that Pax's stewardship is a BIG reason why they've improved so much.


I think Paxson's drafts are a BIG reason why the team is winning. The team is clearly playing better D as well... how much of that is Paxson and Skiles is hard to gauge. They talk about such things a lot. So did Cartwright. Perhaps Bill just didn't have the horses that Scott currently does (in shape curry, healthy chandler, noc, 2nd year hinrich).



> He still dreams about the "playoff" team that Paxson "had the stones" to dismantle. There's a convenient memory loss where he forgets that they lost by 30 to bad teams, played no defense, tuned out their coach, and moaned and complained after their rare WINS.


And yet they had a better start to the season (first 10 games) than this years team. Curious.




> He then blames Pax for the fact that the queen bee of this attitude (Rose) didn't have any trade value, but had to go.


When its clear that you are looking to dump a player at any cost... what do you think that does to one’s trade value? Why the sense of urgency? Did we need to play the D-Leaguers?




> He then blames Pax for allowing this team to lose for a year and a half under his watch, even though his fishing buddy Krause allowed the team to flounder for 5 years and "blew up the team" a handful of times before he was canned.


Krause started with a blank slate (OK... he had Kukoc).

In his 2nd season, Paxson has 5 young at least top 7 lotto players. It takes years of losing to accumulate young lotto players. Paxson inherited 2 and bought one on credit.




> And let's not forget that we got "NOTHING" for JC, except vastly improved flexibility (thanks just as much to dumping JYD the free-throw missing machine) that will allow us to keep Curry and Chandler AND continue to make incremental improvements to the core.


Its funny that a hustle guy like JYD would not buy into the PaxSkiles system. We'll see what happens with the cap space. I've been sold this bill of goods before.




> to that hypothetical situation where he said Pax wouldn't have had the stones to draft Curry and Chandler...I say he probably would have kept Brand and drafted Jason Richardson, knowing how he's drafted to this point. And as much as I like Curry and Chandler and want them to succeed, waiting 3+ years for them to realize they're in the NBA was a situation Krause stuck us with, and we probably could have improved more quickly had he not rolled those dice. Are Curry and Chandler the frontline anchors that will lead this team to the finals? I sure hope so, but for one thing I'm not anywhere near convinced of that yet, and for another, Pax deserves credit for NOT trading them when they were struggling.


It would have been STUPID for Pax to accept the lowball offers we were getting for Curry/Chander. If you want to laud Paxson for NOT doing something that is CLEARLY STUPID, feel free. Yeah... I agree with you. I also don't think he should trade Deng for Luke Jackson BTW.... or swap Gordon for Ebi.   

Only time will tell what the towers, Brand and JRICH amount to. I’d rather have Chandler than Brand right now…. Given this team.



> That's another point that gets conveniently forgotten. Pax is the bad guy for listening to offers for guys who, until recently, really weren't helping the team win. Yeah, I don't get it either.


OMG... the teenagers can't lift the D-Leaguers up to NBA Glory! They are clearly losers!!!! FIRE SALE!!!!



> and let's not forget the anti-christ himself, Scott Skiles, who has gotten more out of Krause's "vision" than anyone Krause ever chose to coach them, and has them playing almost-playoff-level interior defense. He's horrible, he should be fired.


Or maybe it has more to do with contract status and physical maturation. 

Listen, I like the way the team is playing. But Chandler was a beast LAST SEASON before he got hurt... and Curry was productive @ the end of the 2002 season. This is all pre-PaxSkiles. 

I do give PaxSkiles credit for instilling a better work ethic on the squad.



> I've been saying for weeks, if not longer, that some people invested so much emotion into hating Pax and Skiles that nothing short of a 70-win season and 15-0 in the playoffs will satisfy them. It's hard to admit you're wrong, though. That much I understand completely. I was wrong about the 30-win team. I thought they were ready to be a playoff contender last year, but the way they quit on games and showed absolutely no spine convinced me (and Pax) otherwise. Since then, other than cutting Blount a day late, I've been pleased with Pax's decisions and thought they'd pay off eventually.


Clearly I..... like nearly everyone else on this board... underestimated the Bulls win total this season. I went with 28. Everything has gone right for the Bulls from a draft, FA, mental, injury,... blah blah blah standpoint. Everything. 

I don't think that getting rid of Rose, Marshall and Crawford are the reasons the Bulls are winning. I do think that the development of Curry, Chandler and Hinrich have a LOT to do with it... and adding players like Deng and Gordon.


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> "the anti-christ" was obviously hyperbole, though the tone regarding Skiles did get incredibly bleak for a while. The fact that you chose that point to defend shows me that you know that most of my post is right on the money.
> 
> What COULD we have gotten for Rose and Marshall? Toronto has supposedly been in discussions to move Rose for a broken-down Hardaway. Same exact move as us getting AD for him, as far as what they can contribute on the floor and the future monetary savings. Marshall has been linked to Rose as enticement, just like we had to do. I have no idea what you think we could have gotten for them. And I don't see you making any suggestions, so I assume you're just saying that to save face until proven otherwise.
> 
> Cutting Hassell was unfortunate. I guess that makes TWO moves Pax made that I don't agree with, though I understood it at the time, as he and LJ BOTH sucked on offense and LJ was bigger and more athletic on defense. Playing next to KG can do wonders for a guy like Hassell.
> 
> Craw's doing well...I guess...but we're doing better without him. My personal opinion is that he is very talented, but he would not have fit in with the way this team plays and succeeds. ANd the fact that moving him WITH JYD means we might have substantial cap room even after resigning Tyson and Eddy means that I think Pax made a good move. You never say anything about this part - just that we got "NOTHING", which also isn't true - we got decent role players who have all stepped up and helped us at various times without complaining about spotty minutes.
> 
> And you still refuse to acknowledge that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the buttons Pax and Skiles pushed are a part of the reason why Curry and Chandler are in shape and motivated. And that he drafted Gordon and Deng precisely BECAUSE he thought they could help sooner than some of the other guys out there. And the fact that Pax went out of his way to find competitive, talented players who would play the way their coach teaches them to. Why is that? How can you possibly shrug it all off and say that it's only because of Krause's picks that this team is playing better?
> 
> and in WHAT card game are Rose and Marshall and Crawford KINGS? Puhleeease. We tried to win with them. We won 30 games and only after the young guys started to play well late in the year. Then the entire team came out and fell flat on its face last year. That team wasn't a cinche to win as many games as the NBDL All-stars did, given their ridiculous apathy. Maybe SKiles could have helped with that, but given how Jalen has responded to a similar treatment in Toronto, I doubt it.




very nice post, my feelings exactly.


----------



## GB

K4...

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1814364#post1814364


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I've always been more anti-pax than anti-skiles. I didn't think his criticisms of the players in public helped matters and all and I didn't agree with all the silly benchings last season.... especially if you were planning on trading the guy whose value you are lowering (jamal).


sure. There's times he should have bitten his tongue. But I think it's presumptuous to suggest that they had decided at some early date to deal Jamal. They just didn't want to give him IT-type money, did him a favor by doing a deal they didn't HAVE to do, and got some expiring role players/bargaining chips and a LOT more flexibility financially. On balance, though, Skiles pushed more "good" buttons than "bad".



> I don't think we HAD to get rid of rose. And we certainly didn't need to dump them RIGHT AWAY. How much time did Paxson spend trying to get some deals done? He guaranteed playoffs to start the season. @ what point he decide to dump Rose at any cost? How much time did he spend trying to get a deal done? It could not have been that long, given the start of the season playoff prediction.
> 
> Toronto is actually playing pretty well post-Carter with Rose coming off the bench. Marshall had a huge game last night.


I guess there's nothing I can say that'll make it clear that Rose's "I'm a veteran, I'm a starter, no one respects me" BS was a problem. He was always pointing fingers, and other than on a couple of occasions, never were they at himself. And his inefficiency and general lack of intensity did not back up his bluster. We were getting KILLED with him out there. Pax gave a team that APPEARED to be on the rise a chance to prove itself. They failed, and failed spectacularly. I'm sorry, but if Pax had moved Rose or made any other substantial moves before the season started, we'd probably STILL be arguing about them now, because that's how high on the team most of us were at that point. Maybe Pax had an inkling that Rose wasn't a building block he wanted, but I don't think he made a mistake by giving them a chance, NOR did he make a mistake by seeing that their problems went far deeper than just a couple bad games.




> Yes, from a W-L standpoint. But remember that we have fit Curry, healthy Chandler, good Deng, good Gordon and better Hinrich this season.


Yep, and PAXSON deserves his share of credit for that. That's the WHOLE POINT of my tirades.




> And I don't know about you... but I think many people here would have said the same thing about Curry at the start of the season. Its a wonder what a winning atmosphere will bring out of a player.


And Pax deserves credit for that. It's a real shame  that Jamal doesn't get to share in the glow of winning, but management decided he didn't fit in. Given the way we're winning games (defense, balanced scoring, 110% effort), I tend to agree with them. The last play of yesterday's game, when Jamal stopped playing after being picked, is a microcosm of this. He MUST have wanted this game bad, but he couldn't play defense to the buzzer? 




> I don't think the cap space will result in anything.


based on what? We're playing well right now (that could change, but I'm optimistic). Pax and Skiles are getting some props in the media. We have young, hungry players who are all about the team. You don't think any free agents will take a long, hard look at this environment?




> I've said that Paxson did a good job changing the attitude of the team and that he had a great draft.


Grudgingly, and often in the same post, you say none of this is remotely possible without Krause's "vision".



> Take a look at what I wrote. I said that curryANDchandlerANDgordonANDdengANDlistening to PAXSKILES had a low probability of happening.


You act as if it's in a vacuum. You refuse to acknowledge that it was Pax's GMing and Skiles's coaching that had a LOT to do with this. They didn't stumble upon this success. I know you want to believe that, but it simply isn't so. They built it.



> Just like 2s beating Ks. Sometimes 2s win. That does not mean that Ks should not be played.


and I'll repeat that under no circumstances are Rose, Marshall and Crawford considered "Kings" in the landscape of NBA basketball. Jacks, maybe. And this "sometimes 2s win" nonsense is yet another attempt to deflect the credit for this team away from Pax (and Skiles).



> That had more to do with the pre-season win prediction of 28… which was not too far off from most of the people here. Nothing to due with how Paxson dumped Rose/Craw/Yell.


And here we are. Are you thinking of revising that prediction in light of the last month of play? Do Pax and Skiles have anything to do with that?



> How many games did we try? We started 0-9 this season, should we have blown it up? Yah... there were some high margin games last year... but I don't think that Hinrich/Gordon/Deng would be able to do much without healthy chandler and in-shape/motivated curry, do you? That's what we had at the start of last season. Hurt hand Rose, Jamal and anemic Hinrich. I don't think they have that team enough time.


So, we SHOULD have blown up last year's team now? I don't get it. I know that you and DaBullz love the black and white approach, but sometimes there's shades of gray. Last year, we started off 4-whatever against a schedule of cupcakes. And we lost to some of them by 30. This year, yeah, we lost. Against the toughest schedule in the league. And the team's mindset never went into the gutter. Totally different situations, despite your attempt to focus on just one factor.



> All this being said... I'm really happy with the current state of the Bulls.


hey, me too! And I give credit for it where it's due.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> What about the chemistry?
> 
> Yes or No (only)
> 
> Are you absolutely certain we'd have the same chemistry we have now with "Rose/Marshall or Crawford on this team rather than the scrap we received"?
> 
> No conditions. Just yes or no.


No offense GB... but asking yes or no questions like this is kind of lame IMO.

Of course we would not have the "same" chemistry.

Is the chemistry "better" now. Its hard to say. Winning makes everything better. Getting a guy like EROB off the team was a good idea. People seem to put Rose in the same light... but NBA teams in the past have won with him being one of the main guys... so why can't the Bulls? The Knicks at this point have a similar record to the Bulls.... and that's with Jamal.

Take a look at the old Bulls and the guy I'm named after. Toni Kukoc. Was he a stout defender? No. Did he have a visible fire in his belly? No. Was he an asset on a winning team... hell yeah.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> People seem to put Rose in the same light... but NBA teams in the past have won with him being one of the main guys... so why can't the Raptors?
> 
> The Knicks at this point have lost several in a row to fall to a similar record to the surging Bulls.... and that's with Jamal.


 

Let's be fair, right?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be fair, right?


haha.

clearly jalen rose is not enough to make an NBA team a winner.

Rose and especially marshall both had good games last night as the raps knocked off the twolves though. Rose at least shot the ball well.

the raptors seem to be playing pretty well as of late.
6-4 in their last 10.

the knicks are all banged up right now. the Bulls have been basically injury free.. except for AD.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I guess there's nothing I can say that'll make it clear that Rose's "I'm a veteran, I'm a starter, no one respects me" BS was a problem. He was always pointing fingers, and other than on a couple of occasions, never were they at himself. And his inefficiency and general lack of intensity did not back up his bluster.


Yeah... I don't like that either... although i would not word it as strongly as you did... but I catch your drift. 

What are you going to do? There are pro athletes out there with big egos. That's part of the game. Our scrappy, lovable, young team will get that way too once the contracts are doled out and they start arguing over money and "respect."



> We were getting KILLED with him out there. Pax gave a team that APPEARED to be on the rise a chance to prove itself. They failed, and failed spectacularly. I'm sorry, but if Pax had moved Rose or made any other substantial moves before the season started, we'd probably STILL be arguing about them now, because that's how high on the team most of us were at that point. Maybe Pax had an inkling that Rose wasn't a building block he wanted, but I don't think he made a mistake by giving them a chance, NOR did he make a mistake by seeing that their problems went far deeper than just a couple bad games.


The team that looked promising the year before was no more though. JWILL was maimed. Curry became fat. Chandler was gimpy. Even Rose had a messed up hand. The only real addition at that point in the season was a sickly Hinrich.

I don't think a proper chance was given.




> Yep, and PAXSON deserves his share of credit for that. That's the WHOLE POINT of my tirades.


I know I wrote a whole post about Paxson being "OK"... giving him credit for his drafts and the increased intensity of the squad.




> And Pax deserves credit for that. It's a real shame  that Jamal doesn't get to share in the glow of winning, but management decided he didn't fit in. Given the way we're winning games (defense, balanced scoring, 110% effort), I tend to agree with them. The last play of yesterday's game, when Jamal stopped playing after being picked, is a microcosm of this. He MUST have wanted this game bad, but he couldn't play defense to the buzzer?


I was watching the game on a small screen @ a sports book... but didn't Jamal block Pike's shot at the end of the game in an almost game ending play?

Jamal was playing with a messed up foot yesterday... he was a gamer out there.



> based on what? We're playing well right now (that could change, but I'm optimistic). Pax and Skiles are getting some props in the media. We have young, hungry players who are all about the team. You don't think any free agents will take a long, hard look at this environment?


Maybe they will. We'll see. PT is going to be huge factor. If we are winning... the chances are higher... I agree. 





> Grudgingly, and often in the same post, you say none of this is remotely possible without Krause's "vision".


Kruase was a genius. That's why his banner hangs proudly up in the rafters of the UC. Its a proud testament to a grand career.  





> You act as if it's in a vacuum. You refuse to acknowledge that it was Pax's GMing and Skiles's coaching that had a LOT to do with this. They didn't stumble upon this success. I know you want to believe that, but it simply isn't so. They built it.


This year¡¦s team has a lot to do with Paxson and Skiles, I agree. Still¡K Paxson was not responsible for drafting Curry and Chandler.




> and I'll repeat that under no circumstances are Rose, Marshall and Crawford considered "Kings" in the landscape of NBA basketball. Jacks, maybe. And this "sometimes 2s win" nonsense is yet another attempt to deflect the credit for this team away from Pax (and Skiles).


I'm not calling those players Kings! 

I guess I'm just not writing clearly.

I'm saying that Gordon being good in his first year AND Deng being good in his first year AND Curry being in shape and motivated AND Chandler being healthy AND the PaxSkiles message sinking in all this season is a low probability event. Just like a pair of 2s beating a pair of Ks in hold 'em. Rose/Mashall/Craw have nothing to do with this. Its a justification of my 28 win pick. 



> And here we are. Are you thinking of revising that prediction in light of the last month of play? Do Pax and Skiles have anything to do with that?


Of course they do. I'm not saying otherwise. Paxson and Skiles have done a good job this season.




> So, we SHOULD have blown up last year's team now? I don't get it. I know that you and DaBullz love the black and white approach, but sometimes there's shades of gray. Last year, we started off 4-whatever against a schedule of cupcakes. And we lost to some of them by 30. This year, yeah, we lost. Against the toughest schedule in the league. And the team's mindset never went into the gutter. Totally different situations, despite your attempt to focus on just one factor.


No... but if the logic is "we gave last years team a chance, and since they had a slow start it was the right move to blow it up" then the same can be said for this season. Last year's team had a BETTER start W-L wise. I know you'll talk about margins and intensity... I know how you feel about this.



> hey, me too! And I give credit for it where it's due.


As do I. Look for "Paxson is OK."


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I'm not calling those players Kings!
> 
> I guess I'm just not writing clearly.
> 
> I'm saying that Gordon being good in his first year AND Deng being good in his first year AND Curry being in shape and motivated AND Chandler being healthy AND the PaxSkiles message sinking in all this season is a low probability event. Just like a pair of 2s beating a pair of Ks in hold 'em. Rose/Mashall/Craw have nothing to do with this. Its a justification of my 28 win pick.


I don't play poker, so forgive me if I get lost in the analogy, but instead of relying on a pair of kings, looks like Pax got himself a flush. Looking more and more like it will be a royal flush. All of the players look like their cut from the same suit out there, maybe hearts? Whatever the jibs on their cards, I think a flush beats a pair, no? Maybe not. I don't really know a hell of a lot about poker. I do know the Bull flushed the Knick this weekend.



Here's to happy flushing!!!!


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't play poker, so forgive me if I get lost in the analogy, but instead of relying on a pair of kings, looks like Pax got himself a flush. Looking more and more like it will be a royal flush. All of the players look like their cut from the same suit out there, maybe hearts? Whatever the jibs on their cards, I think a flush beats a pair, no? Maybe not. I don't really know a hell of a lot about poker. I do know the Bull flushed the Knick this weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to happy flushing!!!!


Nice.... Fun Too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

“What the **** is a frush?”


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> All this being said... I'm really happy with the current state of the Bulls.


Sure you are. You just want the GM fired.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You just want the GM fired.



(sigh)


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> What are you going to do? There are pro athletes out there with big egos. That's part of the game. Our scrappy, lovable, young team will get that way too once the contracts are doled out and they start arguing over money and "respect."


Oh, you mean like the Pistons and the Spurs? 

Your problem is you think that me-first B.S. attitude is the norm in the NBA. Its not - at least not when it comes to winning teams with class.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh)


Is what I wrote not correct, #27?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Is what I wrote not correct, #27?


Read the thread.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Read the thread.


I did. And in that thread you commit to remaining in the absurd "Fire Paxson" club. Right?

See, now its your turn to refuse to answer the question and deflect by asking a question of your own about, for example, why Paxson was shopping Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I did. And in that thread you commit to remaining in the absurd "Fire Paxson" club. Right?
> 
> See, now its your turn to refuse to answer the question and deflect by asking a question of your own about, for example, why Paxson was shopping Curry.


No...its your turn to look at post #843 and post#845.

Asked and answered penguin.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> No...its your turn to look at post #843 and post#845.
> 
> Asked and answered penguin.


Thats funny. I tried to bait you into answering the question by saying that you refuse to answer direct questions - and you still refused to answer the question. :laugh: 

I gotta tell ya', your disregard for how that makes you look is actually pretty impressive. I commend you for that, and I'm not kidding if you can believe that.

By the way, I did read those posts, and in both you very clearly state that you remain in the "club" though you may back out in the future. I.e., as of right now you are remaining commited to your "Fire Paxson" affiliation. Right?

:waiting for the refusal to answer a simple and direct question that I have come to admire:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats funny. I tried to bait you into answering the question by saying that you refuse to answer direct questions - and you still refused to answer the question. :laugh:
> 
> I gotta tell ya', your disregard for how that makes you look is actually pretty impressive. I commend you for that, and I'm not kidding if you can believe that.
> 
> By the way, I did read those posts, and in both you very clearly state that you remain in the "club" though you may back out in the future. I.e., as of right now you are remaining commited to your "Fire Paxson" affiliation. Right?
> 
> :waiting for the refusal to answer a simple and direct question that I have come to admire:


I think my current affiliation with th "Fire Pax" and "Fire Skiles" clubs is cleary stated.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think my current affiliation with th "Fire Pax" and "Fire Skiles" clubs is cleary stated.


Man, this is fun. So, as of right now, you want them both fired. Thats right, isn't it? Direct answer? Yes or no? :yes:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, this is fun. So, as of right now, you want them both fired. Thats right, isn't it? Direct answer? Yes or no? :yes:


I would not object to both of them being fired. :grinning:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Dig in, fellows. Its going to be a long night.


----------



## Sigifrith

Please stop the madness. Jammy is gone. There isn't enough room in the killfile for all of you.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Sigifrith</b>!
> Please stop the madness. Jammy is gone. There isn't enough room in the killfile for all of you.


Do you think Paxson should trade Curry?


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think Paxson should trade Curry?


God help me, I hate and love it simultaneously!


----------



## GB

Sometimes, sanity requires looking around K4's bias.

That or his posts.








(this kind of run and he wouldn't mind them being fired?)


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> God help me, I hate and love it simultaneously!


I love the Crawford Update thread.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I love the Crawford Update thread.


It has already provided me with hours of entertainment, and I didn't even get in on the ground floor.


----------



## superdave

This thread was started by a guy who quit following the Bulls due in large part to Jamal's trade. He only came back to tell us how well Jamal was doing and how poor the Bulls were without him.

Nice to see this proud tradition march on.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> As promised, I am back to post the line of Jamal Crawford for those of you who may not be aware.
> 
> Based on the box score, JC appears to have a decent night, but nothing spectacular.
> 
> JC scored 22 points and was 10 for 23 from the field (for a respectable .433 FG%) and was 2-4 from 3-pt land. As an off guard he chipped in with 3 rebs, 3 assists, 3 steals, and 1 block and didn't have any TOs.
> 
> He appears to have held his own on D too, holding Spreewell to 11 points in 39 combined minutes.
> 
> Unfortunately stats don't mean a lot when your team loses, but losing by 6 to the Western Conference semi-finalists is nothing to be ashamed of.


I think he's a bit ashamed of his team now.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I think he's a bit ashamed of his team now.



Do you think its a lock that the Bulls finish ahead of the Knicks this season?


----------



## GB

*Re: Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think its a lock that the Bulls finish ahead of the Knicks this season?



Nothing is a lock right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is a lock right now.


Do you think the Bulls will finish ahead of the Knicks this season?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think the Bulls will finish ahead of the Knicks this season?


I believe the Bulls are an overall better team than the Knicks. Tough to say who will finish with the better record, given that the Atlantic Division is remarkably soft, and the Bulls are in a Division with the still tough Pacers, the defending champion Pistons and The Lebron Show.


----------



## GB

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think the Bulls will finish ahead of the Knicks this season?


Depends on whether Crawford morphs into Paul Pierce or not.


----------



## fl_flash

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crawford Update*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think the Bulls will finish ahead of the Knicks this season?


I thought the bet was within 10 games. Not looking too good for you at the moment - is it?


----------



## giusd

Hey TomB when are we going to see a picture of your dog. I am scaning in one of our two standard Poddles.

I think the knicks are in big trouble and will in fact not only miss the playoffs but there record will be worse than the bulls. 

Why, the knicks are 3 games under .500 and have the 2nd easist schedule in the nba. And if you look at their schedule the end of the season it is a killer. The team plays no D and you can feel the Wilkens controversary coming on. That team could implode any minute.

The bulls also have a rough schedule coming up but i still think they can weather this and end the season a couple games above .500.

david


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Take a look at the old Bulls and the guy I'm named after. Toni Kukoc. Was he a stout defender? No. Did he have a visible fire in his belly? No. Was he an asset on a winning team... hell yeah.


I always cringed when Toni Kukoc went out on the floor. We knew immediately he was going to be exposed on defense. Throughout his tenure with the Bull I was pretty much convinvced he was a waste of perfectly useable skin. Just so you know, I've jnever held that against you....


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> This thread was started by a guy who quit following the Bulls due in large part to Jamal's trade. He only came back to tell us how well Jamal was doing and how poor the Bulls were without him.
> 
> Nice to see this proud tradition march on.


Actually I believe somewhere in this thread or another he came on and said something rather different than that.

And given the tenacity with which many of the guys here seem determined to stamp out any disagreement with (today's) orthodoxy, it's hardly a surprise.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually I believe somewhere in this thread or another he came on and said something rather different than that.
> 
> And given the tenacity with which many of the guys here seem determined to stamp out any disagreement with (today's) orthodoxy, it's hardly a surprise.


So MikeOF didn't denounce the Bulls due to Crawford parting? The fact that he admitted he was wrong (partially that is) doesn't change his original intention.

As for the orthodoxy line, that's full of BS. Two months ago this board was so cluttered with negativity it was sickening. Post after post of ramrodding the Bulls organization.. DaBullz, MikeDC, Scottmay, kukoc4E, etc. Albeit some of these are my favorite posters on the board... but back then I counted myself in the optimistic minority.

Well it seems like the tables have turned eh? I don't mind that the pro-org or pro-Pax guys get to gloat a bit because not too long ago they were the ones getting stamped out of these boards. That is my 2 cents.


----------



## giusd

And i agree with superdave. Anytime someone like us tried to point out the progress this team was making or that the schedule and new playes were more responsible for their losing than the talent we got creamed, mocked, and belittled.

I said two months ago and i still do, i like this team better than teams like the knicks, bos, and phil and we just need a little time to learn to play together. There surely are some posters with ege on their faces. Many of you have come clean (as expected from die hard bulls fans) but some of you out there are on radio silence. No need we want you comments to return.

david


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> So MikeOF didn't denounce the Bulls due to Crawford parting? The fact that he admitted he was wrong (partially that is) doesn't change his original intention.


No, but his admission and apology make beating him about the head with it somewhat less than sporting in my book.



> As for the orthodoxy line, that's full of BS. Two months ago this board was so cluttered with negativity it was sickening. Post after post of ramrodding the Bulls organization.. DaBullz, MikeDC, Scottmay, kukoc4E, etc. Albeit some of these are my favorite posters on the board... but back then I counted myself in the optimistic minority.


And yet, you had numerous complaints and criticisms back then too. I could drag up a whole series of them if I wanted to. Some of them might be tinted with slightly more optimism than some other guys, but there was a lot to be negative about and you expressed plenty of it. How many games did you predict the Bulls would win?

Point is, most freaking everyone is surprised, yourself included, by how good this team is. Gloating over other folks (who actually stepped up and admitted they were wrong!), when you yourself were closer to wrong than right about numerous things, and when you yourself questioned numerous things, strikes me as pretty revisionist.



> Well it seems like the tables have turned eh? I don't mind that the pro-org or pro-Pax guys get to gloat a bit because not too long ago they were the ones getting stamped out of these boards. That is my 2 cents.


The BS is that I don't recall myself (since you pointed me out) or those other guys you mentioned at the head of any lynch mob to "stamp out" anyone. The guy who appeared to come closest to that came on and called himself on the carpet. I'm pretty sure I don't remember seeing myself or Dabullz "gloating" about how bad the Bulls were. 

Most generally, I just usually think it's lame when I see a bunch of people picking a fight with one guy.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> And given the tenacity with which many of the guys here seem determined to stamp out any disagreement with (today's) orthodoxy, it's hardly a surprise.


:laugh: That's rich. Hypocrite?


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> And i agree with superdave. Anytime someone like us tried to point out the progress this team was making or that the schedule and new playes were more responsible for their losing than the talent we got creamed, mocked, and belittled.


See, I don't think that's true.

I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see where I mocked and belittled you for saying schedule and new players had a major role in things. Hell, one of my criticisms was that we had too many new players and that's why we were losing, so I have a hard time seeing why I would criticize anyone for saying that.


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: That's rich. Hypocrite?


Again... examples. Show me where I've belittled and mocked people for their opinions, even when they disaggee with me. If you can, I'll apologize for it. If you can't, apologize for calling me a hypocrite.

It's never been my intention to stamp out anyone's opinion, merely to express my own.

For example, that's why you don't see me running around calling everyone I disagree with morons or hypocrites the way you do.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Again... examples. Show me where I've belittled and mocked people for their opinions, even when they disaggee with me. If you can, I'll apologize for it. If you can't, apologize for calling me a hypocrite.
> 
> It's never been my intention to stamp out anyone's opinion, merely to express my own.
> 
> For example, that's why you don't see me running around calling everyone I disagree with morons or hypocrites, the way you do.


I must have missed the part where I called someone a moron. I'll just have to get back to you on the other part when I have time. I'm not familiar with search functions, so I'll have to figure it out.

And who, exactly, is trying to "stamp out" opinions now, as you allege? 

Whats good for the goose, Mike. Its all debate. When you do it its not your "intention" to stamp out opinions, but when others do it, it is?

Thats hypocritical. The worm has turned, nothing more.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Point is, most freaking everyone is surprised, yourself included, by how good this team is.


I fail to see how underestimating our win total this year is some major litmus test as to credibility. We stunk last year and for the last 5 years. Getting to .400 would have been a major, major step.

It seems to me that whether a poster was pro\con on the indivdual moves and our coach and GM as a whole are a lot more telling.

My 2 cents.


----------



## DaBullz

Speaking of hypocrites...

Anyone remember how Paxson talked about not wanting to draft yet another 19 year old project (i.e. Deng)?


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> See, I don't think that's true.
> 
> I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see where I mocked and belittled you for saying schedule and new players had a major role in things. Hell, one of my criticisms was that we had too many new players and that's why we were losing, so I have a hard time seeing why I would criticize anyone for saying that.


Maybe you weren't doing it consciously back then. But from minority poster's view point back then, it was mostly one or two lone pro-Paxon/Skile poster versus lots of Anti-Paxon/Skile (in a sense pro-Crawford) posters. 

So even though they didn't belittle or pound on anybody who disagree with them on purpose, from the outside looking in it sure looks like they were pounding a few pro-paxon/Skile groups.

Again I am not saying you were doing it to belittle anybody but you yourself didn't hesitate to add the fuel to the situation where pro-Paxon/Skile poster might be feeling getting pounded already. That's all I am saying.

Let me put it this way, it was couples of posts from ACe, happy, Mike you, future,.... per one pro-Paxon poster. 

See! From their point of view, it can be felt like getting pounded is all I am saying.

So please allow some of gloating from pro-Paxon/Skile group. They are just happy that tides turn their way lately. Let them enjoy the moment for a while. Beside the way anti-groups disappear from the board, they can even start a real good fight in a way. (These days Kukoc is the only who seem to put up a fight. Everybody else just disappears.)


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Speaking of hypocrites...
> 
> Anyone remember how Paxson talked about not wanting to draft yet another 19 year old project (i.e. Deng)?


So are you complaining about drafting Deng?

If not, what is your point?

Unless of course this is your usual sarcastic post bait?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I always cringed when Toni Kukoc went out on the floor. We knew immediately he was going to be exposed on defense. Throughout his tenure with the Bull I was pretty much convinvced he was a waste of perfectly useable skin. Just so you know, I've jnever held that against you....


Haha. Wow.

You are a Kukoc hater as well.

Everyone has different tastes.

Kukoc's basketball career and game is quite impressive. If you can't respect that... then... you set the bar pretty high.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So are you complaining about drafting Deng?
> 
> If not, what is your point?
> 
> Unless of course this is your usual sarcastic post bait?


It was just a joke. Given the source, it was a darn good one.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Speaking of hypocrites...
> 
> Anyone remember how Paxson talked about not wanting to draft yet another 19 year old *project* (i.e. Deng)?


Given that Deng is one of the more NBA ready players in this draft class, I'd hardly consider him a "project". Superfreakishly athletic kids who don't know how to play basketball (read Eddy, Tyson, to a certain extent Jamal) are what I consider "projects". Pax's goal was clearly to acquire players who could come in and contribute from day 1. Deng has filled that bill.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> And yet, you had numerous complaints and criticisms back then too. I could drag up a whole series of them if I wanted to. Some of them might be tinted with slightly more optimism than some other guys, but there was a lot to be negative about and you expressed plenty of it. How many games did you predict the Bulls would win?


36.5 actually. Feel free to drag up any of my old posts if you want to. I am sure you are much more adept at the search function than I am.



> Point is, most freaking everyone is surprised, yourself included, by how good this team is. Gloating over other folks (who actually stepped up and admitted they were wrong!), when you yourself were closer to wrong than right about numerous things, and when you yourself questioned numerous things, strikes me as pretty revisionist.


Where have I been gloating to anyone? I stated that I don't have a problem with others who have had that tone as of late.



> The BS is that I don't recall myself (since you pointed me out) or those other guys you mentioned at the head of any lynch mob to "stamp out" anyone. The guy who appeared to come closest to that came on and called himself on the carpet. I'm pretty sure I don't remember seeing myself or Dabullz "gloating" about how bad the Bulls were.
> 
> Most generally, I just usually think it's lame when I see a bunch of people picking a fight with one guy.


I don't think anyone is picking a fight with one guy. Its just that Kukoc4E (a good poster in his own right) is the only one that feels a need to update the Crawford thread. Its his perogative too and frankly I'm not sure why some people are so preoccupied with his signature anyways. Hence the discussion continues.

I believe the lynch mob or whatever you choose to call it had it out for some posters as well. Kismet isn't probably online to defend himself (nor does he have to btw), but IMO the general treatment of his posts/opinions was abominable. That alone drove me away from these boards for weeks. This is JMO and I am sure you see things differently.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Haha. Wow.
> 
> You are a Kukoc hater as well.
> 
> Everyone has different tastes.
> 
> Kukoc's basketball career and game is quite impressive. If you can't respect that... then... you set the bar pretty high.


I'm willing to accept that I'm in the minority on this opinion. Just never liked him. No amount of arguing will change that for me, but it's not important. I see him as a kind of supersized version of Crawdaddy. No heart, no defense, fancy moves that were no more effective than a simple pass might have been.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I must have missed the part where I called someone a moron. I'll just have to get back to you on the other part when I have time. I'm not familiar with search functions, so I'll have to figure it out.
> 
> And who, exactly, is trying to "stamp out" opinions now, as you allege?
> 
> <b>Whats good for the goose, Mike. Its all debate. When you do it its not your "intention" to stamp out opinions, but when others do it, it is?</b>
> 
> Thats hypocritical. The worm has turned, nothing more.


So true.

Most misunderstanding or bickering or even name-calling starts when people forget they are doing what you just mentioned.

If everybody gives what you said a little bit of thought, I think we can happily agree or disagree with other and do constructive discussion, instead of "You did this. No. you do this"

I know you only start posting lately but you are already the sound of the reason. Well, at least to me.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Again... examples. Show me where I've belittled and mocked people for their opinions, even when they disaggee with me. If you can, I'll apologize for it. If you can't, apologize for calling me a hypocrite.


I found this pretty quickly:

"Despite me really not liking what they're doing, I've been very concerned that my opinions have caused some people to leave the site because they refuse to divorce my personal opinions (expressing which is the whole point of the site) from the fact I have an "official" (if overstated) role. And unfortunately, I think that fear has been well founded. But the point is, I want this site to be great and I want people posting here who (respectfully, intelligently, and compellingly) disagree with me. To the extent that being negative about this team chases people away, I've been very concerned that I need to shut up. And that's personally pretty frustrating to deal with, although it's not what's really ticked me off."

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123933&forumid=27

Those are your words. At some point this season, you believed that you were chasing people off with negativity. So its a little disingenuous of you now to be lamenting that "today's orthodoxy" seeks to stamp out disimilar opinions and renders the absence of an anti-Paxson poster unsurprising.

Don't you think?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Two months ago this board was so cluttered with negativity it was sickening.


Winning is the best deodorent.




> Well it seems like the tables have turned eh? I don't mind that the pro-org or pro-Pax guys get to gloat a bit because not too long ago they were the ones getting stamped out of these boards. That is my 2 cents.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I fail to see how underestimating our win total this year is some major litmus test as to credibility. We stunk last year and for the last 5 years. Getting to .400 would have been a major, major step.
> 
> It seems to me that whether a poster was pro\con on the indivdual moves and our coach and GM as a whole are a lot more telling.
> 
> My 2 cents.



But if you didn't think that the moves would be successful (ie wins)... then why be in favor of them?

I just find it funny that I’m MR NEGATIVE and you are not even though our preseason predication was only 6 wins apart.

Most people didn't think our two draft picks would be this good, this quick and most people didn't think Curry AND Chandler would be as good as they are this season. Let's be honest about that at least.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> So true.
> 
> Most misunderstanding or bickering or even name-calling starts when people forget they are doing what you just mentioned.
> 
> If everybody gives what you said a little bit of thought, I think we can happily agree or disagree with other and do constructive discussion, instead of "You did this. No. you do this"
> 
> I know you only start posting lately but you are already the sound of the reason. Well, at least to me.


Thanks.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Speaking of hypocrites...
> 
> Anyone remember how Paxson talked about not wanting to draft yet another 19 year old project (i.e. Deng)?


Deng is anything but a project.

But yeah, Pax thought he would be one. I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite.


----------



## DaBullz

Speaking of hypocrites...

Anyone remember on draft day how Paxson almost traded the #7 pick for Al Harrington?


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm willing to accept that I'm in the minority on this opinion. Just never liked him. No amount of arguing will change that for me, but it's not important. I see him as a kind of supersized version of Crawdaddy. No heart, no defense, fancy moves that were no more effective than a simple pass might have been.


I am actually with you , Wynn. No one can't deny Kukoc's talent and sure he is one of the player with high basketball IQ. But is mostly soft offensively and defensively. You can say a lot about his game but "intensity" wasn't one of his forte.

I still remember how many times he was in Phil's doghouse and often time Phil tried to eat him alive. Sure he was the key part of second Bulls dynasty but IMO he is equally WOW people and frustrate them too.

Also about Jamal, when anybody was complaining about Jamal's benching I was like only if Phil is still our coach, then Bill or Skile's benching would be looking like a picnic to Jamal.

Jamal sure wasn't and isn't Phil's kind of player in my book. Funny thing is that I think Paxon's kinf of player and Phil's kind of player is pretty much same. In that sense, maybe just maybe Paxon can persuade Phil into coaching Bulls again in the future. Probably not for this roster, but if Paxon can add one more star (not-superstar) player in the mix, i think Phil might say YES.

Only problem is that how Paxon can fire Skiles when they are on the same page like this and Skile is doing just fine job of coaching baby Bulls.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Speaking of hypocrites...
> 
> Anyone remember on draft day how Paxson *almost* traded the #7 pick for Al Harrington?


I put the important part in bold. I love how Paxson gets criticized for moves he didn't make. Is it really any wonder why I went on all those diatribes yesterday?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> I don't think anyone is picking a fight with one guy. Its just that Kukoc4E (a good poster in his own right)


K4 is a good poster. Thats why I took him back out of the ignore box.

But his intransigence frequently overrides all of his good qualities and posts. It's troll-like sometimes, and I wish he'd quit it. I have a hard time believing that _he_ believes some of the stuff he writes.

I'm resisting; I'd hate to have to put him back in with the hardcores.


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> I must have missed the part where I called someone a moron. I'll just have to get back to you on the other part when I have time. I'm not familiar with search functions, so I'll have to figure it out.


Couple of days ago, I think in the game thread.



> And who, exactly, is trying to "stamp out" opinions now, as you allege?
> 
> Whats good for the goose, Mike. Its all debate. When you do it its not your "intention" to stamp out opinions, but when others do it, it is?
> 
> Thats hypocritical. The worm has turned, nothing more.


Point taken to an extent, but do you deny that people can have different intentions?

I mean, Person A is frustrated because his team sucks, and he's negative. Person B gets offended at Person A because he's negative on Person B's team, even though it's also Person A's team.

Person C is a ***** who doesn't like Person B. He comes along just to tell Person B his favorite team/player/whatever sucks.

Later, Person B decides he's going to take Person A to task and gloat over Person A being wrong, even when Person A admitted as much. 

Those guys all have different intentions, pretty clearly, and it's not hard to pick them out over time. And they count for something.

Now, as to specific examples here, you don't think Person A is a relatively good fit for MichaelOfAZ and Person B is a relatively good fit for SuperDave?

To wit, he didn't seem to disagree with my "stamping out" assessment, just the intentions behind it. He said:



> I don't mind that the pro-org or pro-Pax guys get to gloat a bit because not too long ago they were the ones getting stamped out of these boards.


That's sort of a different way of getting at the issue of intentions. My sense, confirmed by SD's follow up post, was that the intent of a bunch of guys here is some kind of payback.

Their sense is that the payback was "due" because of all of the "mocking and belittling" (to borrow guisd's term) they suffered. Their intent is payback for someone else's poor intent towards them.

If intentions didn't matter, then he wouldn't be thinking that.

My point is to get to the bottom of what those intentions are. Because, as I said to guisd, I dont' think there was lots of intent to mock and belittle people. And where guys like MichaelOfAZ did appear to just be coming on here to gloat, they seem to have apologized.

Thus, I'm left with seeing guys who say they want "payback" of some sort, largely against guys who are 1) their fellow fans who didn't intend to mock or belittle them in the first place and 2) guys who did, but admitted they were wrong.

That seems like overkill to me, especially when we actually have something good and constructive to talk about.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> I am actually with you , Wynn. No one can't deny Kukoc's talent and sure he is one of the player with high basketball IQ. But is most soft offensively and defensively.


How many NBA players get everything from every iota of mental and physical ability that they have? Only a handfull.

The myth of the complete NBA is just that...a myth.

Toni did what he was hired to do. It's a different thing from being a flawed player...like some guys. He most certainly wasn't that.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> How many NBA players get everything from every iota of mental and physical ability that they have? Only a handfull.
> 
> The myth of the complete NBA is just that...a myth.
> 
> Toni did what he was hired to do. It's a different thing from being a flawed player...like some guys. He most certainly wasn't that.


I think you got my post wrong because of the mispell. I was gooing to say <b>mostly soft</b> not "<b>most soft</b>. My bad. Gone and Fixed.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Couple of days ago, I think in the game thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken to an extent, but do you deny that people can have different intentions?
> 
> I mean, Person A is frustrated because his team sucks, and he's negative. Person B gets offended at Person A because he's negative on Person B's team, even though it's also Person A's team.
> 
> Person C is a ***** who doesn't like Person B. He comes along just to tell Person B his favorite team/player/whatever sucks.
> 
> Later, Person B decides he's going to take Person A to task and gloat over Person A being wrong, even when Person A admitted as much.
> 
> Those guys all have different intentions, pretty clearly, and it's not hard to pick them out over time. And they count for something.
> 
> Now, as to specific examples here, you don't think Person A is a relatively good fit for MichaelOfAZ and Person B is a relatively good fit for SuperDave?
> 
> To wit, he didn't seem to disagree with my "stamping out" assessment, just the intentions behind it. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's sort of a different way of getting at the issue of intentions. My sense, confirmed by SD's follow up post, was that the intent of a bunch of guys here is some kind of payback.
> 
> Their sense is that the payback was "due" because of all of the "mocking and belittling" (to borrow guisd's term) they suffered. Their intent is payback for someone else's poor intent towards them.
> 
> If intentions didn't matter, then he wouldn't be thinking that.
> 
> My point is to get to the bottom of what those intentions are. Because, as I said to guisd, I dont' think there was lots of intent to mock and belittle people. And where guys like MichaelOfAZ did appear to just be coming on here to gloat, they seem to have apologized.
> 
> Thus, I'm left with seeing guys who say they want "payback" of some sort, largely against guys who are 1) their fellow fans who didn't intend to mock or belittle them in the first place and 2) guys who did, but admitted they were wrong.
> 
> That seems like overkill to me, especially when we actually have something good and constructive to talk about.


Ok. But I'm talking about you, your posts, and your current complaint that "today's orthodoxy" is unsurprisingly chasing away a poster like MofAZ - and regretfully so.

Thats funny to me given all the talk about negativity and people being chased away earlier in the season by what was then "today's orthodoxy". 

I call it the "Koolaid days". When any optimism was greeted with a condescending sneer that the fan couldn't see through his own desire for the team to succeed and was happily eating the manure that management was shoveling.

Notwithstanding the intent of actors A, B, or C - it all reads the same in print.

P.S. - If I did call someone a moron, like you claim, why don't you find the link as you requested of me when I called you a hypocrite?


----------



## giusd

Mikedc,

Sorry i was running. My post was not directed at you directly or indirectly. It was mostly directed at those posters who were over the line and frankly many have stop posting. why i don't know but maybe they dont want to eat there words. I really dont think of you as part of that group.

My point was they should come back and re engage.

david


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> I call it the "Koolaid days". When any optimism was greeted with a condescending sneer that the fan couldn't see through his own desire for the team to succeed and was happily eating the manure that management was shoveling.


Well put. This pretty much how I felt. I don't think, at any point, that I personally said that the negative crowd wasn't entitled to their opinion(s). Of course, it only makes sense to grow negative and cynical about a team that's been pathetic or only slightly better for six years. What I felt, and I'm not saying it was an intentional effort by anyone in particular, was that it was considered by many to be stupid, or deluded, or kool-aid-drunkenness to actually have any optimism in what Pax and Skiles were trying to do. To actually think it might work. Maybe it was just the overall weight of the negativity that was so oppressive a few months ago. I don't know. I'm not pointing any fingers, but large segments of the board sort of fell into this groupthink, and dissenting opinions were shouted down by at least one or two people.

But for my part, the reason that I, admittedly, somewhat took k4e to task, was that he sometimes (not always, mind you) seems to go to ungodly lengths to deflect the credit for our recent successes away from the guy he spent so much energy deriding, even though it seems clear as day to me that Pax deserves a lot of credit. I feel there's an almost personal vendetta there, and for some reason it bugs me. But, I'll acknowledge that I pretty much picked that bone clean last night and I don't have much else to say on the matter.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> I call it the "Koolaid days". When any optimism was greeted with a condescending sneer that the fan couldn't see through his own desire for the team to succeed and was happily eating the manure that management was shoveling.


Ron,

I like this sentence and definition.


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I found this pretty quickly:
> 
> "Despite me really not liking what they're doing, I've been very concerned that my opinions have caused some people to leave the site because they refuse to divorce my personal opinions (expressing which is the whole point of the site) from the fact I have an "official" (if overstated) role. And unfortunately, I think that fear has been well founded. But the point is, I want this site to be great and I want people posting here who (respectfully, intelligently, and compellingly) disagree with me. To the extent that being negative about this team chases people away, I've been very concerned that I need to shut up. And that's personally pretty frustrating to deal with, although it's not what's really ticked me off."
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123933&forumid=27
> 
> Those are your words. At some point this season, you believed that you were chasing people off with negativity. So its a little disingenuous of you now to be lamenting that "today's orthodoxy" seeks to stamp out disimilar opinions and renders the absence of an anti-Paxson poster unsurprising.
> 
> Don't you think?


Disinginuous? Not at all! The whole point of the passage above was that I DIDN'T want to chase people off and I DIDN'T want to have one sided discussions, and that it WASN'T my intent to do so.

LgtWin's points (above) are well taken, but it gets to the heart of the problem. If my opinions are negative, but it's already 3 to 1 negative, should I say it? Well, if I don't, or if I just be transparently and dishonestly positive, that's a problem.

What I wanted to happen was to be able to express my opinion without having to worry about the balance of positive vs. negative posts when doing so.

At that time, the negative guys out weight the positive guys, and that was a concern. What I wanted was a healthy balance. But I don't think the right was to get a healthy balance was to simply cut off the winning side (at the time) of the debate. You don't get equality by cutting the stronger side down to the weaker side, but by building up the weaker side.

And, relevant to now, you also don't want the stronger side to entirely run off the weaker side. 

I mean, I don't think there has to be a 50-50 ratio to positive or negative or anything, but something has to be sustainable and positive. You can't simply cut off the strong and level the playing field for the weak, they ultimately have to do it themselves. But you also have to give them the chance to do so, and not let them be crushed. It's not a hard and fast rule or anything, but when I see things getting to the extremes they were then, and approaching it now, it seems worth keeping in mind.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> But his intransigence frequently overrides all of his good qualities and posts.


What more do you want out of me! 

I've wrote paragraphs on how Paxson did a good job helping to change the attitude of the team and how his draft picks were solid.

I just don't think that his bad moves should be ignored... or that its the removal of Rose and Crawford that is behind the Bulls success.


----------



## GB

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1815585#post1815585


----------



## MikeDC

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> P.S. - If I did call someone a moron, like you claim, why don't you find the link as you requested of me when I called you a hypocrite?


You're exactly right, that was someone else.

Sorry


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I put the important part in bold. I love how Paxson gets criticized for moves he didn't make. Is it really any wonder why I went on all those diatribes yesterday?


The terrifying thing is that this is the kind of thinking that goes on with him.

It's more than fair to be <B>very</B> (important word in bold) scared of what he's likely to do. Especially given his track record of making bad trades (though good drafts).

There's some things upcoming (i.e. Curry/Chandler RFA) that will determine whether I'd be willing to concede that my view of Paxson and his moves has been wrong, all along.

Sure, I may be skeptical, but my view right now is that he's lucked into Deng, and his coach still doesn't know how to play Gordon properly (i.e. as many minutes as possible, close to 40).


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You're exactly right, that was someone else.
> 
> Sorry


Not a problem.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> It's more than fair to be <B>very</B> (important word in bold) scared of what he's likely to do.


Man, I don't envy you your outlook on things. That Crawford trade must have really messed you up.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, I don't envy you your outlook on things. That Crawford trade must have really messed you up.



:laugh: 



:yes:


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The terrifying thing is that this is the kind of thinking that goes on with him.
> 
> It's more than fair to be <B>very</B> (important word in bold) scared of what he's likely to do. Especially given his track record of making bad trades (though good drafts).
> 
> There's some things upcoming (i.e. Curry/Chandler RFA) that will determine whether I'd be willing to concede that my view of Paxson and his moves has been wrong, all along.
> 
> Sure, I may be skeptical, but my view right now is that he's lucked into Deng, and his coach still doesn't know how to play Gordon properly (i.e. as many minutes as possible, close to 40).


Come on DaBullz. You're the objectivist here. The black and white of it is that HE DIDN'T MAKE THAT TRADE! End of story. It's a GM's job to explore ways to better the team. Al Harrington is a good player who could have helped us in his own right. And at the end of the day, Pax stuck with the pick and took Deng. What's so terrifying about that?

It's also entirely subjective to say that he's made bad trades. I simply do not see Rose or Crawford fitting into the system that the team is currently employing and winning with. That's only my opinion. But getting rid of Rose and his deal, and parlaying Crawford into solid role players to help our kids, PLUS room under the cap to retain Curry and Chandler AND add either one high-priced player or two MLE players, seems to have played a part in setting the stage for where we are now. 

I will agree with you that if Pax botches Curry and Chandler's RFA status, he will hurt this team, possibly immeasurably. All I've been saying all along is that the moves he's made up to this point, which prompted so much knee-jerk and prolonged, deafening crticism, have put us in what's looking like a pretty enviable position now. To deny him any credit for that, to me, seems like an agenda.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1815585#post1815585


That's not out there though.

I wrote several times yesterday that I thought if you gave our current set of players to logo and czar it would not make much of a difference.

So... given that I'm not a fan of PaxSkiles... I would not object to them being let go. I'm indifferent.

As for the FIRE X clubs... a certain threshold had to be met before I joined it. I didn't join after the 1st move that pissed me off... I did it after the 10th or 11th. For me to leave, a certain threshold needs to be met as well... and its handling the towers situation satisfactorily. I think that's perfectly reasonable.


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The terrifying thing is that this is the kind of thinking that goes on with him.
> 
> It's more than fair to be <B>very</B> (important word in bold) scared of what he's likely to do. Especially given his track record of making bad trades (though good drafts).
> 
> There's some things upcoming (i.e. Curry/Chandler RFA) that will determine whether I'd be willing to concede that my view of Paxson and his moves has been wrong, all along.
> 
> Sure, I may be skeptical, but my view right now is that he's lucked into Deng, and his coach still doesn't know how to play Gordon properly (i.e. as many minutes as possible, close to 40).


I don't think our #2 GM (according the the challenge) would be a member of either of those clubs.

Bulls rookies full of promise for future  




> ''[Paxson] did a great job of correctly identifying the people he needed to implement this blueprint, and he went out and got them,'' Indiana Pacers president Donnie Walsh said. ''But first, he hired Scott Skiles, who has turned out to be the right kind of coach for this team. That was a very smart hire.


Does this count for anything?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on DaBullz. You're the objectivist here. The black and white of it is that HE DIDN'T MAKE THAT TRADE! End of story. It's a GM's job to explore ways to better the team. Al Harrington is a good player who could have helped us in his own right. And at the end of the day, Pax stuck with the pick and took Deng. What's so terrifying about that?


Everything I read is that he wanted to make the trade and that Bird asked for Gordon (#3) instead of Deng (#7). So, VF, the "he didn't make the trade" logic is not so good. It sure looks like Paxson got lucky more than had skill.



> It's also entirely subjective to say that he's made bad trades. I simply do not see Rose or Crawford fitting into the system that the team is currently employing and winning with. That's only my opinion. But getting rid of Rose and his deal, and parlaying Crawford into solid role players to help our kids, PLUS room under the cap to retain Curry and Chandler AND add either one high-priced player or two MLE players, seems to have played a part in setting the stage for where we are now.


So... if Tim Duncan was on our team and he didn't "fit" then it would be OK to trade him for a package like Othella, Pike, et al? 

When you're giving up the best players in every deal, they can't be good trades. Like him or not, Crawford was the best player in the deal with the Knicks. Same is true of Rose OR Marshall for AD and JYD.



> I will agree with you that if Pax botches Curry and Chandler's RFA status, he will hurt this team, possibly immeasurably. All I've been saying all along is that the moves he's made up to this point, which prompted so much knee-jerk and prolonged, deafening crticism, have put us in what's looking like a pretty enviable position now. To deny him any credit for that, to me, seems like an agenda.


I've given him all the credit he deserves.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think our #2 GM (according the the challenge) would be a member of either of those clubs.
> 
> Bulls rookies full of promise for future


Which challenge are you talking about? If my memory is correct, we had one RECENTLY where Pax was pretty much ranked in the bottom 1/3 of all GMs.



> Does this count for anything?


Winning, even if by surprise, is the best deodorant.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> So... if Tim Duncan was on our team and he didn't "fit" then it would be OK to trade him for a package like Othella, Pike, et al?


Yowza!  

Did you just inferentially place Jamal Crawford on the same level as Tim Duncan?

God, I love this place.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Winning, even if by surprise, is the best deodorant.


Skiles and Pax <I>wern't</i> surprised. They kept telling everyone that success was coming when the brutal part of the beginning schedule ended.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Yowza!
> 
> Did you just inferentially place Jamal Crawford on the same level as Tim Duncan?
> 
> God, I love this place.


No, I exaggerated to show how bad logic is bad logic.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Skiles and Pax <I>wern't</i> surprised. They kept telling everyone that success was coming when the brutal part of the beginning schedule ended.


Nonsense.

Pax set expectations that this club wouldn't be winning games until 2006.

If they kept telling everyone success was coming after the brutal part of the schedule was over, I'm sure you can find at least one quote to prove it.


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Which challenge are you talking about? If my memory is correct, we had one RECENTLY where Pax was pretty much ranked in the bottom 1/3 of all GMs.
> 
> 
> 
> Winning, even if by surprise, is the best deodorant.


Sorry, I was inferring that Walsh, our #2 pick, in the GM challenge would not be a member of the Fire Pax or Fire Skiles club based on his quote from that article. He's full of praise for both of them. Or, do you disagree?


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Yowza!
> 
> Did you just inferentially place Jamal Crawford on the same level as Tim Duncan?
> 
> God, I love this place.


DaBullz also says that Jim Jackson is the closest thing to MJ currently in the league right now.  

Yay.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Everything I read is that he wanted to make the trade and that Bird asked for Gordon (#3) instead of Deng (#7). So, VF, the "he didn't make the trade" logic is not so good. It sure looks like Paxson got lucky more than had skill.


At the end of the day, Deng is on our team. And I know that's exactly what you'd tell me if our places were reversed.




> So... if Tim Duncan was on our team and he didn't "fit" then it would be OK to trade him for a package like Othella, Pike, et al?


That's utterly specious reasoning and you probably know it. Rose isn't Duncan. Marshall isn't Duncan. Crawford isn't Duncan. The three of them together can't carry Duncan's jock. They are all talented players who just didn't help us win that much. And we're (so far) having our best post-dynasty season WITHOUT them.



> When you're giving up the best players in every deal, they can't be good trades. Like him or not, Crawford was the best player in the deal with the Knicks. Same is true of Rose OR Marshall for AD and JYD.


They can be good trades if they make your team better in the long run, or allow you to. Those trades did. The record is proof. Not only that, but we have substantially more financial flexibilty to continue improving the team than we would have had if Craw's new deal and Rose or JYD's deals were still on the books. Our w/l percentage now is far higher than it ever was when any of those players were here (first-week records aside). Gordon and Hinrich are spurring our recent surge. How would Rose and Crawford affect their minutes and/or roles? Did either of them close out and win games the way those two are right now on a regular basis?



> I've given him all the credit he deserves.


none, other than drafting well?


----------



## bullet

I have no idea why this thread is still alive - while good players like Brad Miller,Elton and Yell don't have their own.

some r happy he's gone , some still ain't - but it does not change the fact he's totally *history!* 

let's have a BJ,Pax and Will Perdue threads. Kukoc is still active.

Hell - we need a different board for Bulls in history.

Jamal ain't that good that he deserves this attention - he ain't Ron,he Ain't Brad or Elton. Shish , let him go , let us move on...


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> That's utterly specious reasoning and you probably know it. Rose isn't Duncan. Marshall isn't Duncan. Crawford isn't Duncan. The three of them together can't carry Duncan's jock. They are all talented players who just didn't help us win that much. And we're (so far) having our best post-dynasty season WITHOUT them.


It's not specious reasoning. AD, JYD, Pike, et al, can't carry the jocks of Rose, Marshall, or Crawford. That's the point.




> none, other than drafting well?


Right.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I have no idea why this thread is still alive - while good players like Brad Miller,Elton and Yell don't have their own.


Great point.


----------



## madox

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> So... if Tim Duncan was on our team and he didn't "fit" then it would be OK to trade him for a package like Othella, Pike, et al?
> 
> When you're giving up the best players in every deal, they can't be good trades. Like him or not, Crawford was the best player in the deal with the Knicks. Same is true of Rose OR Marshall for AD and JYD.


So... if Tony Delk was on our team and he didn't "fit" and our only choice was to trade him or pay him $60 million then it would be OK to trade him for a package like Othella, Pike, et al, and in the process dump an albatross contract thereby allowing future roster flexibility? 

Gimme some of them crazy pills that Pax is taking.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Pax set expectations that this club wouldn't be winning games until 2006.


Nonsense.

During the nine game winning streak Pax kept saying that when this was over he expected to see the teams fortunes rise.

And they did.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> During the nine game winning streak Pax kept saying that when this was over he expected to see the teams fortunes rise.
> 
> And they did.


That is true. Pax and Skiles continued to insist that despite our poor start, they were confident they had the right pieces and were on the right track.

We heard that, but just went  

At this point, it seems we rolled our eyes too soon.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not specious reasoning. AD, JYD, Pike, et al, can't carry the jocks of Rose, Marshall, or Crawford. That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.


IMO, the point of those trades were not to obtain the best players in the deal. No, it wasn't really about getting players at all, outside of filling a few small needs here and there (e.g. AD to fill out the big men depth w/ vet leadership, Pike as a big SG w/ a pure stroke, etc). It's about picking and choosing where to spend the team's money for the future. You only have so much money to throw at players. It's not realistic to retain every guy on your team who has talent. You pick some guys to stay, and for some guys to leave. If we still have Rose, and Crawford, and Marshall...you really don't feel too good about signing Curry and Chandler to big deals because your payroll suddently skyrockets for the next several years. I really don't think it's a good thing to just sit and wait for those deals to expire. I like that Paxson went out and reduced the payroll committed, because it allows that money to be better spent elsewhere. That's what he means by "financial flexibility"...it's alot better than being in salary cap hell like the Bulls easily could've been in.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> That is true. Pax and Skiles continued to insist that despite our poor start, they were confident they had the right pieces and were on the right track.


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1686431#post1686431



DaBullz is right: It IS Pax's team:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1686596#post1686596


TrueBlue, classy and right as usual:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1686832#post1686832

It's DOOMED to fail:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1687005#post1687005


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I have no idea why this thread is still alive - while good players like Brad Miller,Elton and Yell don't have their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Jamal ain't that good that he deserves this attention - he ain't Ron,he Ain't Brad or Elton. Shish , let him go , let us move on...


And he damn sure ain't no Rick Brunson my friend! Speaking of which, did you forget about my "Rick Brunson Update" thread? Don't tell me that there aren't other threads about good players we let go.  

I just want to commend everyone here for keeping their cool during this thread. There has been some good points by both "sides" and everyone has remained civil.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The people that support Pax vehemently fall into 2 camps, IMO, and sometimes both.
> 
> 1.) Krause haters.
> 2.) AND1 haters (aka "right way enthusiasts").
> 
> Fine, if you want to go young, you need to have an environment where they can develop. Getting your head bashed in losing isn't it. 5 early 20s guys with no NBA big game experience does not help. This team was destined to fail. Now they have the justification they need to not pay the towers. The team is losing... why would we pay them? Cycle repeats.





> John decided to create the worst team in basketball by breaking up the team. And for what? What do we have? Few here want to pay the towers any $$$... and its a tough call, i agree. Let's say both of them are gone. Hinrich? I like the kid... but he's an average player at this point. Gordon? Deng is good... but we need some bigs.





> JK underachievers are leading the Knicks to the playoffs, making all star games and all-NBA teams. Come on man. You think Hinrich will ever be able to do this? I don't. Gordon. Does not look good. Deng maybe.
> 
> At least JK had a vision. He had a plan. The first one failed. The 2nd one was on an upward trend before Paxson blew it up.
> 
> What is Paxson's plan? What is his vision? The "right way?" That's crap IMO and doomed to fail. Its not a viable way to build an NBA basketball team. That's my main issue with the team.
> 
> The future looks bleak to me.


OUCH!


----------



## GB

Bitter, bitter men:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1574302#post1574302

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1574436#post1574436


----------



## GB

> 2.) AND1 haters (aka "right way enthusiasts").


He should have been suspended for attacking me personally.


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> And he damn sure ain't no Rick Brunson my friend! Speaking of which, did you forget about my "Rick Brunson Update" thread? Don't tell me that there aren't other threads about good players we let go.
> 
> I just want to commend everyone here for keeping their cool during this thread. There has been some good points by both "sides" and everyone has remained civil.


The Brunson thread was a practical joke - so unless u say this one is too , and not a crying thread for the beloved history , the Brunson point just doesn't do it.

And no don't worry - I'm far from losing my cool , it's just sometimes frustrates me to see this thread thrive about one of the worst +/- players in the league when wer'e playing so well and apparantly doing much better with him in a different city.

That being said , it's a free country (or board ) , and whoever wants to say we would be better with Jamal , this thread is exactly the place. I'm so happy our standing proves differently.

Edit:I just understood I might be a damm fool since u might have been joking:grinning:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He should have been suspended for attacking me personally.


I thought you were a Krause hater 

EDIT: Need I go back in time and bring up all the Curry bashing posts?


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He should have been suspended for attacking me personally.


Can we just suspend GB and make him the sacrificial lamb and peace offering between pro-Pax and anti-Pax parties?! :yes: 

Yeah there's no official reason to suspend GB, but every time he gets suspended.... he seems to come back funnier than before


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> Yeah there's no official reason to suspend GB


Doesn't have to be...




> but every time he gets suspended.... he seems to come back funnier than before


...as you say, they do it just to improve morale around here. 

That said...see you in 5 days. :no:


:laugh: 

I've been well compensated for my 'anguish', I assure you.


----------



## The Krakken

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Bitter, bitter men:
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1574302#post1574302
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1574436#post1574436


Oh, my word. 

OWNED!!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Bitter, bitter men:
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1574302#post1574302
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1574436#post1574436


Did you ignore the first sentance of the post?



> *I don’t know if this is how it went down… nor is this really my opinion… its just a hypothesis.*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I've been following along with this thread, and I'm just confused about one point:

kukoc4Ever, do you think trading Rose and/or Crawford was a good idea for the Bulls?

Please clarify.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> I've been following along with this thread, and I'm just confused about one point:
> 
> kukoc4Ever, do you think trading Rose and/or Crawford was a good idea for the Bulls?
> 
> Please clarify.


No, I don't.

I think the team would be better off with either Rose/Marshall or Crawford on the team in place of what they received. 

I don't think any cap space we're going to have is going to result in much. I would rather have those guys on the team. Most people here seem content with the 2 MLE route anyway.... so why build all the cap space? If Jerry is not willing to go slightly over the cap he should sell the team.

I think a team like this...

PG Hinrich
SG Gordon
SF Deng
PF Marshall
C Curry

Bench
Rose
Noch
Chandler
SCRAP HEAP

would be even better than the one we have now.

i also think that having crawford as part of our guard collection over duhon would make us a better team. the guys we received for crawford you can get off the NBA scrap heap.

i also think that having crawford on the team @ his current pay scale would give us a better chance of making a trade for a star.

i think that rose and marshall have shown in toronto that they are willing to defer. both seem OK with coming off the bench, despite some initial grumbling from rose. 

i also think paxson should have received more in return for trading those guys.... even if he decided he had to get rid of them.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Everything I read is that he wanted to make the trade and that Bird asked for Gordon (#3) instead of Deng (#7). So, VF, the "he didn't make the trade" logic is not so good. It sure looks like Paxson got lucky more than had skill.



Paxson was never even thinking about giving up the 3rd pick for Harrington. The Pacers kept pushing it and Pax wanted more. He said so on the radio, and there was plenty of articles leading up to the draft on the final week that made that clear. 

Once the Bulls got the 7th pick, they supposively would be willing to deal that with Erob for Harrington. And that's when the Pacers were rumored to be thinking Luke Jackson. That would have been a good trade itself. 

Then if you remember on draft night, David Aldridge came on ESPN and said the Pacers wanted the Bulls to throw in Chandler with the 7th instead of Erob, and Pax of course said no freakin way. 

What makes you think Pax would have even done Deng for Harrington? He almost ended up taking him 3rd and he wasn't willing to take Harrington for that pick, so what makes you think he was willing to do the same deal just b/c Deng ended up being 7th?


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Just as an aside.

Although there has been a fair amount of animosity throughout this thread, it's also home to a lot of really top-notch discussion and analysis from all sides of the debate. And a fair amount of witty banter as well. I've said my piece and probably won't be contributing much more, but it's been interesting to participate. No grudges here.


----------



## The Krakken

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you ignore the first sentance of the post?


Actually, he did you in with the posts above those.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, he did you in with the posts above those.....


ACTUALLY, if you bother to click on the 1st link... you'll see its my post.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> No, I don't.
> 
> I think the team would be better off with either Rose/Marshall or Crawford on the team in place of what they received.
> 
> I don't think any cap space we're going to have is going to result in much. I would rather have those guys on the team. Most people here seem content with the 2 MLE route anyway.... so why build all the cap space? If Jerry is not willing to go slightly over the cap he should sell the team.
> 
> I think a team like this...
> 
> PG Hinrich
> SG Gordon
> SF Deng
> PF Marshall
> C Curry
> 
> Bench
> Rose
> Noch
> Chandler
> SCRAP HEAP
> 
> would be even better than the one we have now.
> 
> i also think that having crawford as part of our guard collection over duhon would make us a better team. the guys we received for crawford you can get off the NBA scrap heap.
> 
> i also think that having crawford on the team @ his current pay scale would give us a better chance of making a trade for a star.
> 
> i think that rose and marshall have shown in toronto that they are willing to defer. both seem OK with coming off the bench, despite some initial grumbling from rose.
> 
> i also think paxson should have received more in return for trading those guys.... even if he decided he had to get rid of them.


By your arguement, that would not be the team we would of had. Keeping Rose, Marshall and Crawford would have, in your opinion made us better. So therefore we may or may not of gotten the #3 pick and chances are we probably would of had the #7 pick if the Suns thought we were going to be better than we really were or are. 

I disagree. With Crawford and Rose and Marshall we gave up over 100 points a game on a regular basis and scored the same as we do now. Actually it was less. With this team we are winning with defense. That is constant. 

Right now, the Raptors are giving up 99 pts a game. Before the trade with us they had given up about 80 pts a game and finished the season allowing 88 pts a game. 

the knicks with Crawford added and after trading Harrington, Williams and Mutombo, are allowing 98 pts a game. Last year, 93.5. 

The way I see it, after the trades, their defense got worse ours has improved dramatically. I am pleased with that. 

The only one of the three players we traded that I want back is Marshall. I am talking about marquee players. Marshall could really stretch the defense with his three point shooting. However, as long as we have Harrington we do not really need Marshall. 

I would also take back Hassell and Hoiberg.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> By your arguement, that would not be the team we would of had. Keeping Rose, Marshall and Crawford would have, in your opinion made us better. So therefore we may or may not of gotten the #3 pick and chances are we probably would of had the #7 pick if the Suns thought we were going to be better than we really were or are.
> 
> I disagree. With Crawford and Rose and Marshall we gave up over 100 points a game on a regular basis and scored the same as we do now. Actually it was less. With this team we are winning with defense. That is constant.
> 
> Right now, the Raptors are giving up 99 pts a game. Before the trade with us they had given up about 80 pts a game and finished the season allowing 88 pts a game.
> 
> the knicks with Crawford added and after trading Harrington, Williams and Mutombo, are allowing 98 pts a game. Last year, 93.5.
> 
> The way I see it, after the trades, their defense got worse ours has improved dramatically. I am pleased with that.
> 
> The only one of the three players we traded that I want back is Marshall. I am talking about marquee players. Marshall could really stretch the defense with his three point shooting. However, as long as we have Harrington we do not really need Marshall.
> 
> I would also take back Hassell and Hoiberg.


Yah.. Marshall is the guy I'd want back the most as well.

Hassell would be nice too.


----------



## Future

Honestly, I don't know why you guys are continuing this debate. It's a never ending battle. It's just a waste of time IMO and thats why I am going to put in my 2 cents (teehee).

All we have to do is look at the facts. Did we win when we had Jamal/Rose/etc? No, we didn't. 

Are we winning with the team we currently have now? Yes

And honestly whoever says Jamal and Rose would make this team better? HOW!!!? All they would do is take away minutes from people who right now are vital to our success. Having Jamal on this team takes away minutes from Ben Gordon. I don't want to hear the excuse of Crawford taking Duhon's minutes because Duhon is in a totally different situation. Duhon is playing because of his ability to create (Look at his assist totals) and defend.... then when 4th quarter comes Ben Gordon takes over. Do you honestly think Jamal Crawford would gladly take a seat on bench for some rookie when the vital 4th quarter comes? Hell NO!!! Having Jalen Rose on this team takes away minutes from Deng/Nocioni and we lose a hell of a lot of defense and hustle with Jalen Rose on this team. 

I think we could still use Marshall on this team but to get rid of Rose... we had to get rid of him. 

And.... this whole Paxson lucked into Deng thing. It may be true.... we lucked into Jordan didn't we? or did you want Paxson to take Deng over Gordon with the 3rd pick? *And when are we finally going to give Paxson props for actually getting the 7th pick to make drafting Deng possible.* If you can't give him props for that..... 

I mean you guys can come up with this subjective conjecture all you want about how Paxson should have gotten more for Rose/Crawford... and how Pax's expectations to win were set for 2006... blah blah blah.

The only thing that matters is: *RESULTS*

And currently the Bulls are playing their best ever since the dynasty era.... and if you can't see that Pax's moves are responsible for how this team is playing now.... then there is absolutely no way to get through to you guys.

I mean most of your reasonings are on speculated moves Paxson didn't make.... 'he should have got more for his trades' .... 'he almost traded his draft pick' .... Just eat:










um... I mean just eat:










And we will all have a gay ole night after watching the Bulls beat the Celtics...

yay!


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I think a team like this...
> 
> PG Hinrich
> SG Gordon
> SF Deng
> PF Marshall
> C Curry
> 
> Bench
> Rose
> Noch
> Chandler
> SCRAP HEAP
> 
> would be even better than the one we have now.


...and who gets to tell Rose he's on the bench?



> JK underachievers are leading the Knicks to the playoffs, making all star games and all-NBA teams. Come on man. You think Hinrich will ever be able to do this? I don't. Gordon. Does not look good. Deng maybe.


...and about this quote *TB#1* dug up, which of the guys Pax cut are doing any of the above? Remember that is was JK himself who cut "JK underachievers" Brand, Artest, and Miller. I also don't hold Donyell against Pax, as that was the price of getting rid of Rose. So of Pax's cuts -- Blount, Rose, Marshall, Crawford, ERob, Hassell, Hoiberg, etc. -- which are "leading the Knicks to the playoffs, making all star games and all-NBA teams"?

Off the top of my head, I'd say none, but I haven't looked into it.


----------



## bbertha37

Hey K4E, would you mind responding to this quote made Curry yesterday?

*"'Pax' did a good job of getting good players in here with great attitudes who are willing to work," Curry said. "That brings out the best in me and Tyson. This summer, coach Skiles really helped us a lot. We came back in shape. We came ready to work. It's paying off."* 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,6970102.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## bbertha37

Hey K4E, would you mind responding to this quote made by Curry yesterday?

*"'Pax' did a good job of getting good players in here with great attitudes who are willing to work," Curry said. "That brings out the best in me and Tyson. This summer, coach Skiles really helped us a lot. We came back in shape. We came ready to work. It's paying off."* 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,6970102.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bbertha37</b>!
> Hey K4E, would you mind responding to this quote made Curry yesterday?
> 
> *"'Pax' did a good job of getting good players in here with great attitudes who are willing to work," Curry said. "That brings out the best in me and Tyson. This summer, coach Skiles really helped us a lot. We came back in shape. We came ready to work. It's paying off."*
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,6970102.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


Saying the right things to get paid?


----------



## bbertha37

So you don't think that there's anything truth in those words? You seem to think that Curry getting in shape and Chandler getting healthy are totally independent of everything else that has taken place personnel-wise for this team. However, I think some they go hand and hand. I think credit is definitely due to Pax and Skiles in this respect. Do you think Curry and Chandler would be where they are right now this season if we had a coach like Lenny Wilkens this past summer and surrounded them with players like Rose, E-Rob, Chris Jeffries, etc.?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bbertha37</b>!
> So you don't think that there's anything truth in those words? You seem to think that Curry getting in shape and Chandler getting healthy are totally independent of everything else that has taken place personnel-wise for this team. However, I think some they go hand and hand. I think credit is definitely due to Pax and Skiles in this respect. Do you think Curry and Chandler would be where they are right now this season if we had a coach like Lenny Wilkens this past summer and surrounded them with players like Rose, E-Rob, Chris Jeffries, etc.?


I agree that PaxSkiles have improved the attitude of the team.

Chandler always had this inside him. From day 1. Way before PaxSkiles.

Curry... yah... I think getting rid of those negative influences, coupled with his contract status, are forces behind his improvement. But.. physical maturation, mental maturation, etc also play a role as well I think.

I don't know why Rose gets lumped in with EROB and CJEFF. The last two are losers. Rose has a laundry list of basketball accomplishments.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I don't know why Rose gets lumped in with EROB and CJEFF. The last two are losers. Rose has a laundry list of basketball accomplishments.


Such as? How many NBA All-Star games has he played in? I forget...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Such as? How many NBA All-Star games has he played in? I forget...


we've been down this road before.....


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> we've been down this road before.....


Please refresh me then. I mean.. if you have a laundry list of basketball accomplisments for Jalen.... let me know what those are.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Please refresh me then. I mean.. if you have a laundry list of basketball accomplisments for Jalen.... let me know what those are.


top EFF player on an eastern conference champion team

the rest i'll just grab from NBA.com (i'll let you try and find EROBs and CJEFFs.. neither are in the league anymore) (i'll also not include college stuff)

One of the NBA’s most versatile players has developed into a devastating scorer after playing point guard, shooting guard and small forward at different times in his nine-year career. 
Enters the 2003-04 campaign having appeared in 237 straight games, the sixth-longest current streak in the NBA. 
Posted three straight seasons averaging at least 20 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists. 
In 675 games, including 398 starting assignments, Rose has averaged 14.4 ppg, 4.1 apg and 3.6 rpg, shooting .448 from the floor, .348 from three-point range and .794 from the free throw line. 
Scored 30+ points 38 times and 40+ points on three occasions (team is 1-2). 
Recorded 29 point-assist double-doubles, 13 point-rebound double-doubles and one triple-double. 
Recorded 42 career games with double-figure assists. 
Grabbed double-digit rebounds on 13 occasions. 
Appeared and started in all 2000 NBA Finals games against the L.A. Lakers, averaging 23 ppg. 
Named the winner of the 1999-2000 NBA Most Improved Player Award. 
Named NBA Player of the Week for the week ending 3/19/00, averaging 26.8 ppg, 7.5 rpg and 4.5 apg. 
Named to the NBA All-Rookie Second Team in 1994-95 after setting a Nuggets' rookie record with 389 assists. 
Participated in the Schick NBA Rookie Game during the 1995 NBA All-Star Weekend in Phoenix, scoring 12 points.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> top EFF player on an eastern conference champion team
> 
> the rest i'll just grab from NBA.com (i'll let you try and find EROBs and CJEFFs.. neither are in the league anymore) (i'll also not include college stuff)
> 
> One of the NBA’s most versatile players has developed into a devastating scorer after playing point guard, shooting guard and small forward at different times in his nine-year career.
> Enters the 2003-04 campaign having appeared in 237 straight games, the sixth-longest current streak in the NBA.
> Posted three straight seasons averaging at least 20 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists.
> In 675 games, including 398 starting assignments, Rose has averaged 14.4 ppg, 4.1 apg and 3.6 rpg, shooting .448 from the floor, .348 from three-point range and .794 from the free throw line.
> Scored 30+ points 38 times and 40+ points on three occasions (team is 1-2).
> Recorded 29 point-assist double-doubles, 13 point-rebound double-doubles and one triple-double.
> Recorded 42 career games with double-figure assists.
> Grabbed double-digit rebounds on 13 occasions.
> Appeared and started in all 2000 NBA Finals games against the L.A. Lakers, averaging 23 ppg.
> Named the winner of the 1999-2000 NBA Most Improved Player Award.
> Named NBA Player of the Week for the week ending 3/19/00, averaging 26.8 ppg, 7.5 rpg and 4.5 apg.
> Named to the NBA All-Rookie Second Team in 1994-95 after setting a Nuggets' rookie record with 389 assists.
> Participated in the Schick NBA Rookie Game during the 1995 NBA All-Star Weekend in Phoenix, scoring 12 points.


Yeah I read that on NBA.com too. That's definitely a laundry list but I wouldn't call it very impressive.

He must be the best player in NBA history to never play in an All-Star game. What a supremely misunderstood NBA talent.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah I read that on NBA.com too. That's definitely a laundry list but I wouldn't call it very impressive.
> 
> He must be the best player in NBA history to never play in an All-Star game. What a supremely misunderstood NBA talent.


I didn't say he was all-NBA.

I just said he's not in the same class as EROB and CJEFF.

Rose is an above-average NBA player.... but not a star.


----------



## giusd

Not to start anything but he has also been run out of three cities by teams who could not wait to get rid of him. And the Raptors are the 4th team trying to unload him.

My opinion of rose and his game is this. He will never be nearly as good a player as he thinks he is!

He thinks he is one of the elite NBA players and i just don't see that in his game. 

david


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> My opinion of rose and his game is this. He will never be nearly as good a player as he thinks he is!
> 
> He thinks he is one of the elite NBA players and i just don't see that in his game.


This is true.

But...it does not make him useless.


----------



## bbertha37

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't say he was all-NBA.
> 
> I just said he's not in the same class as EROB and CJEFF.
> 
> Rose is an above-average NBA player.... but not a star.


I wasn't comparing them as basketball talents. I was referring to the demeanor in which they approach the game and how they certainly would not have fit in with the culture that Pax and Skiles are trying to groom with this team.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> My opinion of rose and his game is this. He will never be nearly as good a player as he thinks he is!
> 
> He thinks he is one of the elite NBA players and i just don't see that in his game.


People have always seen more potential in Roses game than production.

At this point in his career, he can be a reliable second, better, third option for a team.

He's not a starter on a championship player...probably a role player.


His talent could help the Bulls...but his "know better than the coach" attitude and "I lead silently" attitude would be poison to a locker-room such as we have now.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bbertha37</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing them as basketball talents. I was referring to the demeanor in which they approach the game and how they certainly would not have fit in with the culture that Pax and Skiles are trying to groom with this team.


Yah... I can see that.

But... does Rose really drag the team down enough to warrant his lost production AND marshall's lost production?

I don't think so.

I don't think the negative influences of Rose are anywhere near that of EROB and CJEFF.

We could have used Rose and Marshall last night against the Celtics.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> We could have used Rose and Marshall last night against the Celtics.


Brad Miller
Ron Artest
Trent Hassell
Scottie Pippen
Elton Brand
Michael Jordan
Horace Grant
Dennis Rodman
Toni Kukoc
Artis Gilmore
Tom Boerwinkle
and Khalid El Amin too.

 



I admit to using the "to view this post" button.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I admit to using the "to view this post" button.


set me free GB.... set me free


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Brad Miller
> Ron Artest
> Trent Hassell
> Scottie Pippen
> Elton Brand
> Michael Jordan
> Horace Grant
> Dennis Rodman
> Toni Kukoc
> Artis Gilmore
> Tom Boerwinkle
> and Khalid El Amin too.


No. Khalid El Amin would have been no help and Boerwinkle would have just taken minutes from Curry who was hot.

MJ would certainly have come in handy, though.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*more jalen rose accomplishments*

from jalenrose.com

*THE ROSE THAT GREW FROM CONCRETE*

2004, Achieved second-longest ironman streak among active NBA players by playing in 286 consecutive games before being put on IL on 2/10/04 due to a fractured finger(11/23/00 - 2/8/04) 
2003, Scored 10,000 career-points (12/14) 
2003, Detroit Southwestern High School retired Rose's #42 jersey (12/10) 
2003, Reached 2,500 career-rebounds plateau (12/9) 
2003, Traded to the Toronto Raptors (12/1) 
2003, October: Chicago Bulls Lubin Award Winner for Community Service 
2003, August: NBA Community Assist Award Winner 
2003, August: Professional Basketball Writers Association/Magic Johnson Award Winner 
2003, July: Named a NBA Good Guy in pro sports by The Sporting News 
2002-03, Fox Sports Net Bull of the Year 
2002-03, CDW Chicago Bulls Player of the Year 
2002-03, Scored a new career-high for points in one season with 1,816 points 
2002-03, Hit a career-high 133 three-point field goals this season (third most by a Bull in one season) and has 170 as a Bull, tying him with Ron Harper for 8th place 
2002-03, Played a career-high 3,351 minutes this season, ranking second in Bulls history to Bob Love's 3,482 in 1970-71 
2002-03, Appeared in 237 consecutive games at the close of the season, the sixth-longest active streak in the NBA 
2003, Februrary 24th: Scored first career triple-double against Phoenix (21 ppg, 14 rpg, 11 apg) 
2002, July: Named a NBA Good Guy in pro sports by The Sporting News 
2002, Started an NBA-high 83 games, setting career highs in a number of categories 
2002, Scored a United Center record 25 points in the 4th quarter to lead a come from behind victory over Indiana (12/21) 
2002, Traded to the Chicago Bulls (2/19) 
2000-01, Starting at point guard, established new career-highs as the only NBA player to average 20 points, 6 assists and 5 rebounds while breaking team assist record with 20 vs. Cleveland 
2000, Appeared & started in all 2000 NBA Finals games against LA Lakers averaging 23 points 
2000, Named NBA Player of the Week (3/13/-3/19) 
1999-2000, Winner of NBA Most Improved Player Award after completing first season in NBA as full-time starter at small forward 
1999-2000, Led the Pacers in scoring (18.2 ppg) 
1999, Led Pacers in steals (50, 1.02 spg) 
1997-98, Was one of only two Pacers to play in all 82 games 
1996, Traded to the Indiana Pacers from the Denver Nuggets (6/13) 
1995, Participated in Schick NBA Rookie Game during NBA All-star Weekend in Phoenix scoring 12 points 
1994-95, Started every game after all-star break at point guard and dished out 389 assists setting a Nugget's rookie record 
1994-95, Named to the NBA All-Rookie Second Team after playing for three coaches; Dan Issel, Gene Littles and Bernie Bickerstaff 
1994, Selected in the 1st round of the NBA Draft by the Denver Nuggets 
1994, Declared for NBA Draft (4/19) 
Was a member of the Fab Five at the University of Michigan, helping to lead the team to the NCAA Championship Game in each of his first 2 seasons 
1994, Left school as one of two players in Michigan history to have recorded 1,500 points, 400 rebounds and 100 steals 
1994, Named to the All-Big Ten First Team and Second Team All-American by the Associated Press 
1992, Named Honorable Mention All-American by the Associated Press after setting a Michigan freshman scoring record (597 points) 
1991, Named to McDonald's All-American team as high school senior 
1987-1991, Played on two state championship teams at Southwestern High School in Detroit 
1991, Named Dapper Dan All American


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Interesting to see that he still mentions those Fab 5 Michigan champoinships...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Interesting to see that he still mentions those Fab 5 Michigan champoinships...


He only mentions leading the team to the championship game.

I wonder if he changed the words to "championship game" a couple years ago..


----------



## Sham

I admire that you've still got your sig in place Kukoc4ever. Most people would have jacked it all in and said "Ok, I was wrong", but nope, not you. You're a dedicated man. :greatjob: :worship:


----------



## GB

Dedicated?

_"If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call 'failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down."_

_There are no mistakes, save one: the failure to learn from a mistake. _

Hmmm. What do the Bulls have to learn from losing Rose?

Answer behind this link.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Interesting to see that he still mentions those Fab 5 Michigan champoinships...


You know what's somewhat hard to believe? That team never won a Big Ten championship, either.


----------



## GB

> Crawford is 7 for 28 from the field since coming off the injured list, and he's not happy *about the debate over his shot selection. *"I've been out for almost a month, so that's expected," Crawford said. "If I don't shoot 50 percent, then it's shot selection and this and that. So I learn not to worry about it. I'm just trying to get wins."


:laugh: 

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/012105/c0621knicksweb.html


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/012105/c0621knicksweb.html


Interesting article. To a man, the Knicks felt they played well, but just happened to get blown out in the 4th quarter by the then 16-23 Raptors. Hmmm.

As for Crawford, I said it last year, in terms of his mindset he reminds me of World B. Free. He's a shooter...that's what he does. The next one's goin' in, no doubt about it. If you're a shooter, I suppose that's how you have to think.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Interesting comparisoin to the World B Free mentality. However, Jamal is a long way off from being a career 20 ppg player like Free.

The mentality is there, but to date, the execution has not been.

Of course, Free didn't really start hitting his full stride until he left Philly.


----------



## GB

Jamal just wants to get wins.

A lot was made of our guys (that came of age with Jamal) that they really didn't know HOW to win.


Does Jamal know how to win?





World B. Free is one of the greatest personal names ever.


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Interesting comparisoin to the World B Free mentality. However, Jamal is a long way off from being a career 20 ppg player like Free.
> 
> The mentality is there, but to date, the execution has not been.


Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!

Congratulations, TB#1! You've just made the 1,000th post on this thread!

Pretty impressive given that it's about a player who's not even on the Bulls.


----------



## GB

6-19 for 18 points including 2 of 7 from 3 point land.

5 assists, 4 TO's

Knicks lose again, on a Scott Padgett last second jumper.

Jamal must be thinking he's back in the red and black now. 












What you don't see in that picture...a spectator:











Just for a reminder:


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 6-19 for 18 points including 2 of 7 from 3 point land.
> 
> 5 assists, 4 TO's
> 
> Knicks lose again, on a Scott Padgett last second jumper.
> 
> Jamal must be thinking he's back in the red and black now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't see in that picture...a spectator:


At least it's Marbury on the poster. Judging from the second picture, Jamal's on his guy like a blanket! He's guarding him so tight you can't even see him!

Jamal's 24 second violation on the other end set this play up with 8 seconds to go on the clock! CLUTCH!


----------



## bullet

Jamal probably considers this to be a good game - he had 18 points.

Knicks fan:



> 4. Marbury and Crawford again prove that they have the worst basketball IQ of any starting backcourt in the league.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=136967&forumid=37


----------



## remlover

This was an ugly ugly loss for the Knicks. I was able to catch the end of it while hte Bulls game was @ Halftime.

Up by 3 w/ less then a minute to go...2 HORRIBLE possessions that consisted of Jamal and Marbury playing "i dont want to shoot it, you shoot it, no, you shoot it." Resulted in 1 horrible shot, and in the final knicks possession, a 24-second violation. 

I wont lie, it was fun to se the Knicks blow it at the end.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Jamal probably considers this to be a good game - he had 18 points.
> 
> Knicks fan:
> 
> 
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=136967&forumid=37



This made me chuckle:

>>obviously tmac is still a top 5 player, marbury isnt. Crawford might not even be top 40.<<


----------



## madox

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> This made me chuckle:
> 
> >>obviously tmac is still a top 5 player, marbury isnt. Crawford might not even be top 40.<<



MIGHT not?


----------



## GB

Ok...before the Crawford fans arrive and try to re-write history, I'll post the NYTimes take on the game:



> It may take several days for the Knicks to explain this defeat, one in a series lost by poor execution in the final seconds of a game. After a spirited fourth-quarter comeback, the Knicks were up 91-90 with less than 15 seconds to play. Stephon Marbury was dribbling near the top of the key, where he pulled up for a straightaway jumper with four seconds left on the 24-second shot clock.
> 
> But he changed his mind in mid-air and dumped the ball off to Crawford, to his right. Crawford passed back to Marbury almost immediately, but the shot clock ran out for a turnover.
> 
> Houston took possession with 10.2 seconds left .Tracy McGrady drove and passed to Padgett, who *dribbled past Crawford* and lofted the ball over Marbury. Rockets win.


Scott who?

:laugh: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/sports/basketball/22knicks.html?oref=login


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Ok...before the Crawford fans arrive and try to re-write history, I'll post the NYTimes take on the game:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott who?
> 
> :laugh:


I hear that Padgett kid has a WICKED cross-over!


----------



## spongyfungy

Wilkens retiring? yeech


----------



## GB

Lenny Wilkins wants out...


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Lenny Wilkins wants out...


It will be interesting to see who they bring in as his replacement. Whoever it is has his work cut out when you consider all of the one dimensional, offensive minded players on that team. I would love to see I.T. bring in a stern taskmaster just to see how certain players on the Knickerbockers respond.


----------



## Wynn

Weren't there rumors that IT wants to coach this team? Ugh. Re-commence total destruction of a franchise.


----------



## GB

> Under interim coach Herb Williams, the Knicks again failed to execute down the stretch and absorbed their season-high sixth straight loss, a 101-96 setback to the Milwaukee Bucks.
> --
> The Knicks trailed, 75-70, at the start of the fourth quarter, twice fell behind by nine points and pulled within 91-89 with 2:21 to play. They got no closer as Williams fell to 1-1 all-time as a coach.
> 
> After four free throws by Stephon Marbury, who scored 33 points, made it a two-point game, Milwaukee's Maurice Williams made a lane jumper at the 1:28 mark. Jamal Crawford missed a jumper and Michael Redd drilled a 3-pointer for a 96-89 lead with 54 seconds to go.
> 
> Crawford answered with a 3-pointer, but Zaza Pachulia slammed home a follow shot with 31 seconds left. Milwaukee made 3-of-4 free throws to seal its third win in four games.
> 
> Desmond Mason scored 22 points to lead six Bucks in double figures.
> 
> Crawford scored 20 points and Mike Sweetney added 14 and 11 rebounds for the Knicks, who have lost 10 of 11, *a slide that has coincided with Marbury proclaiming himself "the best point guard in the NBA."*


I just can't believe they wrote that on NBA.com .

:laugh: 
http://www.nba.com/games/20050123/MILNYK/recap.html


Jamal was 7-19, and 3-10 from 3 point land. 

That too-big shoe has really got his shooting hand all messed up.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> That too-big shoe has really got his shooting hand all messed up.


"jump-shot"

"jump"


then


"shot"

A healthy foot helps when jumping I reckon.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> "jump-shot"
> 
> "jump"
> 
> 
> then
> 
> 
> "shot"
> 
> A healthy foot helps when jumping I reckon.



Jumping?

Like this?












Is Jamal a lefty? Maybe that too big shoe has really got his shooting hand messed up worse than we thought.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Jumping?
> 
> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Jamal a lefty? Maybe that too big shoe has really got his shooting hand messed up worse than we thought.


Haha.

That's *clearly* a foul on Van Horn.

Shame on him.


----------



## Wynn

Do we get some exclamation points in your signature, *K4E!* if we get over .500?

Are you, at any point, going to concede that Jamal, IT, and the whole Knick team are a disaster?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Do we get some exclamation points in your signature, *K4E!* if we get over .500?
> 
> Are you, at any point, going to concede that Jamal, IT, and the whole Knick team are a disaster?


Yes, there will be !s. You read my mind! 


The Knicks are a disaster right now.

Jamal is so-so. Compare him to the rest of the players in the league making 5.5 - 6.5 million this year.

Rose and the Raptors are good again.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Yes, there will be !s. You read my mind!
> 
> The Knicks are a disaster right now.
> 
> Jamal is so-so.


Your post makes me happy.



I look forward to many !!!!!!!!! in your signature. Am still willing to forgive you, *Ace!*, and *happygrinch!* of you debt in our friendly wager if you'll just concede that I am an unmitigated genious and a beautiful man!

Gotta love this Bull, even if you are one of the three prodigal sons just returning to the fold. After all, we all knick ourselves shaving every once in a while.


----------



## Electric Slim

If you want, you can add the Clippers to your sig, K4E. Who knows, maybe even the Pacers pretty soon!


----------



## fleetwood macbull

*group hug* requested


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Haha.
> 
> That's *clearly* a foul on Van Horn.
> 
> Shame on him.


Thats *clearly* changing the subject.

:laugh:


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> *group hug* requested


[GROUP]

:makeout: :kiss: :buddies: :cheers: :makeout: :kiss: :buddies: :cheers: :makeout: :kiss: :buddies: :cheers: :makeout: :kiss: :buddies: :cheers: 

[/GROUP]


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> If you want, you can add the Clippers to your sig, K4E. Who knows, maybe even the Pacers pretty soon!


haha

i'm just as happy as all of you that the bulls are doing well.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> i'm just as happy as all of you that the bulls are doing well.


:whofarted


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

:gossip: :ghug: :gossip: 
Request for Group Hug: Granted.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I just can't believe they wrote that on NBA.com .
> 
> :laugh:
> http://www.nba.com/games/20050123/MILNYK/recap.html
> 
> 
> Jamal was 7-19, and 3-10 from 3 point land.
> 
> That too-big shoe has really got his shooting hand all messed up.


If he's healthy, he is just sucking up the court. If his health continues to hinder his shot, he should be doing other things to help the team, until he can shoot unhindered.

But he won't stop shooting.

Jamal should change his name to










Because that is what he does with his shot. And at this point, it is what he's worth to his team.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> Jamal should change his name to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what he does with his shot. And at this point, it is what he's worth to his team.


Jack Crawsover -- SWEET!!!!

*TB#1!*, YOU DA MAN!!!!!


----------



## Electric Slim

Did you get my PM, TomB#1?


----------



## Mr. T

Well at least Jamal has his money... I wonder how JC and Big Sis are doing. He thought he was leaving the Bulls and all that losing behind, only to find the Bulls are now winning while he continues on with those losing ways. In addition, he's now lost Lenny whom he claimed to very much enjoy playing for. Is it game set and match if they "put down" his idol - GM Squiggy too? At this rate his best bud Curry could wind up with a great situation making max dollar and playing for the home town team - an up and coming ballclub. Is there ANY chance Crawford will wind up with a great situation without getting traded again? Curry's becoming a spokesman for the Bulls as the media recently pointed out. Think he's now giving advice to Jamal too? "Buck up lil Jamal, Squiggy will make some deals. You guys will get better. You just gotta hang in there. Help is on the way---it just won't be me!"


----------



## remlover

What an ugly game played by Crawford. His box score numbers arent too bad, but if anyone watched the game (i did for some reason), you would have watch Jamal continue to play like a....(insert your own remark). 

My favorite Jamal play was when he had the ball and drove into 3 bucks players and did a spin and threw the ball away. The knicks announcers were none to pleased with that play. Also noticed that the Knicks play-by-play guy isnt a big fan of Crawford's decision making. He tried to be very tactful but you could tell what he was feeling. 

People still clamoring for Jamal would love his defensive intensity. Several times he did his patented move of "oh, you're going to screen me, well i will just quit on the play and gingerly follow my guy when he is driving into the lane."

IT is such a genius building around guys like Crawford and Marbury. Keep it up IT. Maybe if you are lucky you can bring in Jalen Rose. He woudl fit in well w/ that group.


----------



## kukoc4ever

EFG (cut and pasted from another thread)



> Kirk Hinrich 47.0%
> Jamal Crawford 45.6%
> Steve Francis 44.2%
> Allen Iverson 44.0%
> Chris Duhon 38.4%


Somebody better alert the all-star team.

Some worse than JACKers might make the squad.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Last night he shot 7-19. That is 27%.

You can go to the old saw of " a shooter should keep shooting" but if the excuse for his poor shooting is a nagging injury, he should NOT be jacking up shots. And yet, since coming off of the injury, and continuing to experience apparent difficulty, he insists on shootingshootingshootingshooting his team right out of games.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Last night he shot 7-19. That is 27%.
> 
> You can go to the old saw of " a shooter should keep shooting" but if the excuse for his poor shooting is a nagging injury, he should NOT be jacking up shots. And yet, since coming off of the injury, and continuing to experience apparent difficulty, he insists on shootingshootingshootingshooting his team right out of games.


Out of the Knicks players that got minutes today... which one or ones should have been shooting in place of Crawford?

Kurt Thomas?

No Penny, no houston, no tim thomas.

Somehow its crawford's fault the Knicks lose?

EDIT:
For instance... let's say we play the Nuggets on Tuesday without Duhon, Deng and Gordon.

If they lose, is it Hinrich's fault?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/players/3407/

I'm not sure where those stats came from.

According to Sports Illustrated, Jamal has a season FG% of .339 and a career FG% of .338.

Kirk, in his second year, has a season FG% of .401 and a career fg% of .392.

Both Kirk and Jamal had abysmal starts as rookie shooters. Clearly, Kirk has progressed further in around 2 years than Jamal has in 4 years.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/players/3407/
> 
> I'm not sure where those stats came from.
> 
> According to Sports Illustrated, Jamal has a season FG% of .339 and a career FG% of .338.




*Season and career 3 pt FG%.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Out of the Knicks players that got minutes today... which one or ones should have been shooting in place of Crawford?


Yes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/players/3407/
> 
> I'm not sure where those stats came from.
> 
> According to Sports Illustrated, Jamal has a season FG% of *.395* and a career FG% of *.386*
> 
> Kirk, in his second year, has a season FG% of .401 and a career fg% of .392.
> 
> Both Kirk and Jamal had abysmal starts as rookie shooters. Clearly, Kirk has progressed further in around 2 years than Jamal has in 4 years.


corrected


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal shot 47.6% his 2nd year in the league.

He needs to slow down and pick his spots. 

Once again... he's in a situation where he's being asked to do too much, IMO. He was *supposed* to be playing alongside guys like Houston and Penny.

Just like Rose when he was with the Bulls... he's trying to do too much and his #s (at least efficiency) are hurting.

Now that Rose is in a more controlled environment... he's going back to his old productive self.


----------



## GB

> Marbury unintentionally identified the Knicks' main problem when he addressed the difference between Wilkens and Williams: "We basically did the same things today. We didn't do anything different."
> 
> True enough, the Knicks were afflicted by the usual bad habits.
> 
> Nazr Mohammed was quickly in foul trouble. Crawford launched most of his scoring attempts early in the shot clock. None of the Knicks' guards could stop anyone off the dribble.


http://nytimes.com/2005/01/24/sports/basketball/24knicks.html


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Jamal shot 47.6% his 2nd year in the league.
> 
> He needs to slow down and pick his spots.
> 
> Once again... he's in a situation where he's being asked to do too much, IMO. He was *supposed* to be playing alongside guys like Houston and Penny.
> 
> Just like Rose when he was with the Bulls... he's trying to do too much and his #s (at least efficiency) are hurting.
> 
> Now that Rose is in a more controlled environment... he's going back to his old productive self.


I hear what you're saying, but $60M is a lot to pay for Jamal. If he's being asked to do too much, what should NY be expecting from him then?


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> http://nytimes.com/2005/01/24/sports/basketball/24knicks.html





> He is the Knicks' fourth coach in five seasons and has been assured only that he will have the post through this season.


I guess that ain't gonna be changing for Jamal either.


----------



## GB

Ok...thats it.

The words "Jamal Crawford" and "New York Knicks" won't roll off my keyboard until the next weekend is here.

Back to the


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Ok...thats it.
> 
> The words "Jamal Crawford" and "New York Knicks" won't roll off my keyboard until the next weekend is here.
> 
> Back to the


What if the big trade happens this week and Rose and Marshall join Jamal Crawford and the NY Knicks?


----------



## GB

Subway is ok. I much prefer Quiznos though.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Subway is ok. I much prefer Quiznos though.


Go with Panera Bread...although I can't say with certainty if thats the official sandwich spot of the NY Knicks or Jamal Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but $60M is a lot to pay for Jamal. If he's being asked to do too much, what should NY be expecting from him then?


That 60 million is spread out over many, many years.

They only have to pay him a meager 5.8 mil this year... and his raises do not go up much.

He's not a highly paid NBA player.... look at the other guys in the league that make 5.8 mil.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> That 60 million is spread out over many, many years.
> 
> They only have to pay him a meager 5.8 mil this year... and his raises do not go up much.



 He basically got the max raises.




> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> He's not a highly paid NBA player.... look at the other guys in the league that make 5.8 mil.


Go try and find guys that are paid more than $9,425,000 in 2009/2010 or $10,150,000 in 2010/2011. That are worse. I bet that you can't find 3.


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> He basically got the max raises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go try and find guys that are paid more than $9,425,000 in 2009/2010 or $10,150,000 in 2010/2011. That are worse. I bet that you can't find 3.


Holy smokes! Zeke sure did take one hell of a gamble on Jamal by paying him that much through 2011. That's a long time to have that salary on the books for a guy who is pretty much unproven. Unless the salary cap rises a signifigant amount, they could be in trouble if he doesn't turn out to be the player they thought he would be. On the other hand, I guess the gamble could pay off if he improves his shot selection and defense. How old will Jamal be in the last year of this contract?


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> He basically got the max raises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go try and find guys that are paid more than $9,425,000 in 2009/2010 or $10,150,000 in 2010/2011. That are worse. I bet that you can't find 3.


The most important, and often deliberately ignored, aspect of Crawford's contract. 

If I pay $65,000 for a Honda Accord on a graduated payment plan, it doesn't make it a good deal just because the monthly payments at the beginning equate to those of a $22,000 purchase. In the end, I still overpaid by $43 grand.

On a side note, K4E, I happen to have a Honda Accord for sale. I'm hoping you are interested.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Go try and find guys that are paid more than $9,425,000 in 2009/2010 or $10,150,000 in 2010/2011. That are worse. I bet that you can't find 3.


I'll check back in 2010. 

I'm sure there will be plenty if the wage inflation continues as it has.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll check back in 2010.
> 
> I'm sure there will be plenty if the wage inflation continues as it has.



Sounds good. I'm glad that we seemingly agree that JC's deal is currentely about the worst long-term deal on the books. 

We would also seem to agree that dumb contracts will be given out in the future.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> The most important, and often deliberately ignored, aspect of Crawford's contract.
> 
> If I pay $65,000 for a Honda Accord on a graduated payment plan, it doesn't make it a good deal just because the monthly payments at the beginning equate to those of a $22,000 purchase. In the end, I still overpaid by $43 grand.
> 
> On a side note, K4E, I happen to have a Honda Accord for sale. I'm hoping you are interested.


Thanks for the lesson penguin.  

I'm not aware of any interest payments the Knicks have to make. Perhaps you can inform me. I guess you could argue that the lost cap space is a penalty.... but that does not matter to teams like the Knicks and Mavericks.

They are taking a small gamble that Jamal will continue to improve. $5.8 mil for Jamal *this* season is not a bad deal at all.

We'll see what the wage inflation is like over the next *5 YEARS*.

In 2010...... I don't think Jamal's salary will seem all that big. And I think he’ll continue to improve.

Resume hating.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good. I'm glad that we seemingly agree that JC's deal is currentely about the worst long-term deal on the books.
> 
> We would also seem to agree that dumb contracts will be given out in the future.


What makes it the worst? I don't agree with that @ all.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Go try and find guys that are paid more than $9,425,000 in 2009/2010 or $10,150,000 in 2010/2011. That are worse. I bet that you can't find 3.


Just for kicks, I looked at every team on HoopsHype salaries.

A lot of teams don't have anyone signed out that far.

Dampier gets about $1M more per season those two years.

The MLE guys from this last year are off the books in 2010/2011. Some of the worst MLE signings don't look a lot better than JC's deal. Guys like Eton Thomas, Kenny Thomas and Dereck Fisher make $7.5M in 2009/10.

Still that's looking to be a brutual contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Just for kicks, I looked at every team on HoopsHype salaries.
> 
> A lot of teams don't have anyone signed out that far.


That's why your question is kinda pointless. There are very few players signed out that far. Yah... its a long term deal... but wages are most likely going to be rising steadily as well... so 10M won't be all that much. A lot will depend on the new CBA.




> Still that's looking to be a brutual contract.


Why?


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> What makes it the worst? I don't agree with that @ all.


Well, I would much, much, much rather have guys like AK47 and RJefferson and Paul Gasol signed out that far. Even for more money.

I couldn't find any that were worse. Dampier's is similar. You couldn't or would'nt name any that are worse. 

So it's just about the worst, right?


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good. I'm glad that we seemingly agree that JC's deal is currentely about the worst long-term deal on the books.
> 
> We would also seem to agree that dumb contracts will be given out in the future.


I don't believe Crawford will be a Knick throughout the full tenure of his contract. His contract amount as it is now is very nice ballast to even out a deal. Relative to the player he is now, he's not all that much overpaid. As the years add onto his contract and his raises kick in, he'll be that much more difficult to move. I would expect IT (or whomever is running the show in NY) will move Jamal within two years. In other words, I'll be shocked if Jamal is a Knick for the full length of his contract.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I don't believe Crawford will be a Knick throughout the full tenure of his contract. His contract amount as it is now is very nice ballast to even out a deal. Relative to the player he is now, he's not all that much overpaid. As the years add onto his contract and his raises kick in, he'll be that much more difficult to move. I would expect IT (or whomever is running the show in NY) will move Jamal within two years. In other words, I'll be shocked if Jamal is a Knick for the full length of his contract.


JC has negative trade value IMHO. IT gave him a better deal than anyone else did this past summer. The Knicks floundering and the Bulls taking off hurts his value even if he is just an innocent by-stander (no, that's not his D I am talking about  )

Now negative value players can be traded. But it will just be like rotating tires.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I would much, much, much rather have guys like AK47 and RJefferson and Paul Gasol signed out that far. Even for more money.
> 
> I couldn't find any that were worse. Dampier's is similar. You couldn't or would'nt name any that are worse.
> 
> So it's just about the worst, right?


10 Mil in 2010 NBA dollars for Crawford in his prime? Not a bad deal if he keeps improving incrementally.

Its only a bad contract if he's not worth 10Mil in 2010 NBA dollars. All the guys you mentioned (RJEFF/Gasol/AK) are going to be making a lot more... so its not really a fair comparison. If anything... if Jamal gets close to the production of a RJEFF... his contract will look like a dream.

Yah, I'd rather have AK47.... and it would cost more money. I'd rather have Lebron as well in case you were wondering.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 10 Mil in 2010 NBA dollars for Crawford in his prime? Not a bad deal if he keeps improving incrementally.


Well, hypothetically, even thought it's the worst deal out there, it could still be a good deal. 

I highly doubt it. 

And I see very little improvement in his game in the last 2 years.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, hypothetically, it could be the worst deal out there but still a good deal.
> 
> I highly doubt it.
> 
> And I see very little improvement in his game in the last 2 years.


Its something I plan on keeping track of. 

Compared to other 5.8 mil players of today... he's a pretty good deal.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

i don't think 5.8s pretty good. Its only just about right, maybe slightly overpaid given that shooting % and defensive lapsing

besides, you can't just ignore the real # which is 55 million. That ole 5.8 doesn't exist without a huge cost down the line.

and 10 million for Crawford? thats never going to be a good deal. Jamal is who he is, he's been static for awhile now


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll check back in 2010.
> 
> I'm sure there will be plenty if the wage inflation continues as it has.



This thread will probably still be going...


----------



## kukoc4ever

here's another question.

why so much hate for crawford and so little for ben?

because he's a rookie?
because he's less flashy?
because the team is winning?
because he's not the focal point?


----------



## Future

Ben Gordon has good shot selection
Gordon actually drives to the lane
Gordon doesn't grumble about coming off the bench
Gordon is trying hard to play defense
Gordon has a great work ethic
Gordon is a rookie and has a huge potential to become better

I remember Skiles complimenting Gordon (On TV) and saying something along the lines of 'If you told Ben Gordon to run two miles, he would get up and just do it. That's the kind of guy he is.'

That exemplifies why no one is complaining about Gordon.


----------



## truebluefan

slightly off topic. 

NY Knicks have the highest paid salaries for a team in the league. By far. $103 million. That is $13 million more than #2 Dallas. 

JYD is within jamals contract. So is Mohommed and Kurt Thomas. 

Add these players. 

1. McKie
2. Williamson
3. Zo
4. Alvin Willaims
5. We have no one on our team with that salary other than AD
6. Billups
7. pollard
8. R. Miller
9. Joe Smith
10. turkoglu
11. L Hughes
12. K Brown
13. Booth
14. Weatherspoon
15. J Howard
16. Swift
17. Posey
18. M Rose
19. A. Miller
20. Kandiman
21. Patterson
22. Miles
23. Fortson
24. Potokenko
*Harpring $4,545,000
Kirilenko 1.6 million!!! His big contract kicks in next season.*
25. Laettner
26. C Robinson
27. Maggette 6.1mill
28. Divac 4.9
29. Q. Richardson
30. Mobley.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> here's another question.
> 
> why so much hate for crawford and so little for ben?
> 
> because he's a rookie?
> because he's less flashy?
> because the team is winning?
> because he's not the focal point?


You really think it is hate? Or could it be what we perceive as Jamal's weaknesses.


----------



## Future

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> You really think it is hate? Or could it be what we perceive as Jamal's weaknesses.


I agree with that statement. I don't hate Jamal.... he gave it his all on the court, but he has some weaknesses in his game that don't make him a fit on the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> You really think it is hate? Or could it be what we perceive as Jamal's weaknesses.


It seems like Gordon and Crawford share similar weaknesses. He does not get jumped on like Jamal does.

Except Crawford gets steals and blocks. Gordon does not.

Crawford distributes the ball better as well ... or at least we know he can.

Gordon's FG% is higher.... but not great. Rose shoots a higher FG%... and y'all hate him too.

Seems like its an attitude thing more than anything IMO.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

major difference is that Gordon takes good shots in the offense, and makes them. His FG% at the beginning was just him getting used to the NBA

and the types of shots.......gordon goes to the rack and finishes
and puts more effort into defense than JC does

if thats attitude so be it, we got some


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> It seems like Gordon and Crawford share similar weaknesses. He does not get jumped on like Jamal does.
> 
> Except Crawford gets steals and blocks. Gordon does not.
> 
> Crawford distributes the ball better as well ... or at least we know he can.
> 
> Gordon's FG% is higher.... but not great. Rose shoots a higher FG%... and y'all hate him too.
> 
> Seems like its an attitude thing more than anything IMO.


Ben Gordon is a rookie, quietely playing under a rookie salary.

Crawford was a fourth year player clearly playing for, and then demanding, an excessive contract.

Rose was a max salaried veteran whiner.

If Gordon picks up those attributes of JC and Rose over then next four years, I can assure you he will get equal "hate". And you know this.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> slightly off topic.
> 
> NY Knicks have the highest paid salaries for a team in the league. By far. $103 million. That is $13 million more than #2 Dallas.
> 
> JYD is within jamals contract. So is Mohommed and Kurt Thomas.
> 
> Add these players.
> 
> 1. McKie
> 2. Williamson
> 3. Zo
> 4. Alvin Willaims
> 5. We have no one on our team with that salary other than AD
> 6. Billups
> 7. pollard
> 8. R. Miller
> 9. Joe Smith
> 10. turkoglu
> 11. L Hughes
> 12. K Brown
> 13. Booth
> 14. Weatherspoon
> 15. J Howard
> 16. Swift
> 17. Posey
> 18. M Rose
> 19. A. Miller
> 20. Kandiman
> 21. Patterson
> 22. Miles
> 23. Fortson
> 24. Potokenko
> *Harpring $4,545,000
> Kirilenko 1.6 million!!! His big contract kicks in next season.*
> 25. Laettner
> 26. C Robinson
> 27. Maggette 6.1mill
> 28. Divac 4.9
> 29. Q. Richardson
> 30. Mobley.


More players in Jamal's ballpark.

Vin Baker
Rickey Davis
Gary Payton
Corlis Williamson
Todd MacCullah
Alvin Williams
Lamond Murray


----------



## badfish

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> Ben Gordon has good shot selection
> Gordon actually drives to the lane
> Gordon doesn't grumble about coming off the bench
> Gordon is trying hard to play defense
> Gordon has a great work ethic
> Gordon is a rookie and has a huge potential to become better
> 
> I remember Skiles complimenting Gordon (On TV) and saying something along the lines of 'If you told Ben Gordon to run two miles, he would get up and just do it. That's the kind of guy he is.'
> 
> That exemplifies why no one is complaining about Gordon.


Sheesh. I practically wrote this reply word for word before I saw yours. Nice post! The difference between Crawford and Gordon is as clear as mud to me.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Ben Gordon is a rookie, quietely playing under a rookie salary.
> 
> Crawford was a fourth year player clearly playing for, and then demanding, an excessive contract.
> 
> Rose was a max salaried veteran whiner.
> 
> If Gordon picks up those attributes of JC and Rose over then next four years, I can assure you he will get equal "hate". And you know this.


Crawford came into the league after 1 year of college.

Gordon came into the league after 3 years of college.

That counts for something, yes?

I'll hang my hat on a certain type of fan not liking his attitude.... or the "attributes" that you speak of.


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford came into the league after 1 year of college.
> 
> Gordon came into the league after 3 years of college.
> 
> That counts for something, yes?
> 
> *I'll hang my hat on a certain type of fan not liking his attitude.... or the "attributes" that you speak of. *


darn it, i swore i was never going to post in this thread again, but i am sorry, now it's a certain type of fan? really? oh, ok. are we not cheering "the right way"?

priceless. absolutely priceless.



:laugh: :laugh: :grinning:


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford came into the league after 1 year of college.
> 
> Gordon came into the league after 3 years of college.
> 
> That counts for something, yes?
> 
> I'll hang my hat on a certain type of fan not liking his attitude.... or the "attributes" that you speak of.


It doesn't count for anything unless we are strictly talking about comparing them as rookies. In comparing a rookie to a 4th year player, then no, it doesn't mean anything. 

Now, if we are comparing Gordon in his 3rd year to JC in his 4th, or something like that, then yes that becomes an important aspect of the analysis.

Obviously you want to chalk it up to the convenient, and false, theory that some fans just blindly "hated" Crawford. Crawford was my favorite player on the team, and the guy I thought had the most promise, until that 4th season. What does that do to your little theory?

Does that make me a "certain type of fan"?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> Ben Gordon has good shot selection


Only 43% shooting though. ( i agree that he has better shot selection)



> Gordon actually drives to the lane


Yeah, but Crawford gets to the line more.

Craw: 3.5 FTA / 30 Minutes = .1167
Gordon: 2.4 FTA / 22.4 Minutes = .1074




> Gordon doesn't grumble about coming off the bench


Who cares. Crawford never made it a huge issue.



> Gordon is trying hard to play defense


Is that why he's getting benched all the time?



> Gordon has a great work ethic


Jamal does not? Cite examples. Out of shape? Not fighting back from injuries? 



> Gordon is a rookie and has a huge potential to become better


Yes, Gordon is younger. I'd say he has more good experience though from his years @ UCONN that the crap Jamal lived with while being a Bull.



> I remember Skiles complimenting Gordon (On TV) and saying something along the lines of 'If you told Ben Gordon to run two miles, he would get up and just do it. That's the kind of guy he is.'
> 
> That exemplifies why no one is complaining about Gordon.


OK... so it seems like an attitude thing.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> It doesn't count for anything unless we are strictly talking about comparing them as rookies. In comparing a rookie to a 4th year player, then no, it doesn't mean anything.
> 
> Now, if we are comparing Gordon in his 3rd year to JC in his 4th, or something like that, then yes that becomes an important aspect of the analysis.
> 
> Obviously you want to chalk it up to the convenient, and false, theory that some fans just blindly "hated" Crawford. Crawford was my favorite player on the team, and the guy I thought had the most promise, until that 4th season. What does that do to your little theory?
> 
> Does that make me a "certain type of fan"?


Comparing a 19 year old with 1/2 years of college exp to a 22 year old with 3 years of college exp is not apples-to-apples IMO.

Judging by your posts, I think Crawford lost you when he and Rose complained about being benched last season. Correct me if I'm wrong. That would be right in line with my "little theory."


----------



## fleetwood macbull

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll hang my hat on a certain type of fan not liking his attitude.... or the "attributes" that you speak of.


do you have the cajones to spell that one out without encoding it?

but while were at it, theres a certain "type" of "fan" that hated Kirk, and called Skiles and us a racist for using Kirk and likeing Kirk.

Yikes, OK we are about to be "keepin it real", as the kids say?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> but while were at it, theres a certain "type" of "fan" that hated Kirk, and called Skiles and us a racist for using Kirk and likeing Kirk.


Yah... I think there are types of fans like that as well. That's no good either.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Comparing a 19 year old with 1/2 years of college exp to a 22 year old with 3 years of college exp is not apples-to-apples IMO.
> 
> Judging by your posts, I think Crawford lost you when he and Rose complained about being benched last season. Correct me if I'm wrong. That would be right in line with my "little theory."


You might want to re-read my post. I agree, and specifically wrote, that college experience would be valid if you were comparing their rookie seasons. 

But I didn't dog Crawford his rookie season, his second season, or his third. Just his 4th. Similarly, I'll take it easy on the rookie Gordon. 

And although JC's complaints about being benched was a big turning point in my opinion of him, the decline started opening night against the Wizards and continued a steady downward spiral through the end of the year and into the summer.

Rose is different. He lost me the year before with his style of play. The attitude that followed the next year was just added justification to ship him.

Why don't you define what a "certain type of fan" is, K4E?


----------



## GB

We seem to know Gordons "floor" and have no expectation that he'll crash through it to new lows. Instead we wonder what his ceiling is.

He looks like he could be a superstar with a bit of time spent paying his dues.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you define what a "certain type of fan" is, K4E?


Its the type of fan that constantly complains about how "overpaid" professional athletes are.

When they dare to have an attitude that someone does not like... its just fuel to the fire.

Gordon will speak out before his time here in Chicago is done. You can put that in the bank, IMO.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

*retreats*


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Gordon will speak out before his time here in Chicago is done. You can put that in the bank, IMO.


As long as the team is and continues winning...theres no problem with that.

In the end, it _is_ a players league.



Thats of course, when it comes to winning teams.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> When they dare to have an attitude that someone does not like... its just fuel to the fire.


only bad attitudes. God forbid we try to define a bad attitude


----------



## Future

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Yeah, but Crawford gets to the line more.
> 
> Craw: 3.5 FTA / 30 Minutes = .1167
> Gordon: 2.4 FTA / 22.4 Minutes = .1074
> 
> Who cares. Crawford never made it a huge issue.
> 
> Is that why he's getting benched all the time?
> 
> OK... so it seems like an attitude thing.


Crawford plays about 36 minutes a game. 3.5 FTA in 36 minutes is not a good thing. The fact that Crawford never drove to the lane is why he caught so much flack when he was on the Bulls. Ben Gordon getting to the line when he plays so little minutes and showing that he has the desire to drive to the lane and take those bumps and bruises is why I don't complain about Gordon.

Didn't Crawford complain when he got benched?

Gordon is a rookie and he is showing improvement on the defensive end. Sure, Skiles benches him (deservedly so) for defensive lapses... but he has shown signs of improvement. The 76er game is a great example.... Skiles even complimented him for his great defensive effort on AI. 

It is an attitude thing. If you have a player that responds to your coach positively and is a gym rat... why would you complain about him. Ben Gordon is trying and giving it his all everytime he gets on the court.

Should we give Gordon flack for not playing defense when he is on the floor? No, because Skiles does it for us.... and Ben Gordon is making attempts and he knows he needs to do better defensively. Sometimes there isn't alot Gordon can do when he's 6-3 guarding a 6-6 SG. 

Should we give Gordon flack for his shot selection? No, he takes a lot of high perecentage shots and has shown he can shoot. You don't see Ben Gordon driving to the lane then pulling up for a jumper, do you? I see him driving to the lane with a runner or a finger roll or trying to get fouled to get to the FT line.

I feel the only aspect to complain about in Gordon's game is his TOs. Skiles gets on him for that and he has been cutting back the TOs in the last couple games. He's starting to make some great passes off of his penetration... and its evident while watching the games.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Gordon will speak out before his time here in Chicago is done. You can put that in the bank, IMO.


You have the best predictions kukoc4E.  Keep em coming.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its the type of fan that constantly complains about how "overpaid" professional athletes are.
> 
> When they dare to have an attitude that someone does not like... its just fuel to the fire.
> 
> Gordon will speak out before his time here in Chicago is done. You can put that in the bank, IMO.


Oh, that type. Those exist, but I'm not one of them. And I hardly think that definition can be universally applied to those who don't care for Crawford's game. 

I don't think "professional athletes" collectively are overpaid at all. Hell, I'm an advocate of paying college athletes.

I do think that certain individual athletes are overpaid relative to their contemporaries. Not really a novel concept.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its the type of fan that constantly complains about how "overpaid" professional athletes are.


No not Athletes in general. They deserve and should fight for every last dollar.

Jamal Crawford is "overpaid" relatively speaking to his abilities and his relative worth comporably to other athletes in his line of work


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford plays about 36 minutes a game. 3.5 FTA in 36 minutes is not a good thing.


You are right... I had the wrong denominator in there for whatever reason.

So Gordon gets to the line a little more than Crawford... but my point is that they are comparable.

I think Gordon has a good chance to end up a better player than Crawford.... I just find it interesting that there are not a lot of people jumping all over him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> No not Athletes in general. They deserve and should fight for every last dollar.
> 
> Jamal Crawford is "overpaid" relatively speaking to his abilities and his relative worth comporably to other athletes in his line of work


If you look at the list of players that TBF and I posted a couple of pages ago... I think its pretty clear that Jamal falls right in the middle to the top of that list.

I can add a bunch more names to that list BTW... in the 6.8 - 4.8 mil a year range.... TBF left off a *lot* of the bad ones... but he may have just been listing mostly guards/SFs.... I dunno.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> You have the best predictions kukoc4E.  Keep em coming.



Haha. I was one of the vast majority of fans here to predict the Bulls would not make the playoffs this season.

I also thought Rose would improve (which he has) and that Crawford would improve (which he has not... he's stayed about the same).

If you want to crucify me for that... feel free.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You are right... I had the wrong denominator in there for whatever reason.
> 
> So Gordon gets to the line a little more than Crawford... but my point is that they are comparable.


wrong denominator means they are not comparable

and they are NOT comparable in terms of how they play the game. A penetrator who can also light it up from deep is much different from a jack shooting jumpshooter.

No......... not comparable



> I think Gordon has a good chance to end up a better player than Crawford.... I just find it interesting that there are not a lot of people jumping all over him.


your first sentance in this quote ought to explain your expressed interest in the second sentence.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You are right... I had the wrong denominator in there for whatever reason.
> 
> So Gordon gets to the line a little more than Crawford... but my point is that they are comparable.
> 
> I think Gordon has a good chance to end up a better player than Crawford.... I just find it interesting that there are not a lot of people jumping all over him.


Crawford is 24 years old, in his 5th NBA season, and is shooting 38.6%. Same percentage as last season with the Bulls. How has he improved? Shooting the same poor percentage, less rebounds, less assists, same amount of steals and blocks, 1.2 more points a game while plaing alongside Marbury?! It is hard to see progress there from last season.

Gordon is 21 years old, in his 1st NBA season, and is shooting 43.3% and 43% from long distance. Bulls most effective option during clutch minutes and he's only a rook. He's not shutting out guys defensively but no one expects that out of a rook. 

Its not usually a fair practice to compare a 5 year NBA vet to a NBA rookie 3 years younger, but the fact that such a comparison can be made reflects more highly on Gordon than Crawford one would think.


----------



## kukoc4ever

a fair comparison.

I think the fairest comparison would be to compare Jamal's 3rd year in the league with Gordon's rookie year.... that is... if college experience is supposed to be worth anything.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> wrong denominator means they are not comparable


Craw: 3.5/36.6 = .0956
Gordon: 2.4/22.4 = .1071

Yeah... that's pretty much the same.






> and they are NOT comparable in terms of how they play the game. A penetrator who can also light it up from deep is much different from a jack shooting jumpshooter.
> 
> No......... not comparable


Yeah... but jamal turns the ball over less... is taller... gets more steals... gets more blocks... when asked gets more assists.....


----------



## yodurk

Unless someone beat me to it, this is post #1100 on the Jamal update thread. Keep 'em coming! Not too long before we surpass the Bucks' message board. :grinning:

Edit: Thanks to KK4, this is now post #1102...darn you, KK4.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> a fair comparison.
> 
> I think the fairest comparison would be to compare Jamal's 3rd year in the league with Gordon's rookie year.... that is... is college experience is supposed to be worth anything.


it _would_ have been a possible comparo, if you insisted

unfortunately, any possible likeness has been tarnished by subsequent years of poor play By Jamal. It seems we have seen the real Jamal finally. If you want to use his third year, you can try, But JC has dumped on that try

besides, they play the game differently, so why force it?


----------



## fleetwood macbull

sorry, double post


----------



## fleetwood macbull

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Craw: 3.5/36.6 = .0956
> Gordon: 2.4/22.4 = .1071
> 
> Yeah... that's pretty much the same.


i'm confused now. first you said you were wrong. now you are saying you are right?




> Yeah... but jamal turns the ball over less.


true


> is taller


that only matters to Jamals tailor. Because he's never posted anybody up as far as i can see, or used his length to finish in the lane



> ... gets more steals... gets more blocks


more minutes. But Ben will get better too



> ... when asked gets more assists.....


you know, he's a much better passer than Ben is right now.

Ben needs to work on his passing. But thats the only thing JC currently does better. I bet by the time he's Jamals age, he'll be much more complete in this fashion. He's a worker


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> it _would_ have been a possible comparo, if you insisted
> 
> unfortunately, any possible likeness has been tarnished by subsequent years of poor play By Jamal. It seems we have seen the real Jamal finally. If you want to use his third year, you can try, But JC has dumped on that try
> 
> besides, they play the game differently, so why force it?


Check out who Jamal is most similar to, from a career perspective.
Poor play?

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=CRAWFJA01

I'm not trying to win an argument here... looking for things to use and the like.

I just find it interesting that we currently have a guy on the team that pretty much is only useful @ one aspect of the game... scoring... and even at that he's @ a 43% clip. Not very good on D. Not very good at anything else really. Yah... he's a rookie... but he's also the #3 pick in the draft and is *supposed* to have a boatload of valuable NCAA basketball experience. And everyone loves him.


----------



## bullsville

League Leaders In 10-point 4th Quarters:

Kobe (11)
Iverson (10)
Ben Gordon (9)

I don't know where on the list Jamal would be, but I do know that Ben plays for the better team...


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I just find it interesting that we currently have a guy on the team that pretty much is only useful @ one aspect of the game... scoring... and even at that he's @ a 43% clip. *Not very good on D.* Not very good at anything else really. Yah... he's a rookie... but he's also the #3 pick in the draft and is *supposed* to have a boatload of valuable NCAA basketball experience. And everyone loves him.


How are you objectively measuring this attribute? Ben hustles and runs through screens, is always in his player's face. Defense was specifically complimented against AI in the Philly game. Is it just that he's shorter than JC?

JC's defense has been specifically called out by the press, the fans, AND his coaches through his entire career. We've got photo evidence on this very thread of Jamal giving up on the play defensively. We don't need the evidence, hoever, because we all know he does it.

As for Ben and Jamal on statistical comparison. Note when the points are scored. Jamal consistently comes out hot and fades to nothing by Q4. Ben, on the other hand, turns it up a notch when it comes to crunch time. Jamal = extremely un-clutch, Ben = clutch.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> League Leaders In 10-point 4th Quarters:
> 
> Kobe (11)
> Iverson (10)
> Ben Gordon (9)
> 
> I don't know where on the list Jamal would be, but I do know that Ben plays for the better team...


I think this has a ton to do with it.

People remember a half-dozen plays from the season. I'll never forget Ben Gordon's shot to win that Knicks game.

People remember the 2-3 inexplicable decisions Jamal makes.

That leaves a mark.

People value "clutch" a lot.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> More players in Jamal's ballpark.
> 
> Vin Baker
> Rickey Davis
> Gary Payton
> Corlis Williamson
> Todd MacCullah
> Alvin Williams
> Lamond Murray


I have A Willaims and Williamson on the list. 
MacCullah is retired. So is Pippen and e-rob is hurt(You can add those names)
I never added Baker because it is less than 5 mill. I did miss R Davis and Payton and Murray. Not on purpose.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this has a ton to do with it.
> 
> People remember a half-dozen plays from the season. I'll never forget Ben Gordon's shot to win that Knicks game.
> 
> People remember the 2-3 inexplicable decisions Jamal makes.
> 
> That leaves a mark.
> 
> People value "clutch" a lot.


Actually, Jamal hit two game-winning shots at the buzzer in his first month with the Knicks- but even Knick fans forget the good when you shoot under 39% and jack up more than 7 3-pointers a night while hitting only 33.6% of them. 

To put that in perspective, our PG with no shot at all hits 30.9% of his 3's.

EDIT: Ben makes plenty of "inexplicable decisions" as well- he leads the NBA in TO/48 minutes. But when you come up clutch in the 4th quarter time and time again, fans and coaches and teammates can let a few mistakes slide.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I have A Willaims and Williamson on the list.
> MacCullah is retired. So is Pippen and e-rob is hurt(You can add those names)
> I never added Baker because it is less than 5 mill. I did miss R Davis and Payton and Murray. Not on purpose.


Whoa... OK... I'm done. Not enough sleep.  I don't know how I put Baker on the list.

Its time to catch some Zs.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, Jamal hit two game-winning shots at the buzzer in his first month with the Knicks- but even Knick fans forget the good when you shoot under 39% and jack up more than 7 3-pointers a night while hitting only 33.6% of them.
> 
> To put that in perspective, our PG with no shot at all hits 30.9% of his 3's.


eFG wise though he's better than Francis and Iverson.


----------



## fl_flash

I admire your tenacity K4Ever. You're the only one left who's still fighting the fight. HappyGrinch, Ace20004U and all the other Jamalites have been eeirly silent. I think you're fighting a losing battle but I do have to respect your pit bull-like defense of Crawford. Time may well yet prove your devotion. I don't believe it will, but one never knows...


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> eFG wise though he's better than Francis and Iverson.


That's true... BUT

When he starts grabbing 6.3 rebounds and getting to the line 7.5 times a game like Stevie...

Or when he starts playing defense like Iverson (4th in steals) and busting his arse every second he's on the floor and gets to the line over 10 times a game like AI...

Well, I guess then he'll quit being considered a no-D, low-percentage shooting chucker by the rest of the NBA.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I admire your tenacity K4Ever. You're the only one left who's still fighting the fight. HappyGrinch, Ace20004U and all the other Jamalites have been eeirly silent. I think you're fighting a losing battle but I do have to respect your pit bull-like defense of Crawford. Time may well yet prove your devotion. I don't believe it will, but one never knows...


It's like the people who still say that Tom Brady is overrated and the Pats win *only* because of their defense.

Even after he put up 41 points, going 14/21 for 207 yards, 2 TD and no INT against the #1 defense in the NFL on the road yesterday.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> It seems like Gordon and Crawford share similar weaknesses. He does not get jumped on like Jamal does.
> 
> Except Crawford gets steals and blocks. Gordon does not.
> 
> Crawford distributes the ball better as well ... or at least we know he can.
> 
> Gordon's FG% is higher.... but not great. Rose shoots a higher FG%... and y'all hate him too.
> 
> Seems like its an attitude thing more than anything IMO.


Most of the other posters said it well. Gordon is just starting out. Crawford is in his 5th year. If you remember right, Bulls fans saw the potential in Jamal and there was not "hate" on him at all, until he deserved it. We couldn't wait for Jamal to put it all together. Well he still has yet to do that imo. 

Gordon is a rookie and has played just 38 games. Jamal has played...how many? Gordon has wooed the crowd and won some games for us with 4th quarter heroics already! Crawford, had one game winner last year. Had some nice scoring games for a 23 win team but got in toruble(and you know why) for doing his own thing. Dribble, bad shot selection, would not take it to the basket, and wont defend. 

The second game against the bulls last week. Remember the play where Crawford was in the lane and passed the ball to Sweetney? Sweetney bobbled the ball OOB? The Bulls announcers said Sweetney was not expecting the pass. Bulls players did the same thing last year. Know why? Jamal does his own thing. Out of the offensive scheme of things. It freezes the other 4 players on the court. Makes Jamal and the other 4 players easier to defend because players from opposing teams know what he will do with the ball 99.9% of the time. Shoot jumpers. He will not take it to the hole to save his life. So defenses sag off of him and let him shoot. When he does pass, players are suprised as hell when the ball comes to them. I wrote most of this stufff down last season. Same thing. 

Now, all of this being said, you cannot compart Gordon to Crawford until 5 years from now. Crawford is a seasoned vet. Gordon is just starting out. Yes, Gordon has weaknesses but the thread is about Jamal, is it not? 

I wanted the Bulls to keep Jamal. I thought we really needed his scoring and could somehow make up for his lack of D allow him to "do his thing," but looking back that would not be team ball. Duhon and Gordon's defense would not be in the game and it would hurt us more than help us by having Jamal here. Even Harrington is a solid player for us. 

Jamal as not improved his shooting. Exact same thing it was last season. 38%. 

You brought up a excuse earlier about Gordon not being the focal point like crawford is. You are right. We do not have 1 player on the bulls that is a focal point on offense unless you count in EC. We do try to make him the focal point many times. Other than that, the team plays as a team and whoever has the better shot, takes it. That was not the case with Jamal and Jalen here. Both of them "wanted theirs" first and they would take them, come hell or high water. 

Someday Jamal will find the right team with the right coach and finally buy into the team aspect of NBA. Streetball needs to be washed out of him first.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> That's true... BUT
> 
> When he starts grabbing 6.3 rebounds and getting to the line 7.5 times a game like Stevie...
> 
> Or when he starts playing defense like Iverson (4th in steals) and busting his arse every second he's on the floor and gets to the line over 10 times a game like AI...
> 
> Well, I guess then he'll quit being considered a no-D, low-percentage shooting chucker by the rest of the NBA.


But free throws are part of eFG. That's in there.

If Jamal is a "chucker" than Iverson and Francis are even worse.

As for the D... Jamal is tied with Francis in steals per game... and kobe for that matter. How can that be "no-D?"


----------



## giusd

Look dont you think it a little early for the ben vs. JC. Seriously, but in response to JC and defensive i think it a reach to suggest he is a good defensive palyer. I mean, we all know he is mostly and offensive minded player. It does get some steals due to his quickness but his half court defense and positioning on D is still pretty weak and he still can't play the pick and roll to save his soul.

david


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> But free throws are part of eFG. That's in there.
> 
> If Jamal is a "chucker" than Iverson and Francis are even worse.
> 
> As for the D... Jamal is tied with Francis in steals per game... and kobe for that matter. How can that be "no-D?"


Sorry, but I really don't care to debate Jamal any more.

You are right, I'd take Jamal over Iverson or Francis and Kobe any day of the week, and I'm sure any NBA executive would agree with you.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I really don't care to debate Jamal any more.
> 
> You are right, I'd take Jamal over Iverson or Francis and Kobe any day of the week, and I'm sure any NBA executive would agree with you.


That's not what I'm saying.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> That's not what I'm saying.


What do you mean?

You've already stated that:

If Jamal is a "chucker" than Iverson and Francis are even worse.

eFG wise though he's better than Francis and Iverson.

As for the D... Jamal is tied with Francis in steals per game... and kobe for that matter. How can that be "no-D?" 

If you truly believe all of that, then you *are* saying that Jamal is just as good as those guys.

If that's *not* what you are saying, then how are Iverson, Kobe and Francis better than Jamal?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> You've already stated that:
> 
> If Jamal is a "chucker" than Iverson and Francis are even worse.
> 
> eFG wise though he's better than Francis and Iverson.
> 
> As for the D... Jamal is tied with Francis in steals per game... and kobe for that matter. How can that be "no-D?"
> 
> If you truly believe all of that, then you *are* saying that Jamal is just as good as those guys.
> 
> If that's *not* what you are saying, then how are Iverson, Kobe and Francis better than Jamal?


I'm saying that Jamal is not as bad as many make him out to be.



> Well, I guess then he'll quit being considered a no-D, low-percentage shooting chucker by the rest of the NBA


no-D = 1.4 steals a game and .4 blocks a game for a G?

low-percentage shooting chucker = better eFG than Iverson and Francis?

The quoted words above are yours... not mine.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this has a ton to do with it.
> 
> People remember a half-dozen plays from the season. I'll never forget Ben Gordon's shot to win that Knicks game.
> 
> People remember the 2-3 inexplicable decisions Jamal makes.
> 
> That leaves a mark.
> 
> People value "clutch" a lot.


*People remember the 2-3 inexplicable decisions Jamal makes.*

You bet we do. That is 2 or 3 too many on a bad team, don't you think? When all he had to do is play team ball and those 2 or three decisions would be cut back over time.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> *People remember the 2-3 inexplicable decisions Jamal makes.*
> 
> You bet we do. That is 2 or 3 too many on a bad team, don't you think? When all he had to do is play team ball and those 2 or three decisions would be cut back over time.


Why are people not focusing on the multiple TOs of Ben Gordon? Or the benchings? Or the lack of steals?

How many times has Hinrich pulled up on a fast break to take a 3? Pippen used to do this all the time as well.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Why are people not focusing on the multiple TOs of Ben Gordon?
> 
> How many times has Hinrich pulled up on a fast break to take a 3? Pippen used to do this all the time as well.


Hinirch is doing it on a 19 win team with 38 games played. Gordon has weaknesses. I already said that. He has played 38 nba games. You keep wanting to compare Jamal in his third year to Gordon now and that just is not right. Different game all together. The arguement is, we know players have weaknesses and you defend Jamals weaknesses to the last strength that you have in your fingers, by pointing out other players weaknesses. Jamal shoots threes on bad teams. NY is bad is is losing. Hinrich and Gordon are winning. That does make a difference to the fans, coaches and owners. Keep focused on my arguement kk4e, Jamal does not and has not played team ball. Gordon and Hinrich do. 

One more thing, we talk about offense. If Deng was Crawford, in the second NY loss when Chandler screened Jamal, Deng would have blocked the shot. I am not talking about his long arms. Effort. Both ends of the court. If Deng didn't block the shot, I bet you that Gordon would have known he was coming!! That may have altered it. Crawford trotted, stopped and watched. 

I am tired for today. I have other things to do. I will come back to see what you said later on should I find time.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> *People remember the 2-3 inexplicable decisions Jamal makes.*
> 
> You bet we do. That is 2 or 3 too many on a bad team, don't you think? When all he had to do is play team ball and those 2 or three decisions would be cut back over time.



Last season... it didn't matter how Crawford played... given the personnel... they were going to lose.


----------



## lgtwins

Kukoc, would you do us all big favor and stop posting about Jamal at least for a while till the end of this season so we can all resume final evaluation of his 5th season?

I really don't think you can say anything new about Jamal and can't convince single poster to your side.

Although some including I admire your tenacity in defending Jamal, it seems pretty futile as of now. You are clearly fighting the losing battle.

I really think that this particular thread is alive only becuase of your sometimes ridiculous defense on Jamal and nothing else.

Other poster tend to response to your post simply because some of your post is totally wacky.

At this point, I really don't understand why you are trying to so hard to keep this thread alive.

So please stop posting and see what happens to this thread.

When most people say "Good for Jamal if he like NY better" or "I don't care about him any more. He is a Knick", I truly believe that is their honest feeling.

Then why they keep coming back to this thread, you ask, Kukoc.

Well, because of you, Kukoc, you didn't know that. 

So again kudo to you for putting up a fight when even most adament Jamal supporter like Ace, Happygrinch don't bother any more But really.... enough is enough, don't you think?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> Kukoc, would you do us all big favor and stop posting about Jamal at least for a while till the end of this season so we can all resume final evaluation of his 5th season?
> 
> I really don't think you can say anything new about Jamal and can't convince single poster to your side.
> 
> Although some including I admire your tenacity in defending Jamal, it seems pretty futile as of now. You are clearly fighting the losing battle.
> 
> I really think that this particular thread is alive only becuase of your sometimes ridiculous defense on Jamal and nothing else.
> 
> Other poster tend to response to your post simply because some of your post is totally wacky.
> 
> At this point, I really don't understand why you are trying to so hard to keep this thread alive.
> 
> So please stop posting and see what happens to this thread.
> 
> When most people say "Good for Jamal if he like NY better" or "I don't care about him any more. He is a Knick", I truly believe that is their honest feeling.
> 
> Then why they keep coming back to this thread, you ask, Kukoc.
> 
> Well, because of you, Kukoc, you didn't know that.
> 
> So again kudo to you for putting up a fight when even most adament Jamal supporter like Ace, Happygrinch don't bother any more But really.... enough is enough, don't you think?


Maybe kukoc enjoy back and forth with other poster too.

Sometimes kukoc may say wacky thing for reaction.

kukoc tired of jamal talk too at least for this day.

Hulk smash!


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe kukoc enjoy back and forth with other poster too.
> 
> Sometimes kukoc may say wacky thing for reaction.
> 
> kukoc tired of jamal talk too at least for this day.
> 
> Hulk smash!


was this really necessary?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> was this really necessary?


Yah, probably not.

I apologize.


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe kukoc enjoy back and forth with other poster too.
> 
> Sometimes kukoc may say wacky thing for reaction.
> 
> kukoc tired of jamal talk too at least for this day.
> 
> Hulk smash!


:laugh: Well played, K4E.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Yah, probably not.
> 
> I apologize.


no big deal. It just occurred to me that English isn't everyone's first language on these boards...and others have trouble typing. Your satire could be taken the wrong way, is all.


----------



## DaBullz

Who's better?

Crawford + Shirley + Pippen (rarely could play) + Linton Johnson + Dupree

or

Gordon + Deng + Nocioni + Chandler + Harrington

?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> no big deal. It just occurred to me that English isn't everyone's first language on these boards...and others have trouble typing. Your satire could be taken the wrong way, is all.


Also, you never know who is a gamma-ray irradiated monstrosity. I certainly don't want one of those angry at me.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Also, you never know who is a gamma-ray irradiated monstrosity. I certainly don't want one of those angry at me.


Just to make it perfectly clear, I am a gamma-ray irradiated monstrosity, but my therapist has really been getting through recently, so I harbor no ill will toward *crawdaddy4ever!*.


----------



## lgtwins

Well, I am a gamma-ray irradiated monstrosity too. And I am angry at you Kukoc4ever..... if you can get your own joke. Of course unless you were making fun of me. Well, then you know where you should go, right?

Anyway, obviously nobody will stop you. So type on, say till 2010. 

Go Crawdaddy4ever....Yeah! 

(By the way how many language do you speak? I know your English is excellent. Oops, you are a American. I forgot.):uhoh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> Well, I am a gamma-ray irradiated monstrosity too. And I am angry at you Kukoc4ever..... if you can get your own joke. Of course unless you were making fun of me. Well, then you know where you should go, right?
> 
> Anyway, obviously nobody will stop you. So type on, say till 2010.
> 
> Go Crawdaddy4ever....Yeah!
> 
> (By the way how many language do you speak? I know your English is excellent. Oops, you are a American. I forgot.):uhoh:


I apologize for poking fun.

I speak English and Hulk fluently. 

I also communicate via telepathy with Jamal's sister. She's hungry right now. She’s also mad at you for not liking Jamal.

America kicks ***! If you think otherwise I'll run you over with my SUV!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe kukoc enjoy back and forth with other poster too.
> 
> Sometimes kukoc may say wacky thing for reaction.
> 
> kukoc tired of jamal talk too at least for this day.
> 
> Hulk smash!





> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Also, you never know who is a gamma-ray irradiated monstrosity. I certainly don't want one of those angry at me.


OT: Who would win a cage death match:

The Hulk or The Thing?


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I apologize for poking fun.
> 
> I speak English and Hulk fluently.
> 
> I also communicate via telepathy with Jamal's sister. She's hungry right now. She’s also mad at you for not liking Jamal.
> 
> America kicks ***! If you think otherwise I'll run you over with my SUV!


Again good for you, K4E. Since you are so fluent in Hulk, I will post from now on only in Hulk.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1




----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!


Hulk always smashed the Thing. Every time. Even the grey hulk.


----------



## truebluefan

Good news and bad news. 

Jamal had an outstanding game tonight. Gereat personal #. Led his team in scoring as the Knicks scored 118 pts!!! 

Bad news? They lost by 15. To Phoenix. 133 pts


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Good news and bad news.
> 
> Jamal had an outstanding game tonight. Gereat personal #. Led his team in scoring as the Knicks scored 118 pts!!!
> 
> Bad news? They lost by 15. To Phoenix. 133 pts


Some players are happy tonight. 

Some players are happier.


----------



## spongyfungy

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Good news and bad news.
> 
> Jamal had an outstanding game tonight. Gereat personal #. Led his team in scoring as the Knicks scored 118 pts!!!
> 
> Bad news? They lost by 15. To Phoenix. 133 pts


It's all perspective. good news for us when any EC team loses.


----------



## kukoc4ever

40 points... 7 assists.... 5 rebounds... 2 TO... 1 steal... 14-25 shooting.

yah... that's a damn good individual game.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

the Bulls need another ! in your sig, k4e.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> yah... that's a damn good individual game.


It's almost like another player was shutdown leaving another player with the challenge of "beat us".


----------



## lou4gehrig

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 40 points... 7 assists.... 5 rebounds... 2 TO... 1 steal... 14-25 shooting.
> 
> yah... that's a damn good individual game.


not that good considering they played phoenix...ginobli shot 15-22 and had 48 points...jamal hoists tooo many shots...he's overrated...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> the Bulls need another ! in your sig, k4e.


chill baby


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>lou4gehrig</b>!
> 
> 
> not that good considering they played phoenix...ginobli shot 15-22 and had 48 points...jamal hoists tooo many shots...he's overrated...


wilt chamberlin once scored 100 points.

i guess anything under that is "not that good."


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It's almost like another player was shutdown leaving another player with the challenge of "beat us".


I'm unsure what else he could have done.

Perhaps shut down joe johnson and jim jackson would be a good start.  I didn't see the game so i don't know who was guarding who.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*desire*

what's he diving for?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Is he diving or was he tripped?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: desire*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> what's he diving for?


Actually, it looks like he is about to make Herb Williams a very happy man...if you know what I mean...:uhoh:


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Re: desire*



> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, it looks like he is about to make Herb Williams a very happy man...if you know what I mean...:uhoh:


More so than Brendan Malone, to Herb's left?


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Re: desire*



> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, it looks like he is about to make Herb Williams a very happy man...if you know what I mean...:uhoh:


gordon's getting in on the action too.

People all over the world (all the world, now)
Join hands (love ride)
Start a love train (love ride), love train


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Re: Re: desire*



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> More so than Brendan Malone, to Herb's left?





> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> gordon's getting in on the action too.
> 
> People all over the world (all the world, now)
> Join hands (love ride)
> Start a love train (love ride), love train


I don't think you are reading my post with the requisite juvenile, filthy mind...unless you know something extraordinary about Mr. Malone's manhood, I don't think he has the reach.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Ok. I admit it wasn't one of my better one-liners. 

In all seriousness, if this is Jamal diving for a loose ball (rather than Jamal falling down) that is fantastic news for the Knicks.

I still can't believe they gave up 133 points in 4 quarters. Someone on that team has to learn to D up.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Is he diving or was he tripped?



 


Oh.

I didn't post in this thread.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Ok. I admit it wasn't one of my better one-liners.
> 
> In all seriousness, if this is Jamal diving for a loose ball (rather than Jamal falling down) that is fantastic news for the Knicks.
> 
> I still can't believe they gave up 133 points in 4 quarters. Someone on that team has to learn to D up.


I thought it was funny.

I wonder how good Jamal would look playing the Jim Jackson role on Phoenix?


----------



## ScottMay

Well, if you want to talk about a bad jib guy who sets a poor tone, you should talk Marbury. I can't see him anchoring a good defensive team, ever.

Frankly, if the Bulls' and Knicks' respective winning percentages are in the neighborhood of where they are right now when All-Star reserves are picked (ours record has a good chance of being not quite as good as it is now, but the Knicks have a horror show of a schedule coming up as well), it'll be a mild outrage if Marbury makes the team ahead of Kirk. Same with Paul Pierce, really.

When Elton Brand was left off All-Star teams, the media tut-tutted and gave us the old "losing team" rejoinder. Shouldn't the same "rule" apply to Marbury, Pierce, etc.?


----------



## BealeFarange

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought it was funny.
> 
> I wonder how good Jamal would look playing the Jim Jackson role on Phoenix?


:drool:


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I wonder how good Jamal would look playing the Jim Jackson role on Phoenix?


To the Knicks, or to D'Antoni?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Ok. I admit it wasn't one of my better one-liners.
> 
> In all seriousness, if this is Jamal diving for a loose ball (rather than Jamal falling down) that is fantastic news for the Knicks.
> 
> I still can't believe they gave up 133 points in 4 quarters. Someone on that team has to learn to D up.


Here's the caption from the image.

*"New York Knicks' Jamal Crawford, top, and Chicago Bulls' Ben Gordon, bottom, scramble for the loose ball in front of the Knicks' bench in the first half of play on Monday, Jan. 17, 2005 at New York's Madison Square Garden. The Bulls beat the Knicks 88-86. "*

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo?slug=nymk10701172210.bulls_knicks_nymk107&prov=ap

Scramble = Dive?

Perhaps Jamal has to learn to scramble before graduating to all-out diving.


----------



## GB

*Re: desire*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> what's he diving for?


Neither, he was playing his old team.


It's like losing weight, getting your teeth whitened, and having Lasik surgery after you get dumped.


----------



## BealeFarange

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Well, if you want to talk about a bad jib guy who sets a poor tone, you should talk Marbury. I can't see him anchoring a good defensive team, ever.
> 
> Frankly, if the Bulls' and Knicks' respective winning percentages are in the neighborhood of where they are right now when All-Star reserves are picked (ours record has a good chance of being not quite as good as it is now, but the Knicks have a horror show of a schedule coming up as well), it'll be a mild outrage if Marbury makes the team ahead of Kirk. Same with Paul Pierce, really.
> 
> When Elton Brand was left off All-Star teams, the media tut-tutted and gave us the old "losing team" rejoinder. Shouldn't the same "rule" apply to Marbury, Pierce, etc.?


I agree whole-heartedly. While I think maybe Pierce might possibly deserve a spot, Marbury absolutely does not. Hinrich's defense and the fact that the Bulls are a winning team (they took the Knicks down back-to-back) should make Kirk an all-star.

Two weeks ago, I did not think Kirk was an all-star this year. Right now? The kid is fabulous. Absolutely terrific defensively and a scorer that just gets better and better...he had a move last night, a driving, scooping layup, that knocked my socks off. 

While I still love Jamal (irrationally), the Knicks backcourt is horrendous defensively and should not be rewarded with any sort of recognition until they either start winning or, at least, keep their opponents to a respectable tally. 

Jamal's 40 means nothing when you give up 133(!)...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Hinrich should be an all-star.


Curry is on the fence.

SHAQ, then (CurryOkaforZ)

The whole "winning team" thing would eliminate Okafor.


----------



## GB

> Marbury's former team scored at will against the Knicks, who occasionally returned fire, but not often enough to stop a losing streak that is now seven games long.
> --
> The Suns' point total was the highest by a Knicks opponent in more than 14 years.
> --
> The Knicks lost for the 11th time in 12 games this month, and they reached the season's mathematical midpoint with a 17-24 record. They are on pace for 34 victories, well short of the 42 to 43 projected by the team's president, Isiah Thomas.
> 
> Even by the Knicks' lowered standards, they are now officially underachieving in a big way. They get one more chance to bust their streak before leaving for a difficult six-game trip. They play the Cleveland Cavaliers on Friday night at the Garden. After that, the hopes for a quick turnaround will dim considerably, with the schedule taking them to Detroit, Los Angeles (Clippers), Denver, Sacramento, Phoenix and Utah.
> 
> "We play as hard as we did tonight against Cleveland, we'll be fine," said Jamal Crawford, who led the Knicks with 40 points.


Dude doesn't get it...in a big way. He's still thinking that outshooting your opponent is the way to win.

:no: 


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/sports/basketball/26knicks.html?oref=login


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude doesn't get it...in a big way. He's still thinking that outshooting your opponent is the way to win.
> 
> :no:
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/sports/basketball/26knicks.html?oref=login


He should go play for Phoenix or Dallas.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> He should go play for Phoenix or Dallas.


He might get that chance:











EDIT:

Scratch one team off:



> The Mavericks rank in the middle of the defensive pack, allowing an average of 96.4 points a game. That figure is fine since the Mavericks are one of the league's highest scoring teams. But the Rockets game culminated a four-game stretch in which Dallas allowed an average of 108.2 points.
> 
> It was easy to excuse the other totals because the Mavericks jumped to early leads and didn't look back. But it's clear their defensive intensity began to slip with the big wins, and it came back to bite them against the Rockets.
> 
> Here's all you need to know about the difference in San Antonio and Dallas at the moment: the Spurs prepared for Friday night's showdown by holding Milwaukee to 79 points. The Mavericks allowed the Rockets to score a season-high 124 points and, even worse, shoot 61 percent from the field.
> 
> "We always knew there was more to work on, but losing a game like this makes it more evident," guard Michael Finley said. "Even if we decided to get a little too confident, this brings us back down to earth."


http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/nwsltr/sports/mavs/stories/011405dnspomavsletter.5839937.html


----------



## BealeFarange

I'm not sure where Jamal's considerable skill set would be best utilized. He's a great "in-bunches" scorer...but he's too much of a momentum player to be terribly effective off the bench. He needs to play through cold streaks to find his touch...

Maybe as a sixth man getting regular minutes for a team like Dallas or Phoenix that wouldn't mind a guy looking to score he could finally reach his "potential," whatever that is now. I still think he'd be better than a Jim Jackson or a now-on-the-bench Jerry Stackhouse or even Earl Boykins in providing that punch...I'm just losing hope that he'll be a quality starter. I do hope, though, that he doesn't take as long to settle into the league as Jim Jackson--if he ever has "settled" to this day...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Well, if you want to talk about a bad jib guy who sets a poor tone, you should talk Marbury. I can't see him anchoring a good defensive team, ever.


Knicks 1-11 since Starbury announced he was the greatest PG in the NBA.

Yeeeeeaaa Team!


----------



## spongyfungy

Well the caption is



> New York Knicks' Jamal Crawford, top, and Chicago Bulls' Ben Gordon, bottom, scramble for the loose ball in front of the Knicks' bench in the second half of play on Monday, Jan. 17, 2005 at New York's Madison Square Garden. The Bulls beat the Knicks 88-86. (AP Photo/Michael Kim)


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> 
> Jamal's 40 means nothing when you give up 133(!)...


Anyone know when was the last time the Bull gave up 133 points? I checked all the way back to 1996 and didn't find any (though we scored mare than that a few times!). The closest I found was a Milwaukee game in March, 2001, where they had 126 in double OT. When the worst team in the league for six years is able to hold all of their opponents under 133.....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Anyone know when was the last time the Bull gave up 133 points? I checked all the way back to 1996 and didn't find any (though we scored mare than that a few times!). The closest I found was a Milwaukee game in March, 2001, where they had 126 in double OT. When the worst team in the league for six years is able to hold all of their opponents under 133.....


How often does _any_ team, give up 133 points in a regular 4 quarter game? The Washington Generals, back in the day...who else?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> How often does _any_ team, give up 133 points in a regular 4 quarter game? The Washington Generals, back in the day...who else?


Denver Nuggets in the old days when they had Westhead as coach.


----------



## kukoc4ever

how about we compile a list of current and former bulls that have scored 40+ multiple times in nba game and then argue all day about how useless they are?


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> how about we compile a list of current and former bulls that have scored 40+ multiple times in nba game and then argue all day about how useless they are?


Okay, you start!


----------



## lgtwins

More relevant question is how many times Jamal scored 30 or more (40 if you like it) and what was W/L in those games when he was a Bull? And compare it to the case when he is a Knick.

I am not a stat guy and I am sure K4E can come up with number.

And the following sentence is only to K4E. For anybody else, ask him to translate.

dhfek aldflelgf , fkgf re sgkra lla fll fd? dkgkd aie dar o!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Slightly OT, but this is specifically for the Jerry Krause and Jamal Crawford hatin' crowd:

Did we win the Brand/Chandler trade ?

Given our current situation, would you guys trade Chandler for Brand ?


----------



## Machinehead

Crawford Update 

I know someome who knows someone whose second cousin's music teacher lives downstairs from Jamal 

He just took a dump and flushed the jon

More to come as it comes to hand ...........


----------



## dkg1

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> 
> And the following sentence is only to K4E. For anybody else, ask him to translate.
> 
> dhfek aldflelgf , fkgf re sgkra lla fll fd? dkgkd aie dar o!


I'm not sure what you said but I think I saw my initials in there!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> Slightly OT, but this is specifically for the Jerry Krause and Jamal Crawford hatin' crowd:
> 
> Did we win the Brand/Chandler trade ?
> 
> Given our current situation, would you guys trade Chandler for Brand ?


Up to about December of this year, I'd have thought long and hard about keeping Brand. Right now, I have no more doubt that we got the better of the deal in getting Chandler.


----------



## ace20004u

No matter what is said, Jamal played a hell of a game against Phoenix. I'll admit that NY's team defense wasn't very good, Phx did score 133! Still, there were at least two episodes where the commentators calling the game said "good defensive play by Crawford" along with "he is really mixing it up this game, he is hitting midrange shots, layups, and the three".


----------



## The ROY

Honestly, you guys are PATHETIC. Ya'll are making Jamal out to be better than he really IS with all these posts about him. Meanwhile, the NY board is laughing at us cuz ya'll can't seem to get "OVER" Jamal Crawford. LET IT GO! damn


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Up to about December of this year, I'd have thought long and hard about keeping Brand. Right now, I have no more doubt that we got the better of the deal in getting Chandler.


Wow. I actually talked myself out of starting a "Chander vs. Brand, Year 4" thread yesterday, thinking it was too homeristic and Kool-Aid-addled a thought. But I fully agree with you, Tom. 

Maybe it is homeristic and Kool-Aid-addled, but despite his gaudy numbers, I just don't see Elton Brand able to influence the outcome of a game the way Tyson does. Even though history will say otherwise, I think the Bulls "won" that trade.

(Assuming, of course, Chandler stays with us long-term.)


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> No matter what is said, Jamal played a hell of a game against Phoenix.


Did it matter?


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Did it matter?


Nope. The Knicks lost. But that doesn't mean Jamal didn't put in a valiant effort on behalf of a team that just didn't have it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Did it matter?


It matters as much as a good game from Baron Davis, PJ Brown, Emeka Okafor, Michael Redd, Jason Kidd, Carlos Boozer, AK47, Jason Richardson or Troy Murphy.

Just because someone is on a losing team.... does not make their individual performances unimpressive.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Just because someone is on a losing team.... does not make their individual performances unimpressive.


Ok.

<B>I</b> don't get it, it's not like he kept them in the game or even close, which would be worthy of some acclaim, but...ok.


Isaiah may be pushing Houston out:

<I>Isiah Thomas is not convinced Allan Houston will ever be an All-Star caliber player again and hinted that early retirement is an option Houston may want to consider.
--
"I think we all hope that he can get back to being Allan," Thomas said. "But I think realistically we may all have to come to the conclusion that he may not ever get there again and we may have to start dealing with that reality."
--
Houston appeared disappointed by Thomas' evaluation but declined to comment. He did, however, say that he had no intentions of retiring and that he is confident he will be a productive player again. Houston's agent, William Strickland, said yesterday that he and his client have never discussed retirement.
--
In many ways, Thomas has already moved on from looking at Houston as the Knicks starting shooting guard. Last summer, Thomas acquired Jamal Crawford in a sign-and-trade with the Chicago Bulls. Crawford, who signed a seven-year, $56 million contract, is the team's second leading scorer but he is shooting 39% and his shot selection has baffled the team.</i>

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/275194p-235634c.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

I think everyone would readily admit that Crawford should improve his FG% (although since so many of the baskets he makes are 3s... its not the best stat to look at) and that his shot selection is questionable.

He's kind of like Eddy Curry before this season. He just has to "get it." If he does... he'll be quite good. If not... well... he'll just be what he is.

The current Knicks are not the best environment either... that team really is a mess without any type of vision. That being said, they still might win their division if they can heat up…although this seems unlikely given their upcoming schedule.

But to discount a 40+ point outburst on good shooting with 7 assists and 5 rebounds... that's just ludicrous. OTOH, this is the "Crawford Update" thread....


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I think everyone would readily admit that Crawford should improve his FG% (although since so many of the baskets he makes are 3s... its not the best stat to look at) and that his shot selection is questionable.
> 
> He's kind of like Eddy Curry before this season. He just has to "get it." If he does... he'll be quite good. If not... well... he'll just be what he is.
> 
> The current Knicks are not the best environment either... that team really is a mess without any type of vision. That being said, they still might win their division if they can heat up…although this seems unlikely given their upcoming schedule.
> 
> But to discount a 40+ point outburst on good shooting with 7 assists and 5 rebounds... that's just ludicrous. OTOH, this is the "Crawford Update" thread....


Nobody is dismissing it. We all knew and know he has the talent. We've seen it here in Chicago.

But the value of it? It meant nothing. It didn't keep his team in the game, and they still got blown-out.

It's a pretty dubious distinction...and it's not one I think you'll ever here him talking about favorably.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> But the value of it? It meant nothing.




It sure helped my fantasy team. 

Are Okafor's outings this season meaningless?

I guess yes using your logic.


----------



## BealeFarange

> Originally posted by <b>The ROY</b>!
> Honestly, you guys are PATHETIC. Ya'll are making Jamal out to be better than he really IS with all these posts about him. Meanwhile, the NY board is laughing at us cuz ya'll can't seem to get "OVER" Jamal Crawford. LET IT GO! damn


You just don't get it ROY. Stop posting on the Jamal Update thread, or stop looking at it altogether, if it bothers you. 

Some of us take the Bulls pretty seriously. Maybe too seriously. The players are important to us and the connections are strong. Jamal represented hope for a lot of desperate Bulls fans...and he was entertaining, likeable, and teasing all at the same time for many of us. It is our right to follow him and it is our right to love his game in spite of his readily admitted weaknesses.

I don't know what kind of pleasure you and GB and others get out of popping into the Jamal thread and making fun of those of us who are still attached to him...and to the old Bulls...and to all the broken dreams and frustrating nights they represented. 

I'm sure you like plenty of things that I don't like. But that's your perogative. The Jamal stuff is all very nicely lumped into one place where those of us in this very strong Bulls community can talk about it with other Bulls fans who understand what we miss and like about Jamal. This is a community that we're all a part of and this thread is a value to some of us. 

If you don't like it, don't read it. I don't know how many times it has to be said. It's tiring. 

Jamal's 40 point game was everything we loved and hated about Jamal...of course we're going to talk about it. What else are we going to do...talk with co-workers about Jamal? Chat up someone at the supermarket about it? Only other Bulls die-hards understand. Please make an effort to do so yourself. 


Sigh.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Are Okafor's outings this season meaningless?


Are you really comparing one game to a season?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing one game to a season?


No... but if Okafor pulls down a double-double in a losing effort... you are saying its meaningless.

I disagree.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> No... but if Okafor pulls down a double-double in a losing effort... you are saying its meaningless.


I said no such thing.

Glorious statistics in _a blowout_ are relatively meaningless, is my belief. And that belief is encompassed in what I've said so far.

As it is: Okafurs team is overachieving and he's proving himself worthy of being ROY.


----------



## kukoc4ever

meaningless?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005011430
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005010719
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005010114
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2004122727


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> meaningless?
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005011430
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005010719
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005010114
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2004122727


Relatively meaningless.

I'm sure they mean something to him because it's his rookie season, and his first time playing against many of these players, maybe for his ROY hopes...

...But by and large...they don't and won't mean much in the larger sense of the league and the team.

"Ah...I remember when I scored 17 and pulled down 6 against the Hawks my rookie season..."

"Didja win the game Grandpa?"

"Oh no...but still, it's packed with meaning"





EDIT: How long did that take you anyway? Seems like a relatively meaningless exertion of energy to me.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Relatively meaningless.
> 
> I'm sure they mean something to him because it's his rookie season, and his first time playing against many of these players, maybe for his ROY hopes...
> 
> ...But by and large...they don't and won't mean much in the larger sense of the league and the team.
> 
> "Ah...I remember when I scored 17 and pulled down 6 against the Hawks my rookie season..."
> 
> "Didja win the game Grandpa?"
> 
> "Oh no...but still, it's packed with meaning"


Did he have a good game on those nights?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> EDIT: How long did that take you anyway? Seems like a relatively meaningless exertion of energy to me.


You could say that about many of our conversations on this thread. 

(about 2 minutes)


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Did he have a good game on those nights?


What's your point?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> What's your point?


I just want to know if you think its possible for Okafor to have a good game but have his team lose by a wide margin.


----------



## GB

.


----------



## GB

In a absolute sense or in a relative sense?

I suppose there are occasions when a player could have a monster game and if the blowout takes place in the last minutes you could call it a good game.


Everything is relative.


----------



## lgtwins

Another factor you, K4E, didn't want to acknowledge is that Okafo brought his game almost every night and gave you double-double and shot-blocking. On the other hand, even you have to admit that Jamal tends to have couple of off-game in between his 30 or 40 points games. As everybody pointed out for the last couple of years, nobody, even anti-Jamal camp, deny he has the talent per se. It was always about whether he can compete day in day out. It's always about consistency.

So it's more about preferring one style over the other. Not necessarily about one style is better than the other. If you ask me, my answer is I prefer Okafo over Jamal, but you would probably already know the answer.


----------



## bullsville

I think this would be a good time to mention that Jamal (34.5%) barely shoots 3's better than Duhon (32.7%). And Duhon is a rookie who is coming on strong, he's at 40.9% in January.

Ouch.


----------



## spongyfungy

That was a sick move though on Cleveland


----------



## Xantos

How in the hell is there 81 pages of disscusions about Crawford on this board??? Why do we care what he does now that he is not a Bull...He didn't win with the Bulls, nor is he winning with the Knicks.....:laugh:


----------



## jokeaward

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> And Duhon is a rookie who is coming on strong, he's at 40.9% in January.


I like Duhon, but I didn;t know things were going THAT well for Chicago!


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>jokeaward</b>!
> 
> 
> I like Duhon, but I didn;t know things were going THAT well for Chicago!


He's been even better in the last 5 games (all Bulls wins):

28.8 min
.447 FG
.409 3's
1.000 FT
4.0 reb
6.2 ast
2.0 TO
1.60 stl
9.6 pts 

22 of his 38 FGA have been 3's, and he's putting up 1.26 pts/FGA.

BRILLIANT!


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>Xantos</b>!
> How in the hell is there 81 pages of disscusions about Crawford on this board??? Why do we care what he does now that he is not a Bull...He didn't win with the Bulls, nor is he winning with the Knicks.....:laugh:


This thread now has more than half as many posts _as there are on the entire Milwaukee Bucks forum._


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal looks to have the heart of a champion.

The Knicks were in a death spiral.

He lays it all out there against the Suns but its not enough to best one of the best teams in the league.

Is he dejected? Does he give up?

No.

He refuses to let the Knicks lose.

22 points. 4 rebounds. 4 assists. 3 steals for the worst defense player ever to play the game. 3 3 pointers. 8-20 shooting. Perfect from the line. Down go the Cavs.

Good games back to back. 

The Knicks are only 1.5 games out of re-capturing the division.


----------



## bullsville

Jamal had a nice game last night, but let's not forget that the Cavs played without that LeBron guy, I hear he's pretty good...

Let's see what Jamal can do against the Pistons tonight. 


39.0 min
.381 FG
.412 3pt
.824 FT
4.0 reb
6.7 ast
2.33 stl
17.7 pts 

That's what our starting SG has done against Detroit this season.
________________________


23.0 min
.463 FG
.700 3pt
.833 FT
3.7 reb
1.3 ast
16.7 pts

That's what Gordon, the other half of our SG combo, has done in 3 games against the Pistons this season.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Jamal vs the pistons this year 

mpg 44.0 
fg%.421 
3fg%.667 
ft%1.000 
stls 1.00 
blocks 2.00 
t/os 2.0 
rebs 4.0 
*** 5.0 
ppg 25.0 

 

I never for once thought of it as jamal OR Gordon,Deng,Nocioni but as how all of them could fit into the rotation.Jamal on ths team wouldve made is stronger but our rooks have done a great job on their own as well.


----------



## Xantos

Hey Moderator...How about moving this to the Knicks board, I would think that's were it needs to be. Crawford fans should go with it! :|


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Jamal vs the pistons this year
> 
> mpg 44.0
> fg%.421
> 3fg%.667
> ft%1.000
> stls 1.00
> blocks 2.00
> t/os 2.0
> rebs 4.0
> *** 5.0
> ppg 25.0
> 
> 
> 
> I never for once thought of it as jamal OR Gordon,Deng,Nocioni but as how all of them could fit into the rotation.Jamal on ths team wouldve made is stronger but our rooks have done a great job on their own as well.


That was a good game, I hope Jamal can lead the Knicks to a win tonight over the Pistons- if DET loses and we win, we'll only be one game behind them in the standings (even in the loss column at 19).

And I do think of it as Jamal OR, because Jamal would be taking minutes from players, and I think it's fair to compare Jamal with his replacements. It's just not Deng or Nocioni, they are pretty much splitting the SF minutes and their PT wouldn't be affected even if we had re-signed Jamal.

Kirk is playing about 13 minutes a game at SG, Ben about 22, and Pike the other 13 for the most part. Kirk has given us better defense than Jamal would be, Ben has given us much more efficient scoring, and Pike has given us much better 3-point shooting. 

So I fail to see how Jamal would have "made our team stronger". IMHO, the guys who have "replaced" him are doing a better job than he ever did, and better than he is doing now in NY.

And if Jamal were still here, Duhon would probably have never gotten any PT as JC, Kirk and Ben would get all the run at guard. And Duhon has most definitely earned his 24 minutes, we're 22-10 with him as our starting PG, his defense has been downright outstanding, AND he's even shooting the ball better than Jamal in January.

If we would have kept Jamal, we wouldn't have Pike (9th in the NBA on 3's) and we wouldn't have Othella, who has been very good off the bench and close to an All-Star in his 6 starts:

27.2 min
.640 FG
12.2 pts
4.7 reb

So it really *has* to be "Jamal OR", because *with* Jamal we don't have Pike or Harrington and Duhon doesn't play.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Jamal looks to have the heart of a champion.
> 
> The Knicks were in a death spiral.
> 
> He lays it all out there against the Suns but its not enough to best one of the best teams in the league.
> 
> Is he dejected? Does he give up?
> 
> No.
> 
> He refuses to let the Knicks lose.
> 
> 22 points. 4 rebounds. 4 assists. 3 steals for the worst defense player ever to play the game. 3 3 pointers. 8-20 shooting. Perfect from the line. Down go the Cavs.
> 
> Good games back to back.
> 
> The Knicks are only 1.5 games out of re-capturing the division.


Jamal played a hell of a game. Drove the lane a couple of times. Tenacious defense even. If he put that kind of both side of the court effort in back to back games for the Bulls EVER, I never would have supported a trade. But remember -- Jamal was part of that porous defensive effort against Phoenix every bit as much as he put in the time on D last night.

"Heart of a champion" is laying it on a little thick, just yet. 

I'll be glad for Crawford if the bell has rung in his head, like it seems to have for Tyson and Eddy. If he really has overcome his fear of contact and developed a consistent interest in playing defense, he just might be a player yet.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal played a hell of a game. Drove the lane a couple of times. Tenacious defense even. If he put that kind of both side of the court effort in back to back games for the Bulls EVER, I never would have supported a trade. But remember -- Jamal was part of that porous defensive effort against Phoenix every bit as much as he put in the time on D last night.
> 
> "Heart of a champion" is laying it on a little thick, just yet.
> 
> I'll be glad for Crawford if the bell has rung in his head, like it seems to have for Tyson and Eddy. If he really has overcome his fear of contact and developed a consistent interest in playing defense, he just might be a player yet.


Let's not forget LeBron was out against the Knicks...I highly doubt the Knicks win that one if he plays.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal played a hell of a game. Drove the lane a couple of times. Tenacious defense even. If he put that kind of both side of the court effort in back to back games for the Bulls EVER, I never would have supported a trade. But remember -- Jamal was part of that porous defensive effort against Phoenix every bit as much as he put in the time on D last night.
> 
> "Heart of a champion" is laying it on a little thick, just yet.
> 
> *I'll be glad for Crawford if the bell has rung in his head, like it seems to have for Tyson and Eddy. If he really has overcome his fear of contact and developed a consistent interest in playing defense, he just might be a player yet.*


Me, too... I'm still holding on to two of Jamal's rookie cards- one autographed, one game-worn jersey- in hopes that he'll someday put all that talent to work.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Jamal looks to have the heart of a champion.
> 
> The Knicks were in a death spiral.
> 
> He refuses to let the Knicks lose.
> 
> 22 points. 4 rebounds. 4 assists. 3 steals for the worst defense player ever to play the game. 3 3 pointers. 8-20 shooting. Perfect from the line. Down go the Cavs.
> 
> Good games back to back.
> 
> The Knicks are only 1.5 games out of re-capturing the division.


Please indicate in some way that this post is being sarcastic. "He refuses to let the Knicks lose"?! If LeBRON were playing in that game the Knick easily loses it's 8th game in a row (12 of it's last 13). Yet somehow JACK's .400 shooting and making ALL (3) of his free-throws shows the heart of a champion? You do realize that most of the coverage gives credit for this win to ANFERNEE "PENNY" (I made a 5 on my ACT) HARDAWAY?

Where were you in the mindless support of the Bull when we traded CRAWSOVER to your beloved Knick?!

OUCH!!!

It's amazing how this boy with the "heart of a champion" goes from the worst six year stretch for any franchise in the history of the league to a division champion and singlehandedly reverses the fortunes of both teams.

"Refuses to lose?!"

It's all he knows how to do.


----------



## Bolts

Here's something you don't see everyday:

Knicks pistons - 2nd quarter

"10:15 NY - J. Crawford drives to the hoop for a layup "

definitely noteworthy


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> Here's something you don't see everyday:
> 
> Knicks pistons - 2nd quarter
> 
> "10:15 NY - J. Crawford drives to the hoop for a layup "
> 
> definitely noteworthy


I saw that when I looked in at the box score...

Does anyone have a video of this? I still have to see it to believe it...


----------



## truebluefan

heart of a champion? Bulls have a 10 game swing without Crawford. We were 12-29 at this time last season. 

NY? 18-24, last year, 2003-204 is not posted at nba.com. I can say that NY has the EXACT same record they had 2 years ago at this time. 18-24.


----------



## truebluefan

Knicks lost by 30. Have now lost 12 of the last 14 games. 

Crawford 14 pts, 0-5 in threes. 

I did not know this point, NY has not won back to back games all season. At least that is what the guy on WGN said at HT.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> Here's something you don't see everyday:
> 
> Knicks pistons - 2nd quarter
> 
> "10:15 NY - J. Crawford drives to the hoop for a layup "
> 
> definitely noteworthy


Here's something you DO see everyday:

Piston -- 91
Knick -- 61

Jamal showing he CAN play defense in holding the Knick to only 61 points with his 33% shooting!

"Heart of a champion!"


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> NY? 18-24, last year, 2003-204 is not posted at nba.com. I can say that NY has the EXACT same record they had 2 years ago at this time. 18-24.


The Knick was 19-24 after 43 games last season. They are one behind last season's record. After acquiring Starbury, though, they improved a lot. Apparently that improvement was temporary.


----------



## GB

Heart of a...?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> heart of a champion? Bulls have a 10 game swing without Crawford. We were 12-29 at this time last season.
> 
> NY? 18-24, last year, 2003-204 is not posted at nba.com. I can say that NY has the EXACT same record they had 2 years ago at this time. 18-24.


Both teams are radically different from last season. Your points are meaningless, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Houston hurt.
Penny hurt.
Marbury invisible.
Thomas ineffective.

No... Jamal can't do it all himself... he's not that kinda player. 

I guess that's why he's only making 5.8 million this year.

Hinrich and Crawford both shooting 39% now. Crawford shoots better than Hinrich from the FT line of course. And he gets to the line more as well.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Houston hurt.
> Penny hurt.
> Marbury invisible.
> Thomas ineffective.
> 
> No... Jamal can't do it all himself... he's not that kinda player.
> 
> I guess that's why he's only making 5.8 million this year.
> 
> Hinrich and Crawford both shooting 39% now. Crawford shoots better than Hinrich from the FT line of course. And he gets to the line more as well.


wait a minute. How can that be excuses? The team had the same record last year. They acquired marbury and penny and went on a roll. Houston was hurt last year as well. Off-season they get Nazr and JYD and superstar JC and the team is 7 games under 500. They lost Mutomobo and Harrington. If JC has the heart of a champion doesn't that mean he straps the team to his back and insist they win? Doesn't that mean he refuses to lose? 

So what happens? The bulls get 4 rookies, take Harrington and pike and Griffin and we are 10 games better than last year w/o JC. We heard it all this last summer and fall. The Bulls will regret letting JC go! Well so far, that is not the case. And what was it JC said in NY? Glad that he is playing for a real organization or real team? He said that before he even practiced with a team. His heart of champion sent a slam our way with that remark. 

Yeah, Hinrich shoots a low pct. But he does not take as many bad shots. Most of his shots are in the offense. And Hinrich has lead us to 22 victories. 13-3 this last month. BIG difference.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Both teams are radically different from last season. Your points are meaningless, IMO.


Actually, the Knicks top 6 scorers from last season are all back- about the only guys they lost are the ones they gave us for Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> wait a minute. How can that be excuses? The team had the same record last year. They acquired marbury and penny and went on a roll. Houston was hurt last year as well. Off-season they get Nazr and JYD and superstar JC and the team is 7 games under 500.


Nobody thinks Jamal is a superstar. He certainly is not paid that way. Only 5.8 million. Cheap.

Marbury was invisible tonight and Penny didn't play. If you'll take of the hating cap for a minute and take an honest look @ the box score you'll agree. Thomas sucked as well.



> They lost Mutomobo and Harrington. If JC has the heart of a champion doesn't that mean he straps the team to his back and insist they win? Doesn't that mean he refuses to lose?


No man can go it alone every night. 



> So what happens? The bulls get 4 rookies, take Harrington and pike and Griffin and we are 10 games better than last year w/o JC. We heard it all this last summer and fall. The Bulls will regret letting JC go! Well so far, that is not the case.


Yah... no kidding. Paxson hit a home run in the draft. The towers vision was realized. Almost everyone here didn't think the Bulls would be over .500 and make the playoffs. Did you?



> And what was it JC said in NY? Glad that he is playing for a real organization or real team? He said that before he even practiced with a team. His heart of champion sent a slam our way with that remark.


As well he should have given the way the organization treated him. 



> Yeah, Hinrich shoots a low pct. But he does not take as many bad shots. Most of his shots are in the offense. And Hinrich has lead us to 22 victories. 13-3 this last month. BIG difference.


Deng. Gordon. Curry. Chandler. Duhon. Hinrich.

The Bulls are a team. 

Take Crawford off the Knicks and replace him with Hinrich.... and the Knicks still struggle.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Both teams are radically different from last season. Your points are meaningless, IMO.


NY isnt! The main players are still there. 

And we have rookies playing major minutes for us. We should be doing a hell of a lot worse than NY, if JC is all that. 

My points are meaningless? OKKKKKKKKK. I will go talk to another brick wall and see if it will listen.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, the Knicks top 6 scorers from last season are all back- about the only guys they lost are the ones they gave us for Jamal.



Houston hurt.
Penny hurt.
Tim Thomas hurt.

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

Come on man.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks Jamal is a superstar. He certainly is not paid that way. Only 5.8 million. Cheap.
> 
> Marbury was invisible tonight and Penny didn't play. If you'll take of the hating cap for a minute and take an honest look @ the box score you'll agree. Thomas sucked as well.
> 
> 
> 
> No man can go it alone every night.
> 
> 
> 
> Yah... no kidding. Paxson hit a home run in the draft. The towers vision was realized. Almost everyone here didn't think the Bulls would be over .500 and make the playoffs. Did you?
> 
> 
> 
> As well he should have given the way the organization treated him.
> 
> 
> 
> Deng. Gordon. Curry. Chandler. Duhon. Hinrich.
> 
> The Bulls are a team.
> 
> Take Crawford off the Knicks and replace him with Hinrich.... and the Knicks still struggle.


Hating cap? I have told you before, I do not hate Crawford. I just think he is not all that! Especially the way you build him up. Why do you use that word so freely? You feel justified to try and get under my skin? I have been talking about Crawford and not you. 

I see things as I see them and I will praise him when I see it and I will criticize him when he deserves it. 

I disagree. Take Hinrich off of the bulls and put JC here? The records would be reversed. Hinrich plays both ends of the court. 

We lost the game tonight because Hinrich fouled out IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> NY isnt! The main players are still there.
> 
> And we have rookies playing major minutes for us. We should be doing a hell of a lot worse than NY, if JC is all that.
> 
> My points are meaningless? OKKKKKKKKK. I will go talk to another brick wall and see if it will listen.


They are not on the court. 

Look at the box score from tonight.

Here's a link.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005012908

Azaria. On the team last year?
Brewer. On the team last year?

Where's Houston?
Where's Thomas?
Where's Penny?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. Take Hinrich off of the bulls and put JC here? The records would be reversed. Hinrich plays both ends of the court.


Do you really believe this?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> We lost the game tonight because Hinrich fouled out IMO.



I agree... and that's not a compliment to Hinrich.

He was not his usual self tonight. Bad on D. Bad on O. Grabbed some boards... but he was playing @ 1/2 speed it seemed. Not the usual intensity. Same with the Bobcats game.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Houston hurt.
> Penny hurt.
> Tim Thomas hurt.
> 
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NYK&lg=n&yr=2003
> 
> Come on man.


Houston has missed 22 games.

Penny has missed 26.

Tim Thomas has missed 7 games.

Only one of the 3 guys above are even starters- and Tim Thomas is, by far, the Knicks' worst starter. If Jamal were a difference-maker, his addition should pretty much offset the loss of your worst starter (for 7 whole games) and 2 bench players (for half the season each).


----------



## superdave

So did Jamal have the heart of a champion tonight? Just curious....

That toe must really be bothering him b/c he's only shot over 40% one time in 7 games since being back.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Houston has missed 22 games.
> 
> Penny has missed 26.
> 
> Tim Thomas has missed 7 games.
> 
> Only one of the 3 guys above are even starters- and Tim Thomas is, by far, the Knicks' worst starter. If Jamal were a difference-maker, his addition should pretty much offset the loss of your worst starter (for 7 whole games) and 2 bench players (for half the season each).


Thomas ineffective.
Houston gone.
Penny gone.

Knicks still have a shot at the division.

He has pretty much offset their loss.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Hinrich and Crawford both shooting 39% now. Crawford shoots better than Hinrich from the FT line of course. And he gets to the line more as well.


But is <1/3 the leader Hinrich is.


Ah...intangibles. It's great to have chemistry...


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> They are not on the court.
> 
> Look at the box score from tonight.
> 
> Here's a link.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005012908
> 
> Azaria. On the team last year?
> Brewer. On the team last year?
> 
> Where's Houston?
> Where's Thomas?
> Where's Penny?


You're hurting your own cause here, Ariza has been as good as Penny this season.

The Knicks were mediocre last year, they're mediocre (at best) this year, and they'll be mediocre for years to come because they sign guys like Jamal and think they will make a difference in the "Win" column, but they (and he) don't increase the win total much, if at all.

That's just a fact- you can look at their records over the years, they are always right around .500 despite having the league's highest payroll.


----------



## truebluefan

he was close to a triple double dispite his slow play. 

As for being his fault for fouling out? Maybe. Some calls were questionable. But thats neither here nor there. 

Getting back to Jamal, one more thing and then I will quit for tonight. Arguement sake, lest say what you said is true. All of those guys hurt. Jamal played 37 minutes, 14 pts. He missed a chance to step it up when the team needed him to. 

And another thing. I may have used the wrong term in calling JC a superstar. You disagreed as you should have. I just thought saying he has the heart of a champion is a bit much considering his winning pct of the teams he has played for. Someone with the heart of a champion is a winner. Not someone who is consistantly playing for a lossing team. 

He may very well be a great player someday. I hope he does.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> So did Jamal have the heart of a champion tonight? Just curious....
> 
> That toe must really be bothering him b/c he's only shot over 40% one time in 7 games since being back.


Crawford and Hinrich shoot the same %. Direct the same hate his way.

What is so significant about 40% with you people? Strange.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> But is <1/3 the leader Hinrich is.
> 
> Ah...intangibles. It's great to have chemistry...


Its also great to have Gordon, Deng, Duhon, fit Curry, Nocioni and healthy Chandler.

Just curious... what "leadership index" are you using to come up with the < 1/3?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> My points are meaningless? OKKKKKKKKK. I will go talk to another brick wall and see if it will listen.



 

True has been throwing around some pretty serious smack lately.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford and Hinrich shoot the same %. Direct the same hate his way.
> 
> What is so significant about 40% with you people? Strange.


you didn't answer my question.

Did Jamal play with a heart of a champion tonight or what?


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Thomas ineffective.
> Houston gone.
> Penny gone.
> 
> Knicks still have a shot at the division.
> 
> He has pretty much offset their loss.


So Jamal has offset the loss of two over-paid, broken-down veterans? And he has managed to keep the Knicks at .419, despite the fact that they were .476 last season.

I'm very proud of him. :laugh:


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you really believe this?


Yes I do. Why shouldn't I? Hinrich plays a complete game.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> Getting back to Jamal, one more thing and then I will quit for tonight. Arguement sake, lest say what you said is true. All of those guys hurt. Jamal played 37 minutes, 14 pts. He missed a chance to step it up when the team needed him to.
> 
> And another thing. I may have used the wrong term in calling JC a superstar. You disagreed as you should have. I just thought saying he has the heart of a champion is a bit much considering his winning pct of the teams he has played for. Someone with the heart of a champion is a winner. Not someone who is consistantly playing for a lossing team.
> 
> He may very well be a great player someday. I hope he does.


He's earning his paycheck this season. That much is certain. 5.8 million.

Crawford did step up the last two nights.... but he's not a superstar... he can't carry a team on his own. Where's Marbury? Where MAX Tim Thomas? Where is Penny? Houston?


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True has been throwing around some pretty serious smack lately.


:laugh:


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford and Hinrich shoot the same %. Direct the same hate his way.


I'm sure that if Hinrich were to be like Jamal and not play defense, he would be getting some hate as well.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> He's earning his paycheck this season. That much is certain. 5.8 million.
> 
> Crawford did step up the last two nights.... but he's not a superstar... he can't carry a team on his own. Where's Marbury? Where MAX Tim Thomas? Where is Penny? Houston?


focus!!! We are talking about JC. Your the one that has built him up.  In fact I am not so sure JC can live up the hype you have him at! 

He has earned his paycheck. I will say that.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True has been throwing around some pretty serious smack lately.


And smoking some pretty serious crack if he really believes this.



> I disagree. Take Hinrich off of the bulls and put JC here? The records would be reversed. Hinrich plays both ends of the court.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> focus!!! We are talking about JC. Your the one that has built him up.  In fact I am not so sure JC can live up the hype you have him at!
> 
> He has earned his paycheck. I will say that.



I'm the one saying over and over that he's not a superstar.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure that if Hinrich were to be like Jamal and not play defense, he would be getting some hate as well.


1.4 steals per game and 0.4 blocks per game = no defense?

How do you think he's fooling the statistician?

Mirrors?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Did Jamal play with a heart of a champion tonight or what?


Sometimes heart ain't enough.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Just curious... what "leadership index" are you using to come up with the < 1/3?


:laugh: 

No really:

:laugh: 


Leadership Index?


:laugh: 


Do we measure coaches and players by a leadership index? 

Please, point to the various ones in use, since you're asking me which specific one I used.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> You're hurting your own cause here, Ariza has been as good as Penny this season.


Errr.... no. I'm saying that the Knicks are a pretty different team right now than they were last season.

You seemed to incorrectly disagree. Now you are changing the subject.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And smoking some pretty serious crack if he really believes this.


You put Jamal on this team to start the season in KH's place, and we would never have exited the tailspin of that nine game losing streak.

I think theres more correlation between Jamals departure and Eddy's maturity than there is between Eddy's maturity and his contract year too.

Nope...I'm not using a maturity index. :grinning:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> No really:
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> 
> Leadership Index?
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> 
> Do we measure coaches and players by a leadership index?
> 
> Please, point to the various ones in use, since you're asking me which specific one I used.


 

I'm just wondering where you came up with the 1/3 number.

I don't know of a "leadership index" either... which pretty much verifies where you pulled the 1/3 from.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 1.4 steals per game and 0.4 blocks per game = no defense?
> 
> How do you think he's fooling the statistician?
> 
> Mirrors?


Statistics tell the whole story?

Just Yes or No please.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I don't know of a "leadership index" either... which pretty much verifies where you pulled the 1/3 from.


Yeeep.

Same place that 'heart of a champion' statement came from.


Noone would argue that KH is a better leader than Jamal but you. I won't debate it...you're just trying to pass time with that one.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You put Jamal on this team to start the season in KH's place, and we would never have exited the tailspin of that nine game losing streak.


And perhaps the Bulls don't even start 0-9.



> I think theres more correlation between Jamals departure and Eddy's maturity than there is between Eddy's maturity and his contract year too.
> 
> Nope...I'm not using a maturity index. :grinning:


I think the current Bulls are OK as well. 

We've replaced our streaky scorer with a shorter streaky scorer that seems even worse on defense.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> Noone would argue that KH is a better leader than Jamal but you. I won't debate it...you're just trying to pass time with that one.


Where do you see me arguing this?

And yes… I am passing the time tonight on the “Crawford Update” thread… its always a good time.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Statistics tell the whole story?
> 
> Just Yes or No please.


Of course not.

All I'm saying is that "no defense" != 1.4 spg and 0.4 bpg.

I don't think you would disagree.


----------



## GB

You have a very Mariotti like personality.



Peace.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Errr.... no. I'm saying that the Knicks are a pretty different team right now than they were last season.
> 
> You seemed to incorrectly disagree. Now you are changing the subject.


NO, I am correctly disagreeing. The Knicks right now have Marbury, Houston, Nazr, Kurt Thomas, Penny, and Tim Thomas, just like last season.

How can a team that returns it's top 6 scorers be "a pretty different team"? 

Vin Baker, Mike Sweetney, Bruno Sundov and Moochie Norris are still there as well. That's 10 players from last season- the Knicks traded Harrington, Mutombo, FWill and Trybanski to get Jamal, there's 4 more.

So out of a 15-man roster, the Knicks still have 10 of those guys and only lost 11-14 because Isiah wanted Jamal so bad that he traded them.

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


So out of a 15-man roster from last year, the Knicks still have 10 of those guys... how, exactly, can they be a "pretty different team" than they were last year? It's lunacy to suggest that.

Hell, if you look around the league, a lot of teams probably don't even have 10 of their 15 players from the end of last season.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> NO, I am correctly disagreeing. The Knicks right now have Marbury, Houston, Nazr, Kurt Thomas, Penny, and Tim Thomas, just like last season.


3 of those guys are not currently playing and 2 of them have pretty much missed the whole season.

 

I'm calling it a nite.

PEACE to all!


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 3 of those guys are not currently playing and 2 of them have pretty much missed the whole season.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling it a nite.
> 
> PEACE to all!


No, like I said before, 2 of them have missed HALF the season, not "pretty much the whole season".

When you have to start lying to make your point, your point is obviously worthless, as is ths conversation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Houston hurt.
> Penny hurt.
> Marbury invisible.
> Thomas ineffective.
> 
> No... Jamal can't do it all himself... he's not that kinda player.
> 
> I guess that's why he's only making 5.8 million this year.
> 
> Hinrich and Crawford both shooting 39% now. Crawford shoots better than Hinrich from the FT line of course. And he gets to the line more as well.


 

Come on, man. "He's not that kinda player?" This is the guy you identified as having "The Heart of a Champion" **sound off trumpets -- dododo DOOOOO!** the Superman, the Übermensch who would not accept his team losing and singlehandedly willed them to a win last week.

But, as I mentioned in a post yesterday, if Jamal put in the kind of effort he did the other night on a regular basis, I'd never have supported his departure. But as I said, I can't recall Jamal bringing it like that in back to back games in his entire tenure as a Bull. Sure enough:

There he was yesterday, lulled to sleep with the rest of the quallude crew that is the NY Knicks, doing nothing in particular to slow the downward spiral of the franchise. Another weak defensive effort as a team. The team flirting with the franchise low for points scored, Jamal showed yet again (as you seem to now concede) that Jamal is not a leader. He is not the one who is going to take the team on his back when they struggle. Which is fine, if you are going to concede that he is a shooting guard with average skills, and a nice crossover, who can put up big numbers on the nights his shot is falling and waste possessions on the Jack Nights. A nice luxury on the hot nights, but you can't count on him. And who gives 120% when the mood suits him, but is just as prone to giving up. Which is how I see the situation.

Yesterday was the more typical Jamal -- well, looks like we're gonna lose this one -- oh well. When I get home I'll light them up on NBA2K5, and I'll feel better. I had one good game this week -- that'll keep them off my back.

Jamal 5-14, 0-5 from 3, 4 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers. Didn't really phone the game in any less than his sad sack teammates. 

"Heart of a Champion" indeed. 

Not sure why you bring up Kirk in your defense of Sleepy. Granted, both have unremarkable shooting percentages. What you forget to mention is that Kirk plays defense EVERY game, not just once or twice a month. He is the acknowledged Bulls team leader -- the soul of a team that has turned itself around from a pathetic 0-9 start to one of the most exciting teams playing in the past 6 weeks. 

If your took a poll -- a league-wide poll, not just this little Bulls board -- I am willing to bet anything that Kirk would positively SMOKE Jamal in a comparison of which one -- Kirk or Jamal --players, coaches, GMs, announcers and fans thought played "with the heart of a champion." Can you possibly disagree with that assessment with a straight face? I didn't think so.

Game over.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

The Bulls/Jamal comparison should probably be to Ben, who replaced Jamal, and who has a better shooting percentage (43.6%) than Jamal, as a rookie. And lets not forget that Ben's percentages are weighed down by his early rookie games, when his shot was not falling at all. Jamal is getting outplayed by a rook.

As to Kirk vs Jamal -- yes, they has similar shooting percentages, and Jamal gets more free throws.

But also consider that Kirk is outrebounding Jamal, and gets twice as many assists.

And again -- which one has the Heart of a Champion? Anyone want to pick Jamal over Kirk in that catagory? And for those Jamal diehard(s) brave enough to take that stance, do you admit that you are very likely very much in the minority with that opinion?


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And smoking some pretty serious crack if he really believes this.


My eyes and heart are clear. I see what I see. Nothing is clouded. No "hate"

I tell you what K4e. Obviously you love JC as a player that is cool. If you think I am on crack, you go to any NY board and post a poll. Ask them what I said to you. Go to any Bulls forum on the interet and put in the same poll. If I was a betting man, I would think you would be shocked with the answer you get. If I am right, would you say the mnajority of Buls fans are on crack? Or could they, me be right? 

Trouble is we may never really know the real answer but we are talking about speculation. 

No need to try and belittle me because I disagree with you. Focus on JC. You seem to drift a little and try and attack me some. No need in that. That is twcie you made remarks about me. No need to make it personal. This is about JC and not you and me. 

Now! Now lets see, would we have been 0-9? We would have started 0-3 for sure. Hinrich had 34 in the loss to NY. So I will give JC the same amount of points for that game. The next two we were blown out. We already know how JC plays when we are blown out. (or NY for that matter, because no matter how many excuses or finger pointing you do to justify a blow out loss, JC was still and is still part of those losses)

Game 4. We lost by one. 11 t/o could be the reason why we almost won the game. Hinrich 4-12 and 3-4 in threes. Sounds somewhat like Jamal? Yes, but then again what defense would JC had played? This was the game on WGN where we started quickly and had over 20 pt lead on them. Bobby Simmons led a 23-5 run and that is what cost us. If Hinrich and Duhon could not have stopped Simmons JC could not have. But then, maybe JC has one of great games? We really do not know the correct answer to this! But I am willing to concede we win our first game. 

We lose the next 6 games including the utah win. Gordon had 22 in that win and Hinrich 17. My reasoning for this is JC learned how to play on the streets and from Jalen. He has the mentaliity that no matter how things are going he is going to "get his" meaning his share of shots. Plenty of them. If he does not get them in the offense he will take a shot on his own. Dribble, dribble step back and shoot. Two guys on him? Thats ok, he will shoot anyway. What I am getting at Gordon would not have scored 22 pts that night against Utah. JC would have taken some of his shots and more than likely cost us the game. 

That is another point in arguing about Hinrich and JC. JC will take shots. Plenty of them. Actually at nY his shots have fallen off. Last year, Crawford shot almost 50 more FGA than Hinrich and 160 more threes. This season both guys are about even. in fga and three pt attempts The difference on having JC here as oppossed to Hinrich is JC would take more shots than Hinrich does. He did last year and many times that got him benched. The mosre shots he takes the less shots Gordon or Deng would get. 

Our record would be worse than it is now. A lot worse. 

this is my opinion, no kool-aid no crack. 

I did want JC to stay here with Hinrich. I think if that had happened we win a couple of those 0-9 losses. But then the development of Gordon and Duhon would have been slower. So who is to say having JC on this team would have been all that miuch better? This comes from a guy who wanted him to stay and improve. 

Now, what about you? What do you think our record would have been if JC stayed. (no Harrington Piatowski Griffin) What would our record had been had John traded hinrich instead of JC? Give me reasons why? Specifics. I will admit some nights JC would have scored and scored a lot. Other nights he would have shot us out of games. He did last year. this hurts the whole idea of team play and development. 

Hinrich averages over twice as many assists than does Crawford. He shares the scoring load.


----------



## truebluefan

Hinrich. No doubt.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Hinrich. No doubt.


I'm assuming this is your Heart of a Champion vote?

By gum, I think I will actually start a poll...


----------



## The True Essence

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> No, like I said before, 2 of them have missed HALF the season, not "pretty much the whole season".
> 
> When you have to start lying to make your point, your point is obviously worthless, as is ths conversation.


houston has missed basically the whole season, he hasnt given any worthwhile minutes to the team the whole year. jamal missed a month, tim thomas hasnt played any real minutes in 2005(calf injury), pennys been in memphis the last month rehabbing. the teams been injured to death. and now Penny and ariza are injured. we have nobody on the wing now except Jamal.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

"Winning is a deodorant."
- Jamal Crawford

Which is why Crawford's nickname isn't "Speed Stick"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Penny, you are right. The injury bug has hit the Knicks hard. They have enough talent to compete much better (at least in the depleted East) than their record suggests. The freefall was certainly not Lenny's fault entirely, and it is unlikely to stop until you guys can get some more of the name players healthy and playing regular, productive minutes.


----------



## kukoc4ever

I'm not meaning to attack anyone personally. A lot of smack gets tossed around in the "Crawford Update" thread.

1.) "Heart of a Champion." As Wynn properly identified, that statement was typed with tounge firmly planted in cheek. Jamal seems to be playing pretty well for the Knicks and had solid back-to-back games. He’s playing well for the Knicks.

2.) Shooting %. I'm not trying to make this Kirk vs Jamal or even should the Bulls have kept Jamal at this point. I guess I'd just be interested in what the nickname JACK really means. Hinrich shoots the same % from the field and a poorer % from the FT line than Jamal. Why not criticize Hinrich? People complain that Jamal does not get to the FT line as much as he should (which i agree)... but he gets there more than Hinrich and does a better job hitting his FTs once he does. Why not criticize Hinrich? 

Those are valid criticisms of Jamal. But the myopic focus on Jamal's fg% (take a look at eFG where he fares a little better) while ignoring the same deficiency in our beloved Hinrich seems dishonest.

3.)

a.) "the knicks are slightly worse than they were last season"
b.) "the bulls are better than they were last season"
c.) "the knicks have the same team they did last season"

c is just false. The Knicks have been riddled with injuries... even Jamal missed 10 games. Thomas has been ineffective or hurt. Houston has been hurt most of the season. (and it DOES take several games to get back into your old groove... especially for an old-timer like Houston). Penny has been hurt for most of the season. Its a different Knicks team. Much different than the one they expected going into the season.

So... when you are comparing this year's Knicks to last year's Knicks... you are not making an apples to apples comparison.

Same with talking about the Bulls record. Clearly the turnaround in the Bulls has a lot to do with the infusion of Deng, Duhon, Nocioni, Gordon, Chandler's health and Curry's fitness. None of these have anything to do with Jamal. Its not Jamal's departure that turned around the Bulls. 


4.)


> I disagree. Take Hinrich off of the bulls and put JC here? The records would be reversed. Hinrich plays both ends of the court.


The records would be reversed?

The Bulls would be 18-25 with Crawford in place of Hinrich? 
That Knicks team would be 22-20 with Hinrich is place of Crawford?

Hinrich is good... but not that good.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I call Jamal Jack because while the % between Kirk and Jamal are similar, it is my impression (and the stats may of may not back me up) that Jamal shoots is low percentage over the course of taking significantly more shot attempts per game. 

And Jamal has been in the league long enough that he should be further along in correcting the deficiencies in his game. Kirk can be frustrating as well when he's clanking (or when he is getting himself in early fould trouble) but seems to more consistently find other ways to contribute when the shot isn't falling.

Believe me, I _still_ get frustrated watching Jamal, even in his new uniform. I'd like to see the kid do well. And I'd like to see more games like he played the other night. He'd be a perrennial all-star. And I'd cheer for him.

Till then, he'll be Jack to me. And you know how it is with Jack. 15+ shots in a night and you are going to have a headache.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> 
> 
> houston has missed basically the whole season, he hasnt given any worthwhile minutes to the team the whole year. jamal missed a month, tim thomas hasnt played any real minutes in 2005(calf injury), pennys been in memphis the last month rehabbing. the teams been injured to death. and now Penny and ariza are injured. we have nobody on the wing now except Jamal.


The Knicks' starting PG, PF and C have played every game.

Jamal missed 10 games, and the Knicks went 4-6 (.400) without him. They are 14-19 (.424) with him, draw your own conclusions.

The Knicks' starting SF has played 36 of 43 games, he has missed half of January. He has played 25.1 minutes in January, 26.4 for the season, how is that "hasnt played any real minutes in 2005"? Why do people make stuff up if their point is valid?

So your starting 5 has missed a grand total of 17 games- I'd say that's among the lowest total in the league.

Houston has played in 20 of 43 games, how's that "basically the whole season"? That's basically HALF the season, at least using American math it is. 

And Penny has been hurt, in other news the sun rose in the east this morning. :laugh: In the last 8 seasons Penny has played 60 or more games THREE times. So it shouldn't be a surprise that he's hurt, at least not to anyone with a pulse.

And Houston is almost 34 and he's coming off major knee surgery- jeez, imagine the shock now that he has missed some games...  

Maybe your GM should have planned a little better, it didn't take Nostradamus to predict that Houston and especially Penny would spend some time on the Injured List.

Like I already said, your starters have missed a grand total of 17 games, that's nothing. If your two bench players who have each missed just over half the season were healthy, you MIGHT be a .500 team instead of 7 or 8 under .500- but every team has injuries, you'd think a team with a $100 million payroll would have the depth to overcome a few injuries to mostly bench players.

Oh wait, I forgot, the Knicks still suck, and Isiah is still not finished running them even further into the ground. It's nice as a Bulls fan to see the Ultimate Quitter drive our enemy's franchise farther down into the abyss.


----------



## The True Essence

but they have been useless in several games they played. completely useless because of injury. your record with jamal is BS, since with Jamal we were still missing other guys. 

How many games did Allan houston, Jamal, Tim and Penny play together in? im betting 0 or 1. so get real, the team hasnt been healthy. And yeah, you laugh at hardaway, but hes a key player off the bench and just because of his history doesnt mean you should just write him off as "not counting." I guess if Vince or Webber gets hurt, it doesnt count cause their injury prone. your team is still healthy

injuries have hurt the team. Your team hasnt had these same injury problems, so stop acting like your team is some kind of special team. Lets say Deng missed 20 games this year, Hinrich misses 10 games, etc. your team would suck too.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> but they have been useless in several games they played. completely useless because of injury. your record with jamal is BS, since with Jamal we were still missing other guys.
> 
> How many games did Allan houston, Jamal, Tim and Penny play together in? im betting 0 or 1. so get real, the team hasnt been healthy. And yeah, you laugh at hardaway, but hes a key player off the bench and just because of his history doesnt mean you should just write him off as "not counting." I guess if Vince or Webber gets hurt, it doesnt count cause their injury prone. your team is still healthy
> 
> injuries have hurt the team. Your team hasnt had these same injury problems, so stop acting like your team is some kind of special team. Lets say Deng missed 20 games this year, Hinrich misses 10 games, etc. your team would suck too.


Man, Knick fan is really defensive these days... too bad the team isn't defensive, they might win a few games. :laugh: 

Comparing Penny to Vince is one thing, but comparing him to CWebb? Now *that's* desperation.

I'm loving what the Bulls are doing this season, but a close second is watching the Knicks and Isiah suck and implode. One would think $100 million would buy you a little depth, but I guess everything costs more in New York.  

EDIT: BTW Knick fans, Shandon Anderson stepped in for Eddie Jones Friday night and put up 21 points on 7-11 shooting and 8 rebounds... gee, he might have come in handy on a team with 2 huge injury risks like Houston and Penny as your back-up wings?

But in good news for the Knicks, the NY Post is reporting that KG, Shaq and Duncan are all going to demand a trade to NY in the off-season.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> I call Jamal Jack because while the % between Kirk and Jamal are similar, it is my impression (and the stats may of may not back me up) that Jamal shoots is low percentage over the course of taking significantly more shot attempts per game.
> 
> And Jamal has been in the league long enough that he should be further along in correcting the deficiencies in his game. Kirk can be frustrating as well when he's clanking (or when he is getting himself in early fould trouble) but seems to more consistently find other ways to contribute when the shot isn't falling.
> 
> Believe me, I _still_ get frustrated watching Jamal, even in his new uniform. I'd like to see the kid do well. And I'd like to see more games like he played the other night. He'd be a perrennial all-star. And I'd cheer for him.
> 
> Till then, he'll be Jack to me. And you know how it is with Jack. 15+ shots in a night and you are going to have a headache.


Hinrich takes 14.1 FGA/game

Crawford takes 17.3 FGA/game

Both lead their teams in FGA/game

Crawford is #2 scorer on the Knicks (behind Marbury) at 19.1 PPG

Hinrich is the Bulls' leading scorer at 15.8 PPG

No opinions, just the data.


----------



## Da Grinch

in all fairness the knicks have had more than their fair share of injuries this season.

missed games out of the top 10 players due to injury :

Knicks 72

bulls 3

the more eyepopping number is easily the bulls who have been so healthy you cant help but be impressed by the good fortune.


----------



## The True Essence

yep, thats quite alot. im not surprised that guy didnt reply.

Knicks are gonna start trying to put Jamal at point since Marbury really isnt the best pg in the nba. sounds interesting...i wanted to ask you guys what you think of jamals playmaking skills.


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> yep, thats quite alot. im not surprised that guy didnt reply.
> 
> Knicks are gonna start trying to put Jamal at point since Marbury really isnt the best pg in the nba. sounds interesting...i wanted to ask you guys what you think of jamals playmaking skills.


If he'll have the ball more - he'll take more shots.

He has the handle , no doubt , but he ain't got the brain imo.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> If he'll have the ball more - he'll take more shots.
> 
> He has the handle , no doubt , but he ain't got the brain imo.


Just nailed it, in a nutshell. Crawdaddy is not smart enough to make it happen.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> yep, thats quite alot. im not surprised that guy didnt reply.
> 
> Knicks are gonna start trying to put Jamal at point since Marbury really isnt the best pg in the nba. sounds interesting...i wanted to ask you guys what you think of jamals playmaking skills.


Don't listen to these guys, they hate on JC all the time, I have followed JC probably more than anyone else on this board and I will tell you right now that his natural position is point guard and he will thrive in that role.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Jamal last 5 games 

23 ppg 
4 apg 
3 rpg 
82%ft 
45% 3fg 
45% fg 
40 mpg 

Part of the problem is that Marbury maybe forces him to be more of a spot up shooter than you would want but hes starting to mix it up more and more .


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't listen to these guys, they hate on JC all the time, *I have followed JC probably more than anyone else on this board* and I will tell you right now that his natural position is point guard and he will thrive in that role.


*Ace!* DEFINITELY has followed JC more than anyone else on this board...

...this just makes him biased, however, and not a very good source for objective Crawdaddy info.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Jamal last 5 games


Nice stats but the Knicks record is 1-4.

The kid is decent but I don't miss him at that contract.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> *Ace!* DEFINITELY has followed JC more than anyone else on this board...
> 
> ...this just makes him biased, however, and not a very good source for objective Crawdaddy info.


I'm really not biased. Crawford is my favorite NBA prospect but it is based on his abilities not on some inane liking of the guy.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice stats but the Knicks record is 1-4.
> 
> The kid is decent but I don't miss him at that contract.


And if you watch the games you will hear the announcers saying things like "Crawford is the only reason the Knicks are even close tonight". Not his fault that he is the only one stepping up. THe Knicks bigs have really started winding down from how they played earlier in the year and the team is riddled with injuries. Crawford can't win these games by himself you know? Moving him to the point should provide a nice lift.


----------



## johnston797

You could make a decent argument that Bulls should have signed JC and not drafted Gordon. Then the Bulls would still have a #1 pick. But they would also have JYD on the roster. Having both JC and JYD would make it much tougher so sign TC and EC. 

Also, the type of player the Bulls could really use - a big SG that's a very good defender. JC ain't.

And I don't need to watch every Knicks game to understand that.



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!Moving him to the point should provide a nice lift.


Are they moving him to point?


----------



## kukoc4ever

I like the current bulls team... but its clear that our situation at guard is less than perfect.

We are getting abused at times by the large, strong guards of the NBA (payton, davis, pierce) (kidd, carter). 


I wonder what a 3 guard rotation of Hinrich, Crawford and Hassell would have looked like on this current Bulls team?


----------



## mizenkay

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/sports/basketball/03knicks.html?oref=login




> In a locker room where failure and regret are now daily companions, perhaps no one has a stronger bond with those twin specters than Jamal Crawford.
> 
> And perhaps no one among the Knicks is more shellshocked now than Crawford, a 24-year-old starting guard.
> 
> He spent four miserable seasons in Chicago, where the Bulls were consistently awful, and went to New York last summer with high hopes. Isiah Thomas, the Knicks' president, acquired Crawford as part of a master plan to revive the flagging franchise.
> 
> But three months into Crawford's first Knicks season, nothing is as it seemed. And that master plan looks more flawed every day.
> 
> The Knicks have lost 14 of 16 games - their worst stretch in 18 years - and, with an 18-27 record, appear as hopeless and directionless as Crawford's Chicago teams did.
> 
> "It's not to that point yet," Crawford insisted late Tuesday night after the Knicks' 96-77 loss in Denver. *"We only won 19 games all last year, so we're already at that point. So it's not like Chicago."*


um, well, actually it was *23 games* jamal.



:|


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> You could make a decent argument that Bulls should have signed JC and not drafted Gordon. Then the Bulls would still have a #1 pick. But they would also have JYD on the roster. Having both JC and JYD would make it much tougher so sign TC and EC.
> 
> Also, the type of player the Bulls could really use - a big SG that's a very good defender. JC ain't.
> 
> And I don't need to watch every Knicks game to understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they moving him to point?


thats what the Knicks poster that started this discussion said. 


Jamal isn't a great defender, but he is improving and just having someone "regular" sized at the position would help.


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/sports/basketball/03knicks.html?oref=login
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, well, actually it was *23 games* jamal.
> 
> 
> 
> :|


Maybe he is talking about his first season as a Bull?


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe he is talking about his first season as a Bull?


"We only won 19 games *all last year*, so we're already at that point. So it's not like Chicago."


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Will this thread ever die? I think it's become obvious that Hinrich and Gordon are both much better than Crawford. Paxson made the right decision to make room for Gordon by letting Crawford go.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Right. The quote clearly refrences last year. His math for this year is slightly off, though...



> It's not to that point yet," Crawford insisted late Tuesday night after the Knicks' 96-77 loss in Denver. "We only won 19 games all last year, so we're already at that point. So it's not like Chicago."
> 
> Actually, the Knicks are one victory short of that, and they could be stuck at 18 for another week. Their next four opponents are Sacramento, Phoenix, Utah and Miami.
> 
> The defiant spirit that was once prominent among the Knicks is rapidly fading with each defeat. They are running out of explanations and excuses.


but I suppose that is nitpicking.


----------



## truebluefan

When you are a millionaire that plays basketball you don't need to know numbers. :grinning: 

This makes twice that Jamal has put us down. "Not like Chicago." 

Does he know he is looking at our backside now?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Does he know he is looking at our backside now?


Probably not. He needs to get his head out of his.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I have followed JC probably more than anyone else on this board and I will tell you right now that his natural position is point guard and he will thrive in that role.


Yep, and the "haters" include the NBA GMs around the league. None of which saw JC as a top-flight PG when he hit the FA market.

Switching the roles of Marbury and JC would just be like rotating tires. Of course, that's all that IT seems to be capable of.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> Will this thread ever die? I think it's become obvious that Hinrich and Gordon are both much better than Crawford. Paxson made the right decision to make room for Gordon by letting Crawford go.


Personally I think it's hilarious that we've had this thread going for so long. Shows how passionate Bulls posters are. This thread alone is starting to surpass total posts in some of the other teams' message boards. To think this discussion is all on 1 player!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> To think this discussion is all on 1 player!


And not even a very good one...


----------



## fl_flash

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm really not biased. Crawford is my favorite NBA prospect but it is based on his abilities not on some inane liking of the guy.


This is the quintessential Crawford post. I don't recall ever seeing a fifth year player as being referred to as a "prospect".

Good lord. All the excuse-making that is STILL going on in defense of Crawford and his play is simply amazing. I hope this thread keeps going for the rest of the year. It's great reading!

And, by the way Ace, you are biased.


----------



## kukoc4ever

I think this pic pretty much sums up a lot of the Knicks problems this season.  

Jamal does deserve credit for playing with a paralyzed arm.










http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo?slug=dtp10601300343.knicks_pistons_dtp106&prov=ap


----------



## kukoc4ever

Looks like you are going to get your wish, Ace. ( i agree w/ you BTW)

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/39729.htm



> Herb Williams plans to shift Stephon Marbury, the self-proclaimed best point guard in the league, to more of a shooting guard role in a desperate attempt to establish more backcourt chemistry between him and Jamal Crawford, according to sources.





> Crawford has had his moments but he's given a good share of blame for the Knicks' slide. People close to Crawford think his skills are wasted on the wing. Too often, Crawford, a natural point guard, is stuck with the ball in the deep corner or wings and is forced to do his dipsy-doo moves to shake free for tough jump shots. He's rarely in position to create for others.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I think this pic pretty much sums up a lot of the Knicks problems this season.
> 
> Jamal does deserve credit for playing with a paralyzed arm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo?slug=dtp10601300343.knicks_pistons_dtp106&prov=ap


I'm guessing you mean the Knicks' lack of big men? 

And LOL at Jamal's paralyzed arm. :laugh: 

It's interesting that they want to put him in a position to create for others at point guard. What people need to realize is that he's the epitome of a combo-guard. He seems to jack up shots too often to be a point guard, but he doesn't have the size nor offensive versatility to be a classic shooting guard. Maybe they should just learn to play him a little at both guard spots. Or maybe a 6th man role is more suited for him...too bad he would think he's a scapegoat if that happened.


----------



## bullsville

Maybe if the Knicks would have kept Mutombo and Harrington and FWill and spent their MLE on a 3-point shooter, they would be better off?

Mutombo in Houston
13.7 min
.527 FG
.820 FT
4.40 reb
1.02 blk
4.1 pts

Othella in Chicago
15.8 min
.526 FG
.676 FT
2.80 reb
6.3 pts 

Oh well, at least it worked out much better for the Bulls that Isiah saw "something" in Jamal (besides the obvious talents).


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Crawford is my favorite NBA prospect


More than Lebron?

Wade?



I think thats a bit


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I like the current bulls team... but its clear that our situation at guard is less than perfect.
> 
> We are getting abused at times by the large, strong guards of the NBA (payton, davis, pierce) (kidd, carter).


...and isn't it sad that we're locked into this situation for the next 5 years, that Pax's hands are tied, can't make a trade to upgrade the roster or sign a FA?

To bad we're not rebuilding anymore and don't have the option of adding players to the roster. This team has no hope now.

:yes:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I think this pic pretty much sums up a lot of the Knicks problems this season.
> 
> Jamal does deserve credit for playing with a paralyzed arm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo?slug=dtp10601300343.knicks_pistons_dtp106&prov=ap


funniest post I've read on here in a while.

It does look like Jamal had a stroke.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/sports/basketball/03knicks.html?oref=login
> 
> 
> 
> In a locker room where failure and regret are now daily companions, perhaps no one has a stronger bond with those twin specters than Jamal Crawford.
> 
> And perhaps no one among the Knicks is more shellshocked now than Crawford, a 24-year-old starting guard.
> 
> He spent four miserable seasons in Chicago, where the Bulls were consistently awful, and went to New York last summer with high hopes. Isiah Thomas, the Knicks' president, acquired Crawford as part of a master plan to revive the flagging franchise.
> 
> But three months into Crawford's first Knicks season, nothing is as it seemed. And that master plan looks more flawed every day.
> 
> The Knicks have lost 14 of 16 games - their worst stretch in 18 years - and, with an 18-27 record, appear as hopeless and directionless as Crawford's Chicago teams did.
> 
> "It's not to that point yet," Crawford insisted late Tuesday night after the Knicks' 96-77 loss in Denver. "We only won 19 games all last year, so we're already at that point. So it's not like Chicago."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, well, actually it was *23 games* jamal.
> 
> 
> 
> :|
Click to expand...

Now, what are the factors that last years Chicago team and this years Knicks team have in common?  

Actually, I'm kidding. Individually, Jamal looks like he's shaking off the rust. But we all know what individual efforts mean in a situation like his.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I think this pic pretty much sums up a lot of the Knicks problems this season.
> 
> Jamal does deserve credit for playing with a paralyzed arm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo?slug=dtp10601300343.knicks_pistons_dtp106&prov=ap


I'll give you credit for having a good sense of humor.

Can anyone tell me what Marbury is thinking in that picture?


----------



## GB

Miz, 

This article is interesting:

<I>For now, the most critical decisions remain in Isiah Thomas's hands. The Knicks need perimeter players who can defend, at least one gritty interior player and, with Houston's future in doubt, another shooter or two to stretch opposing defenses.
--
Crawford was supposed to be a complementary player in a three-guard rotation with Houston and Stephon Marbury and, ideally, Houston's backup. Instead, Crawford has started 34 games and is averaging a team-high 17 shots a game and converting at a 39.6 percent clip. It is probable that Williams had Crawford in mind when he bemoaned the Knicks' shot selection after their loss in Denver.</i>

He has proclaimed them untouchable, but I wonder, with Houston probably almost certainly a has been, if he's going to start over on his back-court. Jamals contract has some nasty escalations in the years going forward, and they may have seen all they care to see of him as a full-time player by seasons end. Might make sense to move him while he's tradable. Ditto Marbury...obviously a talented player in the mold of a Nick Van Exel, the question becomes whether or not you want him as the guy with the ball in his hands full time.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> ...and isn't it sad that we're locked into this situation for the next 5 years, that Pax's hands are tied, can't make a trade to upgrade the roster or sign a FA?
> 
> To bad we're not rebuilding anymore and don't have the option of adding players to the roster. This team has no hope now.
> 
> :yes:


Honestly, I'd be happier with Hinrich/Crawford/Hassel/Duhon than what we have now... but that's just me.

I'm assuming that @ some point in his life, Crawford will realize that he should not be taking as many ill-advised shots as he currently is.

I thought that he would improve his shot selection when playing alongside Marbury, Houston, Penny and Thomas... but... the situation on that team is obviously not what I envisioned for many reasons.

He already is good. I still think he'll be better and that the move to PG is exactly what they should do. Its foolish to use Jamal as a traditional 2 guard, IMO. I think the move Williams is making is the right one.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll give you credit for having a good sense of humor.
> 
> Can anyone tell me what Marbury is thinking in that picture?


I was wondering that as well. It seems that he's waiting for Hamilton to convert his uncontested lay-up and is hoping that Jamal gives the inbounds pass to him.

He seems indifferent about Hamilton scoring an easy lay-up.

Crawford seems troubled and confused about what is going on in front of him. Getting in Hamilton's way, attempting to block the shot or fouling him do not appear to be options.


----------



## mizenkay

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Miz,
> 
> This article is interesting:
> 
> <I>For now, the most critical decisions remain in Isiah Thomas's hands. The Knicks need perimeter players who can defend, at least one gritty interior player and, with Houston's future in doubt, another shooter or two to stretch opposing defenses.
> --
> Crawford was supposed to be a complementary player in a three-guard rotation with Houston and Stephon Marbury and, ideally, Houston's backup. Instead, Crawford has started 34 games and is averaging a team-high 17 shots a game and converting at a 39.6 percent clip. It is probable that Williams had Crawford in mind when he bemoaned the Knicks' shot selection after their loss in Denver.</i>
> 
> He has proclaimed them untouchable, but I wonder, with Houston probably almost certainly a has been, if he's going to start over on his back-court. Jamals contract has some nasty escalations in the years going forward, and they may have seen all they care to see of him as a full-time player by seasons end. Might make sense to move him while he's tradable. Ditto Marbury...obviously a talented player in the mold of a Nick Van Exel, the question becomes whether or not you want him as the guy with the ball in his hands full time.



yeah, i suppose it is...for those that actually care about such things. i just read my local paper and post. this is already my *gasp* 17th post in this thread. 

that said, i do have my radar tuned for any and all "chicago" references...but the truth is, i don't really give a **** about jamal and the knicks - just posted it cause i thought what he said - while being in COMPLETE AND UTTER DENIAL about his own situation, was relative to this the neverendingjamalthread.

here is the last bit from the article in case folks didn't register for the NY Times site:

*But the Knicks' problems will not be solved by good health alone. On and off the court, they seem a dispirited group, one without a unified purpose, wandering aimlessly toward the finish line.

"No, it's not what I expected," Crawford said. "But you don't run when times get tough."*


careful what you wish for.



:grinning:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you mean the Knicks' lack of big men?
> 
> And LOL at Jamal's paralyzed arm. :laugh:
> 
> It's interesting that they want to put him in a position to create for others at point guard. What people need to realize is that he's the epitome of a combo-guard. He seems to jack up shots too often to be a point guard, but he doesn't have the size nor offensive versatility to be a classic shooting guard. Maybe they should just learn to play him a little at both guard spots. Or maybe a 6th man role is more suited for him...too bad he would think he's a scapegoat if that happened.


Not so much the lack of big men... although that's a problem with the Knicks... its more the ease @ which Hamilton is gliding to the hoop and the expressions and floor placement of Crawford and Marbury. There are certainly a lack of big men between Hamilton and the basket as well. 

I agree with your assessment of Jamal. They are wasting his passing/creating skills @ present... which is one of the big reasons Crawford is in the NBA to begin with.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo?slug=dtp10601300343.knicks_pistons_dtp106&prov=ap


I just can't stop chuckling at this picture. Simply hilarious! :rofl: Hamilton looks like he's having a ball, Jamal looks like he's having heart failure, and Marbury looks like he's on his way to the concession stand.

I'm editing this post rather than entering a new post, because I don't want to bump the thread. I just wanted to relate how happy I am that as of noon, Central time, 2/4/05, this thread has sunk at least halfway down the first page. Maybe if we all cooperate, it'll keep on sinking!!! TB#1


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> *We are getting abused at times by the large, strong guards of the NBA (payton, davis, pierce) (kidd, carter).*
> 
> I wonder what a 3 guard rotation of Hinrich, Crawford and Hassell would have looked like on this current Bulls team?


You're using the fact that our 2 rookies and our sophomore were "abused" by a bunch of perennial all-stars as your evidence that our guard situation is "less than perfect"? Isn't that what makes them all-stars?


----------



## DaBullz

Crawford, last 5 games.

23.0 PPG
3.2 reb
4.0 ast
1.0 stl
46.0 FG%
45.7 3Pt%

While I'm at it, Rose's last 5 games:
19.2 PPG
4.4 reb
2.4 Ast
0.6 stl
44.4 FG%
50.0 3Pt%

Hinrich's last 5 games:
13.4 PPG
4.4 reb
6.2 Ast
1.4 Stl
32.8 FG%
24.0 3Pt%

Gordon's last 5 games:
17.4 PPG
2.0 reb
2.0 ast
0.6 stl
46.8 FG%
40.9 3Pt%
(23.6 min/game)


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> You're using the fact that our 2 rookies and our sophomore were "abused" by a bunch of perennial all-stars as your evidence that our guard situation is "less than perfect"? Isn't that what makes them all-stars?


Are you suggesting that our 3 main guards are going to become taller with age?

Perhaps bigger and stronger.... but Gordon may always have trouble with a guy like ricky davis or vince carter.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Rose and Crawford are playing well right now.

The wear and tear of a harsh NBA season is having its effect on our trio of plucky guards.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> You're using the fact that our 2 rookies and our sophomore were "abused" by a bunch of perennial all-stars as your evidence that our guard situation is "less than perfect"? Isn't that what makes them all-stars?


You are correct, sir. Between the Nets and Celtics, you have 4 backcourt players who could all arguably make the Hall of Fame. It's no wonder the Bulls got abused.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that our 3 main guards are going to become taller with age?
> 
> Perhaps bigger and stronger.... but Gordon may always have trouble with a guy like ricky davis or vince carter.


I'm suggesting that MOST guards will have trouble with Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Paul Pierce, and Gary Payton. This is why these guys are all-stars. I'm also suggesting that after spending more than a year or two in the league our guys may become more savvy in how to defend these type of players. I'll even go so far as to suggest that in his fifth year in the league Jalen Crawford should have started figuring out how to guard these guys by now, but he hasn't. Suggesting that he'd do better than the guys we have is ridiculous -- he had four years to show some tendency toward defense and failed to do so.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> . I'll even go so far as to suggest that in his fifth year in the league Jalen Crawford should have started figuring out how to guard these guys by now, but he hasn't. Suggesting that he'd do better than the guys we have is ridiculous -- he had four years to show some tendency toward defense and failed to do so.


I didn't suggest that.... and I disagree with much of what you wrote. (gotta go)


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I didn't suggest that.... and I disagree with much of what you wrote. (gotta go)





> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I like the current bulls team... but its clear that our situation at guard is less than perfect.
> 
> We are getting abused at times by the large, strong guards of the NBA (payton, davis, pierce) (kidd, carter).
> 
> *I wonder what a 3 guard rotation of Hinrich, Crawford and Hassell would have looked like on this current Bulls team?*


I think that with your last sentence above you did, indeed, suggest that... otherwise why speculate? I was wondering the other day what a 3 guard rotation of Hinrich, Khalid El-Amin, and Corey Benjamin would have looked like on this current Bulls team? Did I post this idle specualation? No. Because it would have been, and rightly so, taken as a suggestion that this might be a better line-up than the current team. Otherwise why speculate? Conversational rules apply, no?

Or maybe it would have been more appropriate to say that you "implied" such, since it is certainly what I inferred from your post.


----------



## thebullybully

What is Marbury thinking in that picture?

Marbury: "I'm the best point guard in the NBA even with one arm tied behind my back."


----------



## GB

> Miller flung the ball high in the air as time expired, and the crowd cheered the Kings' nine-man roster off the court with their eighth straight home win over the Knicks.
> 
> "We had them right where we wanted them, the whole time through," Kings coach Rick Adelman said. "These guys have just been unbelievable, and there was never a doubt in their mind just because we have guys out, that they can't go out and win."
> 
> The Kings played without starters Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic and Cuttino Mobley -- who average nearly 60 combined points -- for the second straight game.


Jamal = 25% field goal shooting (2-8), 6 assists, 36 minutes.


----------



## PC Load Letter

I watched almost that whole Knicks/Kings game and I kept saying throughout "The Kings are going to end up winning." What a crushing defeat for the Knicks. Up 11 with less than 4 minutes remaining, only to lose. After the final buzzer, most of them were just standing around in shock. They really seem to have hit rock bottom, losing 15 out of their last 17 games. A loss like this can send a team into a real tailspin...the only thing is they're already in one. 

It's not looking good in NYC and I love it.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Crawford, last 5 games.
> 
> 23.0 PPG
> 3.2 reb
> 4.0 ast
> 1.0 stl
> 46.0 FG%
> 45.7 3Pt%
> 
> While I'm at it, Rose's last 5 games:
> 19.2 PPG
> 4.4 reb
> 2.4 Ast
> 0.6 stl
> 44.4 FG%
> 50.0 3Pt%
> 
> Hinrich's last 5 games:
> 13.4 PPG
> 4.4 reb
> 6.2 Ast
> 1.4 Stl
> 32.8 FG%
> 24.0 3Pt%
> 
> Gordon's last 5 games:
> 17.4 PPG
> 2.0 reb
> 2.0 ast
> 0.6 stl
> 46.8 FG%
> 40.9 3Pt%
> (23.6 min/game)


Here's some more stats.

Crawford, last 5 games: *1 WIN* 

Rose's last 5 games: *2 WINS* 

Hinrich & Gordon's last 5 games: *3 WINS*


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> I watched almost that whole Knicks/Kings game and I kept saying throughout "The Kings are going to end up winning." What a crushing defeat for the Knicks. Up 11 with less than 4 minutes remaining, only to lose. After the final buzzer, most of them were just standing around in shock. They really seem to have hit rock bottom, losing 15 out of their last 17 games. A loss like this can send a team into a real tailspin...the only thing is they're already in one.
> 
> It's not looking good in NYC and I love it.



I just saw the highlights of the game. 

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal = 25% field goal shooting (2-8), 6 assists, 36 minutes.


6 assists, 0 TO


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's some more stats.
> 
> Crawford, last 5 games: *1 WIN*
> 
> Rose's last 5 games: *2 WINS*
> 
> Hinrich & Gordon's last 5 games: *3 WINS*


Tony Massenburg's last 10 games: *8 WINS*

Jermaine O'Neal's last 10 games: *3 WINS*


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Tony Massenburg's last 10 games: *8 WINS*
> 
> Jermaine O'Neal's last 10 games: *3 WINS*



So now you want to play that game. But, but, but "Jamal plays the 2nd most minutes and takes the most shots". And his team is losing.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 6 assists, 0 TO


Great point. All that non-effort and he couldn't even lead his team in assists.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to play that game. But, but, but "Jamal plays the 2nd most minutes and takes the most shots". And his team is losing.


So do (or more) Jason Richardson, Stephon Marbury, Jermaine O Neal, Michael Redd, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer.....

Basketball is a team game.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Great point. All that non-effort and he couldn't even lead his team in assists.


Its pretty obvious last night was the Stephon Marbury show.

Obvious to most pepople that is....


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> So do (or more) Jason Richardson, Stephon Marbury, Jermaine O Neal, Michael Redd, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer.....
> 
> Basketball is a team game.


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1846046#post1846046


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its pretty obvious last night was the Stephon Marbury show.
> 
> Obvious to most pepople that is....


They couldn't have used two or three more points from Jamal?

I mean, it's one thing to have a hot teammate..but...it's a *team* game, right?

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> They couldn't have used two or three more points from Jamal?
> 
> I mean, it's one thing to have a hot teammate..but...it's a *team* game, right?
> 
> :laugh:


I'm sure Jamal would have shot the ball if he had the chance.

He listens to the "haters" for once and look what it gets him.

More hate.

Poor Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1846046#post1846046


Marbury thought he had the heart of a champion last night.

Sadly for the Knicks, it was not enough.

Perhaps this is just the new PG role they are using Jamal for.

6 assists, 0 TO. Not too shabby.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure Jamal would have shot the ball if he had the chance.



What would have been better: More shots for Jamal or better use of the ones he had?


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> So do (or more) Jason Richardson, Stephon Marbury, Jermaine O Neal, Michael Redd, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer.....
> 
> Basketball is a team game.


No kidding. That's what I was trying to get at many moons ago on this thread. 

I don't think the Knicks are losing b/c of Jamal. And I didn't think they were winning b/c of him. He has won games for the Knicks on last second shots, but I think over the course of a season, he doesn't impact the win loss column basically at all for a team b/c for as many games as he gets hot and keeps you in games, there are just as many that he takes you out of.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Great point. All that non-effort and he couldn't even lead his team in assists.



Why does his stats somehow mean no effort ?Jamal played probably his most in control offensive game of the season .he didnt force not one shot .He shot twice to beat the shot clock but he moved the ball great and took what came to him which was mostly spot up jumpers.He made several great passes which didnt result in a assists but the gyt he passed too was fouled .

He actually accounted for the knicks final 5 points but didnt get the ball in the last 3 minutes. 

If he takes a lot of shots hes a chucker who takes bad shots and if he doesnt shoot a lot obviously hes not playing hard .


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury thought he had the heart of a champion last night.
> 
> Sadly for the Knicks, it was not enough.


So Jamal has it and Marbury doesn't?

Does that mean Jamal is better than the "best point guard in the league"?



> Perhaps this is just the new PG role they are using Jamal for.
> 
> 6 assists, 0 TO. Not too shabby.


What did he do in the other 28 minutes he played?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Why does his stats somehow mean no effort ?


You're right.

We're talking about Jamal though, and seeing 6 assist and 8 shot attempts in +35 minutes is _muy raro_.

Hinrich or Duhon would have had double figure assists and helped their team win that one...


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> What would have been better: More shots for Jamal or better use of the ones he had?


Ideally, Jamal would have shot 8-8 and 2-2 from the line.

Perhaps he was doing what the "haters" tell him to do... realize that he is cold and try to create for others.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Ideally, Jamal would have shot 8-8 and 2-2 from the line.


That would have been _perfectly_. Ideally would have been 6 or 4 of 8 and 2-2.

Gee...thats a lot to ask, right?



> Perhaps he was doing what the "haters" tell him to do... realize that he is cold and try to create for others.


There are a lot of 'perhaps' here.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> No kidding. That's what I was trying to get at many moons ago on this thread.
> 
> I don't think the Knicks are losing b/c of Jamal. And I didn't think they were winning b/c of him. He has won games for the Knicks on last second shots, but I think over the course of a season, he doesn't impact the win loss column basically at all for a team b/c for as many games as he gets hot and keeps you in games, there are just as many that he takes you out of.


Maybe..... or maybe his good games are so good that they greatly increase the chances for victory.

I'm not convinced that being "streaky" is a bad thing. I could be wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> There are a lot of 'perhaps' here.


The guy can't win with the "haters."

If he has a good game and the Knicks win, its because of his teammates.

If he has a good game and the Knicks lose, the good game does not matter because the team lost.

If he shoots too little, if he shoots too much, if he turns the ball over a lot, if he does not turn the ball over at all, if he gets 3 steals and a block..... it does not matter.

The haters keep hating.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right.
> 
> We're talking about Jamal though, and seeing 6 assist and 8 shot attempts in +35 minutes is _muy raro_.
> 
> Hinrich or Duhon would have had double figure assists and helped their team win that one...


Not playing next to marbury they wouldnt .Marbury had like 18 or something like that in the 3rd and the knicks had a cushion going into the 4th.When the game broke down late in the 4th jamal found Thomas for a shot and penetrated in for a layup .After that Penny took over and jamal didnt touch the rock again .

I dont see how anyone could expect Jamal or kirk or even Duhon to somehow overcome those Blunders Penny made to secure the knicks a win. :laugh: 

Oh I got it !!

jamal leaves the bench and shoves Penny out of the way and inbounds the ball 


Jamal then pushes Penny out of the way before he fouls barnes 

jamal then takes the ball out of Marburys hands so he couldnt pass to penny so he could miss that wideopen shot .

Jamal then knocks penny down on the last possesion so he wouldnt force that 3 .

Obviously Kirk and Duhon would have 

:laugh: 

Youve got to be kidding me


----------



## transplant

I don't really want to get into the middle of this squabble, but to those who saw the game, how on earth in a game that the Knicks scored 115 points, did Crawford only take 8 shots in 36 minutes?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Tony Massenburg's last 10 games: *8 WINS*
> 
> Jermaine O'Neal's last 10 games: *3 WINS*


If you've got a problem with the facts, take it up with DaBullz.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy can't win with the "haters."
> 
> If he has a good game and the Knicks win, its because of his teammates.
> 
> If he has a good game and the Knicks lose, the good game does not matter because the team lost.
> 
> If he shoots too little, if he shoots too much, if he turns the ball over a lot, if he does not turn the ball over at all, if he gets 3 steals and a block..... it does not matter.
> 
> The haters keep hating.


And the enablers keep enabling?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy can't win with the "haters."
> -
> The haters keep hating.


Please stop with the innuendo, name-calling and personal attacks.

Thanks.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> I don't really want to get into the middle of this squabble, but to those who saw the game, how on earth in a game that the Knicks scored 115 points, did Crawford only take 8 shots in 36 minutes?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.


they didn't go to him ...and they didn't need to the remaining starters shot 32-44(72.7% ) and tim thomas came off the bench to shoot to shoot 9-15.

the team shot over 60% for the game offense was not a problem , bibby going for 40 and earlier in the game miller scoring his 35 had alot to do with it.

jamal wasn't forcing shots , he seemed determined to only try to score when needed...but at the end of the game they went away from him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy can't win with the "haters."
> 
> If he has a good game and the Knicks win, its because of his teammates.
> 
> If he has a good game and the Knicks lose, the good game does not matter because the team lost.
> 
> If he shoots too little, if he shoots too much, if he turns the ball over a lot, if he does not turn the ball over at all, if he gets 3 steals and a block..... it does not matter.
> The haters keep hating.


And of course the reverse is true. The riders say if he has a good game and they win, he should get credit and if he has a bad game, win or lose, it is his injury, or he isn't used right, or whatever. Anything but him. Heart of a Champion, 16 for 16 or 0 for 37. God, I am willing to bet that someday, someday -- he'll put up both of those shooting stats in the same week.


The haters keep hating (Jesus preaches love, brothers) and the riders keep riding (don't the riders ever get itch?) and the thread, like the road, goes on forever.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> the riders keep riding (don't the riders ever get itch?)


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1814498#post1814498


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> The haters keep hating (Jesus preaches love, brothers) and the riders keep riding (don't the riders ever get itch?) and the thread, like the road, goes on forever.



 

It can't possibly survive the off-season, can it?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can't possibly survive the off-season, can it?


It'll go on till Jamal morphs into LeBron and you tire of beating your critics over the head with it...

...or Jamal finally evens out into a solid but unspectacular NBA guard and his critics tire of beating you over the head with it.

Personally, I think Tom locks the thread and banishes it into the ether long before either happens.

3 years?

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1625305#post1625305


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It'll go on till Jamal morphs into LeBron and you tire of beating your critics over the head with it...
> 
> ...or Jamal finally evens out into a solid but unspectacular NBA guard and his critics tire of beating you over the head with it.
> 
> Personally, I think Tom locks the thread and banishes it into the ether long before either happens.
> 
> 3 years?
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1625305#post1625305


What was your preseason win prediction?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> What was your preseason win prediction?


I fail to understand how that information dovetails with the current conversation...


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> Personally, I think Tom locks the thread and banishes it into the ether long before either happens.
> 
> 3 years?
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1625305#post1625305


Hehehe....

...anyone wanna bet that this thread is the reason for all of the recent ISP failures at BBB.net?!

To *kukoc4ever!*:

Before slinging around the label haters, re-read the front end of this thread and remember whence the hate was flowing. If I recall correctly, it was flowing from you right at our beloved Bull. The last 80 plus pages are just reactionary...


----------



## Wynn

[wrong thread]


----------



## GB

Continuing the work of the OP:

Jamal had 16 points on 6-16 shooting. Almost nothing else. Emptiest statline I've seen in a long while.

Knicks lose...thats 12 of the last 13 for them.


----------



## GB

Jalen:



> Some stats — like rebounding, blocks and steals — are achieved by a combination of effort and athleticism that are not as likely to waver in the long-term due to "hot" and "cold" streaks. Field goal percentage is really about finding a good rhythm, and rhythm can come and go. Ultimately, most players have a baseline shooting ability that they will return to. Jalen shot 41 percent from the field in 2002-03, 40 percent in 2003-04, and 42 percent in the 26 games before his hot streak this season. Which sample size do you think is more reliable: the past 15 games when he shot over 50 percent or the preceding 174 games over the past two-and-a-half seasons when he shot 41 percent?
> 
> Buried under all these numbers is an inherent truth about Jalen Rose. He is playing incredible basketball right now, but he has to keep playing like this to be worth $14.5 million this season, $15.7 million next season and $16.9 million in 2006-07 when he will be 34 years old. If you're going to support keeping Jalen Rose in Toronto after the trading deadline on Feb. 24, you have to tell me that you honestly believe that — for the next two-and-a-half seasons — Jalen is going to shoot close to 50 percent and average around 30 points per 48 minutes. He doesn't play defence, so he has to be an offensive superstar to be worth more than a quarter of the Raptors' total payroll.
> --
> If Jalen is still around a month from now, what will happen to his motivation — particularly if he's still a sixth man? When he returns to shooting at 40 percent accuracy, will you still cheer him and his cap-clogging salary?


http://www.raptorblog.com/#012405_0700


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Jalen:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.raptorblog.com/#012405_0700


What do you think is a better indicator?

The 750+ games he's played in his NBA career where he has averaged 44.5%.

Or the fraction he played with the lowly Bulls... where he was forced to play a role he's not suited for. 

Jalen's back to playing his game. Good for him. The Raptors are playing good ball right now... a lot of it is due to Jalen Rose.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> And of course the reverse is true. The riders say if he has a good game and they win, he should get credit and if he has a bad game, win or lose, it is his injury, or he isn't used right, or whatever. Anything but him. Heart of a Champion, 16 for 16 or 0 for 37. God, I am willing to bet that someday, someday -- he'll put up both of those shooting stats in the same week.
> 
> 
> The haters keep hating (Jesus preaches love, brothers) and the riders keep riding (don't the riders ever get itch?) and the thread, like the road, goes on forever.


True! So true.


----------



## GB




----------



## JRose5

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> What do you think is a better indicator?
> 
> The 750+ games he's played in his NBA career where he has averaged 44.5%.
> 
> Or the fraction he played with the lowly Bulls... where he was forced to play a role he's not suited for.
> 
> Jalen's back to playing his game. Good for him. The Raptors are playing good ball right now... a lot of it is due to Jalen Rose.


Good post.


----------



## GB

...unless a player is that point in his career where it's more likely that his stats will begin a gentle slope downward instead of upward.



> Jalen shot 41 percent from the field in 2002-03, 40 percent in 2003-04, and 42 percent in the 26 games before his hot streak this season.


----------



## GB

> Trying to justify this season-wrecking crash, Dolan said this weekend, "I really do believe this team is improved. I hope Knicks fans believe this, too. I like the direction the team is going."
> 
> If you haven't noticed, the campaign message has changed 180 degrees during the Isiah Thomas presidency since the calendar flipped to 2005 and the Knicks have won just twice.
> 
> Thomas and Dolan talk about this as a rebuilding project, the Knicks taking the lumps a young team on the rise must take. They talk as if this disgraceful plummet out of the playoff race and into lottery land was no shocker for a $103 million payroll.
> 
> "I know Isiah has told me, it's not this year and it might not be next year and that we should see steady improvement advancing toward a championship-caliber team," Dolan said. "He said [in preseason], 'I know everyone's high on the team now, but you have to understand it's a building process. We're in a situation where you're rebuilding and bringing in youth, you have to expect there's going to be ups and downs.' "
> 
> Rebuilding. That's a word Thomas started using in mid-January. The January before, Thomas said you couldn't rebuild in New York.
> --
> Isiah talks about building around youth, referring to Jamal Crawford, Trevor Ariza and Michael Sweetney. None of the three is a sure-fire starter on a championship-caliber team, let alone budding All-Stars.


http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/40040.htm


----------



## kukoc4ever

5.8 million.


----------



## GB

> Isiah Thomas was probably too busy scouting players to appreciate the history and the culture during his trip through Europe last week. Sightseeing wasn't on the agenda as Thomas toured Italy and Spain.
> 
> When the Knicks president returns to New York today, there is one famous ruin he simply can't avoid: his basketball team.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 



> The Knicks' record is 18-29, they have lost 16 of 18 games and they could be without Jamal Crawford for a few days. Crawford sprained his left ankle in Saturday's loss to Phoenix and is listed as questionable for tonight.


Get well soon.



> Here are a few trade targets Thomas may explore:
> 
> # Antoine Walker: He is readily available because his $14.6 million contract comes off the books this summer. Thomas loves everything about Walker - he is a big forward who can shoot three-pointers and handle the ball. It doesn't hurt that Walker is from Chicago, Thomas' hometown, either.
> 
> Thomas would not hesitate to exchange Tim Thomas for Walker but Atlanta has little interest because Thomas still has one year left on his deal. The Knicks have a better chance of signing Walker to the mid-level exception this summer.
> 
> -
> 
> # Darius Miles: Thomas has coveted him in the past. Portland wants to deal Miles, who is still owed $40 million after this season and who recently got into a screaming match with coach Maurice Cheeks. The Knicks don't need this problem. Miles' teammate, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, who is in the final year of his contract, would make more sense.


...and others: Donyell, Artest, Spree.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/278452p-238552c.html


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 5.8 million.


I notice how quickly you change your signature after a Bull loss, but how long it takes to reflect a Bull win or a Knick loss. How many days ago did the Knick fall to 18-29?


----------



## GB

> Under Coach Herb Williams, the Knicks have lost six of seven games. Injuries to several key players - Jamal Crawford, Allan Houston, Tim Thomas and Penny Hardaway - have fueled the slide.
> 
> But the Knicks have also proved strikingly fragile in the final minutes of close games, and their on-court chemistry has been lacking all season.
> --
> Under Thomas, the Knicks have become younger and more athletic and probably more talented. He acquired four of the team's opening-night starters - Crawford, Stephon Marbury, Tim Thomas and Nazr Mohammed - and the Knicks initially appeared on course for a solid season. They beat Cleveland, Denver, Orlando and Minnesota and were 16-13 on Dec. 29, three games over .500 for the first time since April 2001.
> 
> Yet the Knicks are now behind last season's pace (20-26 after 46 games).



Big difference between the Bulls and Knicks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/sports/basketball/06dolan.html?oref=login


----------



## GB

> *New York has perhaps the most dynamic backcourt in the Eastern Conference*. Stephon Marbury is on pace to average at least 20 points and eight assists for a seventh straight season, and Jamal Crawford has embraced his newfound freedom to score at will, notching more than 18 points a night.
> 
> Of course, Marbury is playing with the fourth team of his nine-year career and has yet to win a playoff series. And Crawford is so blinded by the glow of the orange rim that he often declines to hand the ball off to better-positioned teammates such as Kurt Thomas or Nazr Mohammed, both of whom are shooting more than 48 percent from the field.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/paul_forrester/01/25/knicks/


----------



## GB

> There is some question about whether Jackson and Thomas could co-exist as partners and rumors already have started that Jackson would attempt to move out Thomas, who has come under fire for the Knicks' disastrous season.
> 
> Ultimately, Dolan may have to choose between Jackson and Thomas. On Friday, Dolan tried convincing reporters that Thomas' presence in the front office actually would make the Knicks more attractive to Jackson.
> 
> "I'm pretty sure that Phil Jackson would not come to work for me if I was running the Knicks," Dolan said. "He wouldn't want someone as dumb about basketball as me in that position. So maybe we have a chance with Isiah."
> ---
> Their best player, Stephon Marbury, never has been out of the first round and their top offseason pickup, Jamal Crawford, never won more than 30 games with the Bulls. In fact, _both the Suns and Bulls have thrived this season without Marbury and Crawford, respectively._


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/278290p-238421c.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I notice how quickly you change your signature after a Bull loss, but how long it takes to reflect a Bull win or a Knick loss. How many days ago did the Knick fall to 18-29?


A lot depends if i'm near a CPU watching the game.

Thanks for having so much interest in my sig though. :grinning:


----------



## yodurk

The thought of seeing Marbury, Crawford, and Antoine Walker on the same team together makes me cringe. Can you imagine how many ill-advised shots get jacked up between the 3 of them?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> The thought of seeing Marbury, Crawford, and Antoine Walker on the same team together makes me cringe.


They're in the EC.

Makes me: :rbanana: :wbanana: :rbanana:


----------



## remlover

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> The thought of seeing Marbury, Crawford, and Antoine Walker on the same team together makes me cringe. Can you imagine how many ill-advised shots get jacked up between the 3 of them?


I was thinking the same thing. Would be fun to watch...Would cement the Knicks as a lottery team for the forseeable future.


----------



## kukoc4ever

How did this team almost go to the NBA Finals?

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=BOS&lg=n&yr=2001


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> How did this team almost go to the NBA Finals?
> 
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=BOS&lg=n&yr=2001


Mostly because Paul Pierce was playing unbelievable ball at the time. The stats are there to back it up. It seemed like the Celtics always pulled out the close ones due to Pierce's 4th quarter heroics. For some reason, he doesn't seem like quite the same player anymore. Also because O'Brien did a masterful job of using Walker's style of play to the team's advantage...not an easy thing to do. They also had a number of players who played their roles well, and let Pierce/Antoine do their thing. Chemistry was a big factor to that team's success, even though they didn't use a very traditional formula.


----------



## GB

Antoine Walker. Thats the kind of career Jamal might have.

Always regarded as talented, but held back enough by other flaws that he never morphs into a superstar.

Bounces from place to place looking for a home...always sniping and taking shots at the first team that let him loose.


Could be.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 5.8 million.


JAMAL CRAWFORD IS THE fifty- SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN 

:laugh:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 5.8 million.


Wow. That's...ERob kinda money.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. That's...ERob kinda money.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. That's...ERob kinda money.


Or Scott Pollard/ James Posey / Aaron McKie / Ruben Patterson kind of money.


----------



## Mr. T

*"I've got great teachers; we've got proven All-Stars, we've got proven Olympians, we've got a Hall of Fame coach," Crawford said, referring to Coach Lenny Wilkens. "We feel like we have something special."*

Jamal should know better than most - *everything can change in the blink of an eye. * 

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I've got great teachers; we've got proven All-Stars, we've got proven Olympians, we've got a Hall of Fame coach," Crawford said, referring to Coach Lenny Wilkens. "We feel like we have something special."*
> 
> Jamal should know better than most - *everything can change in the blink of an eye. *
> 
> :laugh:


so much hate.... so much vitriol....

:no:


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> so much hate.... so much vitriol....
> 
> :no:


Nope, just some of that k4e sarcasm! 

One might say you're stickin' with your boy through thick and thin. And it does seem especially THIN lately. :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, just some of that k4e sarcasm!
> 
> One might say you're stickin' with your boy through thick and thin. And it does seem especially THIN lately. :laugh:



Sarcasm!?!?!?!?

    

(that was a funny graphic)

he's gonna cross u over NE;NV... its gonna be nasty.


----------



## GB

Definately not hate. Just a fan having (a lot of) fun at the expense of a player whose slung barbs at his team.

Kinda like Pats fans are doing for Freddie Mitchell.


You sure the hate and vitriol line isn't because you don't have a witty snapback? 



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I've got great teachers; we've got proven All-Stars, we've got proven Olympians, we've got a Hall of Fame coach," Crawford said, referring to Coach Lenny Wilkens. "We feel like we have something special."*
> 
> Jamal should know better than most - *everything can change in the blink of an eye. *
> 
> :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Definately not hate. Just a fan having (a lot of) fun at the expense of a player whose slung barbs at his team.
> 
> Kinda like Pats fans are doing for Freddie Mitchell.
> 
> 
> You sure the hate and vitriol line isn't because you don't have a witty snapback?


He's gonna mess u up too GB.

Go ahead. Try and take the ball away.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 5.8 million.


Question here...

Jamal makes $5.8 million now, this is true...but can you tell me how much Jamal will make in the 4th, 5th, and 6th years of his contract? :groucho:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Why do all of you hate me?

I have a kind heart.


----------



## yodurk

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do all of you hate me?
> 
> I have a kind heart.


:boohoo:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Question here...
> 
> Jamal makes $5.8 million now, this is true...but can you tell me how much Jamal will make in the 4th, 5th, and 6th years of his contract? :groucho:


Between 8-9.5 million.

But... since its 4 years from now... the rest of the NBA's salaries *should* go up as well.

There are many variables though, as you know.

So... it would be prudent to wait until... oh... 2008 to see if he's "overpaid" @ that time.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> he's gonna cross u over NE;NV... its gonna be nasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Go ahead. Try and take the ball away.*












Which is not to imply I'm suggesting Jamal's an airhead. :laugh: 

Just answerin' your dare!


----------



## kukoc4ever

If you tried that for real we all know this would be your situation.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do all of you hate me?
> 
> I have a kind heart.


We dont hate you Jamal. Your defense and shooting percentage are just funny, thats all.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!


Now we know why he wears hte long jersey...so we won't see where he's got his head at.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not to imply I'm suggesting Jamal's an airhead. :laugh:
> 
> Just answerin' your dare!


Classic.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> We dont hate you Jamal. Your defense and shooting percentage are just funny, thats all.


Here's poor GB after an exchange with Jamal.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do all of you hate me?
> 
> I have a kind heart.












And a BIGSIS! :laugh:


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> And a BIGSIS! :laugh:


http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=337397&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=337397&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12


Thx.

Is that *really* his big sis that posts over there?

interesting how that board seems very anti-marbury. not much crawford hate based on my brief glance.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's poor GB after an exchange with Jamal.


I dunno about that. Perhaps we should look again.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> I dunno about that. Perhaps we should look again.



GB



=














?????


----------



## lgtwins

It looks like Knicks is going to win one tonight. Intersting, as soon as Jamal is out due to injury, another win.

Hmm... weren't they on 3 game streak last time Jamal was out of lineup?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Now we know why he wears hte long jersey...so we won't see where he's got his head at.










<blink><<--Location of Jamal's Head</blink>


----------



## DaBullz

Where's the Tom Boerwinkle update thread?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Where's the Tom Boerwinkle update thread?


Tanned, rested and ready.























Well, rested, at least.


----------



## dkg1

You don't see ballplayers use the triple threat position as often as they should as TB is showing in his picture.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> It looks like Knicks is going to win one tonight. Intersting, as soon as Jamal is out due to injury, another win.
> 
> Hmm... weren't they on 3 game streak last time Jamal was out of lineup?


We get rid of him...off our team goes.

He disappears from the Knicks lineup...off they go.


Me thinks he's like that guy on Master and Commander...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> We get rid of him...off our team goes.
> 
> He disappears from the Knicks lineup...off they go.
> 
> 
> Me thinks he's like that guy on Master and Commander...



The Bulls didnt get rid of him he wanted to go and the obliged .If he accepts Pax offer hes still a Bull now 


hes not in the knicks lineup they still blew another 4tf quarter lead and tonight Sloan doesnt double Marbury in OT and he makes a couple of jumpshots and the knicks win .

It must be hard to have your life revolve around someone you loath so much.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> It must be hard to have your life revolve around someone you loath so much.


Actually, I prefer the fish sandwich from Burger King much, much more than the one from Mcdonalds.

I'm not putting McDonalds down though, sometimes I just have to have 1 or 2 of those nasty little patties all covered with pickled mayo. 

Yum.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Thx.
> 
> Is that *really* his big sis that posts over there?



Yes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I prefer the fish sandwich from Burger King much, much more than the one from Mcdonalds.
> 
> I'm not putting McDonalds down though, sometimes I just have to have 1 or 2 of those nasty little patties all covered with pickled mayo.
> 
> Yum.


Try ordering an extra slice of cheese on that Filet-O-Fish.

Does your heart no good, but does add a bit more flavor to the sammich.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I prefer the fish sandwich from Burger King much, much more than the one from Mcdonalds.
> 
> I'm not putting McDonalds down though, sometimes I just have to have 1 or 2 of those nasty little patties all covered with pickled mayo.
> 
> Yum.



Hmmmm, I don't think I've ever had the fish from Burger King. McDonald's is real close to my house, but I'll have to try the BK style out.


----------



## GB

They used to call it the Whaler. Now I think it's the Fish Whopper or something...


----------



## ChiBulls2315

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Try ordering an extra slice of cheese on that Filet-O-Fish.
> 
> Does your heart no good, but does add a bit more flavor to the sammich.


I don't think McDonald's knows what a slice is. They only give you about a fourth of a slice on those babies to start with, half of one if you're lucky. :laugh:


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> We get rid of him...off our team goes.
> 
> He disappears from the Knicks lineup...off they go.
> 
> 
> Me thinks he's like that guy on Master and Commander...





> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> The Bulls didnt get rid of him he wanted to go and the obliged .If he accepts Pax offer hes still a Bull now
> 
> hes not in the knicks lineup they still blew another 4tf quarter lead and tonight Sloan doesnt double Marbury in OT and he makes a couple of jumpshots and the knicks win .
> 
> *It must be hard to have your life revolve around someone you loath so much. *


To be honest with ya, its a curse man... a damn curse!


----------



## transplant

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think McDonald's knows what a slice is. They only give you about a fourth of a slice on those babies to start with, half of one if you're lucky. :laugh:


Will the hate in this thread never end?


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Will the hate in this thread never end?



:laugh: 



Moving on:

French fries are a toss-up between BK and McDonalds. I can go for either, with a slight edge toward Mcdonalds.

The hash browns from both places would be better put to use as brake pads or something. :sour: 

Hmmm. A sausage McMuffin sounds good right now...with stawberry jelly.


----------



## ace20004u

Crawford, basketball, fish sandwiches and life...ahhhh what a time to be alive!


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> French fries are a toss-up between BK and McDonalds. I can go for either, with a slight edge toward Mcdonalds.
> 
> The hash browns from both places would be better put to use as brake pads or something. :sour:
> 
> Hmmm. A sausage McMuffin sounds good right now...with stawberry jelly.


I used to love the breakfast bagels, sometimes the only reason I would get up in the morning. What happened to those?!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Crawford, basketball, fish sandwiches and life...ahhhh what a time to be alive!


In some way, it all seems to tie together.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I used to love the breakfast bagels, sometimes the only reason I would get up in the morning. What happened to those?!


They still have them, don't they? The steak and cheese is a 1300 calorie wonder...


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> They still have them, don't they? The steak and cheese is a 1300 calorie wonder...


Yeah steak and cheese is the bomb....way bad for ya though.


----------



## kukoc4ever

sausage mcmuffin with egg.

damn that's good.

hashbrowns and black coffee.

(he said wistfully while finishing his yogurt)

does jamal have any endorsements in NYC?

It would be funny to hear him on some lame electronics store spot… or a lending company… or a local pizzeria


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> does jamal have any endorsements in NYC?
> 
> It would be funny to hear him on some lame electronics store spot… or a lending company… or a local pizzeria


It wasn't easy, but I found this one. 










It does seem to be a more logical fit than the lame electronics store spot… or lending company… or local pizzeria


----------



## ace20004u

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> It wasn't easy, but I found this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem to be a more logical fit than the lame electronics store spot… or lending company… or local pizzeria


thats almost funny....maybe Kirk can get a similar endorsement.


----------



## kukoc4ever

But just like with legos... if you collect enough of those bricks you can turn them into something beautiful.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

And both can break your ankles. Like I just about did the other night, when I stepped on a couple of pointy-*** Legos in the middle of the night.

:upset:


----------



## yodurk

:clap: :rofl: :rotf: :greatjob: 

Nice work, NoExcusesNoVision! Absolutely brilliant.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> And both can break your ankles. Like I just about did the other night, when I stepped on a couple of pointy-*** Legos in the middle of the night.
> 
> :upset:


I got a bone bruise -- not an exaggeration -- on the ball of my left foot from stepping on the "weather vane" component of a Fisher Price "Little People" Farm.

I no longer stray from the immediate confines of my bed without wearing solid-soled slippers.


----------



## kukoc4ever

I have to get the Bucks Lego Kukoc ASAP.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> It wasn't easy, but I found this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem to be a more logical fit than the lame electronics store spot… or lending company… or local pizzeria


:laugh:  :laugh:


Great...hot chocolate on the chin, keyboard, desk, floor...

Gotta keep away from this thread when I've got beverages in hand...


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> thats almost funny....maybe Kirk can get a similar endorsement.


He did, but it was with Skiles! :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> He did, but it was with Skiles! :laugh:


I heard that Hinrich has to call Skiles "Master and Commander" in order to get so much love.

Is this true?


----------



## Mr. T

eh, the message board not responding double post syndrome strikes again.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Is he diving or was he tripped?


I'm afraid this one ain't much better and it almost looks like Hamilton's gettin' a bit excited about the possibilities!


----------



## Mr. T

Baron caught with his hand inside Kirk's cookie jar? :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Baron caught with his hand inside Kirk's cookie jar? :laugh:


That made Skiles jealous.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> That made Skiles jealous.


If you look at it closely, it looks like PJ is the one whose jealous! :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> If you look at it closely, it looks like PJ is the one whose jealous! :laugh:


Veteran move by Baron.

Copping his feel while Kirk is blocking the ref's view.


----------



## yodurk

Kukoc4ever, are you sure you don't want the Jalen Rose legoman? I mean I know you're a Kukoc fan and all, but you deserve Jalen's after all the defending you've done for him this past year. :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> Kukoc4ever, are you sure you don't want the Jalen Rose legoman? I mean I know you're a Kukoc fan and all, but you deserve Jalen's after all the defending you've done for him this past year. :laugh:


I would buy the Rose legoman and the Kukoc legoman and have them play 1on1 on a court built from Jamal's stray bricks.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Can somebody photoshop motorcycle jackets and leather hats on those guys? That'd really complete the image.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Can somebody photoshop motorcycle jackets and leather hats on those guys? That'd really complete the image.


Mr. Hinrich is modeling the traditional jacket ... And doesn't Mr. Davis look stylish in the leather vest?


----------



## GB

<I>The progress is clear, if not entirely satisfying. The Knicks have discovered how to be competitive, even against the league's elite teams. 
--
With a spirited rally in the fourth quarter, the Knicks forced the East-leading Miami Heat into overtime last night at Madison Square Garden, only to fall apart in the extra period and lose, 116-110.</i>

Now whats different about them?

<I> Jamal Crawford missed his second straight game because of a badly sprained ankle...</i>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/sports/basketball/10knicks.html?

I honestly wonder if it's a coincidence or not...


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> <I>The progress is clear, if not entirely satisfying. The Knicks have discovered how to be competitive, even against the league's elite teams.
> --
> With a spirited rally in the fourth quarter, the Knicks forced the East-leading Miami Heat into overtime last night at Madison Square Garden, only to fall apart in the extra period and lose, 116-110.</i>
> 
> Now whats different about them?
> 
> <I> Jamal Crawford missed his second straight game because of a badly sprained ankle...</i>
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/sports/basketball/10knicks.html?
> 
> I honestly wonder if it's a coincidence or not...


i'd be more inclined to think its marbury putting together some great performances, he scored 36 tonight and 30, 33 and 37 in the previous 3.


----------



## kukoc4ever

"NO DEFENSE" Jamal had 6 steals tonight in a Knicks victory.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> "NO DEFENSE" Jamal had 6 steals tonight in a Knicks victory.


hehehe....

How many months have you been waiting to post this? Jalen had 4 steals, so mini-me had to do him better. Classic. At least Jamal's team got a W tonight. Congrats to you and the other Knick fans who frequent our little community here.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> "NO DEFENSE" Jamal had 6 steals tonight in a Knicks victory.


A career high for him.

Still not a good defender though, never will be


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> A career high for him.
> 
> Still not a good defender though, never will be


Looks like he was tonight.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Looks like he was tonight.


I am sure you will sleep better tonight.

OT: Still think the Raptors are in better shape long term than the Bulls? Its somewhere in this thread... too lazy to find it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I am sure you will sleep better tonight.
> 
> OT: Still think the Raptors are in better shape long term than the Bulls? Its somewhere in this thread... too lazy to find it.


Bosh looks good.
Alston looks good.

3 1st round picks.

It could go either way. The Bulls had a 6 year head start.

The Raptors are better than the Bulls were 1 month after deciding to start rebuilding, that's for sure.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Bosh looks good.
> Alston looks good.
> 
> 3 1st round picks.
> 
> It could go either way. The Bulls had a 6 year head start.
> 
> The Raptors are better than the Bulls were 1 month after deciding to start rebuilding, that's for sure.


The Raptors announcers were going on at length about this, in particular the grace period that all those rings bought the Bulls. Not many organizations could tear it down and screw it up five or six times and still have folks coming to their stadium in droves.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Bosh looks good.
> Alston looks good.
> 
> 3 1st round picks.
> 
> It could go either way. The Bulls had a 6 year head start.
> 
> The Raptors are better than the Bulls were 1 month after deciding to start rebuilding, that's for sure.


That's funny. I don't remember you mentioning the past 6 years in your argument, I always thought it was a 'this point going-forward' type of thing. How convenient.

So since the Bulls have been the worst team in the NBA for 6 seasons.. you'll always have that argument to fall back on eh? :laugh: 

How have the Raps started rebuilding? BEcause they're losing? Or because they traded Vince and got a so much salary relief in return (which in reality didn't happen)? The Raps are capped out for the next 2 seasons and are destined to find the next Rafael Araujo's in the draft. Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> The Raptors are better than the Bulls were 1 month after deciding to start rebuilding, that's for sure.


Given that the word "rebuild" implies that they were "built before, torn down, and built again", I'd like to know when the last Raptor dynasty occured. Did I miss it? If not, then I would suggest they are still "building", and this began when they joined the league. Certainly more than our little six year slump.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> That's funny. I don't remember you mentioning the past 6 years in your argument, I always thought it was a 'this point going-forward' type of thing. How convenient.
> 
> So since the Bulls have been the worst team in the NBA for 6 seasons.. you'll always have that argument to fall back on eh? :laugh:
> 
> How have the Raps started rebuilding? BEcause they're losing? Or because they traded Vince and got a so much salary relief in return (which in reality didn't happen)? The Raps are capped out for the next 2 seasons and are destined to find the next Rafael Araujo's in the draft. Sounds like a plan.


3 years from now it would not be stunning if the Raptors are as good as the Bulls.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 3 years from now it would not be stunning if the Raptors are as good as the Bulls.


Certainly a much milder statement than those on which this thread was launched!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Given that the word "rebuild" implies that they were "built before, torn down, and built again", I'd like to know when the last Raptor dynasty occured. Did I miss it? If not, then I would suggest they are still "building", and this began when they joined the league. Certainly more than our little six year slump.


No one mentioned any dynasty requirements.

Clearly trading Vince Carter was the end of an era in Toronto. He did almost lead them to the NBA Finals.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Bosh looks good.
> Alston looks good.
> 
> 3 1st round picks.
> 
> It could go either way. The Bulls had a 6 year head start.
> 
> The Raptors are better than the Bulls were 1 month after deciding to start rebuilding, that's for sure.


Question- how did the Bulls have a 6-year head start? 

Alston was signed last summer, and Bosh was drafted in 2003. The Bulls started rebuilding in 1999, that's only 4 years- you can't have it both ways, sorry.

But Bosh does look really good- Alston has really developed into a good NBA player, but he'll be 29 this summer so he's already in his prime. But he signed long-term for relatively cheap, so he'll have good trade value to go with their picks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Certainly a much milder statement than those on which this thread was launched!


Why U Hatin on Jamal?


----------



## Ron Cey

The lengths that some posters - many posters - will go to desperately cling to the tattered shreds of their bitterness and negativity are classic.

"I must have been right about something gosh darn it!"


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Question- how did the Bulls have a 6-year head start?


Staring from when they dumped their superstar.

MJ
VC


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Why U Hatin on Jamal?




The day Jamal started hatin on Chicago, he became fair game. Just gettin my team's back, homes, just gettin their back.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> The lengths that some posters - many posters - will go to desperately cling to the tattered shreds of their bitterness and negativity are classic.
> 
> "I must have been right about something gosh darn it!"


Maybe I should create a new identity so I can have a "fresh start." Seems to work for many people.

I know I was in the VAST MINORITY who thought the Bulls would struggle this season.


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The Raptors announcers were going on at length about this, in particular the grace period that all those rings bought the Bulls. Not many organizations could tear it down and screw it up five or six times and still have folks coming to their stadium in droves.


How do we get those guys to start broadcasting our games? Most enjoyable call of the year. 

Hard to give up homer-at-large Dore and too busy sucking on my lozenges to comment on the game Kerr, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Staring from when they dumped their superstar.
> 
> MJ
> VC


Seems like we kept your boy Kukoc around longer than that. We couldn't have been rebuilding then... could we?


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Seems like we kept your boy Kukoc around longer than that. We couldn't have been rebuilding then... could we?


They traded him for Jamal. Toni has been injury plagued every since they broke up the dynasty. I think it broke his heart.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> How do we get those guys to start broadcasting our games? Most enjoyable call of the year.
> 
> Hard to give up homer-at-large Dore and too busy sucking on my lozenges to comment on the game Kerr, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.


The Raptor announcers were having a Paxson love fest.

I did think they were pretty good. The color guy definetely knows his x's an o's.


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> How do we get those guys to start broadcasting our games? Most enjoyable call of the year.
> 
> Hard to give up homer-at-large Dore and too busy sucking on my lozenges to comment on the game Kerr, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.


OMG Kerr seems to be sucking down those lozenges every few minutes.  Uber annoying


----------



## Wynn

*The MIGHTY Raptor*

2004-2005 21-32
2003-2004 33-49
2002-2003 24-58
2001-2002 42-40
2000-2001 47-35
1999-2000 45-37
1998-1999 23-27
1997-1998 16-66
1996-1997 30-52

I can't find anything before that.... but I'm sure that the span from 1999-2002 was the best in the history of their franchise. From this they are rebuilding? We've got mighty low expectations for any team other than the Bull, don't we?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Vince only played 1/2 a season in 2002-2003.

He stopped caring after that.



Who here thinks that the best player on either the Bulls or Raptors in 2 years will be Chris Bosh?


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> The Raptor announcers were having a Paxson love fest.
> 
> I did think they were pretty good. The color guy definetely knows his x's an o's.


Chuck Swirsky is on my short list of best play-by-play guys in the business. 

The Raptors have some sort of Bulls-like arrangement in that Leo Rautins does color for some games, and Jack Armstrong (the guy tonight) does others. I like both of them very much, although I think Rautins rubs Raptors fans the wrong way from what I can recall from reading their forum. I thought that Armstrong tonight pulled no punches and was pretty critical of the Raptors, which is a nice contrast to the usual rah-rah a lot of color guys give you..

Anyway, it all hammers home the point yet again that our broadcasts suck. I hope that it's addressed in the offseason.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Who here thinks that the best player on either the Bulls or Raptors in 2 years will be Chris Bosh?


That's a fair question, but the bad part of your argument is that the rest of the candidates in the field are either real, live Bulls or Raptors draft picks. After the past 6 years, I think it's safe to say that a bird in the hand beats two in the bush . . . or whatever.

In other words, who will be the best player on the combined rosters of the Bulls and Raptors in 2 years--

Bosh
one of Toronto's draft picks this year
one of Toronto's draft picks next year
Deng
Chandler
Curry
Hinrich
Gordon

There's also the possibility Bosh has better stats, but that he's not anywhere near the level of Chandler's D, or Curry's O, or Deng's all-around game, etc.

I kinda like our odds.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Staring from when they dumped their superstar.
> 
> MJ
> VC


Well then the Raps have a pretty good head start.

We started with Toni and ... well, that's about it. We had first-round picks (#16 in 1999, #24 in 2000) that we got for Luc and Kerr, but we were basically an expansion team. 

The Raps have Bosh, Alston, Rose (I know, he has negative overall value), Arajuo, MoPete (not my fault they can't draft any better at #8) and an extra first-round pick or two.

But I have to agree that the Raps can't afford to tank 6 seasons like Krause did, they aren't coming off of 6 rings in 8 seasons. Hell, Vince never even got them to the conference finals, it's not like they are "rebuilding" anything- I hope they have their heights set a little higher than losing in the 2nd-round of the playoffs.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Who here thinks that the best player on either the Bulls or Raptors in 2 years will be Chris Bosh?


Same game. But pick the best 5 players from the current rosters.

Who here thinks that the Bulls wouldn't have 4 of them?


----------



## Wynn

And this wonderful beast of a thread has now reached 100 pages of HATIN!


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Well then the Raps have a pretty good head start.
> 
> We started with Toni and ... well, that's about it. We had first-round picks (#16 in 1999, #24 in 2000) that we got for Luc and Kerr, but we were basically an expansion team.


I agree. All I'm saying is that its not all gloom and doom for the raptors. I think they set themselves up well to become good again fast.

At the start of next season, both the Bulls and Raptors should have a solid, deep young core of players.

Paxson's off season last year looks to be the stuff of legend... so the Raptors will have a hard time matching it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Same game. But pick the best 5 players from the current rosters.
> 
> Who here thinks that the Bulls wouldn't have 4 of them?


Yah... the Bulls do right now.

But to be fair we should ask this question at the end of next season... when we see the Raptors picks.


----------



## Wynn

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Paxson's off season last year looks to be the stuff of legend... so the Raptors will have a hard time matching it.


My memory is a bit foggy, who did Paxson trade in this "Summer of Legend"?


----------



## spongyfungy

I'll be listening to the Raptors broadcast tommorow morning. I think they are the best in the entire league.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> My memory is a bit foggy, who did Paxson trade in this "Summer of Legend"?


Our future #1 draft pick???


----------



## SilvoDante

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Chuck Swirsky is on my short list of best play-by-play guys in the business.
> 
> The Raptors have some sort of Bulls-like arrangement in that Leo Rautins does color for some games, and Jack Armstrong (the guy tonight) does others. I like both of them very much, although I think Rautins rubs Raptors fans the wrong way from what I can recall from reading their forum. I thought that Armstrong tonight pulled no punches and was pretty critical of the Raptors, which is a nice contrast to the usual rah-rah a lot of color guys give you..
> 
> Anyway, it all hammers home the point yet again that our broadcasts suck. I hope that it's addressed in the offseason.


Re: Bulls Broadcasts -

Tonight's game on WCIU gave us Wayne Larrivee ... not the best in the business, but a hall of famer compared to Tommy Dore on Comcast Sports Net --

If Bulls fans really want to be heard, they've got to stuff the email boxes of bosses in charge of broadcasting - Jim Corno of Comcast and Steve Schanwald of the Bulls. As a public service, here are their email addresses -

Corno - [email protected]
Schanwald - [email protected]

Take a few minutes to be heard -- drop them a line! Do it today!:yes:


----------



## madox

This thread has become something strange. It doesn't even have anything to do with Crawford half the time...

... But regarding JC, it occurred to me tonight that I would have traded him straight up for Othella, cap space or no...

Not at the time but with hindsight.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> But to be fair we should ask this question at the end of next season... when we see the Raptors picks.


The horrible part about those picks, though, is that they're all protected for this year, and the fact that Babcock's player personnel evaluation seems kind of shaky.

They'll have their own pick, which right now would be #7 -- not especially great odds to move up in the lottery, and not normally a place where you can absolutely count on a future star (we've been incredibly fortunate to get players like Hinrich and Deng there).

They'll have Philadelphia's pick, which is top 8 protected, and right now would be 15. Finding a good player there is a long-shot, historically.

They'll have the Clippers' pick, via Denver via New Jersey, but that's top-15 protected this year. It's totally unprotected next year, but if the Clips retain Simmons and Livingston and Kaman continue to develop and Brand is Brand, it's hard to imagine that being anything better than a very low lottery pick, 11-13 or somesuch.


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> This thread has become something strange. It doesn't even have anything to do with Crawford half the time...
> 
> ... But regarding JC, it occurred to me tonight that I would have traded him straight up for Othella, cap space or no...
> 
> Not at the time but with hindsight.


Great point, I agree 100%.

Harrington certainly wouldn't have been fair value for Jamal, but Harrington has certainly helped us more this year than Jamal would have.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>SilvoDante</b>!
> 
> 
> Re: Bulls Broadcasts -
> 
> Tonight's game on WCIU gave us Wayne Larrivee ... not the best in the business, but a hall of famer compared to Tommy Dore on Comcast Sports Net --
> 
> If Bulls fans really want to be heard, they've got to stuff the email boxes of bosses in charge of broadcasting - Jim Corno of Comcast and Steve Schanwald of the Bulls. As a public service, here are their email addresses -
> 
> Corno - [email protected]
> Schanwald - [email protected]
> 
> Take a few minutes to be heard -- drop them a line! Do it today!:yes:


I'll e-mail them right away. Sir. Gulp.

(although it should be Silv*i*o)


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> This thread has become something strange. It doesn't even have anything to do with Crawford half the time...


I'm going to add to the confusion by stating that Flip Murray's lack of a conscience is truly amazing (anyone else watching Sonics-Worriers? remember, it's the last real basketball game we're going to see for a while)


----------



## Wynn

*Went on a HATE hunt....*



> You can spout all the Pax Platitudes you want.
> 
> The team he's put together sucks *** while rose and marshall are key players on a 3-0 team.





> Blindly supporting a losing team... while the GM dumps players that are the main components to their new winning team.... for NOTHING.
> 
> Pax very well may be the losingest GMs in NBA history.





> The Knicks just finished a brutal stretch of their schedule.
> 
> Look for their record to improve in the next 2 weeks.
> 
> Jamal is on his way to stardom while some Bulls fans seem to want to bench Kirk for Duhon. Strange.





> Jamal is a key contributor on a .500 team. Teams can win with Jamal being one of the main guys.





> And I would say that the success of Jamal in New York and the solid play from Rose and Marshall in Toronto has a lot to do with what is going on in Bulls land right now.





> I'm content to say that so far, a team with Crawford taking the most shots and playing the 2nd most minutes is a winning, division leading, bound for the NBA playoffs team and I'll leave it at that.





> Your team may be in the playoffs... but we're.... we're.... MORE FRUGAL!!! Yah!! WE'RE DOWNRIGHT CHINCEY!! Y'all a bunca SPENDTHRIFTS!!!





> 8-6.
> He can be a key guy on a winning team.
> The guy who traded him for NOTHING is one of the worst GMs W-L wise in NBA history.





> Jamal, at least so far this season, is a winner.
> 
> Maybe he just needed to get the Chicago out of him?





> I'll be on this thread all season, so if the tides turn you can fire away!


Think of this as an intervention. Consider your final request granted.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe I should create a new identity so I can have a "fresh start." Seems to work for many people.


If you think I did that, I hate to disappoint you but . . . I didn't. Maybe I just remind you of someone else who holds basically the opposite opinion you do on everthing Bulls. 

You know the type, the ones that are actually right about stuff?


----------



## bullsville

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Think of this as an intervention. Consider your final request granted.



After seeing that post by Wynn, I think I *would* change my name if I were you, K4E
:grinning:


----------



## Wynn

*Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> After seeing that post by Wynn, I think I *would* change my name if I were you, K4E
> :grinning:


hehehe.....

Got bored after the first 20 pages, knew I wouldn't be able to make it all the way to the end.....

....for fun sometime, go back and check out some of the bile being thrown about by *happygrinch!*, *Ace!*, *ScottMay!*, *MikeofAZ!*, and others.... *kukoc4ever!* was definitely not as alone then as he is now. I'd venture to say that he was close to being in the majority back then. Fortunately cooler heads seem to be prevailing for now.

BTW -- If the Bull happens to finish more than 10 wins ahead of the Knick, do I win the bet, or do I wind up losing because of the wording? I have to admit I'm getting a little worried...


----------



## kukoc4ever

all excellent points. 

its been real...  

(and you wonder why the people wynn mentioned don't post much anymore)

respect!

i'll be thinking of you when this knicks fan is at every bulls game during this fun upcoming run.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

steals do not = defense
I didn't see JC play tonight, but steals and blocks may and many times do indicate that a player has played good D. In Jamals case, it usually means he's playing defense with his hands, not his feet, positioning and heart. Although i can count on less than two hands how many entire Knicks games i've seen this season, The ones with JC in them, i didn't notice anything more than he's always done.

why don't people understand that steals are just a small part of defense? Some of the best defenders don't need to have steals to play good D.

to put steals up as if they mean anything substantial...I mean, we've all seen JC play. If he's sudenly gotten better, thats one thing. Has he changed one iota? If he's the same player tonight then he still don't play D

just askin. Did he actually D up and play actual defense? seriously. Who saw the game and who just read the stat sheet and came to a conclusion one way or another?


----------



## fleetwood macbull

anyways holy murder Jamal Crawford is a Knick. I'm happy with what we got. We got Bulls. Good ones. And cap relief. and Othella. Hoorah. Pax wins! 

he's a Knick, and Jalen's a Raptor ( for tonight at least  )

die Knicks. Die Raptors. DIE! :laugh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> steals do not = defense
> I didn't see JC play tonight, but steals and blocks may and many times do indicate that a player has played good D. In Jamals case, it usually means he's playing defense with his hands, not his feet, positioning and heart. Although i can count on less than two hands how many entire Knicks games i've seen this season, The ones with JC in them, i didn't notice anything more than he's always done.
> 
> why don't people understand that steals are just a small part of defense? Some of the best defenders don't need to have steals to play good D.
> 
> to put steals up as if they mean anything substantial...I mean, we've all seen JC play. If he's sudenly gotten better, thats one thing. Has he changed one iota? If he's the same player tonight then he still don't play D
> 
> just askin. Did he actually D up and play actual defense? seriously. Who saw the game and who just read the stat sheet and came to a conclusion one way or another?


So getting a steal is not playing defense ? 

6 steals means getting 6 extra possessions for your team if that not a attribute of defense then what is ?


Its like saying assists do not = offense 


Jamals game is improving both offensively and defensivelyand hes not all world caliber on defense but better than what he was.Hes beginning to understand the good decision making that required on offense and the agressivness and physical play that is required on defense and the old jamal still slips every now and then more than it should but the lapses have gone from entire halves to under a quarter the question is can he get in down to where its a possesion and not a 4-6 minute stretch.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> (and you wonder why the people wynn mentioned don't post much anymore)


I don't wonder about it at all. If the Bulls sucked, they'd be here wallowing in that failure. Without it, they have nothing to contribute but acknowledgements that they were terribly, terribly wrong in analyzing the players, the coach and the GM. Basically, everything. 

I'm glad they ditched. Although I'm sure they'll come sleezing around when the Bulls inevitably lose a few in a row.

At least you've had the cajones to stick around and participate.


----------



## yodurk

Wow, this thread has breached 100 pages! Nice job people, keep it up. :grinning:


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> ....for fun sometime, go back and check out some of the bile being thrown about by *happygrinch!*, *Ace!*, *ScottMay!*, *MikeofAZ!*, and others.... *kukoc4ever!* was definitely not as alone then as he is now. I'd venture to say that he was close to being in the majority back then. Fortunately cooler heads seem to be prevailing for now.


It's funny what not getting your brains beaten in on a nightly basis will do for your outlook!

And don't think I don't appreciate your calling out all of the naysayers. Maybe if I work real hard and pray a lot, I'll one day join the ranks of the true pollyannas.


----------



## Wynn

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> And don't think I don't appreciate your calling out all of the naysayers. Maybe if I work real hard and pray a lot, I'll one day join the ranks of the true pollyannas.


No offense intended, and you guys certainly weren't the only ones -- we have 100 pages of history to prove that -- just some of the more vocal. I have to say, though, that this has been one of my favorite threads of all time, and I don't intend to let it die without a fight.


----------



## truebluefan

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> Crawford will be an all-star this season....


----------



## superdave

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And I would say that the success of Jamal in New York and the solid play from Rose and Marshall in Toronto has a lot to do with what is going on in Bulls land right now.


Agreed 100%


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense intended, and you guys certainly weren't the only ones -- we have 100 pages of history to prove that -- just some of the more vocal. I have to say, though, that this has been one of my favorite threads of all time, and I don't intend to let it die without a fight.


No offense taken. I just think it's kind of lame and petty to call out individual posters like that. I don't recall any of the "haters" calling out pollyannas by name when we were 0-9, 2-13, etc., so in that respect, while the haters were "wrong," they've still got a leg up on you.

No offense intended.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense taken. I just think it's kind of lame and petty to call out individual posters like that. I don't recall any of the "haters" calling out pollyannas by name when we were 0-9, 2-13, etc., so in that respect, while the haters were "wrong," they've still got a leg up on you.
> 
> No offense intended.


Just curious, but what is a "pollyanna" by definition? Is that similar to a Kool-aid drinker?


----------



## Wynn

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> No offense taken. I just think it's kind of lame and petty to call out individual posters like that. I don't recall any of the "haters" calling out pollyannas by name when we were 0-9, 2-13, etc., so in that respect, while the haters were "wrong," they've still got a leg up on you.
> 
> No offense intended.




None taken.

You see refracted light -- I notice the rainbow. Shall I apologize that I'm more content with my life than you are with yours? So much anger....


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> Shall I apologize that I'm more content with my life than you are with yours? So much anger....


Wow. Let me get this straight. The fact that you were "right" about Jerry Reinsdorf's approach to rebuilding must mean you have more a contented life than I do?

Incredible. I wouldn't have guessed you'd be capable of writing something lamer and pettier than the hater call-out. Now I'm perversely looking forward to what you'll come up with next.


----------



## Ron Cey

Scott:

Is it pollyanna-ish to objectively evaluate a situtation, predict modest success or at least significant improvement and then be proven right?

That has always been the problem with the many posters like you on this board. You arrogantly believe that a positive prediction is simply the ignorant extension of "being a fan" and not the result of legitimate evaluation. 

You were all wrong about virtually everything. It was guys like you whose predictions were founded in emotion far moreso than were the predictions of the "kool-aid drinkers". 

But maybe you'll get your wish and Reinsdorf will refuse to pay for this team. Then at least you'll have one shred of an argument that you can hang your hat on.

Obligatory: No offense intended, followed by winky-guy:


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, but what is a "pollyanna" by definition? Is that similar to a Kool-aid drinker?


It more or less means someone who is foolishly optimistic regardless of the circumstances. Its an insult.


----------



## Wynn

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> Wow. Let me get this straight. The fact that you were "right" about Jerry Reinsdorf's approach to rebuilding must mean you have more a contented life than I do?


Has nothing to do with right or wrong. It appears that you are of a temperament where you react to adversity by spewing rage and bile across the world wide web in reaction to what you perceive as mismanagement of your favorite ballclub. I, on the other hand, have been more willing to patiently wait for the ship to be righted and for our team to come around again.

Because of these differing outlooks, I am forced to conclude that my life is filled with a little more contentment than yours. I may be mistaken. It may only be that you go off like a stark raving mad lunatic about little things -- like a basketball franchise in which you have no real personal investment -- but are much more even keeled about the bigger things in your life -- like health and happiness.

I don't know you, *Scott!*, so it would be unfair to jump to conclusions. I can only go by the face you present on these boards.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

i don't know Wynn. My life is a trainwreck, and I was preaching patience, and hope. deperately so :laugh:


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Scott:
> 
> Is it pollyanna-ish to objectively evaluate a situtation, predict modest success or at least significant improvement and then be proven right?
> 
> That has always been the problem with the many posters like you on this board. You arrogantly believe that a positive prediction is simply the ignorant extension of "being a fan" and not the result of legitimate evaluation.
> 
> You were all wrong about virtually everything. It was guys like you whose predictions were founded in emotion far moreso than were the predictions of the "kool-aid drinkers".
> 
> But maybe you'll get your wish and Reinsdorf will refuse to pay for this team. Then at least you'll have one shred of an argument that you can hang your hat on.
> 
> Obligatory: No offense intended, followed by winky-guy:


Ron,

"Always been the problem"? By "always" you mean what, the last seventy-odd days?


----------



## superdave

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting paid tomorrow. Putting a few bills into savings, buying myself a pair of Lebron 2's for my bball league, probably catching dinner at Cy's crabhouse this weekend. Fight with my ex-girlfriend, watch some basketball games on my futon, maybe down a libation or seven. Post on BB.net if I can.

Now back to the regularly scheduled trench warfare....


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with right or wrong. It appears that you are of a temperament where you react to adversity by spewing rage and bile across the world wide web in reaction to what you perceive as mismanagement of your favorite ballclub. I, on the other hand, have been more willing to patiently wait for the ship to be righted and for our team to come around again.
> 
> Because of these differing outlooks, I am forced to conclude that my life is filled with a little more contentment than yours. I may be mistaken. It may only be that you go off like a stark raving mad lunatic about little things -- like a basketball franchise in which you have no real personal investment -- but are much more even keeled about the bigger things in your life -- like health and happiness.
> 
> I don't know you, *Scott!*, so it would be unfair to jump to conclusions. I can only go by the face you present on these boards.


So you know you shouldn't jump to conclusions, but you're going to jump anyway. Got it.

I admit that I do envy you. I wish I had the time not only to read the literal content of what my fellow posters write, but also the time to parse each post for insight as to what the poster's real life must be like.

Can this be over soon? I'm a "I wouldn't want to be your kid" away from taking this to a real unpleasant place.


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Why U Hatin on Jamal?


Cause U love Jamal so much to the point U ill-wish Bulls!!!


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> I'll be listening to the Raptors broadcast tommorow morning. I think they are the best in the entire league.


Other than the last 2-3 minutes against the Kings, the game in Toronto showed more fan excitement than the sellout crowd against the Kings and the broadcast team did a great job of giving the game a lot of energy for the viewer. It helped that it was fast paced and high scoring, but it was a very enjoyable call. They heaped mountains of praise on just about every Bull, but especially on Hinrich due to his big night. They didn't whine about the officiating and they analyzed the strategy, etc. straight up. I'd take them as our broadcast team in a heartbeat. 

It really shows how bad Chicago has it. They've upgraded the talent on the court to take care of the visuals, now its time they do something about the audio. Dore, Kerr and Larivee are the Dragan Tarlac, Kornel David and Dalibor Bagarich of their profession.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day Jamal started hatin on Chicago, he became fair game. Just gettin my team's back, homes, just gettin their back.


I have a question , when did jamal ever hate on chicago?

I remember him talking about the bulls org.(and not all of it) basically he was talking about paxson and reinsdorf, 

did he have something bad to say about the secretaries that i missed? (nope)

or maybe his teammates . (dont think so)

the coaching staff and skiles?( oh wait he complimented skiles on his way out)

so you got jerry R's back basically.


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Re: Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> hehehe.....
> 
> Got bored after the first 20 pages, knew I wouldn't be able to make it all the way to the end.....
> 
> ....for fun sometime, go back and check out some of the bile being thrown about by *happygrinch!*, *Ace!*, *ScottMay!*, *MikeofAZ!*, and others.... *kukoc4ever!* was definitely not as alone then as he is now. I'd venture to say that he was close to being in the majority back then. Fortunately cooler heads seem to be prevailing for now.
> 
> BTW -- If the Bull happens to finish more than 10 wins ahead of the Knick, do I win the bet, or do I wind up losing because of the wording? I have to admit I'm getting a little worried...


technically you lose , but i will consider it a loss for obvious reasons and stay true to my word. as should everyone else because everyone knew it was that the bet was that the bulls finish significantly behind the knicks.

and umm i am still here , but i have beem busy , when i post i tend to post in burst nowadays. not as consistently though.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> "Always been the problem"? By "always" you mean what, the last seventy-odd days?


No, I mean for years. I read this board sporadically for a good long while before I decided to start posting. I'm quite familiar with your opinions and the opinions of others on this board and how long you've held them.

And as to you in particular, I've read your opinions on realgm as well. So no, its not limited to the amount of time I've been an official poster here - assuming that is what you meant by "70 days".

I assume you don't dispute the accuracy of my take that you've held and expressed these opinions for quite some time.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> No, I mean for years. I read this board sporadically for a good long while before I decided to start posting. I'm quite familiar with your opinions and the opinions of others on this board and how long you've held them.
> 
> And as to you in particular, I've read your opinions on realgm as well. So no, its not limited to the amount of time I've been an official poster here - assuming that is what you meant by "70 days".
> 
> I assume you don't dispute the accuracy of my take that you've held and expressed these opinions for quite some time.


I need some help here.

Were people "allowed" to have a negative opinion about Krause and his rebuilding?

Or is it only Paxson that people are not "allowed" to have a negative opinion about?

And why is this? B/c he is good or wasn't in the job long enough? Or what?

B/c if the "haters" couldn't hate, then why should the "lovers" be able to love? We still haven't made the playoffs.


----------



## johnston797

Many of the valued, regular posters were negative on Pax. I was at times. _Most times, I was positive on Pax. Although partially to be the devil's advocate._ 

With that said, no one is calling for Pax's head on a regular basis. We all seem to be enjoying the winning. The really bitter people have basiscally disappeared.

Let's call off the hounds. I would hate to lose some of these posters that were quite negative. These boards already seem to have taken a hit already in terms of quality.

Edit - In Italics.


----------



## giusd

And while we are at it lets just say good luck JC and enjoy what we got. Gordon destroying the other teams defensive sets with his quick first step, curry playing tough D at the end of the game, noci's crazy eye looks, and Chandlers great shot blocking at the end of the game.

david


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> No, I mean for years. I read this board sporadically for a good long while before I decided to start posting. I'm quite familiar with your opinions and the opinions of others on this board and how long you've held them.
> 
> And as to you in particular, I've read your opinions on realgm as well. So no, its not limited to the amount of time I've been an official poster here - assuming that is what you meant by "70 days".
> 
> I assume you don't dispute the accuracy of my take that you've held and expressed these opinions for quite some time.


Not to take this in another direction, but after years and years of sitting back and cataloging others' opinions without offering any of your own, what made you decide to start posting a couple months ago?

Yes, I've been consistent in my belief that Reinsdorf is the problem. And no, no one will be happier if he proves me wrong and re-signs Curry and Chandler, or if he is forced to give Paxson and Skiles 500% raises after they've won EOY and COY.

Unless you are Jerry Reinsdorf or John Paxson or Scott Skiles or a close relative of one of the three, I genuinely can't understand how anything I've posted over the years could have touched such a nerve.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Many of the valued, regular posters were negative on Pax. I was at times. At other times, I was supportive of Pax in part to be the devil's advocate.
> 
> With that said, no one is calling for Pax's head on a regular basis. We all seem to be enjoying the winning. The really bitter people have basiscally disappeared.
> 
> Let's call off the hounds. I would hate to lose some of these posters that were quite negative. These boards already seem to have taken a hit already in terms of quality.


:yes: 

The Pro-Pax and Skiles people felt, and I think rightly to a degree, that their opinions were not always given the proper modicum of respect back when the team was struggling. "Blind" and "too much Kool-aid" were a couple terms bandied about. Now, I feel like the worm has turned and the same thing is happening in the other direction. I don't condone either practice. In this thread and a couple others, I've put my thoughts out there, but I've tried not to be disrespectful, even as I challenge the opinions of a handful of people. I DO have a fundamental issue with the Fire Pax and Skiles clubs, but I said what I wanted to say about them in another thread. And I'm going to try to avoid wading into the mix in this thread too, as I feel like there's not much left to say. Good luck, Jamal. I don't miss you, but have a nice career.


----------



## giusd

With you man. Lets have treads that discuss the team, individual players, how they are playing, improving, hitting the wall. The teams strenghts and weakness, how to improve them and when we go next year to improve.

david


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> The Pro-Pax and Skiles people felt, and I think rightly to a degree, that their opinions were not always given the proper modicum of respect back when the team was struggling.


And this payback is respectful? Or are the tables just turned.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> And this payback is respectful? Or are the tables just turned.


hm, did you read the rest of my post?  

"Now I feel like the worm has turned and the same thing is happening in the other direction"

I don't think the payback has been particularly respectful, and there's been a big upswell in it since yesterday especially. A little bit of gloating wouldn't have killed anyone, but it's almost like a cacophony right now and has gone too far. Maybe we just don't have much else to discuss with the Allstar break upon us, I don't know.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to take this in another direction, but after years and years of sitting back and cataloging others' opinions without offering any of your own, what made you decide to start posting a couple months ago?
> 
> Yes, I've been consistent in my belief that Reinsdorf is the problem. And no, no one will be happier if he proves me wrong and re-signs Curry and Chandler, or if he is forced to give Paxson and Skiles 500% raises after they've won EOY and COY.
> 
> Unless you are Jerry Reinsdorf or John Paxson or Scott Skiles or a close relative of one of the three, I genuinely can't understand how anything I've posted over the years could have touched such a nerve.


What made you decide to start posting when you did? I just decided to register and participate. Thats it. I've participated in other boards on other websites for much longer.

What have you (and the others like you) done to touch a nerve? Let me give you a very recent example that should be easy for you to recall. Today, in this thread you used the demeaning term "pollyanna" to describe the optimist minded posters. As you know, that means foolish optimism.

Similarly, in the past those like you attempted to drown out any positive opinions through the use of condescending terms like "blind" or "kool-aid", etc. You in particular have numerous times called me a "corporate shill" and the like for defending the organization's - and Reinsdorf's - moves. I assume you won't dispute that.

Thats my problem, Scott. Not the existence of a disparate opinion, but the condescending belief - as expressed ad nauseum on this particular board - that the negative minded opinion is somehow more objective, analytical, or unclouded by emotion. 

A belief which is egotistical nonsense, as evidenced by the complete and utter inaccuracy of almost every negative opinion shouted from the mountaintops on this board.

This board might house the most naturally intelligent collection of posters I've seen. But, not coincidentally, it also houses the most arrogant. Its not really surprising that given the Bulls current stretch of success, a lot of you have been far more scarce than you were in November and December.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> What made you decide to start posting when you did? I just decided to register and participate. Thats it. I've participated in other boards on other websites for much longer.


I registered and made my first post the very first time I visited this board (and RealGM before it). I just found it strange to think you'd sit back for 3+ years, noting who wrote this and who believed that, without posting a word.



> What have you (and the others like you) done to touch a nerve? Let me give you a very recent example that should be easy for you to recall. Today, in this thread you used the demeaning term "pollyanna" to describe the optimist minded posters. As you know, that means foolish optimism.


Nope. Being a pollyanna just means you're optimistic about everything. Whether or not it's foolish to be optimistic depends on the situation. At 0-9, I'd say it was foolish, even today. Paxson and Skiles can say today they were confident things would turn around, but their actions -- benching Chandler and Duhon, shopping Chandler and Curry around the league -- speak otherwise.



> Similarly, in the past those like you attempted to drown out any positive opinions through the use of condescending terms like "blind" or "kool-aid", etc. You in particular have numerous times called me a "corporate shill" and the like for defending the organization's - and Reinsdorf's - moves. I assume you won't dispute that.


I have never, ever attempted to drown out anyone's opinion. I may argued with a select group of posters and publicly doubted their mindset and maybe even their intentions, but drown out? You've got the wrong guy.



> Thats my problem, Scott. Not the existence of a disparate opinion, but the condescending belief - as expressed ad nauseum on this particular board - that the negative minded opinion is somehow more objective, analytical, or unclouded by emotion.
> 
> A belief which is egotistical nonsense, as evidenced by the complete and utter inaccuracy of almost every negative opinion shouted from the mountaintops on this board.


Well, since you're in the catbird seat, you're entitled to this opinion, even if I've never felt for a second my words carry more weight than anyone else's. 



> This board might house the most naturally intelligent collection of posters I've seen. But, not coincidentally, it also houses the most arrogant. Its not really surprising that given the Bulls current stretch of success, a lot of you have been far more scarce than you were in November and December.


I don't know who "a lot of you" is. I've been posting at roughly the same rate I have for the last two+ years.


----------



## BealeFarange

I am tempted to go on a long, long, long rant here...but I won't. Basically, I just want to say I got ScottMay's back here...

As a former SUPER negative poster, as someone who thought this team was headed to new lows, as someone who disliked the callousness and clumsiness with which the Krause --> Paxson regime change was made, and as someone who STILL thinks Skiles can sometimes be too stubborn for his own good and that Reinsdorf can be too fickle for HIS own good, let me just say that I'm happy to see the Bulls win and I'm happy to see the team succeed and I'm happy to have been wrong in predicting which side of the scales lady luck would place her weight. 

That all being said, let's not kid ourselves here: MANY posters just appeared out of nowhere when this team started winning and started proclaiming themselves champions of the light and defenders of the gib and whatnot. I'm not down with that. 
I'm a heck of a lot more positive now, too...like night and day. But I still feel like I've got the right to question Pax and Skiles and I still feel like they haven't earned the right to be above questioning. 

That's what message boards are for. Voicing grievances with your fellow fans, discussing solutions to problems, etc;. There's not much fun in saying "Gee, this team is great." "Yup, they sure are." over and over again.

I just don't see the point in attacking anyone who is negative--or even passively relying on the "happy majority" to lean on them along with you--if that person has reasons for being negative and is sharing those reasons with the crowd. 

Some posters--we all know who--are a little too confrontational and a little too negative for their own good...but they're still what makes this board a great place to be. Some other posters still take negative stances from time to time--I'm one of them--but I hope these opinions are received as being every bit as valid as any other. 

Paxson got lucky. He'd admit that. He DID put himself into good position to take "good" risks--but they ALL came up rosy. The Othella toss-in? Deng falling to seven? No injuries? There are still plenty of business decisions to second-guess and analyze. 

Skiles still gets a little stubborn...you couldn't possibly convince me that it wouldn't be better for Luol Deng to play more than three minutes after scoring 12 in the first quarter vs. the Bobcats. Give me all the reasons you want--resting him, instilling confidence in his backups, whatever--and I'm not going to buy them. I disagree with the move--I think his legs could more than handle it and I think he would have benefitted greatly from the confidence boost of a 35 point game or whatever. I still think Eddy can be used in the fourth...and he's starting too be used as such now. For that move I applaud him...and I wonder why it couldn't be done before. There are still pieces of Skiles that aren't perfect, in my opinion, and I enjoy exploring them. 

I said this wouldn't turn into a rant and whenever I do that, I start ranting. Oh well. I'm just saying that the negatives are valid and logic/analysis serves arguments of all kinds.


----------



## giusd

BealeFarange, 

"MANY posters just appeared out of nowhere when this team started winning and started proclaiming themselves champions of the light and defenders of the gib and whatnot. I'm not down with that". I have to say i very respectfully and strongly disagree with this statement.

For starters i have been a positive posted on this board for several years back with the old format. At the end of last year, this summer, and during the rough 3 and 14 start when anyone tried to post anything positive they (and me) just got ravaged. And many of those disagreeing comments were very personal including someone making a comment about my wife (last winter), period. 

And i must admit after a while i just got sick of posting and being blasted (and you all know who you are). IMHO it was the super negative posters that DROVE us positive posters off. So when you write this "MANY posters just appeared out of nowhere " i would like you to very seriously consider if maybe many of those posters that were positive were simply driven off the board.

If you put yourself in their shoes maybe you might understand why they were somewhat absent during the beginning of the year and just between you and me: Bring abused on the board (in sometimes personal ways) kinda suckks.

Just some food to think about. But i say this, that was then and this is now. Lets stop all this i told you soo BS and start making this the best posting board for bulls fans, period.

david


----------



## ViciousFlogging

I think nearly all of the most vocal "positive posters" were very much here in November and December, anyway. I've been here fairly consistently, though I do tend to post in bursts when I get really into certain topics. Wynn and superdave are staples of the board. Ron Cey and yodurk were probably the most vocal Pax/Skiles supporters around here for a while. Those are some examples of more visible "positive" posters. I don't really buy this "they're coming out of the woodwork" argument. I think some people did post less for a while because of the general pessimism just as SOME people are posting less now because their prophecies of doom ended up being wrong, but I can't think of anyone who appeared out of nowhere to sing PaxSkiles's praises when things started turning around.

wait, didn't I say I was going to back off from these types of things? My bad.


----------



## BealeFarange

> Lets stop all this i told you soo BS and start making this the best posting board for bulls fans, period.
> 
> david


I think that's already happened... 

The JC thread is really the deepest, darkest pit of repressed anger, fear, and frustration that I know of on the entire internet. You can go back through it and fine many long, long posts that I've made similar to the one above...and not find anything like them anywhere else on BBB. Jamal Crawford really was a bizarre phenomenon on this board...all of the energy invested in him could not just fizzle away...it had to be twisted around and funneled somehwere else. Hence, this thread. It's a therapy pit for all of the BBB Bulls posters and everythign written in here should be taken as such...


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> Paxson got lucky. He'd admit that. He DID put himself into good position to take "good" risks--but they ALL came up rosy. The Othella toss-in? Deng falling to seven? No injuries? There are still plenty of business decisions to second-guess and analyze.
> 
> Skiles still gets a little stubborn...you couldn't possibly convince me that it wouldn't be better for Luol Deng to play more than three minutes after scoring 12 in the first quarter vs. the Bobcats. Give me all the reasons you want--resting him, instilling confidence in his backups, whatever--and I'm not going to buy them. I disagree with the move--I think his legs could more than handle it and I think he would have benefitted greatly from the confidence boost of a 35 point game or whatever. I still think Eddy can be used in the fourth...and he's starting too be used as such now. For that move I applaud him...and I wonder why it couldn't be done before. There are still pieces of Skiles that aren't perfect, in my opinion, and I enjoy exploring them.


Good post BealeFarange!

I'd like to comment about these 2 paragraphs.

The 1st saying Pax was lucky - in a way , yes , he has. But some things we should not forget:
Pax entered the Job a season and a half ago , and couldn't be less lucky when JWill had his accident. A promising #2 pick from the year before , and there were also big trade talks involving him , that might have helped him change the face of the team back then. And I do not think he's lucky by picking the best guys he could at the position he was in the draft , he's just good at evaluating talent that can help the team imo , I'd give him that. And I also can't say he's lucky by doing trades that looked as if wer'e getting the lesser talent back (we probably did) only to lose characters and contracts he did not want around the young team he had in his mind. 

The 2nd part about Skiles - I agree sometimes Skiles is just too stuborn. Yes , Deng should play more (Just like u I cannot be convinced in a game like U posted). He ain't perfect thats for sure. But on the other hand this stuborness might be the reason our team is playing great D this season. Tactically - game by game , I agree sometimes he makes moves that make him look like a total fool to us die hard Bulls fans. But if we look at the total picture - maybe it's what this very young team needed - more discipline on court.Of course Pax helped him by bringing in 'coaches players' , and in the Jamal and Jalen trades it was even at the expense of talent , but still - Skiles managed to make those guys the way he thinks we can win. I'd give him the thumbs up for that.


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Good post BealeFarange!
> 
> I'd like to comment about these 2 paragraphs.
> 
> The 1st saying Pax was lucky - in a way , yes , he has. But some things we should not forget:
> Pax entered the Job a season and a half ago , and couldn't be less lucky when JWill had his accident. A promising #2 pick from the year before , and there were also big trade talks involving him , that might have helped him change the face of the team back then. And I do not think he's lucky by picking the best guys he could at the position he was in the draft , he's just good at evaluating talent that can help the team imo , I'd give him that. And I also can't say he's lucky by doing trades that looked as if wer'e getting the lesser talent back (we probably did) only to lose characters and contracts he did not want around the young team he had in his mind.


Luck.

What happened if JWill didn't have his accident? Do you think Pax would have drafted Hinrich at #7 to replace him?

So where would we be with JWill instead of Hinrich?

(Yes, I think Hinrich has turned out to be significantly better than JWill would have been).


----------



## giusd

Jwill does not get into the accident and IMHO paxson would have pulled the trigger for the marshall and 8th for the rapters 4th pick and paxson would have drafted Wade. It is well know that paxson wanted wade bad and after the accident he had to change his plans,

david


----------



## lgtwins

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I registered and made my first post the very first time I visited this board (and RealGM before it). <b>I just found it strange to think you'd sit back for 3+ years, noting who wrote this and who believed that, without posting a word.</b>


Actually it not strange at all. A lot of people visited this board not dropping a word. I personally have visited this site almost 1 1/2 year before I register and start posting and my friend still read almost everyday this site yet to post a single thing. Oh, by the way he has also visited this site almost 2 years. So really it is not strange at all. When people decide to join, for whatever reason, and when to choose to post works in so many different way.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Luck.
> 
> What happened if JWill didn't have his accident? Do you think Pax would have drafted Hinrich at #7 to replace him?
> 
> So where would we be with JWill instead of Hinrich?
> 
> <b>(Yes, I think Hinrich has turned out to be significantly better than JWill would have been).</b>


Does this mean you weren't ever very high on JWill? Or that you think Hinrich is an absolute stud?

And I think this is my first post to this thread.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Luck.
> 
> What happened if JWill didn't have his accident? Do you think Pax would have drafted Hinrich at #7 to replace him?
> 
> So where would we be with JWill instead of Hinrich?
> 
> (Yes, I think Hinrich has turned out to be significantly better than JWill would have been).


So now you're saying Paxson was LUCKY that the #2 pick from the year before and one of the team's most valuable assets was lost forever in a motorcycle accident?

Please tell me you're kidding or that I'm misunderstanding something.

yes, things would have happened very differently if the accident hadn't happened. Maybe we'd still suck - could be. Then again, we might have pulled a trigger on a trade for Anthony or Wade using Jay or Jamal. But under no circumstances was that a lucky occurrence.


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Luck.
> 
> What happened if JWill didn't have his accident? Do you think Pax would have drafted Hinrich at #7 to replace him?
> 
> So where would we be with JWill instead of Hinrich?
> 
> (Yes, I think Hinrich has turned out to be significantly better than JWill would have been).


I agree about Kirk - though there was supposed to be a deal with the Celts - Toine and Battie for JWill and Rose If I remember correctly (Maybe also picks , not sure). Now I know u and many others can say wer'e lucky we did not get Toine - But like him or not - his contract expires at the end of this season , and we'd be big in FA market this year (and not next when AD expires).

Point is , he lost a very useful player for trading or keeping , and he lost him for nothing. As we have no idea what would've happened If J did not have the accident , u could argue that if Pax decided to keep Jay - He would do the trade up to get Wade.

Losing a valuable player (Keeps/trades) is only unlucky.


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Jwill does not get into the accident and IMHO paxson would have pulled the trigger for the marshall and 8th for the rapters 4th pick and paxson would have drafted Wade. It is well know that paxson wanted wade bad and after the accident he had to change his plans,
> 
> david


Bingo , beat me to it David.

Only it was our 7th (not really matters)


----------



## bullsville

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> So now you're saying Paxson was LUCKY that the #2 pick from the year before and one of the team's most valuable assets was lost forever in a motorcycle accident?
> 
> Please tell me you're kidding or that I'm misunderstanding something.
> 
> yes, things would have happened very differently if the accident hadn't happened. Maybe we'd still suck - could be. Then again, we might have pulled a trigger on a trade for Anthony or Wade using Jay or Jamal. But under no circumstances was that a lucky occurrence.


I was about to post the same thing- unless there is some kind of huge misunderstanding going on that we both missed, he just said that Paxson was LUCKY that, 2 months after he took the job, he lost the #2 pick from the previous summer's draft who had just come off an outstanding April.

If anything, hell, it's much easier (and realistic) to make the case that Jay or Jamal would have been traded and we would have still taken Kirk. Hinrich is more of a Pax and Skiles kind of guy than Jay or Jamal either one IMO. 

I guess the Celtics were LUCKY that Lenny Bias OD'd?


----------



## DaBullz

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> Does this mean you weren't ever very high on JWill? Or that you think Hinrich is an absolute stud?
> 
> And I think this is my first post to this thread.


JWill? I had high hopes for him when drafted, but he absolutely did not live up to my expectations once he started playing. I think he was a horrible liability on defense and his shooting was poor. Incredibly quick, but unable to compensate with his quickness for his lack of height.

Hinrich? At the very least, he's been a quality starter for last season and this. Certainly better than having JWill and someone else at #7 who would have panned out far less. Hinrich is extremely inconsistent, but when he's on, he plays terrific. When he's off, he is a solid contributor, but significantly worse than his best...

That's my view.

EDIT: It's hard to argue on one hand that Pax shouldn't be judged on trades he almost made (i.e. Deng for Harrington) and then argue he'd have traded for Wade on the other hand.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I think nearly all of the most vocal "positive posters" were very much here in November and December, anyway. I've been here fairly consistently, though I do tend to post in bursts when I get really into certain topics. Wynn and superdave are staples of the board. Ron Cey and yodurk were probably the most vocal Pax/Skiles supporters around here for a while. Those are some examples of more visible "positive" posters. I don't really buy this "they're coming out of the woodwork" argument.


When I started posting here in December the Bulls were far, far below .500 and didn't even have a winning record in the month. Regardless, I've been posting the same things on other boards all season and last season as well when Paxson wisely took that pansy *** team and threw it in the trash.

No one "came out of the woodwork". When I started here the future of this team and this season were very much in doubt in many people's minds and the subject of hot debate.

So, thanks VF for pointing that out to Beale.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> EDIT: It's hard to argue on one hand that Pax shouldn't be judged on trades he almost made (i.e. Deng for Harrington) and then argue he'd have traded for Wade on the other hand.


actually it's not hard at all, since the circumstances were entirely different. Pax may or may not have traded Jay/Jamal, but never got the CHANCE because of the accident. He lost a valuable asset on his rookie contract for nothing in the blink of an eye. 

We've been over the Deng/Harrington/Pax "lucked into" everything thing already and I don't care to go into it again, since you ended up posting quotes that contradicted your own argument in that thread.

Are you really saying that losing Jay was lucky? You avoided this point above.


----------



## GB

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> Paxson got lucky.


Do poker players get lucky?


I'd just say that Pax took the hand that was dealt him and played it to perfection.

You conveniently left out the things he wanted that didn't really go his way.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I have never, ever attempted to drown out anyone's opinion. I may argued with a select group of posters and publicly doubted their mindset and maybe even their intentions, but drown out? You've got the wrong guy.


But you don't dispute the tone and terminology I highlighted. And you might want to look pollyanna up in a dictionary before you use it in a sentence.

It means foolish, blind or unreasonable optimism. Actually, in an unabridged dictionary the definition is even less flattering. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pollyanna

But you knew that already. Just like you know the tone of the "kool-aid" references and calling people "corporate shills" because they think Reinsdorf might not be the anti-christ.

Considering that several of these comments have been directed at me specifically, I know I've got the the right guy. But don't feel bad. You aren't alone.


----------



## bullet

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Do poker players get lucky?
> 
> 
> I'd just say that Pax took the hand that was dealt him and played it to perfection.
> 
> You conveniently left out the things he wanted that didn't really go his way.


:greatjob:


----------



## BealeFarange

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Do poker players get lucky?
> 
> 
> I'd just say that Pax took the hand that was dealt him and played it to perfection.
> 
> You conveniently left out the things he wanted that didn't really go his way.


Sweet Jesus!

Thanks to everyone who took my comment way out of context! Really, I'm glad!

I'm not saying all of Paxson's success is luck nor am I saying Skiles is a stubborn jerk with no redeemable qualities. All I'm saying is that neither Paxson nor Skiles nor any other human being on this planet) has been _beyond _ reproach. I said that I "enjoy" examining their insufficiencies because what is more fun in sports than asking *what if?* 

I also went on to say that I think this whole thread has become a dumping ground for all of our frustrations and bla bla bla and that most of what is said on this thread is at least a bit out of line from the stances we take elsewhere. 

I hope my posting record speaks for itself and that my post isn't butchered here to say something silly that I obviously don't believe. 

No one "pointed anything out to [me]" RonCey...I'm just saying that there are a lot of "told ya so" style threads that are no better than the super-negative threads that ALSO frequent this board.

_edit: _ And, YES, Poker players do get lucky. I said that Pax put himself in "good position to take good chances" and there is no denying that the flop has been kind to him so far. Let's just hope the turn sees us using our money wisely and we're floating down the river with a championship trophy. That's just how the game works! And I love it, by the way...all of it.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> But you don't dispute the tone and terminology I highlighted. And you might want to look pollyanna up in a dictionary before you use it in a sentence.
> 
> It means foolish, blind or unreasonable optimism. Actually, in an unabridged dictionary the definition is even less flattering.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pollyanna
> 
> But you knew that already. Just like you know the tone of the "kool-aid" references and calling people "corporate shills" because they think Reinsdorf might not be the anti-christ.
> 
> Considering that several of these comments have been directed at me specifically, I know I've got the the right guy. But don't feel bad. You aren't alone.


Again, I can't help but be struck by how odd it is that someone who on the one hand felt detached enough from this board to lurk, not post, for years and years would on the other hand so diligently parse my posts for subtleties like "tone and terminology" and be made so profoundly upset and vengeful by them. 

Just think, if you'd mustered up the courage to complain like this two years ago, you could have changed the course of my entire life and saved yourself a lot of irritation.

And I hate myself for taking your pedantic bait, but here goes nothing: Webster's 11th, which, if you were ever to write a book about, say, how smart you are, is what your publisher would use to copyedit it, defines "Pollyanna" as "a person characterized by irrepressible optimism and a tendency to find good in everything."

By the way, if you could explain to me how your recent posts directed at me _aren't_ condescending, arrogant, smug, poisonous, or any of the other fifty-cent adjectives you've fired over my bow today, I'd be much obliged.


----------



## lgtwins

Everybody may need to chill a little with this name-calling business. 

It begins to looks like some of you guys sounds like "Last word freak". Well then again that's internet boardrooms are for.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, I can't help but be struck by how odd it is that someone who on the one hand felt detached enough from this board to lurk, not post, for years and years would on the other hand so diligently parse my posts for subtleties like "tone and terminology" and be made so profoundly upset and vengeful by them.
> 
> Just think, if you'd mustered up the courage to complain like this two years ago, you could have changed the course of my entire life and saved yourself a lot of irritation.
> 
> And I hate myself for taking your pedantic bait, but here goes nothing: Webster's 11th, which, if you were ever to write a book about, say, how smart you are, is what your publisher would use to copyedit it, defines "Pollyanna" as "a person characterized by irrepressible optimism and a tendency to find good in everything."
> 
> By the way, if you could explain to me how your recent posts directed at me _aren't_ condescending, arrogant, smug, poisonous, or any of the other fifty-cent adjectives you've fired over my bow today, I'd be much obliged.


I'm not upset by you. I find all this comical.

And I don't pretend for a second that what I've been posting the last few months ISN"T smug. It very obviously is. Thats kind of the point. Whats good for the goose and all that. 

Not to mention the fact that you, to this day, use terms like pollyanna to describe others. Though I'm glad you were able to locate one mild definition for the term to shield your intended use.

And I still have no idea why you take issue with my decision to post here - other than that maybe you'd prefer it if I never had. Surely you realize there are scores of people who read this board, and others, who have never registered.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Surely you realize there are scores of people who read this board, and others, who have never registered.


Yup. You're the only one that I know of, however, who's proudly marched in and announced that he'd been keeping tabs on who'd been naughty and nice the last three years and then proceeded to methodically bust the chops of everyone whose interpretation of the events of the past seven years wasn't in line with his own.


----------



## BealeFarange

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not upset by you. I find all this comical.


At least you admit to being smug later...


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Yup. You're the only one that I know of, however, who's proudly marched in and announced that he'd been keeping tabs on who'd been naughty and nice the last three years and then proceeded to methodically bust the chops of everyone whose interpretation of the events of the past seven years wasn't in line with his own.


That is, unsurprisingly, an extremely inaccurate statement. I never said I'd been reading this board for 3 years. But, as I have posted before, I've been a poster at Sportstalk, and realgm.com and here. That spans years. 

And I'm not talking about the last 7 years at all - never have. I'm a die hard - like you. I've been extremely critical of this team at times during that stretch - not a "pollyanna", Scott. Hell, I just about stopped watching the pathetic excuse for basketball that Rose and Crawford were showing last season. 

But as soon as Paxson dismantled this team last November and started over, I finally believed things were heading in the right direction. I, and many others, had patience in allowing those things to play out. And were trashed for it as "blind" or "kool-aid drinkers" or "fanboys" "lemmings" or what have you. 

And you know that to be true and that you were a participant. So spare me the "busting chops" angle.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> 
> 
> At least you admit to being smug later...


I never denied it in the first place, Beale.


----------



## ScottMay

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> That is, unsurprisingly, an extremely inaccurate statement. I never said I'd been reading this board for 3 years. But, as I have posted before, I've been a poster at Sportstalk, and realgm.com and here. That spans years.
> 
> And I'm not talking about the last 7 years at all - never have. I'm a die hard - like you. I've been extremely critical of this team at times during that stretch - not a "pollyanna", Scott. Hell, I just about stopped watching the pathetic excuse for basketball that Rose and Crawford were showing last season.
> 
> But as soon as Paxson dismantled this team last November and started over, I finally believed things were heading in the right direction. I, and many others, had patience in allowing those things to play out. And were trashed for it as "blind" or "kool-aid drinkers" or "fanboys" "lemmings" or what have you.
> 
> And you know that to be true and that you were a participant. So spare me the "busting chops" angle.


Terrific. I approve of your bona fides, you apparently approve of mine; you feel you've been trashed, I feel I've been trashed; I think you've got an agenda, you think I've got an agenda; you want the Bulls to do well, I want the Bulls to do well . . . 

I guess the easiest thing for me to do is to walk away from this thread (or at least this tangent of it). If you see me out in the rest of the world and just can't resist trying to rub my nose in the Bulls' success, I'll be happy to pick up where we left off.

Peace!


----------



## Ron Cey

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Terrific. I approve of your bona fides, you apparently approve of mine; you feel you've been trashed, I feel I've been trashed; I think you've got an agenda, you think I've got an agenda; you want the Bulls to do well, I want the Bulls to do well . . .
> 
> I guess the easiest thing for me to do is to walk away from this thread (or at least this tangent of it). If you see me out in the rest of the world and just can't resist trying to rub my nose in the Bulls' success, I'll be happy to pick up where we left off.
> 
> Peace!


Sweet. 

And, for the record, I don't think you have an agenda. Mine, however, is on my sleeve. Fair play. I'm more of a gander than a Penguin.


----------



## lgtwins

Again good job, K4E !!!

Yesterday when I checked it, nobody posted new stuff on this thread and it was on third page back. I was like finally the end of JC thread and voila one good game from JC and K4E posted one just to revive this thread back to front page and we have 3 (is it 4) pages long discussion on this Kinicks player.

Knicks! A Godforsaken Knicks player.

Amazing. Simply amazing this whole thread.

We may all need a group therapy.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

don't you get it, lgtwins? This thread is like a cockroach. It'll outlive us all. :yes:


----------



## Mr. T

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> don't you get it, lgtwins? This thread is like a cockroach. It'll outlive us all. :yes:


Or perhaps its simply an attempt to relive the "good ole days", when the board was run amok daily with pissing and moaning and hero worship and hatin' and we were all just one big dysfunctional family.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

I say we should discuss Jamals career excessively until he retires...in this thread. 50,000 pages. And worry about the Knicks until we get nosebleeds


----------



## SecretAgentGuy

I must say, this thread belongs in a case study of "the effects of internet message boards". Jamal at best is a marginal player in this league. His defense is sickening, his shot selection is deplorable, and his basketball IQ is unforgiveable. Why all the love? Do you guys really value substance over style? :whoknows:


----------



## BealeFarange

BealeFarange said:


> The JC thread is really the deepest, darkest pit of repressed anger, fear, and frustration that I know of on the entire internet. You can go back through it and fine many long, long posts that I've made similar to the one above...and not find anything like them anywhere else on BBB. Jamal Crawford really was a bizarre phenomenon on this board...all of the energy invested in him could not just fizzle away...it had to be twisted around and funneled somehwere else. Hence, this thread. It's a therapy pit for all of the BBB Bulls posters and everythign written in here should be taken as such...


I think this still stands...


----------



## dkg1

sp00k said:


> I must say, this thread belongs in a case study of "the effects of internet message boards". Jamal at best is a marginal player in this league. His defense is sickening, his shot selection is deplorable, and his basketball IQ is unforgiveable. Why all the love? Do you guys really value substance over style? :whoknows:


I agree with most of what you said, sp00k. Both sides crack me up. It's funny how much some people love JC's game and the lengths other people will go to to rip on his game. I was far from a fan of his game when he was here, but he's gone now and I could care less how he does. As crazy as this sounds, he could average 25 points per game and I still think we're better without him. He needed a change of scenery and we needed to go in a different direction so I think both sides benefited from the trade.


----------



## Wynn

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



ScottMay said:


> No offense taken. I just think it's kind of lame and petty to call out individual posters like that. I don't recall any of the "haters" calling out pollyannas by name when we were 0-9, 2-13, etc., so in that respect, while the haters were "wrong," they've still got a leg up on you.
> 
> No offense intended.


I guess I owe each of you an apology. *kukoc4ever!* and I have been involved in what I've considered good-natured, tongue-in-cheek ribbing over the course of this season and this thread. I didn't realize that my earlier post was going to be taken so seriously. After returning from a long week-end, my message box and further replies to my posts indicate that maybe everyone else wasn't taking my posts in the same light.

I don't happen to know anyone on this board personally, and can only imagine everyone is a wonderful person.

Peace!


----------



## DaBullz

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



Wynn said:


> I guess I owe each of you an apology. *kukoc4ever!* and I have been involved in what I've considered good-natured, tongue-in-cheek ribbing over the course of this season and this thread. I didn't realize that my earlier post was going to be taken so seriously. After returning from a long week-end, my message box and further replies to my posts indicate that maybe everyone else wasn't taking my posts in the same light.
> 
> I don't happen to know anyone on this board personally, and can only imagine everyone is a wonderful person.
> 
> Peace!


Is your avatar a picture of your girlfriend?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I can now see there is only way to put an end to all this:










Let The Games Begin.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



Wynn said:


> I guess I owe each of you an apology. *kukoc4ever!* and I have been involved in what I've considered good-natured, tongue-in-cheek ribbing over the course of this season and this thread. I didn't realize that my earlier post was going to be taken so seriously. After returning from a long week-end, my message box and further replies to my posts indicate that maybe everyone else wasn't taking my posts in the same light.
> 
> I don't happen to know anyone on this board personally, and can only imagine everyone is a wonderful person.
> 
> Peace!


I think that there is only one person that you really need to apologize to after all these shenanigans.....

















































"you hurt me wynn"


----------



## Wynn

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



kukoc4ever said:


> "you hurt me wynn"




Now THIS was a response in the nature of which I intended....

I'll apologize to Crawdaddy as soon as he apologizes to NY fans for their record right now.


----------



## GB

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



Wynn said:


> I'll apologize to Crawdaddy as soon as he apologizes to NY fans for their record right now.


 :grinning: 



> Well now, just to finish .500, the Knicks must go 20-9 after the All-Star break, a .690 clip at which only four teams (Miami, Phoenix, San Antonio and Seattle) have played prebreak. To match last season's 39-43 finish, they'll need an 18-11 finish, a .621 winning percentage.
> 
> This after going just 5-19 since New Year's Day.
> 
> "Nobody could predict we'd go through this stretch," Crawford said. "Nobody."


http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...lRUV5eTY2NTUzNTYmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Oh.



> Best move: In another draft or two, Trevor Ariza might have been a lottery pick. Last summer, after just one season at UCLA, he was still sitting there in the second round when the Knicks snapped him up with the 43rd pick overall. Injuries gave him entry into the rotation and he's become a useful, if raw, but fearless and athletic player reminiscent of Richard Jefferson as a rookie.
> 
> Worst move: Geez, where to begin? Buying out Shandon Anderson for $19 million because he didn't subscribe to the Isiah Way? Taking on three more years of Jerome Williams at $18 million to make the sign-and-trade deal for Crawford (*and spending $56 million for seven years on him*)?
> 
> However, two years at $7.3 million for Vin Baker - for which he's averaged 8.0 minutes, 1.4 points and 1.5 rebounds per game, and sat out 29 games - trumps everything.


----------



## remlover

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



> Buying out Shandon Anderson for $19 million because he didn't subscribe to the Isiah Way?



I wonder what the Isiah Way is?

Going off how IT builds his team and all the rumors that surround him in players he wants to get. It seems IT way is:

1)Me-first player
2)No defense playing
3)Low bball IQ

anyone want to add to this list?


----------



## GB

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



remlover said:


> I wonder what the Isiah Way is?
> 
> Going off how IT builds his team and all the rumors that surround him in players he wants to get. It seems IT way is:
> 
> 1)Me-first player
> 2)No defense playing
> 3)Low bball IQ
> 
> anyone want to add to this list?


Potential


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



remlover said:


> I wonder what the Isiah Way is?
> 
> Going off how IT builds his team and all the rumors that surround him in players he wants to get. It seems IT way is:
> 
> 1)Me-first player
> 2)No defense playing
> 3)Low bball IQ
> 
> anyone want to add to this list?


4) Cap-crippling contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever

the early days of a misunderstood genius


----------



## kukoc4ever

Highly coach able.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



remlover said:


> I wonder what the Isiah Way is?
> 
> Going off how IT builds his team and all the rumors that surround him in players he wants to get. It seems IT way is:
> 
> 1)Me-first player
> 2)No defense playing
> 3)Low bball IQ
> 
> anyone want to add to this list?


4) Values flash over substance
5) Loves to chuck up ill-advised 3's
6) Doesn't know how to close out a game


----------



## The True Essence

jamals deal isnt that bad considering hes actually good. hes never gonna make money like tim thomas is, and hes already better then tim. his deal is hardly cap crippling. especially in NY. his contract is like one page out of a thick *** dictionary here. we would need to subtract about 10 jamal crawfords to get under the cap. get what im saying...??i dont think i do.

and jamal made 3 game winners this year, id say he knows how to close out games better then marbury at this point, marbury usually defers to jamal when its crunchtime


----------



## kukoc4ever

PennyHardaway said:


> jamals deal isnt that bad considering hes actually good. hes never gonna make money like tim thomas is, and hes already better then tim. his deal is hardly cap crippling. especially in NY. his contract is like one page out of a thick *** dictionary here. we would need to subtract about 10 jamal crawfords to get under the cap. get what im saying...??i dont think i do.
> 
> and jamal made 3 game winners this year, id say he knows how to close out games better then marbury at this point, marbury usually defers to jamal when its crunchtime


Nice to see some rational positives about Jamal on this thread. Great points! Don't let the haters get ya down.


----------



## Ron Cey

PennyHardaway said:


> jamals deal isnt that bad considering hes actually good. hes never gonna make money like tim thomas is, and hes already better then tim. his deal is hardly cap crippling. especially in NY. his contract is like one page out of a thick *** dictionary here. we would need to subtract about 10 jamal crawfords to get under the cap. get what im saying...??i dont think i do.
> 
> and jamal made 3 game winners this year, id say he knows how to close out games better then marbury at this point, marbury usually defers to jamal when its crunchtime


I wasn't just talking about Crawford's contract. Penny. Marbs. Thomas. Thomas. Baker. Williams. Houston. Forgive me if I forgot one of the over $100 million they are paying this year for one of the bottom 7 or 8 teams in the league.

Worst GM in basketball. Period. This part of the debate is about Isiah, not Crawford.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Nice to see some rational positives about Jamal on this thread. Great points! Don't let the haters get ya down.


Sweet. A fellow Knicks fan for you talk to.


----------



## yodurk

PennyHardaway said:


> jamals deal isnt that bad considering hes actually good. hes never gonna make money like tim thomas is, and hes already better then tim. his deal is hardly cap crippling. especially in NY. his contract is like one page out of a thick *** dictionary here. we would need to subtract about 10 jamal crawfords to get under the cap. get what im saying...??i dont think i do.
> 
> and jamal made 3 game winners this year, id say he knows how to close out games better then marbury at this point, marbury usually defers to jamal when its crunchtime


Well, I don't think anyone's calling Jamal overpaid.

When I say IT's players can't close out games, I really meant collectively. If there were a stat for 4th quarter meltdowns, the Knicks probably lead the league. Jamal had a few crazy gamewinners early in the season, but there's a difference between hitting gamewinners and being able to effectively close out games. An effective "closing" unit can get critical scores & defensive stops. The Knicks obviously haven't done that too much this year. 

And yes, I am being rational about this K4E.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Dedication. Desire.

Hard work is part of having the "heart of a champion."


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> Dedication. Desire.
> 
> Hard work is part of having the "heart of a champion."


 :laugh: 

Is Jamal the new cover model for Gold's Gym?


----------



## kukoc4ever

this just in. jamal is browsing the bb.net and is not happy with the hate being spewed.


----------



## bullsville

yodurk said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Is Jamal the new cover model for Gold's Gym?


No, that picture is from Jose Canseco's book. Chapter 75, "What Happens If You Don't Do Steriods".


----------



## kukoc4ever

yodurk said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Is Jamal the new cover model for Gold's Gym?



:laugh: 

He looked like Jack Skellington in that high school pic.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

has one obsessed fanboy :biggrin:

call security!


----------



## truebluefan

kukoc4ever said:


> Dedication. Desire.
> 
> Hard work is part of having the "heart of a champion."


Jamal: "One, rep! That's enough."


----------



## remlover

kukoc4ever said:


> Dedication. Desire.
> 
> Hard work is part of having the "heart of a champion."


I noticed that K4E cropped the picture. What is missing are Tyson and Eddy holding up the bar for jamal's pose. :biggrin:


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> Dedication. Desire.
> 
> Hard work is part of having the "heart of a champion."


the best part of the picture is the lady in the background. I hope he isn't attempting to do power cleans in this picture because if he is, his technique looks pretty rough! Maybe he's doing an upright row of some sort.


----------



## The True Essence

we suck down the stretch cause were the worst defensive team in the league. check opp FG%, your bulls are top 3, the knicks are 30th. the kings scored 14 points in 1 minute against us to win it. rediculous...


----------



## bullsville

PennyHardaway said:


> we suck down the stretch cause were the worst defensive team in the league. check opp FG%, your bulls are top 3, the knicks are 30th. the kings scored 14 points in 1 minute against us to win it. rediculous...


So Isiah goes out last summer and his big addition was a scoring guard who is known as a less-than-stellar defensive player?


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


>


Poor Jamal can't even afford a chair on that itty-bitty contract the Bull forced him to sign.


----------



## truebluefan

Wynn said:


> Poor Jamal can't even afford a chair on that itty-bitty contract the Bull forced him to sign.


Hey give the kid a break. It's hard to live on 6 million dollars a year. :wink:


----------



## Mr. T

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



kukoc4ever said:


> I think that there is only one person that you really need to apologize to after all these shenanigans.....


Sorry Jamal, you da man(?) :biggrin:


----------



## fleetwood macbull

*Re: Went on a HATE hunt....*



No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Sorry Jamal, you da man(?) :biggrin:


are those goat horns? :wink:


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> the early days of a misunderstood genius


*We Report, YOU DECIDE*


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> this just in. jamal is browsing the bb.net and is not happy with the hate being spewed.


Ok, enough clowning around with those haters, i gotta get back to work!


----------



## GB

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Ok, enough clowning around with those haters, i gotta get back to work!



Priceless


----------



## Mr. T




----------



## Wynn

No Excuses; No Vision said:


>


If we could just get Puccini to write the score and bring in Luciano Pavarotti to perform it, we could have a full tragic opera on our hands here.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

ENOUGH!!
this engagement has been going on too long and its time for the plunge!
Let's have a BBB bachelor party with chicks and guns and firetrucks and hookers and drugs and booze!"


----------



## Mr. T

fleetwood macbull said:


> ENOUGH!!
> this engagement has been going on too long and its time for the plunge!
> Let's have a BBB bachelor party with chicks and guns and firetrucks and hookers and drugs and booze!"


Don't forget about Jamal, Fleet!


----------



## fleetwood macbull

No Excuses; No Vision said:


> Don't forget about Jamal, Fleet!


now that made me spit on the screen (from laughing) :laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey

I'm not computer savy enough to have any idea how you modify those photos NENV, but that basketball for dummies photo is about the funniest thing I've ever seen on a message board in my life.


----------



## yodurk

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not computer savy enough to have any idea how you modify those photos NENV, but that basketball for dummies photo is about the funniest thing I've ever seen on a message board in my life.


OMG, I about had a heart attack from laughing at it, too! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

I believe he uses photoshop, but that was too clever for everyone's health.


----------



## GB

> It hardly mattered that assistant Gar Heard took over for Detroit coach Larry Brown, who spent the game in his office nursing an upset stomach, because *the Pistons still played "the right way,*" as Brown demands.
> 
> "They're not the world champs for no reason," Knicks coach Herb Williams said.
> 
> Coming off the All-Star break, the Knicks understood that plans for a playoff push depend on making defensive improvements. That was especially true against the Pistons (33-19), who held the Knicks (21-33) to a season-low 61 points on their previous visit last month.
> 
> But if the first quarter was any measure, the Knicks weren't prepared to match their words with effort. They began their playoff push by allowing another 30-point quarter as the Pistons raced to a 31-23 lead when Tayshaun Prince scored 10 of his 19 points. Richard Hamilton also finished with 19 points on just eight shot attempts.
> 
> "We have to start the game off *the right way*," said Tim Thomas, who got in early foul trouble but still scored 15 points in 21 minutes. "From the jump ball tonight, they were in control."


How in the world did Tim Thomas get that big contract?

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...3,0,542788.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines


----------



## Da Grinch

when was the last time anyone gave an update on i dunno ....jamal crawford?

5-14 fg 4-7 3pt 2-3 ft 16 points 4 rebs 9 assists 2 t/o's in a knicks win.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

happygrinch said:


> when was the last time anyone gave an update on i dunno ....jamal crawford?


Who? Never heard of him.


----------



## lgtwins

happygrinch said:


> when was the last time anyone gave an update on i dunno ....jamal crawford?
> 
> 5-14 fg 4-7 3pt 2-3 ft 16 points 4 rebs 9 assists 2 t/o's in a knicks win.


So your point is?


----------



## kukoc4ever

lgtwins said:


> So your point is?


I think it was that he had a decent game.

Looks like the Kurt and Timmy were recipients of many righteous feeds from Jamal and Starbury.

One night Jamal drops 40 on you. The next night its 6 steals. The next is 9 assists.

So talented. So lethal.


----------



## madox

kukoc4ever said:


> I think it was that he had a decent game.
> 
> One night Jamal drops 40 on you. The next night its 6 steals. The next is 9 assists.
> 
> So talented. So lethal.



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 



Thanks, man... that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.


----------



## Da Grinch

lgtwins said:


> So your point is?


this is so comical , to post an update on jamal crawford on a thread titled "crawford Update" since his team played yesterday there needs to be some sort of ulterior motive.

Let it go man the hate is consuming you.


----------



## truebluefan

who?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I think it was that he had a decent game.
> 
> Looks like the Kurt and Timmy were recipients of many righteous feeds from Jamal and Starbury.
> 
> One night Jamal drops 40 on you. The next night its 6 steals. The next is 9 assists.


The next is 4TO's. Then 4-17 shooting. Then a shot clock violation with 3 seconds left in the game...

...so lethel...


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> The next is 4TO's. Then 4-17 shooting. Then a shot clock violation with 3 seconds left in the game...
> 
> ...so lethel...


If you want to start posting Hinrich's stats you should start a different thread.
:biggrin:


----------



## fleetwood macbull

the contract is pretty lethal. The need for updates is pretty much fictional


----------



## such sweet thunder

Since the post count in this thread is approaching the post total of my three year membership [but, really because i'm a dork and it's Friday]. . . I've decided to figure out what percentage of each authors total posts are in this thread. Note, I've limited the figures to people who have posted over five times in this thread because, although I'm a dork, I'm not a loser [debatable].


47. such sweet thunder .0% 1 of 2435
46. Johnny Mac .1% 5 of 8933
45. rlucas4257 .1% 5 of 6419
44. Darius Miles Davis .1% 5 of 4955
43. Mikedc .1% 11 of 9904
42. Truebluefan .1% 30 of 20959
41. spongyfungy .2% 10 5708
40. TomBoerwinkle#1 .2% 47 of 19038
39. PC Load Letter .3% 5 of 1943
38. DaBullz .3% 38 of 12454
37. Machinehead .3% 5 of 1836
36. Dan Rosenbaum .4% 8 of 1957
35. SPMJ .4% 11 of 2593
34. bullet .4% 17 of 4169
33. superdave .4% 25 of 6068
32. PennyHardaway .7% 10 of 1444
31. dkg1 .7% 12 of 1607
30. MichaelOFAZ .8% 9 of 1130
29. mizenkay .9% 17 of 1827
28. ace20004u .9% 49 of 5662
27. truth 1.0% 20 of 2907 
26. fl_flash 1.1% 13 of 1219
25. ShamBulls 1.1% 13 of 1219
24. BealeFarange 1.2% 9 of 782
23. ViciousFlogging 1.2% 25 of 2002
22. The 6ft Hurdle 1.3% 12 of 907
21. happygrinch 1.3% 48 of 3820
20. johnston797 1.3% 51 of 4022
19. TRUTHHURTS 1.6% 26 of 1669 
18. fleetwood macbul 2.2% 19 of 851
17. ScottMay 2.7% 42 of 1561
16. giusd 2.8% 32 of 1135
15. yodurk 2.8% 43 of 1530
14. Future 2.9% 6 of 2050
13. madox 2.9% 7 of 239
12. remlover 2.9% 13 of 456
11. transplant 2.9% 17 of 850
10. ChiBulls2315 3.0% 31 of 1031
9. Wynn 3.0% 84 of 2829
8. GB 3.1% 220 of 7025
7. No Excuses; No Vision 4.4% 30 of 688
6. bullsville 5.9% 29 of 492
5. Ron Cey 12.9% 42 of 326
4. lgtwins 14.8% 30 of 203 
3. kukoc4ever 15.5% 354 of 2289
2. badfish 18.55% 11 of 204

And the winner is. . . 

1. bbertha37 23.3% 7 of 30


----------



## BealeFarange

Dang suchsweetthunder, I TOLD you this would get me to revive the JC Update thread...I hadn't looked in here for a while and what do I find but some HILARIOUS photoshop jobs by NENV...

The Bachelor Party And 1 shot is the funniest photo I've seen in...oh...ever. 

I think a whole series of them could be rigged up..."Weekend at Bernies And 1" or "Ladybugs And 1" where Jamal plays a soccer player who gets no respect...

Jamal is still having a decent season in NYK, though...it's not his fault Isaiah constructed a horrible team that exposes his weaknesses.


----------



## GB

IT HAS BEGUN



> The Knicks are as dead as winter, as dead as the lift in Allan Houston's legs. Isiah has trapped himself on the baseline. He has full-court pressed himself to the brink of oblivion.
> 
> Somehow, some way, he needs to dramatically alter the dynamic of his team. *Thomas needs to move Marbury to shooting guard, trade Crawford, land a pure quarterback for the point*, convince Phil Jackson to save his old team, and then hope for the best.
> 
> More than anything, the Knicks president has to show his fan base that he has a vision, a strategy, a clear-cut plan. He needs to hurry up, too.
> 
> Isiah Thomas is dribbling out the shot clock. He's starting to run himself straight out of a job.


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/.../20050225/COLUMNIST03/502250316/1108/SPORTS01

Jamal would make a really great sixth man for someone. Heck, I think he'd make a nifty backup for Gordon next season.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> IT HAS BEGUN
> 
> Jamal would make a really great sixth man for someone. Heck, I think he'd make a nifty backup for Gordon next season.


I agree!


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree!



Stop that.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

GB said:


> IT HAS BEGUN
> 
> The Knicks are as dead as winter, as dead as the lift in Allan Houston's legs. Isiah has trapped himself on the baseline. He has full-court pressed himself to the brink of oblivion.
> 
> Somehow, some way, he needs to dramatically alter the dynamic of his team. Thomas needs to move Marbury to shooting guard, trade Crawford, land a pure quarterback for the point, convince Phil Jackson to save his old team, and then hope for the best.
> 
> More than anything, the Knicks president has to show his fan base that he has a vision, a strategy, a clear-cut plan. He needs to hurry up, too.
> 
> Isiah Thomas is dribbling out the shot clock. He's starting to run himself straight out of a job.
> 
> 
> http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/.../20050225/COLUMNIST03/502250316/1108/SPORTS01
> 
> Jamal would make a really great sixth man for someone. Heck, I think he'd make a nifty backup for Gordon next season.





> New York Knicks: Even Isiah's biggest fans are scratching their heads right about now. Isiah, itching to shake up his team some more with so many other Atlantic Division teams making moves, traded away his starting and backup centers and his two backup point guards for two under-sized, over-paid power forwards in Mo Taylor and Malik Rose.
> 
> 
> Malik Rose
> Forward
> San Antonio Spurs
> Profile
> 
> 
> 2004-2005 SEASON STATISTICS
> GM PPG RPG APG FG% FT%
> 50 6.3 4.5 0.8 .464 .697
> Is Isiah trying to start a team in a 6-foot-7-and-under league? Taylor and Rose join Mike Sweetney and Kurt Thomas as players who are at least a few inches short for their position.
> 
> Thomas did pick up two extra draft picks in the deal – likely the 29th and the 30th picks. *Way to go*.
> 
> But his most egregious sin was his repeated insistence in always taking back a bad contract or two with each trade. This time the Knicks added an extra $32 million in future salaries. In the Spurs' deal, the Knicks are sending out $5.5 million in future salaries and getting back the remaining four years, $27.3 million of Rose's contract. The Rockets' deal isn't as bad, as Isiah is sending out $8 million in future salaries and getting back $18 million. In total, the Knicks, who already have by far the largest payroll in the league, have just dug themselves further into the hole.


this was from today's you know what

.......everyone lining up to kick Zeke a new rear opening GB :wink: 

BTW, JC would be a nice sixth man I agree, if he ups his shooting %s. If not?...well thats not all that great. He ought to play better against non starters though


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> this was from today's you know what
> 
> .......everyone lining up to kick Zeke a new rear opening GB :wink:
> 
> BTW, JC would be a nice sixth man I agree, if he ups his shooting %s. If not?...well thats not all that great. He ought to play better against non starters though


A good 6th man can really help a team.


Ben Gordon
Toni Kukoc


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> A good 6th man can really help a team.
> 
> 
> Ben Gordon
> Toni Kukoc


I'm not totally convinced Ben Gordon is a starter yet, even as many are touting him in the starting lineup. Not until he shows can play lead guard. Until then he's a sixth man IMO. He's not all that great of a player until the second half at this point


----------



## kukoc4ever

*dream matchup*


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: dream matchup*



kukoc4ever said:


>


k4e, you're really slipping here. Teasing you about Jamal's defense in that picture is wayyyy too easy. So easy I'm not even going to bother. :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: dream matchup*



ViciousFlogging said:


> k4e, you're really slipping here. Teasing you about Jamal's defense in that picture is wayyyy too easy. So easy I'm not even going to bother. :biggrin:


Its not an embarrassment to have Toni Kukoc score on you VF. Its inevitable.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: dream matchup*



kukoc4ever said:


> Its not an embarrassment to have Toni Kukoc score on you VF. Its inevitable.


yeah, but in that pic with him trailing behind and reaching, it looks like Toni nearly broke his ankles with a wicked crossover. We all know that Kukoc has never done that to anyone in his entire life.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: dream matchup*



ViciousFlogging said:


> yeah, but in that pic with him trailing behind and reaching, it looks like Toni nearly broke his ankles with a wicked crossover. We all know that Kukoc has never done that to anyone in his entire life.


What you don't see in the picture is Tim Thomas in a mangled heap behind Kukoc.

Jamal was helping out. But Toni was too much. At least that's what I'm going to believe.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: dream matchup*



kukoc4ever said:


> What you don't see in the picture is Tim Thomas in a mangled heap behind Kukoc.
> 
> Jamal was helping out. But Toni was too much. At least that's what I'm going to believe.


hey all I said was that the picture is pretty incriminating. For all I know, Jamal could have miraculously gone cross-court in a valiant but failed attempt to disrupt Toni's shot. Doesn't look that way, though.


----------



## BealeFarange

*Re: dream matchup*

Oh God...Jamal and Ben in the backcourt could be the streakiest yet most exciting tandem in history...

Must...not...think...of...it...

Must...polish...gib...

:drool:


----------



## BealeFarange

*Re: dream matchup*



BealeFarange said:


> polish...gib...
> 
> :drool:


Unintentional but hilariously inevitable response to this, before someone beats me to it:











ALL HAIL PAX!
ALL HAIL PAX!
ALL HAIL PAX!


----------



## remlover

*Re: dream matchup*

Speaking of Crawford photos, can someone using photoshop create a picture of Jamal taking a charge? I have watched probably 80% of NYK games and have yet to see Jamal take one. God knows he never did it in chicago. 

Does photoshop have the technology to produce a photo like that? Or will the photo automatically morph into Jamal doing his best matador impersonation?


----------



## DaBullz

Blocking a shot, kinda impressive


----------



## remlover

DaBullz said:


> Blocking a shot, kinda impressive


i agree. Way to block that shot Mo P!


----------



## The ROY

Shut The Hell Up about jamal crawford, I could see if they were winning and ya'll were jealous but they're one of the worst teams in the LEAGUE and headed nowhere fast...WHY do ya'll CONSTANTLY have jamal on the brain? This is the most embarasssing thread in all of the forums..


----------



## PobreDiablo

as a Knick fan, please take Crawford back, please, I give you Marbury Crawford for Chandler Ben Gordon and Davis please


----------



## dkg1

PobreDiablo said:


> as a Knick fan, please take Crawford back, please, I give you Marbury Crawford for Chandler Ben Gordon and Davis please


Sure Pobre, just what we need, two more combo guards! Why are you giving up on Jamal so quickly? What don't you like about his game? 

I know your post was somewhat in jest, but do you think Pax would want anything to do with MEbury or Crawford? Mebury is a fantastic individual talent who has yet to win anything. You can keep him. Ok, I've already spent more time in this thread than I should have. What does this bring my posting percentage up to?


----------



## Mr. T

*Re: dream matchup*



remlover said:


> Speaking of Crawford photos, can someone using photoshop create a picture of Jamal taking a charge? I have watched probably 80% of NYK games and have yet to see Jamal take one. God knows he never did it in chicago.
> 
> Does photoshop have the technology to produce a photo like that? Or will the photo automatically morph into Jamal doing his best matador impersonation?


Rem, as far as I can tell I've already posted the only known photograph of Jamal taking a charge. I am considering offering it up on EBAY in order to make millions so I can buy BBB.NET, ban the Gipper and retire. :laugh: J/K Gip.

Does anyone else think we caught this thing just before it was about to turn into a threesome?


----------



## Mr. T

Is it too early to start discussing what Jamal must be feeling as the Bulls surge towards the playoffs and the Knicks surge towards Secaucus?

The only thing that could be more ironic/priceless would be Isiah drafting a guard. :laugh:


----------



## badfish

Mr. T said:


> Is it too early to start discussing what Jamal must be feeling as the Bulls surge towards the playoffs and the Knicks surge towards Secaucus?
> 
> The only thing that could be more ironic/priceless would be Isiah drafting a guard. :laugh:


I'm sure he still feels like he's in a better situation, bigger contract notwithstanding. Remember, he's with a "REAL" organization now, committed to winning and all that jazz. Just like, I think JYD believes we still rue the day we traded JC.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*crawford improving*

last season

17.3 ppg with 16.5 FGA

this season

18.4 ppg with 16.4 FGA


----------



## Mr. T

He can improve his stats and his pocketbook, but can he improve his chance of playing for a winner short of being traded?

I sense you didn't answer above K4E, because you agree with the irony. :wink: 

And, I am offering you a chance to extend your bbb.net leading totals here! *Jamal never has to be urged to take his shot, what's your excuse?* :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> He can improve his stats and his pocketbook, but can he improve his chance of playing for a winner short of being traded?
> 
> I sense you didn't answer above K4E, because you agree with the irony. :wink:
> 
> And, I am offering you a chance to extend your bbb.net leading totals here! *Jamal never has to be urged to take his shot, what's your excuse?* :biggrin:


His team is doing better than the team he was on last season.

Improvement in winning percentage.
Improvement in scoring efficiency.

Seems like he's making the best out of a bad situation.


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> His team is doing better than the team he was on last season.
> 
> Improvement in winning percentage.
> Improvement in scoring efficiency.
> 
> Seems like he's making the best out of a bad situation.


I'm not sure I can agree with that. I don't think you can compare this year to last year and I doubt he is. 

Wouldn't it be more likely Jamal is thinking, "if the Bulls would have just given me my 60M, that'd be me"? I think a better stat line gives him some satisfaction, but I'd be willing to bet it hurts a good bit to continue on with the losing label and still be associated with a losing program while his best bud is now experiencing success for the first time in his career. It would only be natural to think, "that should be me". 

I find it ironic that his first four years were filled with losing and as soon as he leaves, things turn around. I find the irony because of some of the shots he took at the Bulls organization. 

I will also honestly admit I believe we're a better team without Jamal than with him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> I'm not sure I can agree with that. I don't think you can compare this year to last year and I doubt he is.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more likely Jamal is thinking, "if the Bulls would have just given me my 60M, that'd be me"? I think a better stat line gives him some satisfaction, but I'd be willing to bet it hurts a good bit to continue on with the losing label and still be associated with a losing program while his best bud is now experiencing success for the first time in his career. It would only be natural to think, "that should be me".
> 
> I find it ironic that his first four years were filled with losing and as soon as he leaves, things turn around. I find the irony because of some of the shots he took at the Bulls organization.
> 
> I will also honestly admit I believe we're a better team without Jamal than with him.



Ironic, perhaps.
Meaningful, probally not.

Deng, Gordon, healthy more mature Chander, fit more mature Curry, 2nd year Hinrich.

I don't know what Jamal is thinking. I would suspect he's happier playing in NY this season than any of his seasons with the Bulls and the crap they surrounded him with... except for 2002-2003 for a spell.


----------



## mizenkay

kukoc4ever said:


> His team is doing better than the team he was on last season.
> 
> Improvement in winning percentage.
> Improvement in scoring efficiency.
> 
> Seems like he's making the best out of a bad situation.



semantics! :wink: 

i don't think you really can compare last year to this year. both teams are completely different in terms of personnel, schedule, transactions...

but since you brought it up:

*as of feb. 27th in the 03/04 season*

knicks 26-34
bulls 17-42

*as of feb 27th in the 04/05 season*

knicks 23-33
bulls 29-24 (i'll spare you the "!")


bulls (w/o jamal) *+12* in the win column compared to their previous season

knicks (w/jamal) *-3* in the win column compared to their previous season

how have the knicks improved their winning percentage?


----------



## kukoc4ever

mizenkay said:


> semantics! :wink:
> 
> how have the knicks improved their winning percentage?


I didn't claim they have.

I said that this year's Knicks team is winning more games than last year's Bulls team.

Jamal's current team wins more games than the team Jamal was on last season.

I agree with this....



> i don't think you really can compare last year to this year. both teams are completely different in terms of personnel, schedule, transactions...


----------



## Ron Cey

You mean that team with the $100 million payroll?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> You mean that team with the $100 million payroll?


Relevance?


----------



## mizenkay

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't claim they have.
> 
> I said that this year's Knicks team is winning more games than last year's Bulls team.
> 
> Jamal's current team wins more games than the team Jamal was on last season.
> 
> I agree with this....



i got that part, thanks.

by _"improvement in winning percentage"_ i thought you meant the knicks with jamal have improved their winning percentage compared to where they were last season. not that the knicks at this point in the season are better than the bulls LAST SEASON. yes, jamal is on a team this year that has a better % than the team he was on last year. whoopee. 







my name is mizenkay and this is my 19th post in the Crawford Update Thread. 



:|


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't claim they have.
> 
> I said that this year's Knicks team is winning more games than last year's Bulls team.
> 
> Jamal's current team wins more games than the team Jamal was on last season.


And Jamal's former team is winning more games than Jamal's team last year _and_ more than Jamal's team this year

Bulls 29-24
Knicks 23-33

and by my count, the Knicks have a worse record this year than they did at the same point last year (26-33)


----------



## bbertha37

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't claim they have.
> 
> I said that this year's Knicks team is winning more games than last year's Bulls team.
> 
> Jamal's current team wins more games than the team Jamal was on last season.
> 
> I agree with this....


So let me get this straight. The Knicks, who had a better record than the Bulls last season, still have a better record than the Bulls of last season? Wow, you really went out on a limb there. Color me impressed if the Knicks actually show improvement from last season with Jamal added to the roster.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bbertha37 said:


> So let me get this straight. The Knicks, who had a better record than the Bulls last season, still have a better record than the Bulls of last season? Wow, you really went out on a limb there. Color me impressed if the Knicks actually show improvement from last season with Jamal added to the roster.


Noone is trying to impress you.

Jamal is improving his situation and his stats.

He's better off this season than last season from a scoring efficiency standpoint, a winning percentage standpoint and a financial standpoint.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> And Jamal's former team is winning more games than Jamal's team last year _and_ more than Jamal's team this year
> 
> Bulls 29-24
> Knicks 23-33


But like MIZ said....



> i don't think you really can compare last year to this year. both teams are completely different in terms of personnel, schedule, transactions...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> But like MIZ said....
> 
> Quote:
> i don't think you really can compare last year to this year. both teams are completely different in terms of personnel, schedule, transactions...




I agree. I also agree that Jamal is in a better financial situation than last year.

I don't agree that Jamal is playing significantly better or worse than he was for us.

Nor do I agree that he is earning that bil ol' payday.

But at least he isn't E-Robbing them either...



> Jamal is improving his situation and his stats.


 Really? Is he?

His FG% has slightly increased. He is scoring 1.1 ppg more (at least for the first half of the year)

Also for the first half of the year, his rebounds are down 1.3 per game and he is dishing out nearly 1 assist less per game.

Not too impressive for a veteran guy who conned with way into a huge contract.


----------



## bullsville

Isiah was given the Knicks job on December 22, 2003. The Knicks were 8 games under .500 when Isiah took over, and this season they are currently 10 games under .500, which is worse.

The question is, can Zeke drag the Knicks as far down as he took the CBA? It will be hard to bankrupt an NBA team, but I have confidence in Isiah's complete incompetence.


----------



## bbertha37

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal is improving his situation and his stats.


Oh man, that statement is absolute gold. The state and improvement of Jamal's *team* seems to be of absolutely no importance or consequence to you; the only thing that seems to matter to you is *his* situation. So what's going to be his barometer for improvement next season? Are you going to continue ignoring the progress (or lack thereof) of the Knicks?


----------



## kukoc4ever

bbertha37 said:


> So what's going to be his barometer for improvement next season? Are you going to continue ignoring the progress (or lack thereof) of the Knicks?


What would you use?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree. I also agree that Jamal is in a better
> Really? Is he?
> 
> His FG% has slightly increased. He is scoring 1.1 ppg more (at least for the first half of the year)
> 
> Also for the first half of the year, his rebounds are down 1.3 per game and he is dishing out nearly 1 assist less per game.
> 
> Not too impressive for a veteran guy who conned with way into a huge contract.


His salary this season is pedestrian.
He is a more efficient scorer this year than last year.
The assists are due to his role on the team.

The rebounds are a mystery.


----------



## bullsville

LOL, well at least Jamal is getting his $$$, what is winning to a millionaire? 

But for pure spin, forget K4E... how about this from the New York City Sports Commission:

*On Tuesday, December 30, Isiah Thomas, the new president of the New York Knicks, shipped forward Clarence Weatherspoon to the Houston Rockets for point guard Moochie Norris and center John Amaechi. The removal of pricey players such as Weatherspoon will free up some much needed cap space.* 

Cap space? The Knicks? Now THAT'S funny. :laugh: 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/sports/html/knicks_trade_recap.html


----------



## Ron Cey

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not too impressive for a veteran guy who *conned with way into a huge contract.*


In all fairness, Tom, JC didn't really con his way into it. He simply had the good fortune of making a fan out the worst judge of talent and salary in the league. 

Dare I say that its gotten to the point that if Isiah acquires you and your big contract that it should be taken by the player as an insult? :laugh:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Ron Cey said:


> In all fairness, Tom, JC didn't really con his way into it. He simply had the good fortune of making a fan out the worst judge of talent and salary in the league.
> 
> Dare I say that its gotten to the point that if Isiah acquires you and your big contract that it should be taken by the player as an insult? :laugh:


Plus I think everyone even Kirksters has already agreed that Jamal has talent, just that he's inconsistent.

With all that, the more accurate statement you're shooting for is that Isaiah has no idea how to put together a team. Just a tip.


----------



## Ron Cey

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> With all that, the more accurate statement you're shooting for is that Isaiah has no idea how to put together a team. Just a tip.


Thanks for the advice, but I kinda like the way I said it since it pretty much reflects exactly what I meant - he's a terrible judge of talent and salary. 

But I agree that IT has no idea how to put together a team, which includes signing Crawford to a 7 year $56 million dollar contract.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Ron Cey said:


> Thanks for the advice, but I kinda like the way I said it since it pretty much reflects exactly what I meant - he's a terrible judge of talent and salary.
> 
> But I agree that IT has no idea how to put together a team, which includes signing Crawford to a 7 year $56 million dollar contract.


Judging talent and putting together a team are two different things. 

Just ask Jerry, our beloved departed GM, with whom virtually all people would agree that he could spot talent, but was questioned as to whether he could put together a team after those 6 championships.

Judging talent seems like something abstract. How would you know how Zeke judges talent ?

For all you know he could've "judged" Ben Gordon to be the best talent there was in the draft or Dwayne Wade to be the best talent left besides Lebron in 2003. Would he then still be a terrible judge of talent ?

He's acquiring whatever seems to be within his means, which may reflect his "talent judgement" but not give the overall picture of what he thinks. So it's hard to say how he "judges talent." 

He's not even really done anything of note in the draft (where evaluating talent is more relevant because you're evaluating whether or not someone has it to play in the NBA) bad or good other than acquire Ariza in the second round.

The moves you guys have been criticizing him for are moves he's for veteran players, players who have already established themselves. But the thing is is that he's put too many scorers and not of a balance of players with other skills to complement those scorers.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Didnt Isiah draft Tmac and Stouadmire ?Also that Ariza kid from Ny has looked good for a 40+ pick.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Didnt Isiah draft Tmac and Stouadmire ?Also that Ariza kid from Ny has looked good for a 40+ pick.


Thank you. At worst, Isaiah has proven to be of average overall "talent evaluating ability" plucking some good talent and some bad. It's still all grey.

And OT: Trevor really should have stayed here.


----------



## Ron Cey

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Judging talent and putting together a team are two different things.
> 
> Just ask Jerry, our beloved departed GM, with whom virtually all people would agree that he could spot talent, but was questioned as to whether he could put together a team after those 6 championships.
> 
> *Judging talent seems like something abstract. How would you know how Zeke judges talent ?
> 
> For all you know he could've "judged" Ben Gordon to be the best talent there was in the draft or Dwayne Wade to be the best talent left besides Lebron in 2003. Would he then still be a terrible judge of talent ?*
> 
> He's acquiring whatever seems to be within his means, which may reflect his "talent judgement" but not give the overall picture of what he thinks. So it's hard to say how he "judges talent."
> 
> He's not even really done anything of note in the draft (where evaluating talent is more relevant because you're evaluating whether or not someone has it to play in the NBA) bad or good other than acquire Ariza in the second round.
> 
> The moves you guys have been criticizing him for are moves he's for veteran players, players who have already established themselves. But the thing is is that he's put too many scorers and not of a balance of players with other skills to complement those scorers.


Those are all really good points about what it means to "judge talent." 

I guess the way I look at it is who has he been acquiring (draft and trade) and how talented are they given their salaries. Remember, I said he is the worst judge of talent and salary, not just talent.

Taking both into consideration and looking at the total salary and record of the Knicks, I say he is awful at both judging talent/salary and at building a team. They are not exclusive of one another and often, as in this case, go hand in hand. A lot of the moves he has made were facilitated by the desire of his trading partner to rid themselves of those players *as players* and not just because of salary. 

In sum, he's really, really bad at his job. At least we seem to agree on that. :wink:


----------



## GB

> Thomas hasn't produced a trace of an actual, honest-to-God strategy. He wildly overpaid Lenny Wilkens, whose low-volume approach too closely mirrored Don Chaney's. *Thomas overpaid for Jamal Crawford, a skin-and-bones kid with canyonesque holes in his game*. And Thursday, Thomas compounded another mistake — the trading of Keith Van Horn — by dealing away the best player received in that exchange, Nazr Mohammed, for a non-impact forward and two draft picks who are likely to help the Knicks about as much as Frederic Weis did.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/oconnor/2005-02-25-oconnor-isiah_x.htm



> Paxson has shown in his first two drafts as GM he can spot talent, and *he showed by getting rid of Crawford he can spot trouble*, but now he must find a way to turn the Bulls into champions.
> 
> The latest rebuilding program is on pace.
> 
> And that should not be a surprise. That should be something Bulls fans expect.


http://www.nwherald.com/SportsSection/clegg/307173328573155.php


----------



## DaBullz

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2005022728

Toronto 108, LA Lakers 102

TORONTO (AP) -- Jalen Rose knew he'd play well after learning he needed just 10 points to pass his biological father on the NBA's career scoring list.

Rose scored 26 points, including eight straight late in the fourth quarter Sunday, and the Toronto Raptors extended their winning streak to three games with a 108-102 victory over the Los Angeles Lakers.

``I woke up today and somebody sent me an e-mail and told me if I score 10 points I'll pass my biological father,'' said Rose, whose father, Jimmy Walker, had 11,655 career points.

``That's what I used as motivation in today's game.''

Rose doesn't have a relationship with Walker, a former All-Star who left Jalen and his mother.

Rose scored 10 of Toronto's last 12 points and the Raptors closed out the game on a 12-3 run. <B>The 11-year veteran injured his right hand diving for a ball in the final seconds.</B> He couldn't get X-rays on his non-shooting hand after the game because the X-ray machine at the Air Canada Centre wasn't working. He'll have X-rays on Tuesday.


----------



## DaBullz

While I'm at it.

The knicks have won every game they played (2) since Thomas' bad moves.

And another point of interest... Jamal Crawford's team has won 23 games already, the same number his team did all last year (that would be us, the bulls)


----------



## bullsville

How bad can Jalen's hand be if he is waiting until Tuesday to get an x-ray? They are currently in Toronto and they don't have another game until Wednesday, something doesn't sound right here.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> How bad can Jalen's hand be if he is waiting until Tuesday to get an x-ray? They are currently in Toronto and they don't have another game until Wednesday, something doesn't sound right here.


I don't know but he sure kicked some *** today in beating the Lakers.

Jalen is having a resurgence in Toronto.


----------



## Jim Ian

bullsville said:


> How bad can Jalen's hand be if he is waiting until Tuesday to get an x-ray? They are currently in Toronto and they don't have another game until Wednesday, something doesn't sound right here.


Maybe they want the swelling to subside... or something?

I agree it does seem pretty odd to not have an avalible X-ray machine in all of Toronto....


----------



## Jim Ian

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't know but he sure kicked some *** today in beating the Lakers.
> 
> Jalen is having a resurgence in Toronto.


Only his busted hand last year and a lack of any real help the year before kept him from being that player on the Bulls. sad... he's pretty good when he's healthy and has decent NBA players on the floor with him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Ron Cey said:


> In all fairness, Tom, JC didn't really con his way into it. He simply had the good fortune of making a fan out the worst judge of talent and salary in the league.
> 
> Dare I say that its gotten to the point that if Isiah acquires you and your big contract that it should be taken by the player as an insult? :laugh:


Let Zeke know I'm available, and will relocate on a moment's notice.

and I won't ***** about playing time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> His salary this season is pedestrian.


And he is still being grossly overpaid.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> And he is still being grossly overpaid.


compared to who ?


----------



## dkg1

While the Knicks and Raptors winning may be relative to this thread, a couple of teams that really matter (Wiz and Cavs) both lost today! Woohoo! :rock: Those are the non Bulls game this guy is concerned with.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

TRUTHHURTS said:


> compared to who ?


____________ (Fill in blank with active NBA player).


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Any starting 2 guard in the NBA


yeah right :laugh: 


Once you factor in hes a top 30 scorer in the nba and under 25 hes no where near overpaid .

Hes 14th in the league among sg's in scoring 

Hes also the second youngest of the 14 only Jrich is younger hed be 3rd if you consider lebron a sg 

among salaries of the 13 players ahead of him in scoring only Redd makes less than him 

Hes 13th in assists among sg's 

Hes 10th in ft%

Hes nowhere near overpaid in fact he probably got paid right about what he shouldve based on the current nba pay scale .


----------



## JRose5

DaBullz said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2005022728
> 
> Toronto 108, LA Lakers 102
> 
> TORONTO (AP) -- Jalen Rose knew he'd play well after learning he needed just 10 points to pass his biological father on the NBA's career scoring list.
> 
> Rose scored 26 points, including eight straight late in the fourth quarter Sunday, and the Toronto Raptors extended their winning streak to three games with a 108-102 victory over the Los Angeles Lakers.
> 
> ``I woke up today and somebody sent me an e-mail and told me if I score 10 points I'll pass my biological father,'' said Rose, whose father, Jimmy Walker, had 11,655 career points.
> 
> ``That's what I used as motivation in today's game.''
> 
> Rose doesn't have a relationship with Walker, a former All-Star who left Jalen and his mother.
> 
> Rose scored 10 of Toronto's last 12 points and the Raptors closed out the game on a 12-3 run. <B>The 11-year veteran injured his right hand diving for a ball in the final seconds.</B> He couldn't get X-rays on his non-shooting hand after the game because the X-ray machine at the Air Canada Centre wasn't working. He'll have X-rays on Tuesday.



:clap:


----------



## jnrjr79

TRUTHHURTS said:


> yeah right :laugh:
> 
> 
> Hes 14th in the league among sg's in scoring
> 
> 
> Hes 13th in assists among sg's



So, essentially, JC is an average starting shooting guard in terms of scoring and assists? I mean, 14th and 13th at your position isn't that big a deal.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't know but he sure kicked some *** today in beating the Lakers.
> 
> Jalen is having a resurgence in Toronto.


Think he'll make the HOF? Get a ring with the Raps before he retires?


----------



## bullsville

Jim Ian said:


> Maybe they want the swelling to subside... or something?
> 
> I agree it does seem pretty odd to not have an avalible X-ray machine in all of Toronto....


I could see if he wanted to see his own, personal, hometown Doctor and had to wait, but...

He's from Detroit, drive across the bridge from Toronto and you're home. I don't get it.


----------



## Da Grinch

TRUTHHURTS said:


> yeah right :laugh:
> 
> 
> Once you factor in hes a top 30 scorer in the nba and under 25 hes no where near overpaid .
> 
> Hes 14th in the league among sg's in scoring
> 
> Hes also the second youngest of the 14 only Jrich is younger hed be 3rd if you consider lebron a sg
> 
> among salaries of the 13 players ahead of him in scoring only Redd makes less than him
> 
> Hes 13th in assists among sg's
> 
> Hes 10th in ft%
> 
> Hes nowhere near overpaid in fact he probably got paid right about what he shouldve based on the current nba pay scale .



he's still 24 and obviously underpaid compared to what players past their rookie deal make for similar production. as you've mentioned no player gets less than him at the 2 spot except for redd and he's going to be paid more when his deal is up at the end of the season.

in fact out of shooting guards in the top 50 of scoring according to nba.com only bobby simmons(who is also due for big raise after the season) and redd make less than crawford.

I dont think people know what players are worth on the open market are actually worth who are calling crawford overpaid .


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> And he is still being grossly overpaid.


So you think he's a below average NBA player?

Or is the average NBA player overpaid?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Get a ring with the Raps before he retires?


What kind of ring? I bet he already has purchased several during his Toronto tenure.


----------



## Mr. T

TRUTHHURTS said:


> yeah right :laugh:
> 
> 
> Once you factor in hes a top 30 scorer in the nba and under 25 hes no where near overpaid .
> 
> Hes 14th in the league among sg's in scoring
> 
> Hes also the second youngest of the 14 only Jrich is younger hed be 3rd if you consider lebron a sg
> 
> among salaries of the 13 players ahead of him in scoring only Redd makes less than him
> 
> Hes 13th in assists among sg's
> 
> Hes 10th in ft%
> 
> Hes nowhere near overpaid in fact he probably got paid right about what he shouldve based on the current nba pay scale .


Think he'll make the HOF? Get a ring with the Knicks before he retires?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Mr. T said:


> Think he'll make the HOF? Get a ring with the Knicks before he retires?



How many players actually win rings in their careers ?

How many players make the HOF ?


----------



## Mr. T

TRUTHHURTS said:


> How many players actually win rings in their careers ?
> 
> How many players make the HOF ?


Think he'll make an all-star game?


----------



## johnston797

Crawford is overpaid in the sense that no team with capspace would take him. 

Is Crawford so overpaid that no capped-out team would trade an ending contract from him? Maybe, Maybe not. He had some value a quarter of the way through the season.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Mr. T said:


> Think he'll make an all-star game?


who knows ? hell Sam Cassell didnt make his first until last year and he and the stats AND rings well before that.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

johnston797 said:


> Crawford is overpaid in the sense that no team with capspace would take him.
> 
> Is Crawford so overpaid that no capped-out team would trade an ending contract from him? Maybe, Maybe not. He had some value a quarter of the way through the season.



So basically ONLY teams with capspace can decide what a players worth now ?


----------



## Jim Ian

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> ____________ (Fill in blank with active NBA player).


Sorry, but that's a bit much.

Crawford is the most overpaid NBA player?  :laugh: 


If you look at the stats and salaries... he's just about right. not really over or underpaid.


----------



## johnston797

TRUTHHURTS said:


> So basically ONLY teams with capspace can decide what a players worth now ?


Of course not, fools like Isiah Thomas can too. :wink:


----------



## kukoc4ever

This season Crawford is making more than Speedy Claxton but less than PJ Brown.

He's making the same as Ruben Patterson but less than Derek Anderson.

The same as Scott Pollard but less than Jonathan Bender.

Less than Bonzi Wells, Lorenzen Wright, Michael Dickerson and Bo Outlaw.

Considerably less than Kerry Kittles.

AD makes more than 2 times Jamal Crawford.


----------



## Showtyme

kukoc4ever said:


> This season Crawford is making more than Speedy Claxton but less than PJ Brown.
> 
> He's making the same as Ruben Patterson but less than Derek Anderson.
> 
> The same as Scott Pollard but less than Jonathan Bender.
> 
> Less than Bonzi Wells, Lorenzen Wright, Michael Dickerson and Bo Outlaw.
> 
> Considerably less than Kerry Kittles.
> 
> AD makes more than 2 times Jamal Crawford.


Good illustrations, but each extreme.

He makes about what James Posey, Ricky Davis, Stephen Jackson, Quentin Richardson, and Kenny Thomas make. 

I think it's a fair contract, if we're talking about valuating a player within their stats. But GM's get players for their teams, to play a role. I think Crawford's mostly done his job.

But I wouldn't look for much more from Crawford than what he's doing now, unless there's a serious improvement across the roster and in the management, as well as a radical shift in Craw's game. He may be young, but I don't think he's going to get that much better, except maybe defensively and on turnovers. If he stays in this role, with these guys, then he's going to continue to be in a position to jack shots all the time.


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> This season Crawford is making more than Speedy Claxton but less than PJ Brown.
> 
> He's making the same as Ruben Patterson but less than Derek Anderson.
> 
> The same as Scott Pollard but less than Jonathan Bender.
> 
> Less than Bonzi Wells, Lorenzen Wright, Michael Dickerson and Bo Outlaw.
> 
> Considerably less than Kerry Kittles.
> 
> AD makes more than 2 times Jamal Crawford.


It's worth repeating...

JAMAL CRAWFORD IS THE fifty- SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN


----------



## DaBullz

What a thread...

1,714 posts 24,066 views


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> It's worth repeating...
> 
> JAMAL CRAWFORD IS THE fifty- SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN


Why is it worth repeating?

Its pretty clear he's fairly to underpaid right now.

You think its going to swing that much in the next 4-5 years?


----------



## bbertha37

kukoc4ever said:


> Why is it worth repeating?
> 
> Its pretty clear he's fairly to underpaid right now.
> 
> You think its going to swing that much in the next 4-5 years?


All those names that you mentioned before...would it be fair to see that at one point in their contracts that they were worth the money they earned?


----------



## kukoc4ever

bbertha37 said:


> All those names that you mentioned before...would it be fair to see that at one point in their contracts that they were worth the money they earned?


They all were.

Is there any reason to think the 24 year old Jamal Crawford is going to decline in production?

He's not currently "overpaid." The 56 million number is irrelevant... except to make a joke.

The Knicks are taking on some risk... but until he stops producing... if he does... they are getting a good deal. He could also continue to improve... which would give the Knicks an even better deal.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> He's not


He is.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> He is.


Excellent point. Well put.


----------



## DaBullz

One of you paid for an argument but got a contradiction.

Here's something to make you say, "Oh My!"

http://www.nba.com/raptors/news/rose_east_POW_050228.html


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

DaBullz said:


> One of you paid for an argument but got a contradiction.
> 
> Here's something to make you say, "Oh My!"
> 
> http://www.nba.com/raptors/news/rose_east_POW_050228.html


That cant possiblly be right can it ? :biggrin: 

Is he even eligible to receive that award ?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TRUTHHURTS said:


> That cant possiblly be right can it ? :biggrin:
> 
> Is he even eligible to receive that award ?


Yet another impressive notch to Jalen's "Career Highlights" section.

Good for him!


----------



## Da Grinch

TRUTHHURTS said:


> That cant possiblly be right can it ? :biggrin:
> 
> Is he even eligible to receive that award ?


not if you listen to the people who swear up and down that jalen doesn't help a team.


----------



## JRose5

:clap: :clap: :clap:


How bout that?


----------



## dkg1

Good for Jalen. I still don't think he would be a good fit on this team.


----------



## truebluefan

Knicks smallball might be working again. 

NY pounding LAL. 83-65. Almost the end of the third quarter. They outscored LA 36-18 in the 3rd. 

Jamal has 6 pts 3 assists 2 rebounds Knicks being lead by T Thomas with 29. (4-5 threes and Sweetney 17-11. Knicks have 5 t/o after three quarters.


----------



## bullsville

Penny and Thomas just exchanged words at the time-out, Thomas had to be held back by JYD- per the Knicks announcers, so I assume it's pretty accurate.


----------



## bullsville

OMG, the Lakers just went on a 14-1 run in the last minute of the game to tie it at 107 with 4.4 seconds left.

Odom, Butler, Atkins and finally Kobe all hit 3's, Marbury and Sweetney missed FTs, the Knicks had a TO. Kobe's was his first FG of the 2nd half.

JC got the ball, got off a lousy shot on Kobe who played great D. Overtime.

Lakers score 39 in the 4th quarter, DaBullz. No matter how much the Knicks dominated the first 3 quarters, when you don't have the defenders to get a stop down the stretch when you need it... well, you become the Knicks.

Sorry, wrong thread... :wink:


----------



## yodurk

What do ya know, Jamal had his 2nd straight game where he shot less than 10 shots...and I'll be darned, the Knicks won their 2nd straight game! As I said before, props to Jamal if he has finally learned to control his chucking tendencies.


----------



## DaBullz

bullsville said:


> OMG, the Lakers just went on a 14-1 run in the last minute of the game to tie it at 107 with 4.4 seconds left.
> 
> Odom, Butler, Atkins and finally Kobe all hit 3's, Marbury and Sweetney missed FTs, the Knicks had a TO. Kobe's was his first FG of the 2nd half.
> 
> JC got the ball, got off a lousy shot on Kobe who played great D. Overtime.
> 
> Lakers score 39 in the 4th quarter, DaBullz. No matter how much the Knicks dominated the first 3 quarters, when you don't have the defenders to get a stop down the stretch when you need it... well, you become the Knicks.
> 
> Sorry, wrong thread... :wink:


What a STRONG offense the Lakers had last night in Q4.

LOL


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

yodurk said:


> What do ya know, Jamal had his 2nd straight game where he shot less than 10 shots...and I'll be darned, the Knicks won their 2nd straight game! As I said before, props to Jamal if he has finally learned to control his chucking tendencies.



Actually the knicks won their 3rd straight game and jamals chucking stopped early December but injuries and lack of scoring from others forced him to have to take shots at times ebcause there as no one else that could .Now that they are back relatively healthy and others have stepped up offensively hes content to move the ball and take what comes to him.

Its nothing new just a process that started a while ago that is starting to come to light.


----------



## such sweet thunder

bullsville said:


> Penny and Thomas just exchanged words at the time-out, Thomas had to be held back by JYD- per the Knicks announcers, so I assume it's pretty accurate.


too bad this altercation didn't happen before the trading deadline. penny would have been a good candidate for our backup veteran shooting guard.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

DaBullz said:


> One of you paid for an argument but got a contradiction.
> 
> Here's something to make you say, "Oh My!"
> 
> http://www.nba.com/raptors/news/rose_east_POW_050228.html


Glad to see "the cancer" appears to be in remission.


----------



## DaBullz

Nobody knows Monty Python anymore... 

:no:


----------



## kukoc4ever

DaBullz said:


> Nobody knows Monty Python anymore...
> 
> :no:


Yes they do. :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal had a pretty nice FEB.

41% FG
43.7% from 3 (2.8 3s made per game)
86.4% from the line
2.2 boards
3.9 assists
1.6 TOs
1.3 steals
0.1 bocks
15.3 points
34.1 minutes per game

Knicks .500 in games he played.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

DaBullz said:


> Nobody knows Monty Python anymore...
> 
> :no:


Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.


----------



## truebluefan

*Monty Python's Flying Circus*


----------



## DaBullz

This is WAY better than one of TomB's funny pictures...


----------



## kukoc4ever

This is purely contradiction.


----------



## kukoc4ever

true FG%

Jalen is king. Then Gordon. Then JAMAL. Then the rest.

<pre>
Player Name	FGA	FTA	Points	TS%

Jalen Rose	13.3	4.2	17.1	56.4430948
Ben Gordon	12	2.9	14.6	54.9864417
Jamal Crawford	16.2	3.2	18.2	51.68105407
Kirk Hinrich	14.2	3.1	15.6	50.1156515
Luol Deng	11	2.7	12.2	50.04922875
Andres Nocioni	6.7	2.6	7.5	47.8072412
Chris Duhon	5.4	0.7	5.2	45.55010512</pre>


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Jamal on the last few games 

http://aol.nba.com/knicks/inthepaint/8keys_050302.html



> “The last two games I’ve taken, what, maybe 17 shots,” said Crawford. ”But they were good shots. I’ve been looking to be more discriminating in my selection. Look, everybody knows I can score; I want the fans to know me as an all-around player, too, someone who will contribute with the great pass and plays defense.”


----------



## kukoc4ever

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Jamal on the last few games
> 
> http://aol.nba.com/knicks/inthepaint/8keys_050302.html


Just a young player coming into his own.

Predictable.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Just a young player coming into his own.


I'll be happy for him. That said, both he and Chicago needed the change of scenery.

I'm happy with our side olf the fence.


----------



## jnrjr79

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3428860

"Jamal Crawford didn't shoot well (2-8, 6 points), but only forced a single shot!"

"Sure, there were several holes in their performance: TT is a passive defender. Sweetney is slow off the floor and has poor lateral movement. Ariza's considerable skills are very raw and undefined. Taylor is woefully out of shape, is a step slow on defense, and isn't a natural rebounder. Crawford has no idea. And Marbury has never proven himself to be a winner."

"Yes, the players are mostly dysfunctional, but, no, they're not hopeless. At least Marbury, Rose, Taylor, Kurt Thomas, Ariza, and Sweetney aren't.

Yes, they're probably lottery-bound this year — but that's just fine."


----------



## kukoc4ever

jnrjr79 said:


> http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3428860
> 
> "Jamal Crawford didn't shoot well (2-8, 6 points), but only forced a single shot!"
> 
> "Sure, there were several holes in their performance: TT is a passive defender. Sweetney is slow off the floor and has poor lateral movement. Ariza's considerable skills are very raw and undefined. Taylor is woefully out of shape, is a step slow on defense, and isn't a natural rebounder. Crawford has no idea. And Marbury has never proven himself to be a winner."
> 
> "Yes, the players are mostly dysfunctional, but, no, they're not hopeless. At least Marbury, Rose, Taylor, Kurt Thomas, Ariza, and Sweetney aren't.
> 
> Yes, they're probably lottery-bound this year — but that's just fine."


Nice to hear the ex-CBA coach talk about TOM Thomas. He's lucky that Phil Jackson liked him. He's really on top of things.

If Crawford is without a clue, how can he score more efficiently than Hinrich?


----------



## HAWK23

I hate this thread SO much...


----------



## GB

> *If you could start a team with one athlete you've either coached or seen perform, who would it be?*
> 
> "At the high school level, it would be Jamal Crawford, and not just because he made it to the NBA. Jamal made everybody around him a better player, and he was a great role model. He was humble, a team player; in fact, he reminded me a lot of Magic Johnson in the way he directed a team. He had a certain feel for the game that a lot of talented kids simply don't have."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/preps/214258_totg03.html

:jawdrop:






:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/preps/214258_totg03.html
> 
> :jawdrop:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:


Why U ?complimenting? on Jamal?!?!!?

This is a strange day indeed. :biggrin: 

A convert ladies and gentlemen!!!!

:clap: :clap: 

:cheers:


----------



## superdave

GB said:


> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/preps/214258_totg03.html


Does the article give any mention of the future 'role model' getting into a physical altercation with his assistant coach at UM?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

superdave said:


> Does the article give any mention of the future 'role model' getting into a physical altercation with his assistant coach at UM?


Did you even read the question ? OR the answer ? :laugh: :nonono:


----------



## Pinball

HAWK23 said:


> I hate this thread SO much...


Lol. You don't even have to sticky it. It just bumps itself back to the top.


----------



## GB

Well, I'll promise not to post in it for 30 days if others will make the same promise.


----------



## uracornball

Crawford is now in commercials for the S.Carters on TNT if anyone else saw it. I remember some discussion about advertising with players, I'm not sure if he was included


----------



## such sweet thunder

The Bulls are going through stretches where they just can't put the ball in the hoop with Deng on the injured list. You forget how much Luol contributes off garbage baskets and athletic plays. Depsite all the calls that this team doesn't miss Crawford, you add an injury to the mix and all the sudden Crawford would be a valuable contributor. On a night like tonight -- with the team struggling to get anything started -- I find myself missing Jamal's scoring touch.


----------



## futuristxen

uracornball said:


> Crawford is now in commercials for the S.Carters on TNT if anyone else saw it. I remember some discussion about advertising with players, I'm not sure if he was included


Yeah saw this. Hot.


----------



## Mr. T

I'm sure Jamal's the only player he's ever coached who made it to the pros. What else is he gonna say?

Maybe he's hoping to get on board JC&1.inc to get a piece of the $56M pie.


----------



## dkg1

so what's the knicks record?


----------



## DaBullz

dkg1 said:


> so what's the knicks record?


 Bulls are 29-27

Knicks are 24-34


----------



## Da Grinch

7 pts 7 asts 3 rebs 0 t/os in a knicks win yesterday. and getting accolades for his improved all around play .


----------



## DaBullz

who is this jamal crawford person, and why is he worth 118 pages of thread?

:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

DaBullz said:


> who is this jamal crawford person, and why is he worth 118 pages of thread?
> 
> :biggrin:



He is arguably one of the best basketball players to ever come out of the state of Washington.

His high school coach liked his jib.


----------



## Pioneer10

Crawford is awful. The Bulls and their fans should be happy to have three perimeter guys (hinrich, gordon, and deng) who are better then him already and likely will improve. Even if Crawford improves his play is he worth that awful contract: nope. There is no way any team would want to pay him that much cash just to sit behind Deng and Gordon just in case they get hurt


----------



## superdave

DaBullz said:


> who is this jamal crawford person, and why is he worth 118 pages of thread?
> 
> :biggrin:


What came first... the chicken or the thread? :angel:


----------



## Da Grinch

*Less is more*

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/287783p-246376c.html



> In his first 42 games with the Knicks, Crawford took an average of 16.6 shots, including 28 in a win over Atlanta and 25 in losses to Charlotte and Phoenix. But over his last five games, Crawford has been transformed into a pass-first guard who is playing within a system instead of freelancing.


----------



## lgtwins

happygrinch said:


> *Less is more*
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/287783p-246376c.html


So it takes 4 years and 42 games for JC to learn within the system. Good for him. Or some might say "Finally."


----------



## DaFuture

JC just made a sick play against the wizards.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

DaFuture said:


> JC just made a sick play against the wizards.


Beat me to it. Should probably make SC. Adjusted himself in midair, threw it off the backboard, caught it, and dunked it home.


----------



## Da Grinch

19 points, 6 rebs, 6 asts, 2 steals in a knicks win(93-83).


----------



## The True Essence

someone tell me how jamals contract is awful? he has the same type of contract Shandon Anderson had. big deal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

PennyHardaway said:


> someone tell me how jamals contract is awful? he has the same type of contract Shandon Anderson had. big deal.


Its not. Unless you are too used to rooting for a team run by a cheapskate.


----------



## 7thwatch

this thread will never die. 50 years from now we will still be talking about Jamal and this thread will take up half the internet.


----------



## Sham

Look who done it again......

http://rapidshare.de/files/810202/crawforddunkrealtime.mpg.html


----------



## remlover

Bulls w/o Jamal= 30 wins

+7 w/ 25 games to go. 

Call me crazy, but i'm not crying myself to sleep because Pax didnt want to spend 57 million for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

JAMAL is 4 games out of the playoffs.

Can the miracle happen? Can JAMAL rally the troops?


----------



## ace20004u

ShamBulls said:


> Look who done it again......
> 
> http://rapidshare.de/files/810202/crawforddunkrealtime.mpg.html


You know Sham...I have one of those invioable jam jars in my house too. I bought it at Huber winery and noone, including my big strong self, has been able to so much as make this lid budge. We have tried every trick in the book. Sword in the stone situation indeed. I am worried that perhaps these jam jars are trying to slowly infiltrate our homes before attacking us and taking over....


Also, nice game by Jamal last night, it's good to see him sorta get back on track.


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> JAMAL is 4 games out of the playoffs.



Right. So when NY takes the court for their next game, is it going to say "JAMAL" on the front of their uniforms? Talk about brutal irony. Hopefully at least one of his teammates shows up to inbound the ball to him and maybe set some screens.


----------



## fl_flash

happygrinch said:


> 19 points, 6 rebs, 6 asts, 2 steals in a knicks win(93-83).


I watched about 2/3 of the Knicks game last night (cause even tho I can't stand the knicks, I wanted them to beat the Wizards!) and Jamal had a nice game. I even got to see his off-the-backboard pass. Damn creative play. He played a nice game. Dare I say he played within himself and more importantly, within the team concept.

See. I'm not such a hater - am I?


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> Right. So when NY takes the court for their next game, is it going to say "JAMAL" on the front of their uniforms? Talk about brutal irony. Hopefully at least one of his teammates shows up to inbound the ball to him and maybe set some screens.


Perhaps it should be changed to 

JAMALand friends


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps it should be changed to
> 
> JAMAL and friends



Hehe, you guys crack me up sometimes.


----------



## Da Grinch

the knicks have won 5 out of 6 since the 2 trades that were absolutely killed on this board and pretty much hated on across the sports world,not that i was huge fan of it but i saw they added more talent , and more picks for fuutre moves, crawford has been playing very much withing himself over that time(actually its been longer than that about a month or so but its been very noticable since the trade deadline) for a couple of reasons , they are winning more and the players on the court with him are better scorers mike sweetney and tim thomas...and to a lesser degree malik rose and mo taylor , when they are doing well he shoots less , simple as that and works to get them their shots , for most of the season he has been out there with a tim thomas who couldn't hit sand from the beach and nazr who is a good player but not really much of a post threat when compared to sweetney.

and thats basically it like when he was a bull he was pressed into more than his role should have called for and it still is (he was supposed to come off the bench this year behind allan houston) but with more offensive firepower in the lineup he is basically proving wrong anyone who called him a chucker who said all he would ever do is chuck, and cared only about his shots .

He obviously places winning above that , but i doubt all those who claimed otherwise would recant the hate is too great, by now ...cept for flash of course :biggrin:


----------



## BealeFarange

Again, for the billionth time: I really like Jamal Crawford. 

I'm happy to see his ads...I'm happy to see him dunk off the glass...I'm happy to see him win...I'm happy to see him learning a "system"...I'm happy to see the NY fans embrace him...

And I'm happier with the Bulls...I'm happier with being a lock for the playoffs...I'm happier with our rookies and our defense and our sweet, sweet InflataBull races...

Keep on keepin' on, Jamal. Kirk vs. Jamal threads can start up again for 2007's All-star game.


----------



## bullsville

Jamal has done two things since the Knicks' big trade- shoot the ball less, and turn the ball over less.

He has only taken 66 shots in the 6 games, and he has only turned the ball over 9 times. He's only shooting 36.4%, but 33 ast to 9 TO is very nice work.

And I'm not about to recant over 6 games, they won 5 home games against teams that are a combined 17 games under .500 and were blown out in their only road game at Orlando.

If Jamal and the Knicks keep it up through the end of the season, I'll be impressed. But winning home games against Indy, Philly, LAL, and GS don't impress me. They had a good win against the Wiz last night, but let's not get carried away.

Sun 13 Seattle 
Tue 15 Miami 
Fri 18 @ Atlanta 
Sat 19 @ Miami 
Mon 21 San Antonio 
Wed 23 Boston 
Fri 25 @ Seattle 
Sat 26 @ Portland 
Mon 28 @ Golden State 
Tue 29 @ L.A. Lakers 

Let's see how the Knicks finish the month, their next 10 games look about as hard as the last 6 were easy.

C'mon, grinch, you're ready to declare Jamal and the Knicks as "reborn" after 6 games? You should know better.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> JAMAL is 4 games out of the playoffs.
> 
> Can the miracle happen? Can JAMAL rally the troops?


the miracle? I thought this was SUPPOSED to be a playoff team. Thats what i was told incessantly this summer and fall

the Bulls, MY team, are the miracle


----------



## ViciousFlogging

And so the thread that I endearingly call "the cockroach" scampers on... :clap:


----------



## bullsville

fleetwood macbull said:


> the miracle? I thought this was SUPPOSED to be a playoff team. Thats what i was told incessantly this summer and fall
> 
> the Bulls, MY team, are the miracle


The Knicks WERE a playoff team last season, weren't they? 

They added Jamal Crawford, and gave up only "garbage" in return, shouldn't they have been *better* this season?

Maybe a team making the playoffs with Jamal starting is a miracle?

The real miracle is seeing a team that was 0-9 even get to .500, since it had never happened in NBA history. If that team were to make the playoffs, with 4 rookies, a 2nd year player, and a pair of 22-year-olds in the top 8 in minutes? That probably goes beyond a miracle, doesn't it?


----------



## Da Grinch

bullsville said:


> Jamal has done two things since the Knicks' big trade- shoot the ball less, and turn the ball over less.
> 
> He has only taken 66 shots in the 6 games, and he has only turned the ball over 9 times. He's only shooting 36.4%, but 33 ast to 9 TO is very nice work.
> 
> And I'm not about to recant over 6 games, they won 5 home games against teams that are a combined 17 games under .500 and were blown out in their only road game at Orlando.
> 
> If Jamal and the Knicks keep it up through the end of the season, I'll be impressed. But winning home games against Indy, Philly, LAL, and GS don't impress me. They had a good win against the Wiz last night, but let's not get carried away.
> 
> Sun 13 Seattle
> Tue 15 Miami
> Fri 18 @ Atlanta
> Sat 19 @ Miami
> Mon 21 San Antonio
> Wed 23 Boston
> Fri 25 @ Seattle
> Sat 26 @ Portland
> Mon 28 @ Golden State
> Tue 29 @ L.A. Lakers
> 
> Let's see how the Knicks finish the month, their next 10 games look about as hard as the last 6 were easy.
> 
> C'mon, grinch, you're ready to declare Jamal and the Knicks as "reborn" after 6 games? You should know better.


actually i think he had been playing this way for maybe over a month now with less offense around he had to keep shooting , but he was taking better shots , in feb. he shot 42% and in the 2nd half of feb. better than that pretty much from the moment after he came back from the last injury he had .

he is basically fine tuning his game at this point , the 3 games before last he didn't have a t/o at all and overall his passing has been much better, as has his defense and overall floor game, if kirk had been playing like this over the last few weeks there would be less threads criticizing him. Basically his big games recently have come in the games where the frontcourt scorers weren't playing well, like yesterday he was the leading scorer because most of the knicks frontcourt was either ineffective vs. the big front line of wash. or in fould trouble, so he shot more, in games where they are getting points from his frountcourt his shot attempts have gone down into the single digits.

i dont at all think he is done improving and there still is room for improvement, but this change has not beein going on for just a week or so.


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> the Bulls, MY team, are the miracle


I agree. 

Paxson was saved by this miracle.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> The real miracle is seeing a team that was 0-9 even get to .500, since it had never happened in NBA history. If that team were to make the playoffs, with 4 rookies, a 2nd year player, and a pair of 22-year-olds in the top 8 in minutes? That probably goes beyond a miracle, doesn't it?


I agree 100%. The team going into this season certainly was not built to be a winner. Funny how things work out.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree 100%. The team going into this season *certainly was not* built to be a winner. Funny how things work out.


funny how uncertain things really were :redface:


----------



## DaBullz

Knicks are 4 games out of the 8th spot.

Hottest teams in the NBA right now (last 10 games):
Miami 8-2
San Antonio 8-2
Denver 8-2
Knicks 7-3
Pistons 7-3
Suns 7-3
Bulls 6-4
Celtics 6-4
Pacers 6-4
Mavericks 6-4
Rockets 6-4
TWolves 6-4


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> funny how uncertain things really were :redface:


Yes... "hoping for a miracle" is a sound way to build a team.


----------



## DaBullz

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes... "hoping for a miracle" is a sound way to build a team.


Can we change the forum slogan to "hoping for a miracle" ?


----------



## bullsville

happygrinch said:


> actually i think he had been playing this way for maybe over a month now with less offense around he had to keep shooting , but he was taking better shots , in feb. he shot 42% and in the 2nd half of feb. better than that pretty much from the moment after he came back from the last injury he had .


Actually, he shot 41.0% in Feb, and in the 2nd half of February he shot 42.9%, which is pretty good for Jamal I guess. Over his last 9 games he is shooting 40.3%. He came back from his last injury on Jan 17, since then he is shooting 39.1%.

Where, exactly, is this improvement you are talking about? Over a 6 game stretch at the end of February he shot 42.9%, wow I'm impressed. 



> he is basically fine tuning his game at this point , the 3 games before last he didn't have a t/o at all and overall his passing has been much better, as has his defense and overall floor game, if kirk had been playing like this over the last few weeks there would be less threads criticizing him. Basically his big games recently have come in the games where the frontcourt scorers weren't playing well, like yesterday he was the leading scorer because most of the knicks frontcourt was either ineffective vs. the big front line of wash. or in fould trouble, so he shot more, in games where they are getting points from his frountcourt his shot attempts have gone down into the single digits.
> 
> i dont at all think he is done improving and there still is room for improvement, but this change has not beein going on for just a week or so.


Once again, people talk about Jamal without Kirk being throw into the discussion. Why is that?


----------



## ChiBulls2315

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes... "hoping for a miracle" is a sound way to build a team.




Give me a freakin break. :|


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes... "hoping for a miracle" is a sound way to build a team.


are you "hoping for a Knicks miracle"? :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes... "hoping for a miracle" is a sound way to build a team.


Funny, Pax has had the same agenda since the day he took over the team-

Play defense.

Play hard all the time.

Take good shots on offense.

Share the ball on offense.

It's amazing how when you tie this all together, you get a team that "plays the right way", which was Paxson goal #1.

Is it a "miracle" that the Bulls are #2 in the NBA in FG% defense and #6 in scoring defense? Hardly, it's exactly what Paxson had in mind, he drafted, traded for, and signed as free agents players who fit the mold, it's exactly the results he was going for.

He said he wanted players who play defense and play hard, and he went out and got them. Where is the "hoping for a miracle"?

Is it a "miracle" that a team that is #2 in FG% defense and #6 in scoring defense is going to the playoffs? No, I'd say it's almost expected.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes... "hoping for a miracle" is a sound way to build a team.


yep, let's find a way to criticize Pax for the fact that his plan appears to be working out substantially faster than even HE thought it would. What an idiot, I can't believe he still has a job.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

bullsville said:


> Funny, Pax has had the same agenda since the day he took over the team-
> 
> Play defense.
> 
> Play hard all the time.
> 
> Take good shots on offense.
> 
> Share the ball on offense.
> 
> It's amazing how when you tie this all together, you get a team that "plays the right way", which was Paxson goal #1.
> 
> Is it a "miracle" that the Bulls are #2 in the NBA in FG% defense and #6 in scoring defense? Hardly, it's exactly what Paxson had in mind, he drafted, traded for, and signed as free agents players who fit the mold, it's exactly the results he was going for.
> 
> He said he wanted players who play defense and play hard, and he went out and got them. Where is the "hoping for a miracle"?
> 
> Is it a "miracle" that a team that is #2 in FG% defense and #6 in scoring defense is going to the playoffs? No, I'd say it's almost expected.


maybe not so miraculous after all. maybe the miracle is that he was in reality sound and grounded and many "smarter" folks weren't :clap:


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> He said he wanted players who play defense and play hard, and he went out and got them. Where is the "hoping for a miracle"?
> 
> Is it a "miracle" that a team that is #2 in FG% defense and #6 in scoring defense is going to the playoffs? No, I'd say it's almost expected.


but... you just said....



bullsville said:


> The real miracle is seeing a team that was 0-9 even get to .500, since it had never happened in NBA history. If that team were to make the playoffs, with 4 rookies, a 2nd year player, and a pair of 22-year-olds in the top 8 in minutes? That probably goes beyond a miracle, doesn't it?


heck... you said the team paxson assembled making the playoffs would be "beyond a miracle." I agree with you BTW... so there's no need to debate this much.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ViciousFlogging said:


> yep, let's find a way to criticize Pax for the fact that his plan appears to be working out substantially faster than even HE thought it would. What an idiot, I can't believe he still has a job.


I'm not criticizing anyone... just agreeing with bullsville and fleetwood.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

ehh he was just playin along with your terms. as was I.

its not a miracle to get where you were purported to be already like the Knicks...misusing the word miracle as you have done. You get the bad banana for misusing Miracle yourself. :angel:


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> You get the bad banana for misusing Miracle yourself. :angel:


Sounds like a line from a prison movie.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

and really, to get to the heart of whats happening, the Bulls and Pax themselves aren't a miracle. 

The miracle is that Pax was right, and many people weren't hip to that. Thats what we think we mean :nah:


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> Sounds like a line from a prison movie.


----------



## dkg1

Since some of you guys have your Knicks chubbies going today, what did you think of the article (NY Post) stating Zeke is going to target Kwame Brown and Larry Hughes this offseason? Now mind you, I've seen articles that state Thomas is going to target about 70 other players this offseason also. Where would Jamal fit in with Hughes and Marbury in the mix? I've got to think JC would be coming off the bench if you had Hughes and Marbury on the same roster? I think it's a long shot that NY would land Hughes but thought it was worthy of discussion in this thread (instead of creating another NY/Jamal thread on our BULLS board).


----------



## remlover

dkg1 said:


> Since some of you guys have your Knicks chubbies going today, what did you think of the article (NY Post) stating Zeke is going to target Kwame Brown and Larry Hughes this offseason? Now mind you, I've seen articles that state Thomas is going to target about 70 other players this offseason also. Where would Jamal fit in with Hughes and Marbury in the mix? I've got to think JC would be coming off the bench if you had Hughes and Marbury on the same roster? I think it's a long shot that NY would land Hughes but thought it was worthy of discussion in this thread (instead of creating another NY/Jamal thread on our BULLS board).


According to NY papers Thomas has targeted every NBA player. Thomas can fawn over this player or that player, but the truth remains that he only has the MLE to offer to players. I guess he can dangle his expiring contracts in hope of a S&T.


----------



## kukoc4ever

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/288202p-246714c.html

*"Creative Crawford Steals the Spotlight"*

Thought this quote was funny. Not really sound fundamentals there Jamal. 



> "No, you don't go in thinking that," Crawford said. "I went to pass it - I saw Steph (Marbury) and Malik (Rose) over there, but their men stayed with them, so I was stuck."


----------



## SecretAgentGuy

remlover said:


> According to NY papers Thomas has targeted every NBA player. Thomas can fawn over this player or that player, but the truth remains that he only has the MLE to offer to players. I guess he can dangle his expiring contracts in hope of a S&T.


 I've been following a couple Knicks boards the last several weeks and I need to say this - Knicks' fans are delusional and lack all understanding of the CBA. They disregard that they're over the cap and think that somehow dangling expiring contracts, Sweetney, and their late first round draft pick (Spurs/Suns pick) and promising big contracts can net them Elton Brand, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Kwame, Hughes, and Joe Johnson. I recall reading one post where there was some debate that Lebron will join the Knicks for the MLE because it's NY and Nike would give him a hike for being in a big market.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy

As an example:


> The trade should be:
> 
> Curry (Signing for about 10 million a year in S&T)
> 
> to Knicks for Sweetney, Mo Taylor, low #1


----------



## Hustle

The Knicks will have to live with big unpromising contracts. Isiah has destroyed this teams ability to compete (to get out of the first round) for the next 5 years (if they are lucky).


----------



## Wynn

Wynn said:


> I've bet *kukoc4ever!*, *Ace!*, and *happygrinch!* that the Bull will finish the season within 10 wins of the Knick. If I lose, I must:
> 
> ...allow *kukoc4ever!* to pick my avatar for 3 months.
> 
> ...allow *Ace!* to pick my signature for 3 months.
> 
> ...allow *happygrinch!* to pick my screen name for 3 months (pending administrative approval).
> 
> The details are somewhere between pages 35 and 39 of this beast of a thread.


At this point in the season, the Knick will have to win 16 of their last 22 and the Bull will have to lose the rest of their games for me to lose this wager. I doubt either of these things will happen, let alone both. Therefore in order to allow the others involved in these bets to move on with their lives I will:

*A* Release any of them from their responsibilities if they will publicly acknowledge that "*Wynn!* is a genious and a very beautiful (if very large and slightly hairy) man."

--or--

*B* Allow them to fulfill their obligations according to the terms of the contract. 3 months of...

*kukoc4ever!*:








(I can email you a version in the right size if you can't make it work...)

*Ace!*:

"My mystifying and completely unwarranted adoration of Jamal Crawsover has clouded my judgement when it comes to accurately evaluating my once beloved Bull."

*happygrinch!*:

For the next three months, should you choose this path, you become *"disgruntledKNICKfan!"*


----------



## yodurk

:laugh:

Hey Wynn, for the avatar selection, you really need to consider some of the photoshopped pictures that NoExcuseNoVision put together. The one where Jamal is sitting at his computer reading Basketball for Dummies about made me wet myself. I also loved the Bachelor Party AND 1 poster with Jamal popping his head into the picture. Oh man, those are classic. I'm sure NENV would photoshop something customized for this purpose.


----------



## yodurk

Mr. T said:


> Ok, enough clowning around with those haters, i gotta get back to work!


My fault, I should give credit to Mr. T where credit is due.


----------



## yodurk

Mr. T said:


> Don't forget about Jamal, Fleet!


Here's the other one. :biggrin:


----------



## Wynn

yodurk said:


> My fault, I should give credit to Mr. T where credit is due.


This was what I originally wanted, but you lose the meaning when reducing it down to avatar size.


----------



## yodurk

Wynn said:


> This was what I originally wanted, but you lose the meaning when reducing it down to avatar size.


Doh, didn't think of that.


----------



## mizenkay

_PLAYBOY'S Miss April, Courtney Rachel Culkin, managed to upstage such gorgeous models as Karolina Kurkova, Yfke Sturm, Anne V., Missy Rayder and Ines Rivero at the "Knicks Bowl 6" fund-raiser at Chelsea Piers the other night. The buxom Long Islander's trick? She wore a tiny, midriff-baring Knicks tank-top about the size of a bra, a distraction to such bowlers as Knicks Stephon Marbury, Kurt Thomas and *Jamal Crawford*, plus Chloe Sevigny, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Steve Schirripa, Spike Lee (above), Matthew Modine and the Gastineau Girls._


new york city baby! bright lights! supermodels! movie stars! 

from today's Page Six 





:biggrin:


----------



## such sweet thunder

:ttiwwp:


----------



## mizenkay

:laugh:


----------



## Mr. T

Wynn said:


> At this point in the season, the Knick will have to win 16 of their last 22 and the Bull will have to lose the rest of their games for me to lose this wager. I doubt either of these things will happen, let alone both. Therefore in order to allow the others involved in these bets to move on with their lives I will:
> 
> *A* Release any of them from their responsibilities if they will publicly acknowledge that "*Wynn!* is a genious and a very beautiful (if very large and slightly hairy) man."
> 
> --or--
> 
> *B* Allow them to fulfill their obligations according to the terms of the contract. 3 months of...
> 
> *kukoc4ever!*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I can email you a version in the right size if you can't make it work...)
> 
> *Ace!*:
> 
> "My mystifying and completely unwarranted adoration of Jamal Crawsover has clouded my judgement when it comes to accurately evaluating my once beloved Bull."
> 
> *happygrinch!*:
> 
> For the next three months, should you choose this path, you become *"disgruntledKNICKfan!"*


:sfight: 

K4E, Ace, Grinch fighting - "Whose idea was it to bet Wynn?" :laugh:


----------



## Mr. T

K4E, being the ever helpful soul that I am and eager to help my buddy Wynn, I'd like to make this as painless as possible for you. 

I present to you, this gift. Perfectly sized to replace your existing avatar. Display it in good health!

:banana:


----------



## Mr. T

yodurk said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Hey Wynn, for the avatar selection, you really need to consider some of the photoshopped pictures that NoExcuseNoVision put together. The one where Jamal is sitting at his computer reading Basketball for Dummies about made me wet myself. I also loved the Bachelor Party AND 1 poster with Jamal popping his head into the picture. Oh man, those are classic. I'm sure NENV would photoshop something customized for this purpose.


I would gladly volunteer my services. :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T

K4E, decisions, :idea: decisions...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> K4E, decisions, :idea: decisions...


"Wynn! is a genious and a very beautiful (if very large and slightly hairy) man."

:biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> "Wynn! is a genious and a very beautiful (if very large and slightly hairy) man."
> 
> :biggrin:


Hey Wynn, doesn't said proclamation have to be made in a new thread? :yes:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> Hey Wynn, doesn't said proclamation have to be made in a new thread? :yes:


Not stated in the deal... just had to be in public. :makeadeal 

Disparaging JAMAL with such images.... shameful. :whatever:


----------



## Wynn

Mr. T said:


> Hey Wynn, doesn't said proclamation have to be made in a new thread? :yes:




Almost seems like he should have to keep it in his sig for a while, doesn't it? Maybe I'll keep it in mine......

Thanks for the help on all the artwork, *NENV!*


----------



## Mr. T

Wynn said:


> Almost seems like he should have to keep it in his sig for a while, doesn't it? Maybe I'll keep it in mine......
> 
> Thanks for the help on all the artwork, *NENV!*


No problem! Maybe we'll find somebody else who can "wear" it proudly. :devil_2:


----------



## ace20004u

Wynn, you are a genius and beautiful, if very large and slightly hairy man...

See, in my wisdom I knew that if I made this bet with you the Bulls would turn it around and turn me into a looser! SO see, the Bulls sucess is really all directly related to me :biggrin: 

Seriously though, you really put your neck on the line on this bet and you seriously won against heavy odds. My hats off to you and my signature is changed! congrats man.


----------



## bullsville

Way to go, ace, it's nice to see you take your lumps like a man.

Unlike K4E, who wussed out on a technicality...


----------



## ace20004u

bullsville said:


> Way to go, ace, it's nice to see you take your lumps like a man.
> 
> Unlike K4E, who wussed out on a technicality...


Hey, I am a man of my word and even I am wrong on rare occassion :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T

ace20004u said:


> Hey, I am a man of my word and even I am wrong on rare occassion :biggrin:


Care to sport a new avatar Ace? We have two new Jamal avatars available from the K4E collection. :groucho:


----------



## HAWK23

this 1800+ post jamal crawford thread is an eyesore...

let's see if I can get it closed

***** SLUT WHORE!

haha

*no, but it'll get you edited*


----------



## Da Grinch

Wynn! is a genious and a very beautiful (if very large and slightly hairy) man.


congrats wynn , this is a loss i happy to have.


----------



## mizenkay

happygrinch said:


> Wynn! is a genious and a very beautiful (if very large and slightly hairy) man.
> 
> 
> congrats wynn , this is a loss i happy to have.


grinch happy! we happy!

sidenote: wanted to tune into the sonic/knick game last night but MSG has been *taken off the air* by time warner cable in nyc because knick/cablevision owner james dolan has jacked up the fee to carry the station, and time warner said, uh, sorry, we'll just pull it off the air. in it's place is NBA TV, which i am now getting a credit for on my bill.


----------



## Da Grinch

mizenkay said:


> grinch happy! we happy!
> 
> sidenote: wanted to tune into the sonic/knick game last night but MSG has been *taken off the air* by time warner cable in nyc because knick/cablevision owner james dolan has jacked up the fee to carry the station, and time warner said, uh, sorry, we'll just pull it off the air. in it's place is NBA TV, which i am now getting a credit for on my bill.


luckily for the grinch he has dish network so he unbothered by the money hungry styles of the dolans , but for you , you'll find nbatv to be much better than msg even if you'll have to miss the knicks games and of course jamal crawford's play(and of course to a lesser note former bull jerome williams), they have a different game on almost every night, nice programming in general .


----------



## mizenkay

happygrinch said:


> luckily for the grinch he has dish network so he unbothered by the money hungry styles of the dolans , but for you , you'll find nbatv to be much better than msg even if you'll have to miss the knicks games and of course jamal crawford's play(and of course to a lesser note former bull jerome williams), they have a different game on almost every night, nice programming in general .


miz know grinch. miz already pay for nba tv and league pass. miz now get nba tv for free.


----------



## ace20004u

Mr. T said:


> Care to sport a new avatar Ace? We have two new Jamal avatars available from the K4E collection. :groucho:



LOL, nah, I think the sig is quite enough!


----------



## Wynn

It was a fun bet, guys, and I'm glad I came out on top. Thanks for taking the loss in the good-natured spirit it was intended. I think with this, then, that I am officially finished with this thread.

Good luck to Jamal in the rest of his NBA career, may he never lose again unless it is against the Bull!


----------



## fleetwood macbull

IMO, allowing explanations like (yeah i lost a bet) for ex, to accompany these bet payoffs sort of defeats the purpose of insisting on the new sig by the loser in the first place. Lessens the pain of payoff, if not totally stealing the thunder of the winners brilliant victory! Heck, why even do it if its not done right? 

But whatdoiknow?...(i'm sure not much :biggrin: )


----------



## Mr. T

fleetwood macbull said:


> IMO, allowing explanations like (yeah i lost a bet) for ex, to accompany these bet payoffs sort of defeats the purpose of insisting on the new sig by the loser in the first place. Lessens the pain of payoff, if not totally stealing the thunder of the winners brilliant victory! Heck, why even do it if its not done right?
> 
> But whatdoiknow?...(i'm sure not much :biggrin: )


Thats a good point Fleet. Perhaps the sigs could be supplemented by an avatar from the K4E collection. :clown:


----------



## kukoc4ever

oh all right.....
avatar updated


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> oh all right.....
> avatar updated


Lookin' good! :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville

:clap: Good for you, K4E. :biggrin:


----------



## The Krakken

I love this place.....


----------



## Wynn

Mr. T said:


> K4E, decisions, :idea: decisions...


I applaud all of you three for taking the hard route, and have thus removed the "plan A" quote from my sig. I've got to say, though, I really prefer the "bull for life" avatar to the "and 1". Your choice, *kukoc4ever!*, just voicing my preference.



_...and I'm done with this thread -- -- -- -- ....... NOW!_


----------



## Mr. T

Wynn said:


> It was a fun bet, guys, and I'm glad I came out on top. Thanks for taking the loss in the good-natured spirit it was intended. I think with this, then, that I am officially finished with this thread.
> 
> Good luck to Jamal in the rest of his NBA career, may he never lose again unless it is against the Bull!


*BUSTED!*

It was all a trick Wynn! We conspired to get you back into this thread...although I personally knew you could never stay out for good! :nah: 

We know you'll be coming back soon too. DaBullz is monitoring the web logs for us.


----------



## Wynn

Mr. T said:


> *BUSTED!*
> 
> It was all a trick Wynn! We conspired to get you back into this thread...although I personally knew you could never stay out for good! :nah:
> 
> We know you'll be coming back soon too. DaBullz is monitoring the web logs for us.


damn





















































_.............NOW!_


----------



## truth

Did anyone ever think they would see the day when JC had more assists than shot attempts??????????

It actually happened tonight...

11 shot attempts and 12 assists...

Herb Williams should be coach of the year :clap:


----------



## superdave

truth said:


> Did anyone ever think they would see the day when JC had more assists than shot attempts??????????
> 
> It actually happened tonight...
> 
> 11 shot attempts and 12 assists...
> 
> Herb Williams should be coach of the year :clap:


Didn't the Knicks blow a 20 point lead and lose at home?

:clap:


----------



## bullsville

truth said:


> Did anyone ever think they would see the day when JC had more assists than shot attempts??????????
> 
> It actually happened tonight...
> 
> 11 shot attempts and 12 assists...
> 
> Herb Williams should be coach of the year :clap:


OMG, it's time to write a will, because the freaking world is coming to an end. :biggrin:


----------



## truth

bullsville said:


> OMG, it's time to write a will, because the freaking world is coming to an end. :biggrin:


hey,its easier to win 4 consecutive championships than to get JC to stop hoisting and start passing...or to get EC to play some D :banana:


----------



## bullsville

truth said:


> hey,its easier to win 4 consecutive championships than to get JC to stop hoisting and start passing...or to get EC to play some D :banana:


You need to edit your post, you forgot the '1' in front of the '4'. :angel:


----------



## The Krakken

bullsville said:


> You need to edit your post, you forgot the '1' in front of the '4'. :angel:


Or was that AFTER the 4? :clown:


----------



## bullsville

The Krakken said:


> Or was that AFTER the 4? :clown:


Yeah, you're obviously right, my bad. I'm sorry.


----------



## remlover

Knicks blew another 4th quarter lead? Damn, sorry i missed it. I was recording Blind Justice.


----------



## DaBullz

I thought this was amusing...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2005031602

BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Celtics taunted Jalen Rose early, and Ricky Davis got on Milt Palacio when it was over.

A few players on Boston's bench were teasing Rose after Pierce nailed a jumper and was fouled on Boston's first possession of the game, saying ``He's going to foul you out.''

Rose
43 minutes
12-16 FG
10-13 FT
3 Reb
3 Ast
1 Stl
35 pts

Toronto is 6-4 in their last 10 games
Bulls are 5-5


----------



## kukoc4ever

Rose is having a pretty good season.

Over 46% shooting now on the year.


----------



## DaBullz

kukoc4ever said:


> Rose is having a pretty good season.
> 
> Over 46% shooting now on the year.


He's not good enough to be the #1 on a team.

He's been terrible since vince left, eh?


----------



## JRose5

DaBullz said:


> He's not good enough to be the #1 on a team.
> 
> He's been terrible since vince left, eh?


Guy's a cancer.
Steer clear.


----------



## kukoc4ever

SIKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!


----------



## badfish

JRose5 said:


> Guy's a cancer.
> Steer clear.



Fire Pax!!!
Fire Skiles!!!


----------



## Mr. T




----------



## HAWK23

Mr. T said:


>



too much time I tell u... :no: 


:clap: nonetheless


----------



## DaBullz

All I can say is it would really suck if NY makes the playoffs and we don't. It IS possible.


----------



## The True Essence

the knicks got about a negative 4 percent chance of making the playoffs. and bulls fans, its not Jamals fault. i could just imagine the record without jamal....we would be like 11-56.

why cant we all agree that it was a good trade for both teams. you guys obviously didnt need Jamal since Ben Gordon is just as good if not better then Jamal, and hinrich, duhon etc in the backcourt. you guys got alot of expiring deals...basically, addition by subtraction, and its worked out well.

and the knicks really needed a 2 guard cause we all knew allan houston wasnt gonna play 30 games. hes really a big fan favorite here, and his bad habits have been going away slowly as the season has progressed. im really happy with the trade.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

PennyHardaway said:


> the knicks got about a negative 4 percent chance of making the playoffs. and bulls fans, its not Jamals fault. i could just imagine the record without jamal....we would be like 11-56.
> 
> *why cant we all agree that it was a good trade for both teams. *you guys obviously didnt need Jamal since Ben Gordon is just as good if not better then Jamal, and hinrich, duhon etc in the backcourt. you guys got alot of expiring deals...basically, addition by subtraction, and its worked out well.
> 
> and the knicks really needed a 2 guard cause we all knew allan houston wasnt gonna play 30 games. hes really a big fan favorite here, and his bad habits have been going away slowly as the season has progressed. im really happy with the trade.


Because it's more fun to have 100-page threads debating the slightest nuance of Jamal, the trade, and each team. A lot of interested parties on this board have spent a lot of time carving out their positions on the topic, so concensus-building is unlikely (I'm as guilty of this as anyone - but these have often, but not always, been fun debates). I like where the Bulls are at, and Jamal seems to be doing well enough in NY. Fine by me.


----------



## DaBullz

ViciousFlogging said:


> Because it's more fun to have 100-page threads debating the slightest nuance of Jamal, the trade, and each team. A lot of interested parties on this board have spent a lot of time carving out their positions on the topic, so concensus-building is unlikely (I'm as guilty of this as anyone - but these have often, but not always, been fun debates). I like where the Bulls are at, and Jamal seems to be doing well enough in NY. Fine by me.


Right now we're starting Pargo and Griffin at a time when we need to win games. It would be handy to have a guy like Jamal (or Rose) on the roster right now, even if they never played any of the other games.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

DaBullz said:


> Right now we're starting Pargo and Griffin at a time when we need to win games. It would be handy to have a guy like Jamal (or Rose) on the roster right now, even if they never played any of the other games.


yeah, and it would be nice to have Clyde Drexler as MJ's backup, just in case, and Joe Dumars on IR waiting for his chance. But they wouldn't sit still for it, and only teams like the Mavericks (and Knicks) are willing to pay starter money to little-used backups. Jamal wouldn't have sat still if he was receiving low minutes with guys like Kirk, Duhon, and Gordon playing. We already know how Jamal reacts when he thinks other young players are stealing his minutes. It wouldn't have worked.

Injuries were bound to hit us at some point. Few teams can absorb injuries to 2-4 starters without having to rely on a scrub or two to weather the storm and we're no different. Luckily none of our injuries are serious and the teams behind us in the standings aren't in the best shape themselves.


----------



## DaBullz

ViciousFlogging said:


> yeah, and it would be nice to have Clyde Drexler as MJ's backup, just in case, and Joe Dumars on IR waiting for his chance. But they wouldn't sit still for it, and only teams like the Mavericks (and Knicks) are willing to pay starter money to little-used backups. Jamal wouldn't have sat still if he was receiving low minutes with guys like Kirk, Duhon, and Gordon playing. We already know how Jamal reacts when he thinks other young players are stealing his minutes. It wouldn't have worked.
> 
> Injuries were bound to hit us at some point. Few teams can absorb injuries to 2-4 starters without having to rely on a scrub or two to weather the storm and we're no different. Luckily none of our injuries are serious and the teams behind us in the standings aren't in the best shape themselves.


Some of this is true, perhaps.

We didn't have a chance at Drexler or Dumars. We not only had Crawford, we had his bird rights.

And, all the losing we had to suffer through SHOULD have gotten us a ton of good draft picks (Jamal being precisely one of those) who'd provide us with depth.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

DaBullz said:


> Some of this is true, perhaps.


It's all true, from a certain point of view.












> We didn't have a chance at Drexler or Dumars. We not only had Crawford, we had his bird rights.
> 
> And, all the losing we had to suffer through SHOULD have gotten us a ton of good draft picks (Jamal being precisely one of those) who'd provide us with depth.


It was an intentionally extreme example. And I'm not going to argue that we've managed our draft picks with the utmost care since 1998, because we haven't. The Crawford deal, even if it was a net-loss in talent, actually helped the team more than the other deals we've made involving our draft picks and/or young, cheap FAs (Miller). I like our guard rotation when it's at full-strength and don't really think Jamal fits into it very well. That's my opinion, anyway. It worked out for Jamal, too. Good for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal makes a piddling 5.8 million this year. Hardly the price of a modern-day drexler or dumars.

Why not have 3 very good guards on the team. Jamal, Kirk and Gordon. 

Oh... that's right.... Jamal is a crazed "jack" "chucker."

Knicks win tonight.

Crawford 5-9. 2-4 from three.
10 assists. 2 turnovers.
1 steal.

He'll score 50 for you if that's what you want.
Or he'll become a point guard if that's what you want.
It all depends on what the team needs.

"The right way" does not mean **** without the horses.

Thank god we have Pike and Othella to help us win games when we need them to.


----------



## DaBullz

How can we whine about the lack of a big/tall SG and then say it's good that we got rid of a big/tall SG who's turned out as good as any of our guards (except maybe Gordon)? That is, in most respects.


----------



## kukoc4ever

DaBullz said:


> How can we whine about the lack of a big/tall SG and then say it's good that we got rid of a big/tall SG who's turned out as good as any of our guards (except maybe Gordon)? That is, in most respects.


I agree 100%

I also know what "the haters" will say.

And the beat goes on.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal is Yahoo's player of the game in a big win for the Knicks.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005031801


----------



## Da Grinch

DaBullz said:


> How can we whine about the lack of a big/tall SG and then say it's good that we got rid of a big/tall SG who's turned out as good as any of our guards (except maybe Gordon)? That is, in most respects.


the pax/skiles regime is one that doesn't like your kind of backtalk dabullz, logic has no place only catch phrases("the right way" ring a bell?) and vague interpetations of future ambitions that are seemingly in conflict with the mixed messages we are getting now.

lest we forget the main reason crawford was dealt was for cap flexibility so that we could sign curry and chandler at any price(even though the bulls are a very large market and could do it easy regardless) now of course we are hearing they can only be signed ....for something reasonable.

vague ...yet telling.


----------



## DaBullz

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> the pax/skiles regime is one that doesn't like your kind of backtalk dabullz, logic has no place only catch phrases("the right way" ring a bell?) and vague interpetations of future ambitions that are seemingly in conflict with the mixed messages we are getting now.
> 
> lest we forget the main reason crawford was dealt was for cap flexibility so that we could sign curry and chandler at any price(even though the bulls are a very large market and could do it easy regardless) now of course we are hearing they can only be signed ....for something reasonable.
> 
> vague ...yet telling.


These things are true.

The Bulls could have resigned to max deals:

Fizer
Crawford
Curry
and Chandler

Bird rights.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Quite a "floor game" Mr. And 1 has been displaying as of late for someone with a "deficient basketball IQ."


----------



## DaBullz

I haven't seen the Knicks lately, but it sure seems like Marbury and Crawford have switched positions. Is Crawford now playing PG and Marbury SG?


----------



## Da Grinch

DaBullz said:


> I haven't seen the Knicks lately, but it sure seems like Marbury and Crawford have switched positions. Is Crawford now playing PG and Marbury SG?


nope jc is doing it from mostly the 2 and he has taken some backup pg minutes as well, they signed a guy from the cba to play back up pg but he apparently isn't very good.


----------



## The True Essence

jamal is the unofficial point. Both steph and Jamal take turns bringing the ball up, but jamals assists are way up and stephons are down to like 5-6 a game. Jamal makes great passes. he had an incredible pass to mo taylor yesterday, but taylor sucks and missed the lay in.


----------



## mizenkay

> *Knicks notebook: Unselfish college guard helping Crawford adjust*
> 
> *Jamal Crawford has been receiving some positive feedback and support on his new playmaking style* from as far away as the Albuquerque Regional of the NCAA Tournament.
> 
> *Crawford's best friend is Washington guard Will Conroy*, a fellow Seattle native who scored six points and had 10 assists yesterday as the Cougars beat Pacific, 97-79, to advance to the Sweet 16.
> 
> *Crawford and Conroy talk almost daily on the phone.* They conversed Friday night as each prepared for big games yesterday.
> 
> For the past couple of weeks Crawford, who had 20 points and six assists in the Knicks 97-82 loss to the Heat, has been distributing the ball more and more, and he said *Conroy has been helping him make the transition.*
> 
> *"He's a great scorer, and could shoot all the time if he wanted," Crawford said of Conroy. "But he sacrifices himself to help his teammates and to win games. I told (Friday night), you can talk about doing it, but it's a lot harder than it looks to totally change your game. But he's ecstatic for me."*




http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1111299056290950.xml 




:smile: 







psssst eddy, sorry big guy, you've been replaced.


----------



## bullsville

Since January 1st, Duhon has not only shot 3's at a higher clip than Jamal (37% to 36%) but he also has a better adjusted FG% (48.5% to 47.5%). He has also outshot Jamal from the field since Jan 1st 38.9% to 38.8%.

Yes, Jamalites, although Duhon got off to a slow start shooting-wise, since January 1st the "horrible-shooting" Chris Duhon has a higher FG%, a higher 3-pt% and a higher adjFG% than Jamal. Ouch.

Since Jan 1st-
JC- 36.5 min, 1.19 stl, 4.65 ast
CD- 27.9 min, 0.97 stl, 5.08 ast

Double ouch.
______________

Now that Duhon shoots as well as JC, where exactly would Jamal get *any* minutes on this team? Duhon has it all over him, even shooting but ahead in defense, ast/TO, assists... Kirk and JC shoot the same, but Kirk defends and assists much better... Ben shoots much better than Jamal from the field and especially behind the arc, and he has been to the FT line 30 more times in over 300 fewer minutes than Jamal. 

I guess JC could have Pike's minutes, although Pike shoots 3's much better both career-wise and this season. But do you really think Jamal would be happy getting 11.6 minutes/game and getting DNPs 20% of the time?

Could this be the long-awaited end of this thread? Now that Jamal officially does nothing better than any of our 3 guards, is there any need to discuss whether or not the Bulls should have kept him? How is he any different than the Khalid El-Amins and AJ Guytons of the world who have been replaced by better players?

Does Jamal have a noticable edge on any of our 3 guards in any area, enough of an edge that he would actually have a role and get PT ahead of any of them?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

bullsville said:


> Since January 1st, Duhon has not only shot 3's at a higher clip than Jamal (37% to 36%) but he also has a better adjusted FG% (48.5% to 47.5%). He has also outshot Jamal from the field since Jan 1st 38.9% to 38.8%.
> 
> Yes, Jamalites, although Duhon got off to a slow start shooting-wise, since January 1st the "horrible-shooting" Chris Duhon has a higher FG%, a higher 3-pt% and a higher adjFG% than Jamal. Ouch.
> 
> Since Jan 1st-
> JC- 36.5 min, 1.19 stl, 4.65 ast
> CD- 27.9 min, 0.97 stl, 5.08 ast
> 
> Double ouch.
> ______________
> 
> Now that Duhon shoots as well as JC, where exactly would Jamal get *any* minutes on this team? Duhon has it all over him, even shooting but ahead in defense, ast/TO, assists... Kirk and JC shoot the same, but Kirk defends and assists much better... Ben shoots much better than Jamal from the field and especially behind the arc, and he has been to the FT line 30 more times in over 300 fewer minutes than Jamal.
> 
> I guess JC could have Pike's minutes, although Pike shoots 3's much better both career-wise and this season. But do you really think Jamal would be happy getting 11.6 minutes/game and getting DNPs 20% of the time?
> 
> Could this be the long-awaited end of this thread? Now that Jamal officially does nothing better than any of our 3 guards, is there any need to discuss whether or not the Bulls should have kept him? How is he any different than the Khalid El-Amins and AJ Guytons of the world who have been replaced by better players?
> 
> Does Jamal have a noticable edge on any of our 3 guards in any area, enough of an edge that he would actually have a role and get PT ahead of any of them?


Well, this thread was actually slowing down a bit as the last post was one 2 days ago. It was a slightly positive one by mizenkay of all posters.

Right now you're just nitpicking with percentages - 1% and 0.1% better. It's not really hands down superior. Unless I'm completely missing something and you sit by the bench every game, it's not like Skiles checks a stat sheet and immediately sits someone down once they dip below someone else's shooting percentage.


----------



## mizenkay

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Well, this thread was actually slowing down a bit as the last post was one 2 days ago. *It was a slightly positive one by mizenkay of all posters.*
> 
> Right now you're just nitpicking with percentages - 1% and 0.1% better. It's not really hands down superior. Unless I'm completely missing something and you sit by the bench every game, it's not like Skiles checks a stat sheet and immediately sits someone down once they dip below someone else's shooting percentage.



imagine that! :wink: 

i am encouraged by jamal's new approach to the game. i just wish he approached it that way during his time with the bulls. maybe if he had, he would still be in chicago! and the irony of this story is not lost on me. 

i don't wish him any ill-will _personally_, but i do hope the knicks suck until the end of time and beyond, cause they are the knicks. i mean come on! 

this thread would survive a nuclear winter, it's just one of those things.


----------



## bullsville

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Well, this thread was actually slowing down a bit as the last post was one 2 days ago. It was a slightly positive one by mizenkay of all posters.


Yeah, so instead my thread that was there to praise Pax for getting some good veterans for the bench turned into the Jamal thread for a day. :curse: 



> *Right now you're just nitpicking with percentages - 1% and 0.1% better. It's not really hands down superior.* Unless I'm completely missing something and you sit by the bench every game, it's not like Skiles checks a stat sheet and immediately sits someone down once they dip below someone else's shooting percentage.


That's my point exactly, none of the 4 shoot much better than the others- Ben is noticeably better on 3's (7th in the NBA) than the others, but it's even other than that.

So I'm wondering why anyone is still upset that we didn't keep Jamal? Ben has certainly been superior on offense, right? At least when it counts, I think everyone here would rather have the ball in Ben's hands than Jamal's (other than the usual, well-known mega-ites), right? So why would anyone want Jamal to get ANY of Ben's 25-30 minutes?

And why would anyone want Jamal on the floor ahead of Kirk or Duhon? They all shoot the same (unless one nitpicks), Kirk and Duhon have more assists and better ast/TO ratios, so why would you want Jamal getting any of their minutes? Does anyone (other than the usual, well-known mega-ites) truly think Jamal is a better defender than Kirk or Duhon?

Seriously, you'd think a Bulls fan would be jumping for joy knowing that our 3 guards are all now better than the one we didn't give big money to who left. That's a great thing for our team, isn't it?

*In general, why would anyone want Jamal to take any minutes from Duhon, Gordon or Hinrich?* I'm really curious as to what anyone thinks he does better than any of our 3 guards?

Because he's tall? So what, he still isn't as good a defender as Hinrich or Duhon (again, except to the usual well-known mega-ites).


----------



## badfish

bullsville said:


> *In general, why would anyone want Jamal to take any minutes from Duhon, Gordon or Hinrich?* I'm really curious as to what anyone thinks he does better than any of our 3 guards?



Because he has sikkkk handles. Didn't you see that mad dunk he had a few weeks back? Everyone we have now is boooring!!! Defense...schm-efense.

Seriously though, Jamal has the tools and physical talent to be devastating. It remains to be seen whether he can put it all together. He's certainly still young.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

mizenkay said:


> imagine that! :wink:
> 
> i am encouraged by jamal's new approach to the game. i just wish he approached it that way during his time with the bulls. maybe if he had, he would still be in chicago! and the irony of this story is not lost on me.


Yeah, I'm still trying to spot that pig flying to convince myself it's really happening.

Oh wait there's one.

No. . .wait. . .

Actually that's just a kool-aided Bullsville on a trampoline. Never mind. 

:cheers:


----------



## bullsville

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Yeah, I'm still trying to spot that pig flying to convince myself it's really happening.
> 
> Oh wait there's one.
> 
> No. . .wait. . .
> 
> Actually that's just a kool-aided Bullsville on a trampoline. Never mind.
> 
> :cheers:


Yeah, I'm only ripping Jamal compared to our players... I haven't caught much Knicks action the last week or two with the Bulls playing so much, but from all I've Jamal has played a much different game as of late.

All I know is that while his assists are way up in March, he is still throwing up 7 3's a night and hitting less than 1/3 of them. He's still taking 12 shots a night- not an exhorbanant amount, but he's only hitting 35.4% for the month.

I'm sorry, but after watching Jamal for 4 years it's going to take more than 7 games for me to think he has changed. Prove me wrong, Jamal- there's a reason I still have two of your rookie cards, it's called TALENT!


----------



## Da Grinch

*.377 fg%*

since jan.1st
(217-575).377 fg
(73-201).363 3pt %

efg% .441

and by the way chris duhon is not shooting .389 ...he is from jan 1st shooting .377 on 83-233 shooting this year the same as his backcourt mate whose % are the ones above .

according to a certain poster this is the end all be all of who is better ...well arithmatic is important and duhon is shooting the same as the above player, whose efg% and fg % are below that of jamal crawford in his mind i guess that means that crawford would have to start above this guy who is on the bulls , his name kirk hinrich. and of course it would also mean since duhon's ast/to ratio is also better than kirk hinrich's, that is if push came to shove kirk would have to sit for jamal and chris, which of course ridiculous but ....according to bullsville, this somehow has merit.

you know since starting performances are often dictated by shooting % and just that ...and nothing at all could be made of the fact that jamal more than *triples* duhon's scoring avg. in the process.

this is just the about the silliest thing i have responded too , so to clear things up so its not misinterpeted, jamal is better than duhon he is simply a more impactful player, stats aside ...but statisically crawford is a better player as well.

and i'll end the discussion on the matter with this, at the end of this season duhon will be a free agent , who thinks he will garner a 6 yr. 39 mil contract offer from paxson a player whom no one thinks even liked crawford and of course crawford turned down and got a better deal from the knicks .

who thinks duhon can get that much from paxson?

i for one certainly dont, and i doubt anyone does either.


----------



## kukoc4ever

badfish said:


> Seriously though, Jamal has the tools and physical talent to be devastating. It remains to be seen whether he can put it all together. He's certainly still young.


And this is the reason it was a bad trade.

He can (and will IMO) be a very good player in this league. Its just a matter of everything clicking for him. All the ingredients are there.

Gee... its almost like he started playing organized basketball at 17 or something. Oh wait.

Once he's done trying to prove to himself that he can play in the league and he starts trying to prove to himself that he can help a team win, he'll be a hell of an asset... and a huge bargain given his relatively meager earnings.


----------



## bullsville

*Re: .377 fg%*

That's really funny grinch, way to make a bunch of claims I never claimed. Nice work.




disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> since jan.1st
> (217-575).377 fg
> (73-201).363 3pt %
> 
> efg% .441
> 
> and by the way chris duhon is not shooting .389 ...he is from jan 1st shooting .377 on 83-233 shooting this year the same as his backcourt mate whose % are the ones above .
> 
> *according to a certain poster this is the end all be all of who is better*


LMAO, seriously... I never came CLOSE to saying that, but believe what you will. Since Jamal wins that stat (barely), go ahead and claim I said that, people can laugh at your complete inaccuracy as they choose.

What I DID say was that since Duhon defends better than Jamal and assists better than Jamal and has a better ast/TO than Jamal, since they both shoot the same why would anyone who isn't a mega-ite rather see Jamal on the floor? 

Would you rather see almost exactly the same shooting with less defense, less assists and a worst ast/TO ratio? A Bulls fan wouldn't want to see that IMO.



> ...well arithmatic is important and duhon is shooting the same as the above player, whose efg% and fg % are below that of jamal crawford in his mind i guess that means that crawford would have to start above this guy who is on the bulls , his name kirk hinrich. and of course it would also mean since duhon's ast/to ratio is also better than kirk hinrich's, that is if push came to shove kirk would have to sit for jamal and chris, which of course ridiculous but ....*according to bullsville, this somehow has merit*.


LOL some more, like I said they all shoot about the same, but defense, rebounding, assists, and assist/TO ratio are all in Kirk and Duhon's favor. Only a true mega-ite has a problem understanding such a simple concept. 

I've mentioned defense many, many times, but I guess for you it isn't part of the equation? You keep ignoring it, just like Jamal usually ignores it. 

DEFENSE!! DEFENSE!! Believe it or not, it IS part of the equation grinch. I know that's not good for you since Jamal is well-known as a lesser defender than Kirk and Chris, I guess that's why you have no comprehension of my points.

You're right, math is important, so is being able to read my own writing.



> you know since starting performances are often dictated by shooting % and just that ...and nothing at all could be made of the fact that jamal more than *triples* duhon's scoring avg. in the process.
> 
> this is just the about the silliest thing i have responded too , so to clear things up so its not misinterpeted, jamal is better than duhon he is simply a more impactful player, stats aside ...but statisically crawford is a better player as well.
> That's really funny, way to make a bunch of claims I never claimed. Nice work.
> and i'll end the discussion on the matter with this, at the end of this season duhon will be a free agent , who thinks he will garner a 6 yr. 39 mil contract offer from paxson a player whom no one thinks even liked crawford and of course crawford turned down and got a better deal from the knicks .
> 
> who thinks duhon can get that much from paxson?
> 
> i for one certainly dont, and i doubt anyone does either.


You might as well end the discussion, you have given zero reasons why Jamal should play ahead of Duhon, Kirk or Gordon. 

I mean seriously, you must not understand plain English. 

I said "the shooting is even, but Duhon and Kirk have the edge over Jamal in every other category".

You read "according to a certain poster this (shooting %) is the end all be all of who is better".

How is anyone supposed to have a conversation with you? Seriously?

This is real simple, I'll try again-



bullsville said:


> In general, why would anyone want Jamal to take any minutes from Duhon, Gordon or Hinrich? I'm really curious as to what anyone thinks he does better than any of our 3 guards?


Can you name your reason(s) why Jamal would play ahead of Kirk, Duhon or Gordon? If not, I'll assume you have none. 

And if you, the most mega of JC's mega-ites, can't come up with any reasons why Jamal would play ahead of these guys, I'll assume that this subject is closed.


----------



## Bulls4Life

kukoc4ever said:


> And this is the reason it was a bad trade.
> 
> He can (and will IMO) be a very good player in this league. Its just a matter of everything clicking for him. All the ingredients are there.
> 
> Gee... its almost like he started playing organized basketball at 17 or something. Oh wait.
> 
> Once he's done trying to prove to himself that he can play in the league and he starts trying to prove to himself that he can help a team win, he'll be a hell of an asset... and a huge bargain given his relatively meager earnings.


And the beat goes on...


:rofl:


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> And this is the reason it was a bad trade.
> 
> He can (and will IMO) be a very good player in this league. Its just a matter of everything clicking for him. All the ingredients are there.
> 
> Gee... its almost like he started playing organized basketball at 17 or something. Oh wait.
> 
> Once he's done trying to prove to himself that he can play in the league and he starts trying to prove to himself that he can help a team win, he'll be a hell of an asset... and a huge bargain given his relatively meager earnings.


You are pretty much correct, Jamal has *almost* all the ingredients to be a very good player. 

He doesn't have the defensive desire, or at the very least he hasn't shown it so far.

And while he will certainly improve, our 3 guards should all improve as they are all younger than Jamal.

The problem is, right now I see no reason why Jamal should play ahead of any of our guards- do you? In what area does Jamal have an advantage over any of our 3 guards (now that Duhon is shooting almost as well as Jamal, the differences are "nitpicking" to use someone else's words).


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Let's play a game !

Cereal box style.

Try to figure out the word that I am composing by filling in the blanks. The word formed from the answers will describe my thoughts on bullsville's exhaustive and extensive new findings.

1. Curry/JLo are universally and respectively known for their big _____ (3-letter word)

2. There is no "___" in team (1 letter)

3. Ben Gordon and Eddy Curry's jersey numbers add up to the number _____ (4-letter word)

Now take each of the words formed from the 3 fill-in-the-blanks and put em together and tell me what word you come up with !


----------



## fl_flash

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Let's play a game !
> 
> Cereal box style.
> 
> Try to figure out the word that I am composing by filling in the blanks. The word formed from the answers will describe my thoughts on bullsville's exhaustive and extensive new findings.
> 
> 1. Curry/JLo are universally and respectively known for their big _____ (3-letter word)
> 
> 2. There is no "___" in team (1 letter)
> 
> 3. Ben Gordon and Eddy Curry's jersey numbers add up to the number _____ (4-letter word)
> 
> Now take each of the words formed from the 3 fill-in-the-blanks and put em together and tell me what word you come up with !


I've pretty much stayed out of this thread since about the 30th or 40th page, yet I had to respond to this....

Could you possibly be more immature? Rather than calling someone a name, which takes zero original thought, how about responding to the points Bullsville is trying to make? You may not agree with the position he takes but couldn't you at least put in something constructive rather than calling him or his thoughts assinine?


----------



## bullsville

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Let's play a game !
> 
> Cereal box style.
> 
> Try to figure out the word that I am composing by filling in the blanks. The word formed from the answers will describe my thoughts on bullsville's exhaustive and extensive new findings.
> 
> 1. Curry/JLo are universally and respectively known for their big _____ (3-letter word)
> 
> 2. There is no "___" in team (1 letter)
> 
> 3. Ben Gordon and Eddy Curry's jersey numbers add up to the number _____ (4-letter word)
> 
> Now take each of the words formed from the 3 fill-in-the-blanks and put em together and tell me what word you come up with !


LOL, that's pretty funny. I guess we mock what we can't refute. I haven't unearthed any massive new "findings", all that happened is Duhon started shooting at the same percentage as Jamal. I keep reading that it was a bad trade, or that we should have kept Jamal, or that we would be better with Jamal... I'm just looking for a legitimate reason why?

Before, one could always say "Duhon can't shoot, Jamal would be a better option". It was true. But now that he has developed into as high a percentage shooter as Jamal, that reason is out the window. Unless anyone is claiming that Jamal is a better defender than Duhon?

But hey, I guess this means you also can't come up with any reasons why Jamal would play ahead of Duhon, Hinrich or Gordon.


----------



## bullsville

fl_flash said:


> I've pretty much stayed out of this thread since about the 30th or 40th page, yet I had to respond to this....
> 
> Could you possibly be more immature? Rather than calling someone a name, which takes zero original thought, how about responding to the points Bullsville is trying to make? You may not agree with the position he takes but couldn't you at least put in something constructive rather than calling him or his thoughts assinine?


It's a rather simple question, isn't it? 

"Why would you play Jamal ahead of Kirk or Duhon or Gordon"?


----------



## Da Grinch

*reasons crawford is better than duhon who starts for the bulls*

reason #1 

on a universally considered worse defensive team with no shotblockers jamal crawford defends both shooting guards and point guards better.

he gives up few points per 48 minutes and he holds his opposing players to a lower .efg

http://www.82games.com/04NYK4C.HTM
http://www.82games.com/04CHI2C.HTM


#2 duhon shoots 34% from the field and well no one else does.

#3 crawford avg. 17 points a game ...duhon 5...my bulls are offensively challenged mostly because of a hole at the point guard spot

#4 crawford avg. more steals and blocks = better team defender



For gordon 
duhon plays more than him because he is a better player and is a player who has a position gordon will forever need a player to cross positions at another guard spot to play pg on offense and sg on defense and there simply aren't many of those players around with that kind of versatility.

the simple truth is both duhon and gordon are not complete players and dont really deserve to start on any nba team, there are decent players best suited for the bench and gordon is way more talented than duhon , but he cant do what players his size are supposed to do in the nba and that is play pg, he needs a guy like kirk to fix whats wrong with his game as far his positional woes that will never be fixed until he plays pg, which he hasn't done for any real period of time since high school 4 years ago.

crawford is by any objective measure at least an avg. starting guard in the nba.

thus he is better than both of them, and untill they improve their games til the point its better than crawford they would not deserve to start ahead of him.

you may believe in entitlement minutes , but i don't.


----------



## bullsville

*Re: reasons crawford is better than duhon who starts for the bulls*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> reason #1
> 
> on a universally considered worse defensive team with no shotblockers jamal crawford defends both shooting guards and point guards better.
> 
> he gives up few points per 48 minutes and he holds his opposing players to a lower .efg
> 
> http://www.82games.com/04NYK4C.HTM
> http://www.82games.com/04CHI2C.HTM


Those stats are all real nice and pretty, and this proves that you believe that Jamal is a better defender than Duhon, right? That's fine, although any NBA GM or scout or coach or player would tell you that Duhon is a better defender, I can't argue with your stats. I guess you win, Jamal Crawford is a better defender than Chris Duhon. 



> #2 duhon shoots 34% from the field and well no one else does.


Since Jan 1st he is shooting almost the exact same as Jamal. But hey, let's ignore the fact that he's a rookie and he has improved immensely over the last 3 months, OK? Let's pretend that he is still a 34% shooter, and once again, you win.



> #3 crawford avg. 17 points a game ...duhon 5...my bulls are offensively challenged mostly because of a hole at the point guard spot


Crawford scores more, of course that is because he shoots a hell of a lot more, but what does that matter? Duhon gets more assists, and his assist/TO ratio is much better, but Jamal "gets his", that's all that counts.



> #4 crawford avg. more steals and blocks = better team defender


Again, coaches, GMs, scouts and players all know that Duhon is a better defender. I can't prove it, but any intelligent poster here would tell you the same thing. But hey, JC gets more steals and blocks, so you win again.




> For gordon
> duhon plays more than him because he is a better player and is a player who has a position gordon will forever need a player to cross positions at another guard spot to play pg on offense and sg on defense and there simply aren't many of those players around with that kind of versatility.
> 
> the simple truth is both duhon and gordon are not complete players and dont really deserve to start on any nba team, there are decent players best suited for the bench and gordon is way more talented than duhon , but he cant do what players his size are supposed to do in the nba and that is play pg, he needs a guy like kirk to fix whats wrong with his game as far his positional woes that will never be fixed until he plays pg, which he hasn't done for any real period of time since high school 4 years ago.
> 
> crawford is by any objective measure at least an avg. starting guard in the nba.
> 
> thus he is better than both of them, and untill they improve their games til the point its better than crawford they would not deserve to start ahead of him.
> 
> you may believe in entitlement minutes , but i don't.


Well, you have certainly made one hell of a case for yourself. I guess you win.

I'll just have to be content with the knowledge that anyone who thinks that Jamal Crawford is a better defender than Chris Duhon is clearly either a mega-ite of Jamal's or knows very little about basketball. 

Don't believe me? Send some e-mails to a bunch of neutral NBA writers and scouts and coaches and players and whoever else you can, and ask them who is the better defender. Once they quit laughing, they'll tell you it's Duhon.

I can certainly live with the fact that you certainly made a case for Jamal over Duhon and Gordon, and people who know basketball are laughing at your "knowledge" of the game. 

With the great Jamal leading the way, I just don't understand how the Knicks have such a lousy record? And I really don't see how the Bulls are so good with such lousy shooting and defending one-dimensional players having such a huge role on the team?

Oh well, at least the one man whose opinion really matters- Bulls GM John Paxson- agrees with me that we are much better off without Jamal. I'm damn glad to see it, since he now has our team on the verge of the playoffs without Jamal, and Jamal is going down with the Knicks and their "real" organization and "real" GM with "no hidden agendas".


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

fl_flash said:


> I've pretty much stayed out of this thread since about the 30th or 40th page, yet I had to respond to this....
> 
> Could you possibly be more immature? Rather than calling someone a name, which takes zero original thought, how about responding to the points Bullsville is trying to make? You may not agree with the position he takes but couldn't you at least put in something constructive rather than calling him or his thoughts assinine?


I haven't been paying attention to the argument as much as I was paying attention the fact that he thought by bringing this new revelation up he would end the thread and all arguments. I thought that was pretty funny and have made fun of the irony of his revelations ever since. I don't apologize, except maybe to spongyfungy who may have to cross some parts of the conversation off or tell me that were not here to insult people.

The actual question bullsville poses is pretty abstract: Would he see minutes with Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich ? 

The question depends a lot on the coach.

How would we know the coach really knows talent ? How would we know the coach knows how to coach ? Are we sure the coach isn't biased ?

I decided that it was too abstract and that the issue wasn't worth refuting.


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: reasons crawford is better than duhon who starts for the bulls*



bullsville said:


> Those stats are all real nice and pretty, and this proves that you believe that Jamal is a better defender than Duhon, right? That's fine, although any NBA GM or scout or coach or player would tell you that Duhon is a better defender, I can't argue with your stats. I guess you win, Jamal Crawford is a better defender than Chris Duhon.
> 
> 
> 
> Since Jan 1st he is shooting almost the exact same as Jamal. But hey, let's ignore the fact that he's a rookie and he has improved immensely over the last 3 months, OK? Let's pretend that he is still a 34% shooter, and once again, you win.
> 
> 
> 
> Crawford scores more, of course that is because he shoots a hell of a lot more, but what does that matter? Duhon gets more assists, and his assist/TO ratio is much better, but Jamal "gets his", that's all that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, coaches, GMs, scouts and players all know that Duhon is a better defender. I can't prove it, but any intelligent poster here would tell you the same thing. But hey, JC gets more steals and blocks, so you win again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you have certainly made one hell of a case for yourself. I guess you win.
> 
> I'll just have to be content with the knowledge that anyone who thinks that Jamal Crawford is a better defender than Chris Duhon is clearly either a mega-ite of Jamal's or knows very little about basketball.
> 
> Don't believe me? Send some e-mails to a bunch of neutral NBA writers and scouts and coaches and players and whoever else you can, and ask them who is the better defender. Once they quit laughing, they'll tell you it's Duhon.
> 
> I can certainly live with the fact that you certainly made a case for Jamal over Duhon and Gordon, and people who know basketball are laughing at your "knowledge" of the game.
> 
> With the great Jamal leading the way, I just don't understand how the Knicks have such a lousy record? And I really don't see how the Bulls are so good with such lousy shooting and defending one-dimensional players having such a huge role on the team?
> 
> Oh well, at least the one man whose opinion really matters- Bulls GM John Paxson- agrees with me that we are much better off without Jamal. I'm damn glad to see it, since he now has our team on the verge of the playoffs without Jamal, and Jamal is going down with the Knicks and their "real" organization and "real" GM with "no hidden agendas".



once again any time you are ready to disclose your army of knowledgable nba men ready with their 2 player comparison between jamal and duhon , i'm always willing to see it.

but like last night you are passing off your opinion of 2 players and of course your opinion of other people's opinions as fact, 

have fun selling it, but no one is buying.


----------



## lgtwins

I am buying it. :banana:


----------



## bullsville

*Re: reasons crawford is better than duhon who starts for the bulls*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> once again any time you are ready to disclose your army of knowledgable nba men ready with their 2 player comparison between jamal and duhon , i'm always willing to see it.
> 
> but like last night you are passing off your opinion of 2 players and of course your opinion of other people's opinions as fact,
> 
> have fun selling it, but no one is buying.


For the millionth time, if I had an army of scouts or coaches or GMs, I'd quote them. 

I'm not passing anything off as fact, I'm saying that I've never heard anyone say that Jamal is a good defender, while I've heard lots of people say that Duhon is a very good defender.

And I'm really not selling anything, most people will tell you that Duhon is a better defender than Jamal. They don't have to "buy" what they already believe. And I certainly don't expect to sell you on anything that isn't pro-Jamal.

Again, anyone who thinks Jamal is a better defender than Duhon, please chime in at any time. :wait:


----------



## Adam

As just a casual observer, even I'm sick of these Crawford threads. They should all be deleted with prejudice. I will never understand why bulls fans who have watched Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc can't get over just another scrawny, selfish SG. He isn't even an allstar. All threads having anything related to Crawford should be coming out of the Knicks forum not the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever

adam said:


> As just a casual observer, even I'm sick of these Crawford threads. They should all be deleted with prejudice. I will never understand why bulls fans who have watched Jordan, Pippen, and *Kukoc* can't get over just another scrawny, selfish SG. He isn't even an allstar. All threads having anything related to Crawford should be coming out of the Knicks forum not the Bulls.


I feel that all threads mentioning Kukoc should be moved to the Bucks forum as well.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> I feel that all threads mentioning Kukoc should be moved to the Bucks forum as well.



:clap: 

I think that BBB.net needs to introduce some sort of assistance program for those who cannot resist the urge to click onto, and then post, in a Jamal Crawford thread that they are sick of.

It's a disease, and BBB.net is doing nothing to stop it's spread, somebody *must* be held responsible!!

And K4E, you should only be allowed to post in the Bucks thread from now on, and the team they are playing next. :banana:


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: reasons crawford is better than duhon who starts for the bulls*



bullsville said:


> For the millionth time, if I had an army of scouts or coaches or GMs, I'd quote them.
> 
> I'm not passing anything off as fact, I'm saying that I've never heard anyone say that Jamal is a good defender, while I've heard lots of people say that Duhon is a very good defender.
> 
> And I'm really not selling anything, most people will tell you that Duhon is a better defender than Jamal. They don't have to "buy" what they already believe. And I certainly don't expect to sell you on anything that isn't pro-Jamal.
> 
> Again, anyone who thinks Jamal is a better defender than Duhon, please chime in at any time. :wait:


so why dont you try stopping your repeated claims that they(the aforementioned army of nba whatevers) would agree with you when of you have admitted you have no way of really knowing , because you dont have their claims on the subject in either direction.

who are these people you have heard? 

George and weezie at your local dry cleaners, who cares i know i dont. 

post 1886 this thread

by you 



> Now that Duhon shoots as well as JC, where exactly would Jamal get *any* minutes on this team? *Duhon has it all over him, even shooting but ahead in defense, ast/TO, assists*... Kirk and JC shoot the same, but Kirk defends and assists much better... Ben shoots much better than Jamal from the field and especially behind the arc, and he has been to the FT line 30 more times in over 300 fewer minutes than Jamal.
> 
> I guess JC could have Pike's minutes, although Pike shoots 3's much better both career-wise and this season. But do you really think Jamal would be happy getting 11.6 minutes/game and getting DNPs 20% of the time?
> 
> Could this be the long-awaited end of this thread? *Now that Jamal officially does nothing better than any of our 3 guards*, is there any need to discuss whether or not the Bulls should have kept him? How is he any different than the Khalid El-Amins and AJ Guytons of the world who have been replaced by better players?


seems to me you were saying just about all of our guards were better than crawford ...and duhon in particular is a better player "has it all over him " suggest and that well in the other bolded part that duhon kirk and ben are at least equal to him in all facets of the game( i am of course assuming those were the 3 guards you were refering to to and not pike griffin and williams).

in fact went so far as to suggest crawford would avg, pike minutes and get a good # of DNP's...although for some reason you weren't sure that could happen either and somehow insinuated crawford couldn't even get pike minutes on the bulls.

i think this says all that needs to be said about your basketball acumen.

i of course disagree, crazy me, but unlike you i have reasons not just a bunch of testimonials from people that remain nameless because you cant name them ...because they dont exist...you are making stuff up to justify yourself, 

i've given you ample opportunities to explain it but its obvious you cant and are getting frustrated at your lack of ability to do so., duhon is an attentive defender but not a particularly good one , he gives a good effort every night and does his best , but he cant stop anyone, he doesn't have the skills/experience at this point in his career that simple maybe he gains it maybe he doesn't, but with no blocks at this point in the season its obvious he cant really contest shots effectively and that may never change.

he is out there because of his offense he is simply the best point guard on the bulls roster , kirk is a better player but at the job of being a point guard duhon is better , but this isn't a thread about duhon so i'll move back to crawford.

crawford is an inconsistent defender but he can at times actually play it well(which is why people can get so mad at him about it, does anyone really get somad at pike for bad defense though he obviously isn't good at it?) and thats why his stats are better both in team and individual defense, in spite of the fact that duhon actually plays on a team that is far better at defense , so he has more help...and because its his 5th year he knows more tricks in the nba game ...he is better at it, let it go.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> :clap:
> 
> 
> And K4E, you should only be allowed to post in the Bucks thread from now on, and the team they are playing next. :banana:


 I feel that all posters with college hoops avatars should only be allowed to post in the college hoops forums.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> I feel that all posters with college hoops avatars should only be allowed to post in the college hoops forums.


and all posters whose avatars depict crude martial arts moves should only post on those boards. :banana: 









...oops.


----------



## bullsville

*Re: reasons crawford is better than duhon who starts for the bulls*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> so why dont you try stopping your repeated claims that they(the aforementioned army of nba whatevers) would agree with you when of you have admitted you have no way of really knowing , because you dont have their claims on the subject in either direction.
> 
> who are these people you have heard?
> 
> George and weezie at your local dry cleaners, who cares i know i dont.


What I said, and of course you convienently ignored, is that I watch NBA telecasts by all different teams' broadcast units. I know what their play by play, color analysts and studio analysts have to say about NBA players. 

I also see and hear a lot of coaches and players get interviewed before, during (halftime) and after games. I watch the local sports reports from several different markets that also have comments from coaches, players, commentators, and others. When I have the choice, I always watch the Bulls' opponents broadcast of our games.

I also read ESPN Insider, reading a lot of articles by national writers. I also have print subscriptions to ESPN the Mag and SI.

In the course of all this, I have heard several coaches, players, PBP men, color analysts and studio hosts comment on what a good defender Duhon is. I have never heard anyone say that Jamal Crawford is a good defender.

Does this change your opinion one iota? Of course not, and nobody who knows you expects it to.



> post 1886 this thread
> 
> by you
> "Duhon has it all over him, even shooting but ahead in defense, ast/TO, assists"
> 
> seems to me you were saying just about all of our guards were better than crawford ...and duhon in particular is a better player "has it all over him " suggest and that well in the other bolded part that duhon kirk and ben are at least equal to him in all facets of the game( i am of course assuming those were the 3 guards you were refering to to and not pike griffin and williams).


Yeah, I said that Duhon is ahead of Jamal in defense, ast/TO ratio and assists. The latter two are proven statistically to be true, and by what I hear the majority of people agree with me that Duhon IS a better defender than Jamal. So far, BBB.net members choose Duhon by a 3-1 margin...

Poll: Better Defender, Duhon Or Crawford? 

I also said 
"Now that Jamal officially does nothing better than any of our 3 guards"

He doesn't shoot better than any of them, maybe by a small amount but it's so close it's "nitpicking" (not my term, someone else).

Duhon and Hinrich have more assists and better assist/TO ratios. They both rebound as well or better. 

You tell me, what exactly does Jamal do better than any of our guards? I keep asking but nobody has any answers. You say Jamal defends better than Duhon, but if the majority rules then you are just plain wrong about that one.

Jamal scores more than Duhon, he also shoots a lot more. But they shoot basically the same percentage since January 1, so maybe Duhon should take as many shots as Jamal? Or maybe Duhon is smart enough to realize that he has the lowest shooting percentage on the team and he should take fewer shots? Of the Knicks 5 highest volume shot-takers, Jamal is BY FAR AND AWAY the lowest-percentage shooter, maybe he should have figured out a long time ago that he should be taking less shots? 



> in fact went so far as to suggest crawford would avg, pike minutes and get a good # of DNP's...although for some reason you weren't sure that could happen either and somehow insinuated crawford couldn't even get pike minutes on the bulls.
> 
> i think this says all that needs to be said about your basketball acumen.


LOL, if I were coach I wouldn't give Jamal any minutes ahead of Ben, Kirk or Duhon. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I think all 3 of those players are better than Jamal. You see, I realize that there is more to basketball than fancy dribbling and dunks- defense and basketball IQ play quite a role. That's my right, I've given the reasons I feel that way, that's it.



> i of course disagree, crazy me, but unlike you i have reasons not just a bunch of testimonials from people that remain nameless because you cant name them ...because they dont exist...you are making stuff up to justify yourself,


LOL, I've given you plenty of reasons why I prefer our 3 guards to Jamal. You don't agree, well big surprise coming from the #2 Jamal-ite on the board (K4E is the winner, of course).



> i've given you ample opportunities to explain it but its obvious you cant and are getting frustrated at your lack of ability to do so.,


:rotf:
:rotf:



> duhon is an attentive defender but not a particularly good one , he gives a good effort every night and does his best , but he cant stop anyone, he doesn't have the skills/experience at this point in his career that simple maybe he gains it maybe he doesn't, but with no blocks at this point in the season its obvious he cant really contest shots effectively and that may never change.


OMG, stop it before I bust a lung, seriously. :rotf:
Ask Iverson if Duhon can stop anyone. :rotf:
:rotf: 
Duhon can't stop anyone... That, my friend, is a classic.
:rotf:
:rotf:



> he is out there because of his offense he is simply the best point guard on the bulls roster , kirk is a better player but at the job of being a point guard duhon is better , but this isn't a thread about duhon so i'll move back to crawford.
> 
> crawford is an inconsistent defender but he can at times actually play it well(which is why people can get so mad at him about it, does anyone really get somad at pike for bad defense though he obviously isn't good at it?) and thats why his stats are better both in team and individual defense, in spite of the fact that duhon actually plays on a team that is far better at defense , so he has more help...and because its his 5th year he knows more tricks in the nba game ...*he is better at it, let it go*.


Let it go, oh my God I am in tears. :rotf:
:rotf:

I guess the people who are voting that Duhon is the better defender need to "let it go" as well! :clown: :rotf:

All right, I'll try to stop laughing long enough to give you my "reasons" that I think Duhon, Gordon and Kirk are each better for our team than Jamal-

Duhon- 
-Much better defender than Jamal 
-Much better ast/TO ratio (Duhon is 15th in the league) than Jamal
-Shoots as well as Jamal over the last 3 months but not nearly as often, which is good because like Jamal he is the worst shooter among the team's top-6 in most shots taken

Hinrich-
-More assists than Jamal
-Better ast/TO ratio than Jamal
-Much better defender than Jamal
-Shoots virtually the same percentage but takes less shots

Gordon-
-Much better shooter than Jamal
-Much better 3-pt shooter than Jamal (Ben is 7th in the league)
-Much better 4th-quarter scorer (most 10+pt 4th quarters in the NBA)

You may not agree with those reasons, that's certainly your right. 

I certainly haven't seen any other posters jump in and say that I am wrong in putting Jamal behind our 3 guards. Maybe some will, that's their right.


----------



## Adam

bullsville said:


> :clap:
> 
> I think that BBB.net needs to introduce some sort of assistance program for those who cannot resist the urge to click onto, and then post, in a Jamal Crawford thread that they are sick of.
> 
> It's a disease, and BBB.net is doing nothing to stop it's spread, somebody *must* be held responsible!!
> 
> And K4E, you should only be allowed to post in the Bucks thread from now on, and the team they are playing next. :banana:


There should be an assistance program, but it should be for the bulls fans who can't stop gossiping about this guy almost a season after he has been traded. You guys make stupid comparisons and pull b.s. stats out of your asses just to satisfy your own egos. Seriously, just move on already. All you're doing is bashing a player that no longer even plays for your team in order to make yourself look right. It's beyond sad. Jamal has his own rumor mill of bulls fans on bballboards. He's become the Britney Spears of bballboards. Stop hating on the man just to satisfy your own egos. And you're right, I couldn't resist when I saw you were comparing him to frigging Chris Duhon. How stupid is that?


----------



## kukoc4ever

<pre>
TRUE FG% EFF FG%
Jamal 0.512562219 0.471153846
Kirk 0.488599349 0.448630137
Ben 0.536898242	0.496031746
Duhon 0.454395241 0.438596491
</pre>
Whipped this up in a spreadsheet quick like.... so correct me if there is an error.

Jamal is 2nd of the 4 in both True FG% and Effective FG%.

So at least on the scoring efficiency front... Jamal is #2. 

Duhon is quite poor on this front.


----------



## kukoc4ever

<pre>
Steals/Min Blocks/Min
Jamal	0.035422343	0.008174387
Kirk 0.042895442 0.008042895
Ben	0.025210084 0.004201681
Duhon 0.038461538	0
</pre>

Jamal is 3rd of 4 in Steals per minutes and 1st in blocks per minute.
Gordon is quite bad at accumulating steals and not so good at blocks.
Duhon is horrible at blocking shots.

Kirk appears to be the best here.... when looking at the 2 stats together.
Jamal appears to be 2nd.

Yes.. there is more to defense than steals and blocks... and this does not take rate into account... but steals and blocks are not NEGATIVE, right? They are good for the most part. Jamal is 2nd in this area.


----------



## kukoc4ever

<pre>
Fouls/Min
Jamal 0.051771117
Kirk 0.08847185
Ben 0.117647059
Duhon 0.1
</pre>

Fouls per minute.

Jamal easily the best here.

Fouls are a negative, yes?

Granted... this could be due to not trying on defense.

But then how does he accumulate the steals and blocks?


----------



## kukoc4ever

<pre>
Turnovers/Minute
Jamal 0.057220708
Kirk 0.064343164
Ben 0.096638655
Duhon 0.061538462
</pre>

Turnovers per minute.

Jamal is the best.

Gordon is awful.


----------



## deranged40

Who woulda thunk there'd be a 128 page thread over an above average chucker?


----------



## kukoc4ever

deranged40 said:


> Who woulda thunk there'd be a 128 page thread over an above average chucker?


Define chucker.

He scores more efficiently than both Hinrich and Duhon.

Nice to see you think JAMAL is above average though.


----------



## bullsville

adam said:


> There should be an assistance program, but it should be for the bulls fans who can't stop gossiping about this guy almost a season after he has been traded. You guys make stupid comparisons and pull b.s. stats out of your asses just to satisfy your own egos. Seriously, just move on already. All you're doing is bashing a player that no longer even plays for your team in order to make yourself look right. It's beyond sad. Jamal has his own rumor mill of bulls fans on bballboards. He's become the Britney Spears of bballboards. Stop hating on the man just to satisfy your own egos. And you're right, I couldn't resist when I saw you were comparing him to frigging Chris Duhon. How stupid is that?


There should be an assistance program for people who hate a thread but can't resist the urge to post in it nonetheless. :yes:


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> <pre>
> TRUE FG% EFF FG%
> Jamal 0.512562219 0.471153846
> Kirk 0.488599349 0.448630137
> Ben 0.536898242	0.496031746
> Duhon 0.454395241 0.438596491
> </pre>
> Whipped this up in a spreadsheet quick like.... so correct me if there is an error.
> 
> Jamal is 2nd of the 4 in both True FG% and Effective FG%.
> 
> So at least on the scoring efficiency front... Jamal is #2.
> 
> Duhon is quite poor on this front.


Your numbers look right to me, Duhon has a bad overall shooting percentage, but since Jan 1st he and Jamal and Kirk are all just about dead even. 

My stance was that Ben is the best of the 3 in scoring and the other 3 were close enough together that there's not much difference at all. That seems to be the case, doesn't it?


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> <pre>
> Steals/Min Blocks/Min
> Jamal	0.035422343	0.008174387
> Kirk 0.042895442 0.008042895
> Ben	0.025210084 0.004201681
> Duhon 0.038461538	0
> </pre>
> 
> Jamal is 3rd of 4 in Steals per minutes and 1st in blocks per minute.
> Gordon is quite bad at accumulating steals and not so good at blocks.
> Duhon is horrible at blocking shots.
> 
> Kirk appears to be the best here.... when looking at the 2 stats together.
> Jamal appears to be 2nd.
> 
> Yes.. there is more to defense than steals and blocks... and this does not take rate into account... but steals and blocks are not NEGATIVE, right? They are good for the most part. Jamal is 2nd in this area.


Here is what one NBA scout had to say about steals, from the new SI print edition:

*On the deceptiveness of defensive statistics:

"I would rate none of the top 10 steals leaders as an All-NBA defender. Fans assume you must be a great defender if you're averaging 2.84 steals like Larry Hughes, but he and Paul Pierce (1.65) often hurt their teams by gambling and leaving the defense vulnerable when they don't come up with the ball. LeBron James (2.30) and Allen Iverson (2.25) don't take as many risks because they have such excellent anticipation in playing the passing lanes. Which doesn't mean either one is a great defender- that's somebody who locks up his man on the ball, and unfortunately there's no simple stat to measure that*."

In my honest opinion, plus the opinion of 14 out of 18 BBB.net posters from the General NBA board, Duhon is a better defender than Jamal. I'll have to go with the NBA scout and the overwhelming majority of posters in saying that Duhon is the better defender.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> <pre>
> Fouls/Min
> Jamal 0.051771117
> Kirk 0.08847185
> Ben 0.117647059
> Duhon 0.1
> </pre>
> 
> Fouls per minute.
> 
> Jamal easily the best here.
> 
> Fouls are a negative, yes?
> 
> *Granted... this could be due to not trying on defense.*
> 
> But then how does he accumulate the steals and blocks?


In my opinion, it's a safe bet to say that the player who commits the lowest number of fouls is the player who is playing the least physical defense. Physical defense seems to bother guys like Ray Allen and Allen Iverson, and in general playing physical defense is thought to be a good thing.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> <pre>
> Turnovers/Minute
> Jamal 0.057220708
> Kirk 0.064343164
> Ben 0.096638655
> Duhon 0.061538462
> </pre>
> 
> Turnovers per minute.
> 
> Jamal is the best.
> 
> Gordon is awful.


Jamal has the lowest TO per minute.

He also has fewer assists and a worse assist/TO ratio than Kirk or Duhon, it doesn't mean a lot to have the fewest TO when you also have the fewest assists. 

Would anyone argue that assist/game and assist/TO ratio trump the least TO per minute? Aren't ast/game and ast/TO much more indicitive of a guard's success than a simple fewest TO/min?

It seems like a simple thing, but I want to give someone the chance to say that having the worst assist/TO ratio and the fewest assists is OK as long as you have the fewest TO.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> My stance was that Ben is the best of the 3 in scoring and the other 3 were close enough together that there's not much difference at all. That seems to be the case, doesn't it?


I disagree. In true FG%... the gap between Kirk and Jamal is greater than the gap between Jamal and Gordon.... Jamal is closer to Ben than he is to Kirk. 

Duhon is by far the worst. Much worse than Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> that's somebody who locks up his man on the ball, and unfortunately there's no simple stat to measure that[/B]."


I agree 100%.

But... I believe in DanR's research paper he finds that steals and blocks correlate with winning. The count as a positive if I remember correctly. I’m not saying that Jamal is a better defender… just that he’s better at getting steals and blocks… which has been shown to be a positive.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> In my opinion, it's a safe bet to say that the player who commits the lowest number of fouls is the player who is playing the least physical defense.
> Physical defense seems to bother guys like Ray Allen and Allen Iverson, and in general playing physical defense is thought to be a good thing.


Right... but fouls send people to the line as well... for high percentage FT shots.

Your opinion may be right... it may not be... its just an opinion.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. In true FG%... the gap between Kirk and Jamal is greater than the gap between Jamal and Gordon.... Jamal is closer to Ben than he is to Kirk.
> 
> Duhon is by far the worst. Much worse than Jamal.


I don't know what true FG% is, is that the one that takes into account FTs as well? Same thing with effective FG%, what are the formulas for those 2? Not that I'm doubting your math, I just want to know how those are figured for my own future use.

I was using adjusted FG%, which is (pts-FT)/2 / FGA, and they were all pretty close.

But let's just use your numbers, they are all pretty close together. Duhon is easily last for the season, but since Jan 1st he's been basically as good as Jamal putting up almost identical shooting numbers in 2005. 

That's what made me think there is no longer any reason to play Jamal ahead of Duhon, JC was the much higher percentage shooter in Nov and Dec but Duhon has been a completely different shooter since Jan 1.

My point, however, was that Jamal, Kirk and Duhon are all pretty even shooting-wise since the start of the year. Your numbers back up that they are close, Jamal's percentage is slightly higher and based on the number of shots he takes, he makes about 3 extra FGs every 6 games.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree 100%.
> 
> But... I believe in DanR's research paper he finds that steals and blocks correlate with winning. The count as a positive if I remember correctly. I’m not saying that Jamal is a better defender… just that he’s better at getting steals and blocks… which has been shown to be a positive.


I don't disagree. 

But I am saying that Duhon is a better defender than Jamal, and I am saying that our fellow posters agree with me by about a 4 to 1 margin.

Who do you think is the better defender, Jamal or Duhon?


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Right... but fouls send people to the line as well... for high percentage FT shots.
> 
> Your opinion may be right... it may not be... its just an opinion.


Correct again, fouls can lead to high percentage FTs.

Of course, physical defense helps cause turnovers, which can lead to high percentage layups. And physical defense helps stop your opponents from scoring.

Please, make it simple- who do you think is the better defender, Jamal or Duhon?

And who do you think is the better defender, Jamal or Kirk?


----------



## Adam

kukoc4ever said:


> <pre>
> TRUE FG% EFF FG%
> Jamal 0.512562219 0.471153846
> Kirk 0.488599349 0.448630137
> Ben 0.536898242	0.496031746
> Duhon 0.454395241 0.438596491
> </pre>
> Whipped this up in a spreadsheet quick like.... so correct me if there is an error.
> 
> Jamal is 2nd of the 4 in both True FG% and Effective FG%.
> 
> So at least on the scoring efficiency front... Jamal is #2.
> 
> Duhon is quite poor on this front.


Did it hurt when you pulled these numbers out of your ***?


----------



## Adam

bullsville said:


> There should be an assistance program for people who hate a thread but can't resist the urge to post in it nonetheless. :yes:


I hate the posters not the thread. :wink: The final step of your program should be where you admit that you are in love with Crawford. That's the only explanation for your obsession. I guess he broke your heart when he left for N.Y. huh? That's tough, hang in there guy...


----------



## bullsville

adam said:


> I hate the posters not the thread. :wink: The final step of your program should be where you admit that you are in love with Crawford. That's the only explanation for your obsession. I guess he broke your heart when he left for N.Y. huh? That's tough, hang in there guy...


LOL, yeah that would be the ironic final step.

Actually, I never used to post in this thread more than rarely. But yesterday, I started a thread about the Jamal trade, nothing to do with Jamal but saying that Pax did a great job of getting us something we could use in exchange for a guy that he didn't want to resign for the money Jamal wanted.

I posted the stats of Jamal and the players Pax got in return roughly, and then I wrote this:

*
I'm not sure exactly what these numbers mean, but I can draw a few conclusions:

Pax obviously didn't just "give Jamal away" for expiring contracts, as the veterans he obtained have definitely made meaningful contributions at different times throughout the season. 

The Bulls need Pike, Othella and Griff a hell of a lot more than they needed Jamal. Our bench has been the best in the league for most of the season, and that depth really showed up tonight with Eddy missing.

We got these valuable veterans (plus dumped JYD's contract) with only Jamal as trade bait- I can't wait to see what kind of offers the league's GMs will be throwing around for Eddy this summer.*

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=150993&page=1

Somehow, my thread praising Pike, Griff and Othella and wondering out loud what Pax could get in return for Eddy in a sign and trade was turned into a Jamal thread. I only mentioned Jamal to make the point that we needed Pike, Griff and Othella because we had zero veteran depth, and with 4 rookies, a 2nd year player and a pair of 22 year olds in our 8 man rotation, we really, really needed some veteran depth. More than we needed Jamal, not because Jamal sucks but because we had just drafted Gordon who could replace Jamal.

I kept saying that it wasn't a Jamal thread, but it didn't matter, nobody ever discussed the contributions of Pike, Griff and Othella- except to compare their stats to Jamal's.

Well, they sucked me in, I couldn't control myself, and I will be suing BBB.net for not watching me better. 

So I figured well, I was already into a Jamal discussion, I might as well get involved in it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

Plus, I find it fascinating that I can be on the Bulls message board, arguing with a 'Bulls fan' that our PG is better than a NYK- and these 'Bulls fans' are doing all they can to defend the Knick. It's quite fascinating, really. :banana:


----------



## kukoc4ever

adam said:


> Did it hurt when you pulled these numbers out of your ***?


Ah yes, good point.

Perhaps he is a chucker then.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Please, make it simple- who do you think is the better defender, Jamal or Duhon?
> 
> And who do you think is the better defender, Jamal or Kirk?


trying to keep my opinion out of it... since that type of back and forth leads to nowhere.

1:he's not that bad. He’s average.
2:he plays NO defense!
1:more efficient scorer than hinrich!
2:chucker! no defense!
1:how is duhon better? charges taken? opponent fg%? what are you basing your opinion on?
2:its just what i think. its backed up by a poll and my opinion.
1:fine... let's say that was good enough...which I don't think it is... how much better is better? you're hanging your hat on something that is extremely difficult to quantify. man-on-man defense, the benefits of physical defense and do they outweigh the cons. how can this turn out to be more that just spouting of opinions?


----------



## BealeFarange

Haha...there's nothing like waking up in the morning, signing on to BBB and seeing "Last post: Kukoc4Ever" on the Jamal update thread. 

Of course, I stand with you K4E when it comes to Jamal. Even if he doesn't have the intangibles of a Chris Duhon defensively (effort, know-how etc the reasons that the numbers you pulled out seem to ever so slightly favor Jamal are simple: TALENT.
And, yes, that DOES apply to defense as well. 

Jamal is quick. Very quick. Much quicker than Duhon. Nothing against Duhon...it's just true. Jamal is long. Very long. Much longer than Duhon. Again, it's just a fact. He's a tall man. He's been in the pros for four years...and, yes, that has taught him a thing or two about rotations and when to take risks for the ball and all that. 

Jamal is no Bruce Bowen and I have absolutely no doubt that, inch for inch, Duhon is a better defender. That's fine...Jamal has worked his way into being an "average" defender with "above average" physical tools. Duhon wins, fine, but Jamal's not Walt Williams or anything.

So the silly defense argument being out of the way--all bolstered by any defensive statistic you could possibly throw up there--what we're left with is Jamal's offense. Simply put, he's a better offensive player right now than any player on the Bulls. That's entirely subjective, though somewhat supported by percentages and offensive statistics, but Jamal is slowly starting to shoot better and he's already a fantastic dribble pentrator. His ability to garner assists while playing alongside Marbury (who "gets his" with more voractiy than Jamal ever will) and Tim Thomas (who sometimes shoots at the wrong basket, it seems) is impressive considering he's now a two guard. He has slowed his game down at the request of his coaches. He still has that devestating first step and crossover and good range on his shot...but he's learning to play within his boundaries. Case in point: last night he was 3-9. He didn't keep chucking...he only took 9 shots. He played 43 minutes...he must have been doing something right to stay out there. He had a few steals, a few assists, and NO turnovers. Looks like a Duhon stat line, to be honest...but I bet the defense had to play Jamal a lot more carefully which left others more open. 

This is why I try to avoid this thread. Not because I'm an idiot that doesn't want to talk or read about this stuff but still clicks on the "JAMAL UPDATE" thread...but because my arguments tend to unravel and I tend to huff and puff until I'm red in the face. I don't have the energy to defend Jamal. He's a decent defender, a good offensive player, a great athlete, and a stylish playmaker. He's entertaining, exciting, and he seems like a good kid. I like him. I wish Ben had 1/10th of Jamal's charisma...these are just some of the reasons why I choose to be a Jamal fan. 

I feel like it is my right to discuss Mr. Crawford with the only other people on planet earth that could possibly feel about the Jamal situation the same way I do, fellow shellshocked Bulls fans who were stunned when the gib patrol took over and Jamal was suddenly traded. Am I happy now? YOU BET! Do Knicks fans have a clue how I feel about Crawford and the Eddy/Jamal/ERob dream? Not a chance.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> *trying to keep my opinion out of it*... since that type of back and forth leads to nowhere.
> 
> 1:he's not that bad. He’s average.
> 2:he plays NO defense!
> 1:more efficient scorer than hinrich!
> 2:chucker! no defense!
> 1:how is duhon better? charges taken? opponent fg%? what are you basing your opinion on?
> 2:its just what i think. its backed up by a poll and my opinion.
> 1:fine... let's say that was good enough...which I don't think it is... how much better is better? you're hanging your hat on something that is extremely difficult to quantify. man-on-man defense, the benefits of physical defense and do they outweigh the cons. * how can this turn out to be more that just spouting of opinions?*


LOL, I thought the entire point of an internet message board was for people to express their opinions? So now, 130-some pages into the thread, you are scared to give your opinion?

This place would be a ghost town if all we could discuss were proven facts.

Are you afraid to admit that Duhon and Kirk are better defenders than Jamal? Or are you afraid to say that you think Jamal is a better defender because people will disagree?


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> LOL, I thought the entire point of an internet message board was for people to express their opinions? So now, 130-some pages into the thread, you are scared to give your opinion?
> 
> This place would be a ghost town if all we could discuss were proven facts.
> 
> Are you afraid to admit that Duhon and Kirk are better defenders than Jamal? Or are you afraid to say that you think Jamal is a better defender because people will disagree?


My gut tells me that Kirk is a better defender.
Not sure about Duhon vs Jamal.

Given Jamals better offeensive production and size and adaquate defense... I'd rather have Jamal than Duhon.

I think the dropoff in assists this season is becuase of his new role on the Knicks.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> My gut tells me that Kirk is a better defender.
> Not sure about Duhon vs Jamal.
> 
> Given Jamals better offeensive production and size and adaquate defense... I'd rather have Jamal than Duhon.
> 
> I think the dropoff in assists this season is becuase of his new role on the Knicks.


Fair enough. You certainly aren't alone in preferring offense to defense, since offense is more tangible and easier to follow. Since there is no statistic for "got your hand in the shooter's face and forced a tough shot", offense will always be easier to follow.

And I don't think there's any doubt that Jamal's assist total would be higher if he weren't playing next to a PG who dominates the ball like Marbury. I still think that Jamal's skill set makes him more suited to play PG than SG, the question is (and always has been) does he have a PGs mentality?


----------



## dkg1

When considering how good a player is defensively, you should also consider how he plays team defense, his understanding of rotations, etc. Stats don't even begin to tell half the story.


----------



## bullsville

dkg1 said:


> When considering how good a player is defensively, you should also consider how he plays team defense, his understanding of rotations, etc. Stats don't even begin to tell half the story.


 :clap: 

Defense is all about effort, for the most part. Even guys who aren't real quick or don't have sound defensive fundamentals can be adequate defenders if they are willing to work hard on the defensive end.

That's one of my biggest disappointments when it comes to Jamal- he has the quickness, the speed, the length and the jumping ability to be an outstanding defender and rebounder. I dare say that if Jamal worked as hard on defense as Kirk or Duhon, he would still be a Bull, and he would probably be our best backcourt defender.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Fair enough. You certainly aren't alone in preferring offense to defense, since offense is more tangible and easier to follow. Since there is no statistic for "got your hand in the shooter's face and forced a tough shot", offense will always be easier to follow.
> 
> And I don't think there's any doubt that Jamal's assist total would be higher if he weren't playing next to a PG who dominates the ball like Marbury. I still think that Jamal's skill set makes him more suited to play PG than SG, the question is (and always has been) does he have a PGs mentality?


Its not a question of what is easy or hard to follow.

You are relying on the 10-15 plays you have remembered out of the 1000s you have seen. Hinrich seems to be a better defender... that's the impression I have... but my impression can be flawed since I don't remember everything. If you do... that congrats.

I've never been a huge Kirk vs Jamal guy anyway. I like Hinrich. I think a Crawford/Hinrich backcourt with Gordon coming off the bench would have worked fine... especially since we've seen that Jamal is willing to delegate as he matures.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> That's one of my biggest disappointments when it comes to Jamal- he has the quickness, the speed, the length and the jumping ability to be an outstanding defender and rebounder. I dare say that if Jamal worked as hard on defense as Kirk or Duhon, he would still be a Bull, and he would probably be our best backcourt defender.


I agree with this as well. 

He became a wealthy individual without a strong dedication to busting is *** on D. He didn't need to.

If he wants to start winning ballgames though... he'll come around. 

People thought Curry was equally hopeless before the season started. He's begun improving as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> When considering how good a player is defensively, you should also consider how he plays team defense, his understanding of rotations, etc. Stats don't even begin to tell half the story.


And my point is that its difficult to consider... without poring over all the game film and keeping notes.

Most people just remember that key charge that someone took or that nice blocked shot.

For instance... from last night's game... I have a vivid memory of Duhon taking a charge late in the game. It was a nice play. It will probably have an overweighed bearing on my gut opinion of his defense though.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not a question of what is easy or hard to follow.
> 
> You are relying on the 10-15 plays you have remembered out of the 1000s you have seen. Hinrich seems to be a better defender... that's the impression I have... but my impression can be flawed since I don't remember everything. If you do... that congrats.
> 
> I've never been a huge Kirk vs Jamal guy anyway. I like Hinrich. I think a Crawford/Hinrich backcourt with Gordon coming off the bench would have worked fine... especially since we've seen that Jamal is willing to delegate as he matures.


Sorry, I worded that wrong. What I meant by easy to follow is you can open your morning paper and see all kinds of offensive stats- scoring, FG%, etc. The only defensive stats that are widely known are steals and blocked shots, and they are not always a good indicator of who is actually a good defender.

You said yourself that I am "relying on the 10-15 plays you have remembered out of the 1000s you have seen". Well, the same thing applies to offense, nobody can remember every play on offense.

When I follow a game, I watch defense very closely, which most people probably don't. I watch for things like-

Does the defender force his man into the help defense?
Does the defender force his man baseline or give him the middle?
Does the defender leave his feet on a pump fake or stay in good position?
Does the defender give good help defense when one of his teammates loses his man?
Does the defender play good position defense, or does he gamble for a steal that leaves the rest of the team out of position?

I have no problem admitting that I am much more impressed by lock-down defense than offense, and that is undoubtedly why I like Tyson and Duhon's games more than I like Eddy and Jamal's.


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> And my point is that its difficult to consider... without poring over all the game film and keeping notes.
> 
> Most people just remember that key charge that someone took or that nice blocked shot.
> 
> For instance... from last night's game... I have a vivid memory of Duhon taking a charge late in the game. It was a nice play. It will probably have an overweighed bearing on my gut opinion of his defense though.


I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with anything you posted, just responding to what Bullsville said. Maybe I'm biased, but from a defensive standpoint, it seems like Kirk and Duhon have a better handle on the team aspect of defense, more defensive awareness if you will. Admittedly, I haven't seen many Knicks games this year, I'm mostly going off of how I remember Jamal from his days on the Bulls. I think spending 4 years at Duke and Kansas under great coaches has certainly been beneficial to Duhon and Hinrich. As someone else said (Bullsville?) and I agree, I think Jamal has the most physical talent when you consider his quickness and length among other things to be the best defender of the three.


----------



## dkg1

bullsville said:


> Does the defender force his man into the help defense?
> Does the defender force his man baseline or give him the middle?
> Does the defender leave his feet on a pump fake or stay in good position?
> Does the defender give good help defense when one of his teammates loses his man?
> Does the defender play good position defense, or does he gamble for a steal that leaves the rest of the team out of position?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> One simple thing Duhon does is not only force his man into help but also forces him to use his weak hand more often than he likes. I think there's also something to be said for recovering on defense. Some guys go for the steal and if they don't get the steal give up on the play.


----------



## The True Essence

i have to apologize to babyblueslugga. you were right man, jamal did add that off the backboard dunk to his arsenal of moves. he did it again in traffic against the celtics. i cant believe he pulled it off again. i dont think jamal missed a shot yet tonight tho, so hes not just all flash...


----------



## dkg1

Did Jamal get extra points for dunking off the backboard? I'll bet it looked sikkkkk


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> Did Jamal get extra points for dunking off the backboard? I'll bet it looked sikkkkk


No... but the Knicks are in the process of smoking the red-hot Celtics.

Crawford is 7-11 from the field with 5 3 pointers.... none off the backboard.


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> No... but the Knicks are in the process of smoking the red-hot Celtics.
> 
> Crawford is 7-11 from the field with 5 3 pointers.... none off the backboard.


This is very impressive. Props to the Knicks. Boston has been smoking. A worthy performance by Crawford.


----------



## bullsville

Thanks for the help, Jamal, we are now back to within 1 loss of the Celtics.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Final stats.

7-12 FG
5-10 from 3 ("oh my god! 10 3 pointers! what a chucker!")
2-2 from the line
4 rebounds
5 assists
6 TOs ()
1 steal.
21 points.
Player of the game.

Celtics go down in flames at the hands of JAMAL!


----------



## dkg1

bullsville said:


> Thanks for the help, Jamal, we are now back to within 1 loss of the Celtics.



Exactly. Better late than never for the Knicks I guess. Hopefully they continue knocking off teams in the playoff picture. We have the C's in a couple days, right?


----------



## ChiBron

Just saw his off the board play - INCREDIBLE! Even better then the one he pulled off a few weeks ago. And the thing i appreciate abt his backboard dunks is that he doesn't go into the lane premeditated ala T-mac or VC. It seems all reflexes. He adjusts to the D for the higher percentage shot for that situation. And its a play which energizes everybody....it's not just eye-candy. Good to see the Knicks doing so well ever since JC started playing better.


----------



## bullsville

I'm just hoping that Jamal can do enough of those dunks that teenage kids will be wanting their parents to buy them a Jamal autographed rookie card or a Jamal game-worn jersey rookie card.

I really can't believe K4E and disgruntledNYGrinch aren't interested in buying them- IMHO, you guys should invest the $50 for the 2 cards now, and when Jamal blows up playing for a real coach and a real organization that doesn't have hidden agendas and cares about winning, you guys will be sitting on a gold mine.


----------



## The True Essence

here in new york, we would call you a hater.

i know damn well if ben gordon did that you would be all over it.


----------



## lgtwins

PennyHardaway said:


> here in new york, we would call you a hater.
> 
> i know damn well if ben gordon did that you would be all over it.


What do you expect? Don't you know it by now? We Bulls fan hate Knicks !!! LAst time I checked, Jamal is a Knick. :biggrin:


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> Final stats.
> 
> 7-12 FG
> 5-10 from 3 ("oh my god! 10 3 pointers! what a chucker!")
> 2-2 from the line
> 4 rebounds
> 5 assists
> 6 TOs ()
> 1 steal.
> 21 points.
> Player of the game.
> 
> Celtics go down in flames at the hands of JAMAL!


For the zillionth time, what's your point?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Electric Slim said:


> For the zillionth time, what's your point?


Ah. Perhaps you didn't read the title of the thread.

First off, it begins with an OT.

Means "Off-Topic" i believe... but I don't have my internet message board jargon dictionary handy.

So... given that the thread resides in the Bulls board... it would seem to indicate that the thread has little to do with the Bulls.

The next part of the title says "Crawford Update."

Seems to be a rational place to post an update on how Jamal Crawford is doing.

I was providing such an update.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah. Perhaps you didn't read the title of the thread.
> 
> First off, it begins with an OT.
> 
> Means "Off-Topic" i believe... but I don't have my internet message board jargon dictionary handy.
> 
> So... given that the thread resides in the Bulls board... it would seem to indicate that the thread has little to do with the Bulls.
> 
> The next part of the title says "Crawford Update."
> 
> Seems to be a rational place to post an update on how Jamal Crawford is doing.
> 
> I was providing such an update.



Are you going to do this next season too?


----------



## superdave

Electric Slim said:


> For the zillionth time, what's your point?


Slim, let K4E have some time alone with Jamal's box score tonight and a dollop of hand lotion. Let the man have some happy time alone!! :laugh: :wave:


----------



## bullsville

superdave said:


> Slim, let K4E have some time alone with Jamal's box score tonight and a dollop of hand lotion. Let the man have some happy time alone!! :laugh: :wave:


:worship: :rotf:


----------



## kukoc4ever

superdave said:


> Slim, let K4E have some time alone with Jamal's box score tonight and a dollop of hand lotion. Let the man have some happy time alone!! :laugh: :wave:


Very funny.

Once again, off topic.... and a bit personal.

I don't take offense... but jeez.

[offtopic]
Can't wait until the Cubs start. Hope those arms hold up. Not that 90% of the people @ Wrigley would notice. I've heard from a very reliable source that the Cubs are going to win 95 games this season.
[/offtopic]


----------



## BG7

bullsville said:


> I'm just hoping that Jamal can do enough of those dunks that teenage kids will be wanting their parents to buy them a Jamal autographed rookie card or a Jamal game-worn jersey rookie card.
> 
> I really can't believe K4E and disgruntledNYGrinch aren't interested in buying them- IMHO, you guys should invest the $50 for the 2 cards now, and when Jamal blows up playing for a real coach and a real organization that doesn't have hidden agendas and cares about winning, you guys will be sitting on a gold mine.


I hold my autograph jersey rookie jc card dear to my heart along with my Brand, Artest, Chandler, Curry, Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni, Fizer, Jay Williams, and Michael Jordan rookie cards. 

btw, on his rookie card, Tyson Chandler looks anarexic.


----------



## dkg1

Electric Slim said:


> Are you going to do this next season too?



I have a request for the Mods. After this season ends or before next season begins, can we then move this this thread to the Knicks board (yes K4E, I'm aware it says OT)? I understand it's relevance right now but when next season starts, it will have been over a year since JC was traded. I think keeping this thread in the Bulls forum will only continue a lot of the bad feelings on this board between the various factions. Just a suggestion.


----------



## dkg1

Just looking over the boxscore for the Knicks-C's game last night. Was there a reason Tony Allen and Paul Pierce only played 19 and 23 minutes respectively? I was curious if there were any injuries as we play them tomorrow night.


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> I have a request for the Mods. After this season ends or before next season begins, can we then move this this thread to the Knicks board (yes K4E, I'm aware it says OT)? I understand it's relevance right now but when next season starts, it will have been over a year since JC was traded. I think keeping this thread in the Bulls forum will only continue a lot of the bad feelings on this board between the various factions. Just a suggestion.


I think whatever bad feelings reside on this board has a lot more to do with personal attacks/statements more than talking about basketball.

If people could control themselves enough to keep it to hoops or sports or whatever the thread is about... things would go smoother.


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> I think whatever bad feelings reside on this board has a lot more to do with personal attacks/statements more than talking about basketball.
> 
> If people could control themselves enough to keep it to hoops or sports or whatever the thread is about... things would go smoother.


This thread is a hot button issue on this board. As long as it's around after this season or into next season, I don't see what good is going to come from it. I think every facet of Jamal's game and the trade has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. I'm sure some would say "Well just don't read the thread". There's enough hostility here as it is, having this 130+ page thread on a NY Knick isn't helping. If you want to discuss JC's game against the Lakers next season why not do it on the Knicks board? Anyway, that's my opinion.


----------



## L.O.B

I read this thread to entertain myself, it's pretty damn funny if you read directly after looking at the standings.


----------



## BealeFarange

The folks that come in here to the Crawford update thread to bash Crawford updates are like burnouts that go to the mall to make fun of teenagers. 

"Huhuh...those dudes are at the _ mall _." 
"Uh..."
"Shutup."



Anyway, Jamal has a big game with a sweet dunk off the board (that's just what he does) and pulls the Bulls into better position heading down the playoff stretch. 

It's what I always wanted...


----------



## 7thwatch

BealeFarange said:


> Anyway, Jamal has a big game with a sweet dunk off the board (that's just what he does) and pulls the Bulls into better position heading down the playoff stretch.
> 
> It's what I always wanted...


oh the irony of it all . . .


----------



## ViciousFlogging

That dunk was pretty awesome because until he decided at the last instant to toss the ball off the backboard, it looked like he was going to commit the 4th-grade violation known as "ups and downs".  He jumped, looked to pass, almost fumbled the ball, and then flipped it off the board for the dunk. Good reflexes on that kid.

I can't actually say these words out loud, but whenever they play a team near us in the standings, Go Knicks! Or, in Wynn!-speak, Go Knick!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy

dkg1 said:


> I have a request for the Mods. After this season ends or before next season begins, can we then move this this thread to the Knicks board (yes K4E, I'm aware it says OT)? I understand it's relevance right now but when next season starts, it will have been over a year since JC was traded. I think keeping this thread in the Bulls forum will only continue a lot of the bad feelings on this board between the various factions. Just a suggestion.


Actually I'd like to see how long this thread will live on. Like a horror flick, right when you think it's going to die it comes back for one more round.

BTW, why isn't there a Jalen update thread?


----------



## Electric Slim

Where's the Elton Brand Update Thread?

What about a Jalen Rose Update Thread? The guy had 30pts last night! 

What about a Hoiberg Update Thread? He leads the league in 3pt%!


----------



## truebluefan

who is Jamel Crawford? :whoknows: :angel:

He dunked? Didn't Eddie Robinson have a great dunk against the Hawks one time? 

Cory Benjamin could dunk.  

J/k


----------



## bullsville

truebluefan said:


> who is Jamel Crawford? :whoknows: :angel:
> 
> He dunked? Didn't Eddie Robinson have a great dunk against the Hawks one time?
> 
> Cory Benjamin could dunk.
> 
> J/k


Funny, I was at the game in Atlanta when ERob did the self-alley oop, and I was at the game in Orlando late last season when Jamel did the pass to himself off the board. Plus, I was at Orlando in 1999-2000 when Corey Benjamin was playing a lot of minutes for the Bulls. I remember my impression being "CB is the best athlete on the floor- above Maggette- I can't believe he sucks".

I've only been to 4 Bulls games in my life, and you just referenced 3 of them.


----------



## DaBullz

Electric Slim said:


> Where's the Elton Brand Update Thread?
> 
> What about a Jalen Rose Update Thread? The guy had 30pts last night!
> 
> What about a Hoiberg Update Thread? He leads the league in 3pt%!


All but Brand are referenced by my signature.


----------



## dkg1

sp00k said:


> BTW, why isn't there a Jalen update thread?


For what it's worth, I had a Rick Brunson update thread earlier in teh year. It's still floating around on this board somewhere.


----------



## dkg1

PennyHardaway said:


> here in new york, we would call you a hater.
> 
> i know damn well if ben gordon did that you would be all over it.


Eh you seem to have forgotten this is a Bulls message board Penny. Sorry if we don't all have chubbies because he dunked a ball off the backboard again. I would expect a little more excitement if Ben or any Bulls did that.


----------



## kukoc4ever

sp00k said:


> BTW, why isn't there a Jalen update thread?


There was a Jalen/Donyell update thread.


----------



## thegza

Just a quick touch on how I think Crawford has been playing as of late.

This month, I've seen the Knicks play a couple of times. This includes the two game series with the Heat that was broadcasted by my local television. He seems to be a lot more conservative and is handling the ball a lot more. Marbury is more off the ball then he ever has in New York, and Jamal is expected to distribute and find his teammates at ideal positions. I think this role has fit him well so far, and it's help him be a little more in control of himself and minimize his horrendous shot selection.


----------



## bullsville

theLegend said:


> Just a quick touch on how I think Crawford has been playing as of late.
> 
> This month, I've seen the Knicks play a couple of times. This includes the two game series with the Heat that was broadcasted by my local television. He seems to be a lot more conservative and is handling the ball a lot more. Marbury is more off the ball then he ever has in New York, and Jamal is expected to distribute and find his teammates at ideal positions. I think this role has fit him well so far, and it's help him be a little more in control of himself and minimize his horrendous shot selection.


That's what I've heard, and the box scores certainly seem to agree. 11.4 FGA and 6.1 ast so far in March are definitely PG numbers. He's only taken 11 FTA in 9 games, though, which would seem to indicate that he's not going strong to the basket- but it could easily just be that he's doing a lot of drive-and-dish for assists. 

I always thought Jamal was better at PG, if he ever decided to concentrate on defense he could be a great defender of PGs.


----------



## bullsville

bullsville said:


> That's what I've heard, and the box scores certainly seem to agree. 11.4 FGA and 6.1 ast so far in March are definitely PG numbers. He's only taken 11 FTA in 9 games, though, which would seem to indicate that he's not going strong to the basket- but it could easily just be that he's doing a lot of drive-and-dish for assists.
> 
> I always thought Jamal was better at PG, if he ever decided to concentrate on defense he could be a great defender of PGs.


Tonight's first half vs Seattle:

18 min, 2-6 FG, 0-2 3's, 7 points, 0 assists

Maybe all the talk of a new and improved Jamal was a little premature?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Now he's 3-9 from the field, 1-4 from 3, perfect 3-3 from the line,1 board,2 dimes, 1 TO, 1 steal, 0 fouls....

and the Knicks are beating Seattle. 2 minutes to go in the 3rd.


----------



## spongyfungy

oh man Knicks are 1-16 3pt FG. Stephon 0-5 Jamal 1-5 Tim Thomas 0-6


----------



## spongyfungy

spongyfungy said:


> oh man Knicks are 1-16 3pt FG. Stephon 0-5 Jamal 1-5 Tim Thomas *1-7*


OT


----------



## The True Essence

Jamal is deffering way too much. hes gotta shoot! that might sound rediculous now since he used to jack them up all the time but now hes the complete opposite. its sickening. he needs to find a happy medium.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Marbury has to pass the rock. Jamal played pretty well down the strecth on D, yes? Key block.... hand in the face on Js....

Did he touch the ball in OT?

Marbury so cold... keeps shooting though.


----------



## The True Essence

marbury is crap. Since Marbury f'ed up against the Kings hes been shooting like a madman at the end of games. before that it was jamal time, where hes made more then a few game winners. 

Nice stat- Knicks lose the most close games in the entire nba this season. Key reason, Stephon. Marburys good for the first 3 quarters though! 

herbs done a good job, but Jamal really needs to see the ball more. teach him to DRIVE more instead of being so passive and shooting the occasional 3 pointer with no time on the shotclock. Jamals assists are up, but really its not helping when hes not really creating shots for others or himself........

i dont know if anything i just typed makes sense, but it does to me.


----------



## spongyfungy

Stephon hit two layups at the end to up his FG%. :nonono: He fouled Ridnour after he got the layup to get another chance at shooting.


----------



## GB

PennyHardaway said:


> marbury is crap. Since Marbury f'ed up against the Kings hes been shooting like a madman at the end of games. before that it was jamal time, where hes made more then a few game winners.
> 
> Nice stat- Knicks lose the most close games in the entire nba this season. Key reason, Stephon. Marburys good for the first 3 quarters though!



Ben would be his perfect backcourt mate then.


----------



## bullsville

Jamal 1st half tonight:

2-6 FG, 1-5 3's, 2 reb, 1 ast, 1 TO

Yes, the talk of a new and improved Jamal was definitely premature...


----------



## bullsville

43 min
3-12 FG 
2-9 3's
1-1 FT
3 reb
3 ast
1 stl
1 TO
9 pts

Good to see that Jamal is still Jamal.

And the Knicks lose to Portland, losers of 18 of their last 21 during Tankfest 2005.

Somebody should have told the Blazers that you have to tank pretty damned hard to lose to the Knicks.

Nice work, Isiah... you wasted all your expiring contracts last summer on Jamal, when you could have used Harrington's offense this season. You managed to waste yet another season without doing any rebuilding at all, you aren't getting anywhere close to the playoffs and your draft pick should be #9 overall, just low enough to miss out on the great talent.

But at least the Knicks don't have a hidden agenda like the Bulls do... the nerve of the Chicago organization, making the players play defense and play hard all the time and play the game "the right way".


----------



## giusd

I said this when the bulls were 3 and 14 and "jamal was the starting SG on the 3rd best team in the east and going to the playoffs" ( you know who are are that said that) that i would rather have the bulls team than the knicks.

The knicks are old, soft, dont play D (except thomas), and dont have any heart and that the schedule had as much to do with the bulls and knicks win-loses as much as how each team was playing. I stand by that.

And i also think it unfair to blames JC fot he knicks problems he is not the problem with that team. Thomas put together players and not team players with no chemistry (tim thomas, penny hardaway, marbary, no center, ect) and my guess is IT may be in the unemployment lines by the middle of next season.

david


----------



## dkg1

bullsville said:


> 43 min
> 3-12 FG
> 2-9 3's
> 1-1 FT
> 3 reb
> 3 ast
> 1 stl
> 1 TO
> 9 pts
> 
> Good to see that Jamal is still Jamal.
> 
> And the Knicks lose to Portland, losers of 18 of their last 21 during Tankfest 2005.
> 
> Somebody should have told the Blazers that you have to tank pretty damned hard to lose to the Knicks.
> 
> Nice work, Isiah... you wasted all your expiring contracts last summer on Jamal, when you could have used Harrington's offense this season. You managed to waste yet another season without doing any rebuilding at all, you aren't getting anywhere close to the playoffs and your draft pick should be #9 overall, just low enough to miss out on the great talent.
> 
> But at least the Knicks don't have a hidden agenda like the Bulls do... the nerve of the Chicago organization, making the players play defense and play hard all the time and play the game "the right way".



From the stats it appears Jamal could have been a lot more aggressive. Nine three point attempts and only 1 free throw? Yikes. I'm not going to dump all over the guy for having a bad game. He has performed much better over the last month or so. 
About Isiah, what happened to the big turn around the Knicks had going after the trade deadline? If there's a GM who's ever been in over his head, it's clearly Zeke. The Knicks are one of the top 3 franchises in basketball, I'm amazed they gave this clown the keys to run the show.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

The scary thing is, as bad as Thomas is turning out to be, he is still an upgrade in Knicks GM's...

That is saying something.

Its a shame to see one of the league's marquee franchises getting run into the ground.


----------



## johnston797

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The scary thing is, as bad as Thomas is turning out to be, he is still an upgrade in Knicks GM's...
> 
> That is saying something.
> 
> Its a shame to see one of the league's marquee franchises getting run into the ground.


Going from a terrible gm to a very bad gm isn't going to make NYers very happy.


----------



## BG7

2,000!!!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Isiah has been spinning his wheels. That team had so many rotten contracts. He did get them to the playoffs last season... but there is only so much you can do. Are you even allowed to blow up and rebuild in NYC?

One thing I've learned this season is that its dangerous to pile onto a GM. Too many random variables and things that the GM gets credit/blame for the he has nothing to do with.

At the start of the season, people were ripping Chris Mullin a new one. The Warriors look like they might have a team now. 

Everything can change in the blink of an eye.

Nice to see the Crawford thread over 2000.


----------



## BG7

Also nearing 30,000 views

popular guy mr. crawford.


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> Isiah has been spinning his wheels. That team had so many rotten contracts. He did get them to the playoffs last season... but there is only so much you can do. Are you even allowed to blow up and rebuild in NYC?
> 
> One thing I've learned this season is that its dangerous to pile onto a GM. Too many random variables and things that the GM gets credit/blame for the he has nothing to do with.
> 
> At the start of the season, people were ripping Chris Mullin a new one. The Warriors look like they might have a team now.
> 
> Everything can change in the blink of an eye.
> 
> Nice to see the Crawford thread over 2000.



Fair enough. This is way off the topic, but I had a conversation about NY sports teams with a friend the other day. Is there a city whose ownership spends so irresponsibly as New York. Look at the Mets, Rangers (NHL) and Knicks and their payrolls and how they overpay mediocre players.


----------



## dkg1

sloth said:


> Also nearing 30,000 views
> 
> popular guy mr. crawford.


It's like driving by an accident on the expressway, you can't help but slow down and look. :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz

I saw the Knicks game on ESPN2 the other night. Crawford looked like the most disinterested player I could imagine.


----------



## bullsville

DaBullz said:


> I saw the Knicks game on ESPN2 the other night. Crawford looked like the most disinterested player I could imagine.


You can't put everything on Jamal, but isn't this basically the same team that made the playoffs last summer? They gave up "garbage" to get Jamal, what happened?

Doesn't matter, who isn't happy to see the Knicks suck, and who isn't happy to see JC and his "hidden agenda" comments going nowhere while the Bulls and their "hidden agenda" of "playing the right way" are headed up the standings on the express train?

Yes, Jamal, Scott Belichick was serious about playing defense and taking good shots, too bad you didn't listen. How does it feel to see your job taken by a 2nd-round pick? How does it feel to see the "hidden agenda" steamrolling into the post-season? 

At least you got paid... 

:rotf:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> You can't put everything on Jamal, but isn't this basically the same team that made the playoffs last summer? They gave up "garbage" to get Jamal, what happened?
> 
> Doesn't matter, who isn't happy to see the Knicks suck, and who isn't happy to see JC and his "hidden agenda" comments going nowhere while the Bulls and their "hidden agenda" of "playing the right way" are headed up the standings on the express train?
> 
> Yes, Jamal, Scott Belichick was serious about playing defense and taking good shots, too bad you didn't listen. How does it feel to see your job taken by a 2nd-round pick? How does it feel to see the "hidden agenda" steamrolling into the post-season?
> 
> At least you got paid...
> 
> :rotf:


Here you go again with one of your jealous rants . Jamal never had a beef with Skiles, NEVER in fact he always gave props to Skiles.When has it been said Jamal wouldnt listen to Skiles ?When did he lose his job to a 2nd rd pick ?Dont you have to be on the team for that to actually happen ?

Jamal felt the Bulls had a hidden agenda but who are we to say they didnt ?We dont know what was said, promised, or whatever ? Youve basically taken his "agendas" comments and made it seem as though he had a problem with the the Bulls style of play or Scott Skiles which we know was not true at all.

The green eyed monster is showing up more and more in your posts and its a little disturbing .


----------



## The True Essence

its not really jamal being uninterested, hes trying too hard to not shoot alot. and it sucks.


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Here you go again with one of your jealous rants . Jamal never had a beef with Skiles, NEVER in fact he always gave props to Skiles.When has it been said Jamal wouldnt listen to Skiles ?When did he lose his job to a 2nd rd pick ?Dont you have to be on the team for that to actually happen ?
> 
> Jamal felt the Bulls had a hidden agenda but who are we to say they didnt ?We dont know what was said, promised, or whatever ? Youve basically taken his "agendas" comments and made it seem as though he had a problem with the the Bulls style of play or Scott Skiles which we know was not true at all.
> 
> The green eyed monster is showing up more and more in your posts and its a little disturbing .


Once again, reading is fundamental, but comprehension seals the deal.

Jealous rant? That, my friend, is truly comical. What, exactly, do I have to be jealous of? The fact that the Bulls are going to the playoffs and Jamal isn't? Jealous that the 3 players we got for Jamal are all playing their roles well? Really, what was that comment supposed to mean?

When did I say Jamal had a beef with Skiles? I certainly implied that Jamal didn't listen to Skiles, but his play seems to point that way- or did I miss it, and Jamal is now playing hard, aggressive, physical defense? I guess I missed all those charges he takes now. I take it back, Jamal is now a Skiles/Pax kind of player. My bad. 

When did I say he "lost his job to a 2nd-round pick"? I said 

"How does it feel to see your job taken by a 2nd-round pick?"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that over the last 59 games, a 2nd-round pick has been starting in the back-court with Hinrich. To me, that is the definition of "taking a job", but maybe I'm wrong. My bad.

I don't know if Jamal had a problem with the Bulls style of play, I just know that he still doesn't play it. I know he complained of a hidden agenda, I don't know what he meant, but I sure am enjoying the Bulls agenda this season, which is to win games. 

I know he complained about not starting in a game the Bulls WON last season, crying because you didn't start certainly doesn't fit the Bulls agenda.

Again, what the hell do I have to be jealous of? That's one of the saddest Jamalite comments I have ever heard. Jealous? I could not possibly be happier with the way things turned out.

I was right that the Bulls aren't missing Jamal one bit right now. I was right that the trade worked out quite well for the Bulls. I was right that his addition would mean nothing to the Knicks- scoreboard.

Keep it coming, Jamalites. I love a good laugh more than most people, and the idea of me somehow being jealous of anything in any way concerning the Jamal situation literally makes me laugh out loud.

:rotf:

Thanks again, Jamal fans!


----------



## bullsville

This is from December...

Elder statesman Antonio Davis practices positive reinforcement. Most amazing, though, is the behavior of the team's other four veterans - Griffin, Piatkowski, Williams and Othella Harrington. 

Their role is obvious: Stay on the bench unless one of the young guys screws up. Harrington, Piatkowski and Williams didn't play at all in Monday's 92-87 victory over Portland, while Griffin logged a meager four minutes. 

But those four players have been so quiet throughout the season, one wonders if they'd speak up and complain if their lockers were on fire. 

"Not only do they not complain, they work. They run," Skiles said. "We don't have any inner turmoil or anything like that, which is great so far." 

"I give those guys a lot of credit," Davis said. "They've got young guys playing ahead of them. Maybe they're not used to it, but they haven't made any waves. They come out here and do their jobs. They make the young guys better. I think it's all going to pay off for everybody in the end." 

Griffin, who was voted one of three team captains, offered a theory on why the Bulls' veterans have accepted their limited roles. They all come from humble backgrounds. Griffin spent three years in the CBA, Davis played in Europe, Harrington was a second-round draft pick, and Piatkowski logged nine seasons with the Los Angeles Clippers. 

"These guys know this is a privilege," Griffin said. "I think what we try to do is tell (teammates) don't take this for granted - I beg the guys - because you could be out of this league tomorrow." 

The Bulls veterans have had their moments. Harrington scored 19 points in the season opener. Piatkowski scored 24 at Sacramento. Griffin's specialty has been making smart plays in the fourth quarter. 

"We all want to play, don't get me wrong," Griffin said. "Everybody's competitive. But it's a thin line you don't want to cross. They didn't sign me to play 40 minutes. They signed me to be ready whenever they call on me, and that's what you've got to remember." 

"We're not into complaining," Davis added. "I don't think complaining is going to solve anything. Let the coach do his job. Come out and believe in what we're trying to do for our team." 

Heck, nothing else has worked during the first six years of rebuilding. Davis' plan might have some merit. 

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?intID=3834399


----------



## dkg1

Found this on the other board. I'm not sure what to say. Someone's delusional.

http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/43304.htm


March 28, 2005 -- SAN FRANCISCO — Friday night in Seattle, Jamal Crawford talked about coming back to his hometown feeling different this time. After four years with the Bulls, Crawford said he was finally returning "in a winning situation." 
Winning situation? What an insult to all the Knick teams that actually won. Crawford must be confused. It's the Bulls, the club that allowed him to flee last summer in return for Knick junk, in the winning situation, six games above .500, vying for homecourt advantage. 

If Crawford thinks he's in "a winning situation," the Knicks have greater problems at shooting guard than anyone imagined.


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> Found this on the other board. I'm not sure what to say. Someone's delusional.
> 
> http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/43304.htm
> 
> 
> March 28, 2005 -- SAN FRANCISCO — Friday night in Seattle, Jamal Crawford talked about coming back to his hometown feeling different this time. After four years with the Bulls, Crawford said he was finally returning "in a winning situation."
> Winning situation? What an insult to all the Knick teams that actually won. Crawford must be confused. It's the Bulls, the club that allowed him to flee last summer in return for Knick junk, in the winning situation, six games above .500, vying for homecourt advantage.
> 
> If Crawford thinks he's in "a winning situation," the Knicks have greater problems at shooting guard than anyone imagined.




Good article. Other interesting points.

The author feels that Crawford was traded for "Knick Junk."
The author states that Jamal is probably a better point guard than shooting guard.
The author states that the Knicks struggles on defense may be due to Crawford playing out of position.
The author states that one of the main reasons the Knicks have struggled this year is due to the absence of Allan Houston.

Jamal's quote is off the wall. Perhaps he was talking about the reasons he changed teams last off season.


----------



## bullsville

Awesome article. Loved some of the author's points:

*If Crawford thinks he's in "a winning situation," the Knicks have greater problems at shooting guard than anyone imagined.* 

This season was not lost at point guard. It was ruined at shooting guard, where Crawford did not live up to expectations

But the biggest disappointment with Crawford has been careless defense, *perhaps because he doesn't hustle.* 

Crawford must be confused. It's the Bulls, the club that allowed him to flee last summer in return for Knick junk, in the winning situation, six games above .500, vying for homecourt advantage. 



*If Crawford took more pride in his defense than in his pass-to-himself-off-the-backboard trick-play dunk, the Knicks would be a better team.* 

*The exasperating part is Crawford has the tools to be a good defender, with his quickness, fast hands and jumping ability. He doesn't apply himself and lets penetrators get by him too easily.* 

Portland's unsung Travis Outlaw was the latest to expose Crawford Saturday night and that shouldn't be
_____________________

I bolded the author's comments that were comments I have also made about Crawford. This guy must be a real Jamal hater.
:rotf:


----------



## ace20004u

kukoc4ever said:


> Good article. Other interesting points.
> 
> The author feels that Crawford was traded for "Knick Junk."
> The author states that Jamal is probably a better point guard than shooting guard.
> The author states that the Knicks struggles on defense may be due to Crawford playing out of position.
> The author states that one of the main reasons the Knicks have struggled this year is due to the absence of Allan Houston.
> 
> Jamal's quote is off the wall. Perhaps he was talking about the reasons he changed teams last off season.



That was a quote by Crawford early in the season...I remember seeing it before the first Bulls Knicks matchup.


----------



## bullsville

But you have to admit, in Jamal's eyes it IS a winning situation:

- He doesn't have to play defense

- He's getting paid big money

- He gets to start

It seems as if that is a winning situation in Jamal's eyes.


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> Good article. Other interesting points.
> 
> The author feels that Crawford was traded for "Knick Junk."
> The author states that Jamal is probably a better point guard than shooting guard.
> The author states that the Knicks struggles on defense may be due to Crawford playing out of position.
> The author states that one of the main reasons the Knicks have struggled this year is due to the absence of Allan Houston.
> 
> Jamal's quote is off the wall. Perhaps he was talking about the reasons he changed teams last off season.


Maybe by returning to a winning situation he meant playing on Seattle's homecourt?

I've gone back and forth on whether JC is a true pg. I think he's much more comfortable with the ball in his hands as opposed to playing off the ball where he has a tendency to stand and float on the perimeter. He has never seemed to have moved well off the ball and I attribute that to hardly ever playing any organized basketball on the high school level and above. The problem is, they have their best player playing PG. For you guys who have watched the Knicks more than me, have they played Marbury at the 2 and JC at pg at many points this year, if so how has that worked out?

Do you ever think that Allan Houston is ever going to be the player he once was? They may as well forget about depending on him, he's shot in my opinion.

As far as Jamal's problems defensively playing two guard, I'm not so sure his problem is so much being overwhelmed by bigger stronger twos as much as other things such as effort and understanding of defensive concepts.


----------



## ace20004u

This quote is REALLY old, when Jamal said that the Knicks were over .500 & the Bulls were plain awful...


----------



## bullsville

ace20004u said:


> That was a quote by Crawford early in the season...I remember seeing it before the first Bulls Knicks matchup.



*Friday night in Seattle, Jamal Crawford talked about coming back to his hometown feeling different this time. After four years with the Bulls, Crawford said he was finally returning "in a winning situation."*

He said it Friday night again, according to this article. You have to read the article if you want to know what was really said, ace, instead of just the few sentences that makes Jamal look better and the Bulls look bad. 

It's sad, I remember when I was a big Jamal fan and I thought that he was a sure-fire All-Star caliber player by now. Man, was I ever wrong...


----------



## dkg1

ace20004u said:


> That was a quote by Crawford early in the season...I remember seeing it before the first Bulls Knicks matchup.



I don't know about that Ace. The first paragraph talked about JC returning to his hometown feeling different than he did with the Bulls. It said he felt he was returning in a "winning situation". I do remember him saying something similar to that earlier in the year, but it sounds like he's repeating that statement to me. If that was the quote from earlier in the year, that's not very professional journalism, in my opinion.


----------



## bullsville

dkg1 said:


> I don't know about that Ace. The first paragraph talked about JC returning to his hometown feeling different than he did with the Bulls. It said he felt he was returning in a "winning situation". I do remember him saying something similar to that earlier in the year, but it sounds like he's repeating that statement to me. *If that was the quote from earlier in the year, that's not very professional journalism, in my opinion*.


And you know how rare it is for any un-professional journalism to hit the NY papers...

:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

> I've gone back and forth on whether JC is a true pg. I think he's much more comfortable with the ball in his hands as opposed to playing off the ball where he has a tendency to stand and float on the perimeter. He has never seemed to have moved well off the ball and I attribute that to hardly ever playing any organized basketball on the high school level and above. The problem is, they have their best player playing PG. For you guys who have watched the Knicks more than me, have they played Marbury at the 2 and JC at pg at many points this year, if so how has that worked out?
> 
> Do you ever think that Allan Houston is ever going to be the player he once was? They may as well forget about depending on him, he's shot in my opinion.
> 
> As far as Jamal's problems defensively playing two guard, I'm not so sure his problem is so much being overwhelmed by bigger stronger twos as much as other things such as effort and understanding of defensive concepts.


Its pretty clear that Jamal lacks some basic fundamental basketball skills and perhaps does not truly know how to play winning team basketball.

Given his history, its not a shock. Not much HS, 1/2 a year of college, hardly played year 1, hurt year 2, bulls were pretty much terrible when he was here.

Like I said in a post long ago, once Jamal decides that he want to play winning ball (including busting hump on D)... or he's in an environment that will teach him and allow him to play that way... he'll be great, IMO. Otherwise, he'll remain an ubertalented yet average NBA player.

True PG? Nah. Not now. He’s best with the ball in his hands though.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty clear that Jamal lacks some basic fundamental basketball skills and perhaps does not truly know how to play winning team basketball.
> 
> Given his history, its not a shock. Not much HS, 1/2 a year of college, hardly played year 1, hurt year 2, bulls were pretty much terrible when he was here.


Those same circumstances don't seem to have stopped Tyson from knowing how to play winning basketball. Tyson played 4 years of HS ball to Jamal's 2, so Tyson had his freshman and sophomore years in HS and Jamal had a year at Michigan (even though he didn't play but 17 games).



> Like I said in a post long ago, once Jamal decides that he want to play winning ball (including busting hump on D)... or he's in an environment that will teach him and allow him to play that way... he'll be great, IMO. Otherwise, he'll remain an ubertalented yet average NBA player.
> 
> True PG? Nah. Not now. He’s best with the ball in his hands though.


Jamal *was* in an enviornment that was teaching him and allowing him to play that way, he chose to leave that enviornment for more $$$. Skiles is teaching everyone how to play winning ball (including busting their hump on D), maybe Jamal didn't realize last season that he WAS being taught the right way, maybe he didn't want to play that way, maybe more $$$ was more important, we'll never know for sure.

Skiles demanded that everyone bust their hump on D last season, Jamal either didn't get the message or he chose to ignore it.


----------



## ace20004u

bullsville said:


> Those same circumstances don't seem to have stopped Tyson from knowing how to play winning basketball. Tyson played 4 years of HS ball to Jamal's 2, so Tyson had his freshman and sophomore years in HS and Jamal had a year at Michigan (even though he didn't play but 17 games).
> 
> 
> 
> Jamal *was* in an enviornment that was teaching him and allowing him to play that way, he chose to leave that enviornment for more $$$. Skiles is teaching everyone how to play winning ball (including busting their hump on D), maybe Jamal didn't realize last season that he WAS being taught the right way, maybe he didn't want to play that way, maybe more $$$ was more important, we'll never know for sure.
> 
> Skiles demanded that everyone bust their hump on D last season, Jamal either didn't get the message or he chose to ignore it.


Tyson has been playing organized ball since elementary school...Crawford didn't start playing organized ball till his junior year in HS, I really don't see the comparison.


----------



## bullsville

ace20004u said:


> Tyson has been playing organized ball since elementary school...Crawford didn't start playing organized ball till his junior year in HS, I really don't see the comparison.


Yeah, you're probably right.

But when Tyson came to the Bulls, he was just as raw and his fundamentals were just as bad as Jamal's when he joined the team. IMO, the difference is that fundamentals are a lot more important to a guard than to a big man.

Jamal's big mistake was not realizing that the Bulls were doing things "the right way". He thought he was going to a great organization, I guess he didn't realize that Skiles was doing his best to teach Jamal and the entire team to play the right way. Everyone else certainly seems to have gotten the message, it's too bad Jamal made a terrible decision basketball-wise.

I just hope that Eddy learned from Jamal's mistake that a few extra million dollars isn't always worth it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ace20004u said:


> Tyson has been playing organized ball since elementary school...Crawford didn't start playing organized ball till his junior year in HS, I really don't see the comparison.


Also, its the incentives that these guys have.

Crawford made his millions with the style of play he has. Once the incentive changes from making $$$ and proving himself in the league to proving that his team can win in the league, and he's in a place where he's surrounded by like minded individuals, you should see a change.

Chandler made his initial millions by being a freakish athlete. His niche in the league is busting his ***, playing D, grabbing rebounds and blocking shots. That's how he's going to get his big contract. That's why he plays the way he does.


----------



## spongyfungy

bullsville said:



> Skiles demanded that everyone bust their hump on D last season, Jamal either didn't get the message or he chose to ignore it.


Jamal knew that you play defense or you don't play. He may not have been stellar but he did everything Skiles asked Jamal to do.


----------



## spongyfungy

I believe this is the quote that NY post article referred too. 

"It feels good to go back home," he said. "Every other time I wasn't playing for something. Now, we're playing for something every night."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/293314p-251066c.html

which is true in a sense. I don't expect anything good to come out of an article titled : "JAMAL CRAWFUL" 



> ST: How have you grown in these past few years?
> 
> JC: Your focus changes. At first you want to get in and everybody wants to establish themselves. They want to be stars and stuff. But that comes in time. You just have to pay your dues. I don't know if everybody understands that coming in. So before it was all about if my name was in the paper, or if I'm on TV or whatever. Now my focus is about winning.
> 
> ST: Are you a better basketball player than you were, say, when you were leading the Bulls in scoring every night?
> 
> JC: Yeah. I've taken steps. I've improved on shot selection. Remember, I only played two years of high school and one in college. I had four losing years in Chicago, so I'm still kind of learning as I go along.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002221019_24second27.html

I also found this funny:


> In fact, Terry, the Mavs' point guard who has a tattoo of the Seattle skyline on his chest, had a nice homecoming in February when he beat the Sonics with a jumper at the buzzer. So far he has Crawford beat.
> 
> "He hit the game-winning shot but he had five points," Crawford said. "I do research on everybody."


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Also, its the incentives that these guys have.
> 
> Crawford made his millions with the style of play he has. Once the incentive changes from making $$$ and proving himself in the league to proving that his team can win in the league, *and he's in a place where he's surrounded by like minded individuals*, you should see a change.
> 
> Chandler made his initial millions by being a freakish athlete. His niche in the league is busting his ***, playing D, grabbing rebounds and blocking shots. That's how he's going to get his big contract. That's why he plays the way he does.


Jamal WAS in a place where he was surrounded by like-minded people. AD, Tyson, Kirk, Skiles are all about winning and busting your arse on defense and playing "the right way". Gordon and Deng and Duhon are hard workers who want to win and know how to win. Those guys were all Bulls before Jamal left for NY. 

Jamal chose to leave this situation, so he either wasn't interested in doing things the right way, or he was all about the $$$$.

Jamal made his choice, it was all about the $$$, he found a sucker willing to pay him, and he got what he wanted.


----------



## bullsville

spongyfungy said:


> Jamal knew that you play defense or you don't play. He may not have been stellar but he did everything Skiles asked Jamal to do.


I disagree, he still isn't a good defender, and he is still getting ripped for not caring about defense.

That sounds like the same old Jamal to me.


----------



## bullsville

spongyfungy said:


> I believe this is the quote that NY post article referred too.
> 
> "It feels good to go back home," he said. "Every other time I wasn't playing for something. Now, we're playing for something every night."
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/293314p-251066c.html
> 
> which is true in a sense. I don't expect anything good to come out of an article titled : "JAMAL CRAWFUL"
> 
> 
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002221019_24second27.html
> 
> I also found this funny:


I love coming home every time I get the opportunity. This time makes it more special knowing that I'm playing for something. *We're playing for a playoff spot*, so that makes it even more special.

They are 6 games out with 14 to play, I guess technically that's "playing for something", but their chances are quite slim.


----------



## spongyfungy

bullsville said:


> Jamal WAS in a place where he was surrounded by like-minded people. AD, Tyson, Kirk, Skiles are all about winning and busting your arse on defense and playing "the right way". Gordon and Deng and Duhon are hard workers who want to win and know how to win. Those guys were all Bulls before Jamal left for NY.
> 
> Jamal chose to leave this situation, so he either wasn't interested in doing things the right way, or he was all about the $$$$.
> 
> Jamal made his choice, it was all about the $$$, he found a sucker willing to pay him, and he got what he wanted.


 Why can't it be both (money and winning)? I admit Jamal went for the cash but do you blame the guy? It's not like he left a winning program to join a sucky team with ownership that won't spend. If you have a GM gushing over you and willing to shell out the money, and since money = respect in the league for the most part, you go there. I don't expect Kirk and Tyson to stay with the Bulls if the Bulls don't offer them enough money (market value) just because we play the right way.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

spongyfungy said:


> Why can't it be both (money and winning)? I admit Jamal went for the cash but do you blame the guy? It's not like he left a winning program to join a sucky team with ownership that won't spend. If you have a GM gushing over you and willing to shell out the money, and since money = respect in the league for the most part, you go there. I don't expect Kirk and Tyson to stay with the Bulls if the Bulls don't offer them enough money (market value) just because we play the right way.



and not to mention the Bulls sucked at the time and NO ONE knew the impact the rookies would have on this team and after being here for as long as he did why would he even expect the rookies to play as well as they did .

Its easy to talk when youre speaking in hindsight but the reality of the time was Jamals decision was a no brainer anyone in his situation would do .


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> and not to mention the Bulls sucked at the time and NO ONE knew the impact the rookies would have on this team and after being here for as long as he did why would he even expect the rookies to play as well as they did .
> 
> Its easy to talk when youre speaking in hindsight but the reality of the time was Jamals decision was a no brainer anyone in his situation would do .


Many Bulls fans, myself included, could see that Paxson and Skiles were headed in the right direction. Sure, there were a hell of a lot of Bulls fans who didn't believe in their "right way" of doing things, but many of us did. Jamal was there every day, and he chose to believe that the Bulls had a "hidden agenda".

Maybe Jamal didn't believe in the "defense and playing the right way" that Paxson and Skiles were installing? Nothing has changed this season, except that we have a team full of players who believe in "defense" and "playing the right way". Yeah, we have more talent, but we had all of that talent before Jamal left for NY.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

bullsville said:


> Nothing has changed this season, except that we have a team full of players who believe in "defense" and "playing the right way". Yeah, we have more talent, but we had all of that talent before Jamal left for NY.


Erm Jamal never actually got to play with the talent Pax acquired.


----------



## bullsville

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Erm Jamal never actually got to play with the talent Pax acquired.


Yeah, I know he never played with them, but they were all Bulls before he decided to leave. It was his choice not to play with them, and it was his choice to not believe in Paxson and Skiles' vision for "defense and the right way".


----------



## spongyfungy

bullsville said:


> I disagree, he still isn't a good defender, and he is still getting ripped for not caring about defense.
> 
> That sounds like the same old Jamal to me.


Those weren't my words but Skiles's


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Many Bulls fans, myself included, could see that Paxson and Skiles were headed in the right direction. Sure, there were a hell of a lot of Bulls fans who didn't believe in their "right way" of doing things, but many of us did. Jamal was there every day, and he chose to believe that the Bulls had a "hidden agenda".
> 
> Maybe Jamal didn't believe in the "defense and playing the right way" that Paxson and Skiles were installing? Nothing has changed this season, except that we have a team full of players who believe in "defense" and "playing the right way". Yeah, we have more talent, but we had all of that talent before Jamal left for NY.


It had nothing to do with the right way .Thats something your convinced yourself of but it is not true .

The Bulls made jamal an offer he felt he was worth more .PERIOD !! end of story .Again who knows what was said to him that led to his "hidden agendas" remark but we know it had nothing to do with Skiles or his style of coaching or the stye lf play he emphasized. 

We had all of what talent befoe jamal left for NY ?Those guys had never played a game .Now we are all supposed to believe that saw the future and foretold of the play of the rookies even when Pax expected us to be bad this year ?

Thats ridiculous.


The fact that your believe that nothing has changed this year except that the players believe shows that your arent even thinking clearly on the matter.


----------



## GB

spongyfungy said:


> It's not like he left a winning program to join a sucky team .


Actually, he did.

Too bad he just didn't stick around long enough to see the payoff Eddy and Tyson are enjoying, right?


----------



## GB

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know he never played with them, but they were all Bulls before he decided to leave. It was his choice not to play with them, and it was his choice to not believe in Paxson and Skiles' vision for "defense and the right way".


:clap:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> Actually, he did.
> 
> Too bad he just didn't stick around long enough to see the payoff Eddy and Tyson are enjoying, right?


Are you saying the Bulls were a winning team in July ?or Aug ?or Sept ?or Oct ?Or Nov ?


----------



## kukoc4ever

1.) Clearly the Bulls that Jamal left were, and were expected by most to continue being, a losing organization. 

2.) Any one of our current "right way" players would most likely leave if offered more money.

3.) The Bulls also chose to let him go by not matching the offer.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Are you saying the Bulls were a winning team in July ?or Aug ?or Sept ?or Oct ?Or Nov ?


Obviously not.

But making a decision based on a roster that didn't exist anymore is, um, stupid.


I'd bet Jamal was scared to compete with Ben for minutes.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) Clearly the Bulls that Jamal left were, and were expected by most to continue being, a losing organization.


Maybe they were losers with Krause, after Jordan.

But Pax was never a loser. He was a rebuilder. And now he's a winner.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> Obviously not.
> 
> But making a decision based on a roster that didn't exist anymore is, um, stupid.
> 
> 
> I'd bet Jamal was scared to compete with Ben for minutes.


Or just plain tired.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) Clearly the Bulls that Jamal left were, and were expected by most to continue being, a losing organization.
> 
> 2.) Any one of our current "right way" players would most likely leave if offered more money.
> 
> 3.) The Bulls also chose to let him go by not matching the offer.


yeah. I mean, I agree with bullsville on a lot of things, but this line of reasoning is basically just criticizing Jamal for NOT being clairvoyant. 

Even the optimists around here didn't think this season would turn out the way it has. How could Jamal have? I can't blame him for eventually getting fed up with losing and always having to compete for his job (even though Jay and Kirk were good enough to warrant it). I won't even say he lacked the foresight to see that the Bulls were headed in a good direction, because, as most human beings would, he accepted a substantially more lucrative contract offer.


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> It had nothing to do with the right way .Thats something your convinced yourself of but it is not true .
> 
> The Bulls made jamal an offer he felt he was worth more .PERIOD !! end of story .Again who knows what was said to him that led to his "hidden agendas" remark but we know it had nothing to do with Skiles or his style of coaching or the stye lf play he emphasized.
> 
> We had all of what talent befoe jamal left for NY ?Those guys had never played a game .Now we are all supposed to believe that saw the future and foretold of the play of the rookies even when Pax expected us to be bad this year ?
> 
> Thats ridiculous.


Jamal got a better offer, that's why he left. I'm not denying that, in fact I agree that it was about the money for him. "PERIOD!! end of story."

Jamal thought the Knicks were a better situation, he was wrong. I can certainly live with that. He was around Skiles and Paxson all season last year, he saw what kind of system they were implementing, and he didn't think it was worth staying for. His loss. He chose money, "PERIOD!! end of story."

Nobody expected the Bulls to be this good this season, but many people fully expected "the right way" and "team ball" and "playing defense" to work. The only reason it is so surprising this season is because we are so young, but once again *many people believed in Paxson and Skiles' way of doing things.* I did. Jamal didn't. 

If Jamal DID believe in Paxson and Skiles' way, then he just took the money. So he got what he wanted, we got what we wanted, everyone is happy.




The fact that your believe that nothing has changed this year except that the players believe shows that your arent even thinking clearly on the matter.[/QUOTE]

What else has changed?

The coach is still the same.

The GM is still the same.

What, exactly, has changed, other than the players? Care to enlighten me so I can "think clearly"?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Maybe they were losers with Krause, after Jordan.
> 
> But Pax was never a loser. He was a rebuilder. And now he's a winner.


You are quite selective with your subset.

Krause is a winner. Higher winning PCT than Paxson. More titles than Paxson.

Paxson still has a career losing record as a GM. He may still have the losing record for a year or two.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> Obviously not.
> 
> But making a decision based on a roster that didn't exist anymore is, um, stupid.
> 
> 
> I'd bet Jamal was scared to compete with Ben for minutes.



Our roster wasnt assembled yet either and at the time based on what has ACTUALLY happening who wouldnt leave.Anyone who says they wouldnt take an extra 20 million dollars to leave the Bulls situation to go to a team who at the time was a playof team is just not being honest.

To wait on a franchise that hadnt had a winning season in 6 years to make a decision that big wouldve been stupid .Even Pax didnt think this team was gonna win this year and now all of sudden we have tons of posters running around as if it was a given.


----------



## GB

ViciousFlogging said:


> I can't blame him for eventually getting fed up with losing and always having to compete for his job (even though Jay and Kirk were good enough to warrant it).



If you're not a superstar, then you'll spend your entire career competing for your job.

He'd better watch the upcoming draft very carefully.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) Clearly the Bulls that Jamal left were, and were expected by most to continue being, a losing organization.


Well, I don't know about most, there are plenty of Bulls fans who believed that Paxson and Skiles would turn things around. Nobody expected it to be this season, but many of us expected the Bulls to turn it around. 



> 2.) Any one of our current "right way" players would most likely leave if offered more money.


We shall see about that, starting this summer.



> 3.) The Bulls also chose to let him go by not matching the offer.


There was no "offer" to match, per se- it's not like Jamal signed an offer sheet and the Bulls decided not to match. The Bulls could have offered him more than the MLE, but they decided he wasn't worth the money.

Looking at our record, I'd say they were 100% correct IMHO. Reading the NY paper this morning would lead one to believe that Jamal still doesn't care to play defense. Just one man's opinion, it just happens to be shared by many.

But hey, Jamal got his money, us *Bulls* fans got a winning team, so everyone should be happy as a clam, right? 

I know I sure as hell am glad that Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich are getting the majority of our back-court minutes instead of Jamal, I couldn't possibly be happier with the results.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Jamal got a better offer, that's why he left. I'm not denying that, in fact I agree that it was about the money for him. "PERIOD!! end of story."
> 
> Jamal thought the Knicks were a better situation, he was wrong. I can certainly live with that. He was around Skiles and Paxson all season last year, he saw what kind of system they were implementing, and he didn't think it was worth staying for. His loss. He chose money, "PERIOD!! end of story."
> 
> Nobody expected the Bulls to be this good this season, but many people fully expected "the right way" and "team ball" and "playing defense" to work. The only reason it is so surprising this season is because we are so young, but once again *many people believed in Paxson and Skiles' way of doing things.* I did. Jamal didn't.
> 
> If Jamal DID believe in Paxson and Skiles' way, then he just took the money. So he got what he wanted, we got what we wanted, everyone is happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that your believe that nothing has changed this year except that the players believe shows that your arent even thinking clearly on the matter.


What else has changed?

The coach is still the same.

The GM is still the same.

What, exactly, has changed, other than the players? Care to enlighten me so I can "think clearly"?[/QUOTE]


You still dont get players dont take 20 million dollar paycuts coming off their rookie salary to play for non winning teams because they like their style .Come back to reality :wave: 

It had nothing to do with style if someone offers tyson 60 million and the Bulls 4o million than tyson is gone and so is eddy,Kirk ,Duhon,Gordon ,Nocioni,regardless of how much they like theBulls system .Maybe if its there second big deal but their first and they are gone.

Duhon is kicking to Deng who can kick to Kirk who can kick to ben who can kick to a healthy Tyson 

jamal had to kick to kirk who can kick to Dupree who would kick to Brunson who would kick to Jyd. 

:biggrin: Do your see the difference now ?

It must be nice to look back at the past and to rewrite what actually happened to fit whatever your pushing that day .Must be nice .


----------



## fl_flash

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Or just plain tired.


You can't be serious. Basketball, at just about any level, is all about competition. If Jamal couldn't stand the heat of competing for minutes, he should have left the kitchen. In a way he did. He's got it good in NY right now simply because there aren't many talented guards on that team.

What's he going to do when Thomas inexplicably drafts a guard this year? Will he cry about having to fight for minutes or will he simply want a trade to go to a situation where he won't have to compete? 

If what you insinuate is even remotely accurate - that Jamal could have been tired of the competition - all the better that Thomas took him off our hands.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> You are quite selective with your subset.
> 
> Krause is a winner. Higher winning PCT than Paxson.


Yeah, but we're talking about during Jamals tenure with the Bulls.


----------



## GB

bullsville said:


> I know I sure as hell am glad that Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich are getting the majority of our back-court minutes instead of Jamal, I couldn't possibly be happier with the results.


Kukoc4ever and Truth are too. They just won't admit it.


----------



## GB

fl_flash said:


> You can't be serious. Basketball, at just about any level, is all about competition. If Jamal couldn't stand the heat of competing for minutes, he should have left the kitchen. In a way he did.
> --
> If what you insinuate is even remotely accurate - that Jamal could have been tired of the competition - all the better that Thomas took him off our hands.


We need a SMACK DOWN smiley.


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Our roster wasnt assembled yet either and at the time based on what has ACTUALLY happening who wouldnt leave.Anyone who says they wouldnt take an extra 20 million dollars to leave the Bulls situation to go to a team who at the time was a playof team is just not being honest.
> 
> To wait on a franchise that hadnt had a winning season in 6 years to make a decision that big wouldve been stupid .*Even Pax didnt think this team was gonna win this year and now all of sudden we have tons of posters running around as if it was a given*.


Name some names, don't play games. WHO said that it was a given that the Bulls would win this year? Who is acting like it? NOBODY that I saw.

I HAVE seen people who believed that Paxson and Skiles were turning this team around with their style of play and the kinds of players they were adding to the team, but NOBODY has claimed that they thought the Bulls would be winners THIS SEASON.

Please don't resort to making stuff up, Jamal didn't see a future here and he left. Some of us were all for trading him because we didn't think he was worth more than the MLE that Pax was offering. 

Nobody ever said anything except that Jamal either:

a- didn't believe in Paxson and Skiles way of ball or 
b- he did believe in them but money was more important 

Of course, playing for a winning team usually means more money through endorsements and personal appearances, but I guess Kirk and Eddy and Tyson and Ben and Luol will be reaping those benefits now.


----------



## mizenkay

fl_flash said:


> You can't be serious. Basketball, at just about any level, is all about competition. If Jamal couldn't stand the heat of competing for minutes, he should have left the kitchen. In a way he did. He's got it good in NY right now simply because there aren't many talented guards on that team.
> 
> What's he going to do when Thomas inexplicably drafts a guard this year? Will he cry about having to fight for minutes or will he simply want a trade to go to a situation where he won't have to compete?
> 
> If what you insinuate is even remotely accurate - that Jamal could have been tired of the competition - all the better that Thomas took him off our hands.



:clap: 

more "competition" on it's way to the garden?? 




> Damon Stoudamire will tell you he has a history with Isiah Thomas, one that may be strong enough to lead to a reunion in New York next season with his former boss.
> 
> Stoudamire, according to sources, is a free agent the Knicks will strongly consider this summer, even if Thomas selects a guard in the draft. Thomas wants to add quickness, experience and another ball handler to his backcourt. The addition of a player of Stoudamire's caliber would allow Stephon Marbury to play more minutes at shooting guard.
> 
> Thomas has hinted that he wants to play a style similar to that of the Suns and SuperSonics, spreading the floor with three-point shooters and taking advantage of Marbury's ability to drive to the basket. Thomas also envisions having three players - Marbury, Jamal Crawford and possibly Stoudamire - who can all play both guard positions.
> 
> "If that happens, it would be great," Stoudamire said late Saturday night. "I definitely think the beauty of playing that way is that you have three guards that can pass, dribble and shoot. Isiah is molding the team the way he did in Toronto and like the team he played for in Detroit. Isiah, Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson all complemented each other."



NY Daily News


----------



## GB

> "Isiah, Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson all complemented each other."


Which one would Jamal be?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> Kukoc4ever and Truth are too. They just won't admit it.



Admit what ? Having Jamal wouldnt take minutes away from no one but Hinrich and by that I mean he wouldnt have carry the full load on the floor every game you drop his minutes from 37 to 32 and then you have a 4 guard rotation thats awlays fresh and very versatile the only player that loses minutes would actually be the pollish rifle .Not to mention that Skiles likes to play 3 guards at times so I could easily see a Skiles playing a lineup that was 

Tyson
Deng
jamal
Gordon
Kirk 

and really get out and do some trapping and the spreading of the floor .

I will say Im quite happy with Gordon,Duhon,and Kirk but it was never really a decision of either those 3 OR Jamal .As bad as the Bulls have been the last 6 years I wanted them all and I dont think anything was wrong with that.


----------



## dkg1

If you look at most of my posts in this thread, I probably appear to be anti-Crawford. However, I can't blame the guy for taking millions of more dollars to play for another organization, especially going to a team that had made the playoffs the year before while my former team stunk it up.


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> bullsville said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else has changed?
> 
> The coach is still the same.
> 
> The GM is still the same.
> 
> What, exactly, has changed, other than the players? Care to enlighten me so I can "think clearly"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still dont get players dont take 20 million dollar paycuts coming off their rookie salary to play for non winning teams because they like their style .Come back to reality :wave:
> 
> It had nothing to do with style if someone offers tyson 60 million and the Bulls 4o million than tyson is gone and so is eddy,Kirk ,Duhon,Gordon ,Nocioni,regardless of how much they like theBulls system .Maybe if its there second big deal but their first and they are gone.
> 
> Duhon is kicking to Deng who can kick to Kirk who can kick to ben who can kick to a healthy Tyson
> 
> jamal had to kick to kirk who can kick to Dupree who would kick to Brunson who would kick to Jyd.
> 
> :biggrin: Do your see the difference now ?
> 
> It must be nice to look back at the past and to rewrite what actually happened to fit whatever your pushing that day .Must be nice .
Click to expand...

Why did you quote me if you weren't going to address what you quoted?

Once again I will ask, what has changed since the end of last season other than the players?

Again, Jamal is more than welcome to take the extra "$20 million" (it wasn't that much from what I remember it was an extra $14 million, of which $10 million was the 7th year, Paxson was only offering 6 years). I seem to remember Pax offered the full MLE for 6 years, which is 6 years, $42 million. The first 6 years of Jamal's Knicks deal pays him $46 million. But whatever, he took the money. His choice.

ALL I have claimed is that Jamal either 
- didn't believe Paxson and Skiles would turn things around EVENTUALLY
or
- he just took the money.

That is ALL I have claimed, I wish you would quit making stuff up. *Quote me if I have claimed otherwise*, but at least address what you quote, that's usually the way it works.


----------



## bullsville

dkg1 said:


> If you look at most of my posts in this thread, I probably appear to be anti-Crawford. However, I can't blame the guy for taking millions of more dollars to play for another organization, especially going to a team that had made the playoffs the year before while my former team stunk it up.


Hey, I agree 100%. A lot of people have said all along that Isiah doesn't know how to run a team, Jamal either chose not to believe it or he took the money anyway. I believe it is the latter, IMO he truly thought the Knicks were a better situation. 

And nobody can blame Jamal for leaving the Bulls, if he didn't think Paxson and Skiles would turn things around, why stay? 

Can I laugh at his decision, though? Oh hell yes. My Bulls are one game out of the #3 record in the East, and the Knicks suck, so yes I find it quite hilarious the way it turned out.

And since Jamal had to make his "hidden agenda" remarks without saying what that "hidden agenda" allegedly was, I certainly feel no sympathy for him being stuck with a losing team that is going nowhere fast.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Name some names, don't play games. WHO said that it was a given that the Bulls would win this year? Who is acting like it? NOBODY that I saw.
> 
> I HAVE seen people who believed that Paxson and Skiles were turning this team around with their style of play and the kinds of players they were adding to the team, but NOBODY has claimed that they thought the Bulls would be winners THIS SEASON.
> 
> Please don't resort to making stuff up, Jamal didn't see a future here and he left. Some of us were all for trading him because we didn't think he was worth more than the MLE that Pax was offering.
> 
> Nobody ever said anything except that Jamal either:
> 
> a- didn't believe in Paxson and Skiles way of ball or
> b- he did believe in them but money was more important
> 
> Of course, playing for a winning team usually means more money through endorsements and personal appearances, but I guess Kirk and Eddy and Tyson and Ben and Luol will be reaping those benefits now.


You've started your backtracking and soo soon too. 

The posters who belived that were yelling 2006 as a possible turnaround and now that its happened this year are replying to posts as if they knew it would be now.If they were not than why all the talk of jamal chose money over winning or "playing the right way ' when playing the "right way " was not supposed to even produce wins for 2 more seasons ? again an argument based on hindsight at this point is time is foolish at best .

If now youre back to no one thought the Bulls would win this year then what players turns down 20 more million dollars because he likes the style of play of a losing team ?Also what fan who is thinking clearly would expect him too ? 

The knicks at the time of Jamal signings were 

A. a playoff team 
B. offering him more money
C. established stars in marbury and Houston 

So who doesnt take the money and the winning over less money and losses ?

Its nice to look back and say the "oh the Bulls are winning" but at the time they were not and wasnt expected to start winning either .


----------



## ace20004u

I think a lot of it has to do with respect. On one hand you have Isaiah telling Jamal "Hey, we love you, we want you to come to NY and be an integral part of our team, we think you are really good and will only get better, and by the way, we are willing to pay you more than Paxson and oh yeah...we made the playoffs last year and plan on making them again this year."

Then you have Paxson saying "well Jamal, we like you and would like to keep you around IF it is for the right deal. Yeah, we do have a lot of guards and we're not entirely sure how you fit into the puzzle, but surely you can beat someone out, right? How about we offer you close to an MLE deal with no raises?"

Kind of a no brainer that backfired but these things happen. I still think the Bulls would be even better today with Crawford.


----------



## GB

> "Let's not forget, a few years ago this team was a perennial late playoff team," Rose said. "It's just they've fallen on some hard times right now. They still have the attitude, it's just some of the new guys we have don't really know it yet and just got thrust into a tough situation, from what I can see."
> 
> The reference, perhaps, was to youngsters like Mike Sweetney and Trevor Ariza, who are playing larger roles than anyone envisioned this season, and to Jamal Crawford, who was acquired to platoon with Allan Houston at shooting guard, not replace him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/sports/basketball/28knicks.html


When the Knicks win again, it won't be because Jamal drives it. The Bulls are winning, and it's being driven by the backcourt drafted to replace him.


----------



## fl_flash

ace20004u said:


> I think a lot of it has to do with respect. On one hand you have Isaiah telling Jamal "Hey, we love you, we want you to come to NY and be an integral part of our team, we think you are really good and will only get better, and by the way, we are willing to pay you more than Paxson and oh yeah...we made the playoffs last year and plan on making them again this year."
> 
> Then you have Paxson saying "well Jamal, we like you and would like to keep you around IF it is for the right deal. Yeah, we do have a lot of guards and we're not entirely sure how you fit into the puzzle, but surely you can beat someone out, right? How about we offer you close to an MLE deal with no raises?"
> 
> *Kind of a no brainer that backfired* but these things happen. I still think the Bulls would be even better today with Crawford.


Interesting way of looking at things... I tend to think that Paxson was very grateful that someone, anyone, stepped up to offer Jamal anything. That he got back "nothing" (as some have alluded to) was simply a bonus.

As for the whole Jamal bolting to NYC for more money or whatever - I'd have to agree with the Jamal contingent. There's no way you could blame the guy for going to what was a better team _at the time_ and also getting more money and a longer guaranteed contract. I can't find any fault for Jamal making that choice. I'd have done the same thing.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/sports/basketball/28knicks.html
> 
> 
> When the Knicks win again, it won't be because Jamal drives it. The Bulls are winning, and it's being driven by the backcourt drafted to replace him.


and Id say its driven by the 2 7 footers who decided to show up this year .


----------



## bullsville

bullsville said:


> Name some names, don't play games. WHO said that it was a given that the Bulls would win this year? Who is acting like it? NOBODY that I saw.
> 
> I HAVE seen people who believed that Paxson and Skiles were turning this team around with their style of play and the kinds of players they were adding to the team, but NOBODY has claimed that they thought the Bulls would be winners THIS SEASON.
> 
> Please don't resort to making stuff up, Jamal didn't see a future here and he left. Some of us were all for trading him because we didn't think he was worth more than the MLE that Pax was offering.
> 
> Nobody ever said anything except that Jamal either:
> 
> a- didn't believe in Paxson and Skiles way of ball or
> b- he did believe in them but money was more important
> 
> Of course, playing for a winning team usually means more money through endorsements and personal appearances, but I guess Kirk and Eddy and Tyson and Ben and Luol will be reaping those benefits now.





TRUTHHURTS said:


> You've started your backtracking and soo soon too.


Backtracked how? With what statement? What statement did I backtrack from? Like I said, quit making stuff up, let's see some quotes. What did I backtrack from?



> *The posters who belived that were yelling 2006 as a possible turnaround and now that its happened this year are replying to posts as if they knew it would be now*.If they were not than why all the talk of jamal chose money over winning or "playing the right way ' when playing the "right way " was not supposed to even produce wins for 2 more seasons ? again an argument based on hindsight at this point is time is foolish at best .


Don't play games, name names. Who is acting like they "knew it would be now"? NOBODY has said it would happen this year, A LOT of people believed it would happen eventually. Let's see some quotes, unless you are making this up.



> If now youre back to no one thought the Bulls would win this year then what players turns down 20 more million dollars because he likes the style of play of a losing team ?Also what fan who is thinking clearly would expect him too ?


Back to? Again, where has anyone claimed otherwise? Let's see the quotes, who ever claimed to think the Bulls would be better *this year?* You keep claiming all this stuff that people said, but I don't see one single quote of anyone saying any of it. Please, quit making stuff up. 



> The knicks at the time of Jamal signings were
> 
> A. a playoff team
> B. offering him more money
> C. established stars in marbury and Houston
> 
> So who doesnt take the money and the winning over less money and losses ?
> 
> Its nice to look back and say the "oh the Bulls are winning" but at the time they were not and wasnt expected to start winning either .


Jamal made his choice, nobody is denying him the right to take the money. Like I said, though, A LOT OF PEOPLE EXPECTED THE BULLS TO START WINNING. Maybe not this season, but Jamal signed a 7-year deal, it's about the entire 7 years of the deal, not just this season.

Maybe only a few people thought the Bulls would be better than the Knicks this season, but a lot of people, myself included, believed that the Bulls would be back to serious contention long before the Knicks get there. WE STILL AREN'T SERIOUS CONTENDERS FOR A TITLE, but we are a hell of a lot closer than the Knicks.

Again, what is your problem? Jamal got what he wanted, and the BULLS fans got what we wanted, a winning team. Some Bulls fans aren't happy that Jamal isn't here, well that was his choice. He chose more money, good for him, and definitely good for the Bulls, because we are already a playoff team and now we can spend the $8 million per year (average) that Jamal is making getting other talent to make us better. 

It seems as if everyone is happy, and everyone got what they wanted- except the Bulls fans who wanted Jamal to still be on the team. Sorry about that, Jamal chose the money over the Bulls. No blame, no nothing, that's the way it is, and everyone is happy except Jamal fans.

I'm sorry about that, but none of it is my fault...


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

fl_flash said:


> You can't be serious. Basketball, at just about any level, is all about competition. If Jamal couldn't stand the heat of competing for minutes, he should have left the kitchen. In a way he did. He's got it good in NY right now simply because there aren't many talented guards on that team.
> 
> What's he going to do when Thomas inexplicably drafts a guard this year? Will he cry about having to fight for minutes or will he simply want a trade to go to a situation where he won't have to compete?
> 
> If what you insinuate is even remotely accurate - that Jamal could have been tired of the competition - all the better that Thomas took him off our hands.


There's a difference between staying on top of your game and doing what it is you do to keep your position and having your job always up for grabs. Jamal, of all our 1st round draft picks, has done the latter more so than Eddy, Tyson, Jay, Elton, Ron, and Kirk. Part of it is due to his inconsistent game, but you also can't say that management and coaching was consistent with their beliefs.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> and Id say its driven by the 2 7 footers who decided to show up this year .


Hinrich is the heart and soul, not Tyson. Not Eddy.



So we know why you'd say that.


----------



## giusd

I hate to bring this up but there were a lot of us saying things like i would much rather have the bulls roster than the knicks at the beginning of the season. Including things like the knicks are soft, had a really easy first two months of the season and liked the way the bulls were playing hard and tried to point out how hard the bulls schedule was the first 6 weeks.

And for the most part anyone who posted this was yelled down and we had to hear about how JC was the starting SG for the 3rd best team in the east, yada, yada, yada. So, there were posters here trying to point out the improvements in the bulls. Now of course i had no idea the bulls would be 5 games above 500 but IMHO i guessed the bulls could sneak into the playoffs and win maybe 35 games.

So lets go light on the no one could have guessed the bulls would be doing this well because in fact there were a large group of us and for the most part we were yelled off the broad for 6 weeks. Still i say lets just enjoy this magcial season.

One last thing, am i the only one who is getting nervous watching this year and has to turn the game off for a few minutes to catch my breath. I seemed easier to watch when we were likely to lose than thinking we are going to win. Ooch,

david


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> There's a difference between staying on top of your game and doing what it is you do to keep your position and having your job always up for grabs.


Jamal never got on top of his game. He should have found a way to stay in college.


----------



## lgtwins

K4E can vouch for this and I am one of so-called "Jamal hater' (his word not mine) but I think Bullsville is pushing the matter here. From Jamal's point of view, his decision last summer was no brainer. Why would he choose to sign with Bulls? I woudn't."Hidden agenda" or not, it was clear to me that Jamal wasn't simply Paxon kind of player, period. He wasn't wanted back that much and Paxon showed that with his offer. With that fact, why in the hell Jamal wanted to stay here?

I am just so happy that so called "Knicks junkie" we got in return play so good and for that matter another Kudo to Paxon.

I am happy Jamal got the contract he wanted.
I am happy Jamal got where he think he was wanted.
I am happy Jamal isn't a Bull any more.
I am more than happy with "Knicks junkie"'s play.
I am so happy that we are where we are now at the end of the season (PLAYOFF!!!!). 
And by default for being a BUlls fan, I am also happy that Knick sucks.


----------



## bullsville

fl_flash said:


> Interesting way of looking at things... I tend to think that Paxson was very grateful that someone, anyone, stepped up to offer Jamal anything. That he got back "nothing" (as some have alluded to) was simply a bonus.
> 
> As for the whole Jamal bolting to NYC for more money or whatever - I'd have to agree with the Jamal contingent. There's no way you could blame the guy for going to what was a better team _at the time_ and also getting more money and a longer guaranteed contract. I can't find any fault for Jamal making that choice. I'd have done the same thing.


I agree, nobody can blame Jamal for taking the money, it was his choice. 

Seemingly, nobody is bitter about it except some Jamal fans here on the Bulls board. (Well, there may be some Knick fans who aren't too thrilled with him right now, but that's their problem). Personally, I know I wasn't interested in bringing Jamal back for anything more than the MLE or slightly above it, and now that I have seen what Gordon and Duhon can do, I thank the good lord that we didn't waste even the MLE on Jamal. I certainly believe the $8 million (average) per season that Jamal is making can be better spent elsewhere. 

Thanks to not signing Jamal, we should be real close to his salary under the cap next summer, that is certainly worth more to me than having Jamal back when I prefer KH, BG and CD to him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> Hinrich is the heart and soul, not Tyson. Not Eddy.
> 
> 
> 
> So we know why you'd say that.



You remove Kirk and and we are still winning you remove tyson and Eddy and lets see where that gets us .Id think it would get us a lot of hard work and hustle plays but not a lot of wins .


----------



## lgtwins

bullsville said:


> I agree, nobody can blame Jamal for taking the money, it was his choice.
> 
> Seemingly, nobody is bitter about it except some Jamal fans here on the Bulls board. (Well, there may be some Knick fans who aren't too thrilled with him right now, but that's their problem). <b>Personally, I know I wasn't interested in bringing Jamal back for anything more than the MLE or slightly above it, and now that I have seen what Gordon and Duhon can do, I thank the good lord that we didn't waste even the MLE on Jamal. I certainly believe the $8 million (average) per season that Jamal is making can be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Thanks to not signing Jamal, we should be real close to his salary under the cap next summer, that is certainly worth more to me than having Jamal back when I prefer KH, BG and CD to him.</b>


For this, I totally agree with you.


----------



## fl_flash

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> There's a difference between staying on top of your game and doing what it is you do to keep your position and having your job always up for grabs. Jamal, of all our 1st round draft picks, has done the latter more so than Eddy, Tyson, Jay, Elton, Ron, and Kirk. Part of it is due to his inconsistent game, but you also can't say that management and coaching was consistent with their beliefs.


So you really do believe what you wrote... Competition is the nature of sport. Professional football players are constantly having to fight for their jobs because other players are brought in or other players are drafted. Tennis players must stay sharp at all time because there are always a littany of new phenoms comming down the pike to knock them off their rankings. Does Tiger Woods simply take it easy because he's the best?

Could it have been that Jamal's job was always up for grabs because Jamal didn't display the requisite skills to solidify his standings? If anything, I think that management, especially Skiles/Pax has been amazingly consistant in adhering to their beliefs. So much so that last season they were constantly accused of sacraficing winning by playing "grinders" over players that gave us a better chance to win.


----------



## bullsville

giusd said:


> I hate to bring this up but there were a lot of us saying things like i would much rather have the bulls roster than the knicks at the beginning of the season. Including things like the knicks are soft, had a really easy first two months of the season and liked the way the bulls were playing hard and tried to point out how hard the bulls schedule was the first 6 weeks.


Back on December 20th, we were 7-15 and the Knicks were 13-11, and I said then that I would rather have the Bulls roster than the Knicks. Actually, this is what I said...

Right now, the only teams in the East that I see are clearly better than us are the Heat, the Pistons, and maybe the Cavs- although the Cavs may be the benificiary of their easy early schedule.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=316230&start=0



> And for the most part anyone who posted this was yelled down and we had to hear about how JC was the starting SG for the 3rd best team in the east, yada, yada, yada. So, there were posters here trying to point out the improvements in the bulls. Now of course i had no idea the bulls would be 5 games above 500 but IMHO i guessed the bulls could sneak into the playoffs and win maybe 35 games.
> 
> So lets go light on the no one could have guessed the bulls would be doing this well because in fact there were a large group of us and for the most part we were yelled off the broad for 6 weeks. Still i say lets just enjoy this magcial season.


Yup, again read the link above, when the Bulls were 7-15 I said that "I've got news for you, unless we have a major injury, we are making the playoffs this year." And that was solely based on our defense and rebounding, which Skiles was harping on even last season while Jamal was still here.

See, some of us could see what was happening, even when the team was only 7-15. Jamal didn't see it before he left, his loss, our gain.

And it seems that the only people who aren't enjoying this magical seasons are the people who are still mad that we didn't bring Jamal back. Of course, one of these people actually believes that Jamal is a better defender than Duhon, so take it for what it's worth. I hope that poster doesn't read the NY papers, or he is going to see what is known around here as "Jamal bashing".


----------



## madox

"Jamal Crawful"

By Marc Berman, NY Post

<<< March 28, 2005 -- SAN FRANCISCO — Friday night in Seattle, Jamal Crawford talked about coming back to his hometown feeling different this time. After four years with the Bulls, Crawford said he was finally returning "in a winning situation." 
Winning situation? What an insult to all the Knick teams that actually won. Crawford must be confused. It's the Bulls, the club that allowed him to flee last summer in return for Knick junk, in the winning situation, six games above .500, vying for homecourt advantage. 

If Crawford thinks he's in "a winning situation," the Knicks have greater problems at shooting guard than anyone imagined. >>>

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/43304.htm 

EDIT: Can't make link work. Go to www.nypost.com, click on "sports."


What an idiot.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> You remove Kirk and and we are still winning


No, we're not.


Oh, you're talking about that statistically meaningless sample of three game? Surely, you aren't.


----------



## GB

bullsville said:


> Personally, I know I wasn't interested in bringing Jamal back for anything more than the MLE or slightly above it, and now that I have seen what Gordon and Duhon can do, I thank the good lord that we didn't waste even the MLE on Jamal. I certainly believe the $8 million (average) per season that Jamal is making can be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Thanks to not signing Jamal, we should be real close to his salary under the cap next summer, that is certainly worth more to me than having Jamal back when I prefer KH, BG and CD to him.


SMACK DOWN


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> Jamal never got on top of his game. He should have found a way to stay in college.


Err, OK well, I say he was. Especially, the season we drafted Hinrich. Drafting Hinrich was probably the breaking point. We ended that season strongly with the 3 C's and Jalen, and with this new GM with a different vision than Jerry's, we went a different direction.


----------



## bullsville

lgtwins said:


> K4E can vouch for this and I am one of so-called "Jamal hater' (his word not mine) but I think Bullsville is pushing the matter here. From Jamal's point of view, his decision last summer was no brainer. Why would he choose to sign with Bulls? I woudn't."Hidden agenda" or not, it was clear to me that Jamal wasn't simply Paxon kind of player, period. He wasn't wanted back that much and Paxon showed that with his offer. With that fact, why in the hell Jamal wanted to stay here?


I agree with you 100%, but I think there are Jamal fans who would tell you that Jamal IS a Paxson kind of player, though I could be wrong. Or that Jamal can still become a Paxson type of player, I've definitely read that.



> I am just so happy that so called "Knicks junkie" we got in return play so good and for that matter another Kudo to Paxon.
> 
> I am happy Jamal got the contract he wanted.
> I am happy Jamal got where he think he was wanted.
> I am happy Jamal isn't a Bull any more.
> I am more than happy with "Knicks junkie"'s play.
> I am so happy that we are where we are now at the end of the season (PLAYOFF!!!!).
> And by default for being a BUlls fan, I am also happy that Knick sucks.


I am very happy about all of those things as well. Again, it seems the only people who aren't happy are some of the Jamal fans who wish he was still a Bull.

I sure as hell am glad he is gone, I think we can get a lot more for the $8 million/year (average) that Jamal makes.

Great post.


----------



## lgtwins

fl_flash said:


> So you really do believe what you wrote... Competition is the nature of sport. Professional football players are constantly having to fight for their jobs because other players are brought in or other players are drafted. Tennis players must stay sharp at all time because there are always a littany of new phenoms comming down the pike to knock them off their rankings. Does Tiger Woods simply take it easy because he's the best?
> 
> <b>Could it have been that Jamal's job was always up for grabs because Jamal didn't display the requisite skills to solidify his standings? </b> If anything, I think that management, especially Skiles/Pax has been amazingly consistant in adhering to their beliefs. So much so that last season they were constantly accused of sacraficing winning by playing "grinders" over players that gave us a better chance to win.


I believe this was truly the case. But obviously some peopel here on this frium and Jamal himself caled it "hidden agenda". Then again if Jamal delusioned himself into believing he won the position for good, I can see why he might thought Bulls had a hidden agenda.


----------



## spongyfungy

I wish Jamal was still on this team because he's still a quality guard but I'm also happy that the Bulls are winning. I believe Jamal would have flourished under Skiles and matured even further. His basketball background is not that strong and I think that hampered his growth with the Bulls. Skiles liked him. He's said he listened very well and was very coachable. Paxson wanted his leading scorer here (but not that much).



> ST: How have you grown in these past few years?
> 
> JC: Your focus changes. At first you want to get in and everybody wants to establish themselves. They want to be stars and stuff. But that comes in time. You just have to pay your dues. I don't know if everybody understands that coming in. *So before it was all about if my name was in the paper, or if I'm on TV or whatever.* Now my focus is about winning.


This doesn't bug me too much because I'm sure most young guys feel this way. He would have "gotten it" eventually under the Bulls and would have played "the right way" because the rest of the team was winning. Curry is getting it. If you think with Jamal we would be a bottomdwelling team, I think that's just Jamal-hatitis. 

I'm sorry that Jamal went to NY. The Knicks is just a mismanaged team with the wrong priorities and for a guy like Jamal, a young impressionable guard, it's a black hole. Jamal should not be under the tutelage of Stephon but rather under Skiles, if he wants to a) become the best player he can be for the team b) win.


----------



## bullsville

GB said:


> No, we're not.
> 
> 
> Oh, you're talking about that statistically meaningless sample of three game? Surely, you aren't.


I know that when Kirk isn't playing those 3 games, Duhon only shoots 18.2% from the field and 25% on 3's.

I know that when Kirk isn't playing those 3 games, Gordon only shoots 31.8% from the field and 21.4% on 3's.


----------



## GB

spongyfungy said:


> I wish Jamal was still on this team because he's still a quality guard but I'm also happy that the Bulls are winning.


Whose minutes would you have him take?


----------



## spongyfungy

GB said:


> Whose minutes would you have him take?


Pargo Pike Frank. Griffin when he misses FT's 

Kirk's (since he plays so many minutes) It seems like Skiles has to resort to Gordon when Kirk gets in foul trouble. Duhon has been playing tons of minutes with Kirk out as well. 

There's enough room but he would have been given a lesser role than last years.


----------



## GB

spongyfungy said:


> Pargo Pike Frank. Griffin when he misses FT's
> --
> There's enough room but he would have been given a lesser role than last years.


...do you think he would have accepted it? 

...do you think the media would have ever stopped putting it up into his face?


----------



## spongyfungy

Yes because he understands that if he doesn't accept his role he'll play even less. Jamal said before the Bulls Knicks game that under Skiles, if you don't play defense you don't play. If he lost his starting job to Duhon, the media would constantly be asking "do you wish you could start" like they ask with Ben. They would ask him how he's handling the fewer minutes he's getting and I infer he would answer with "we're winning and that's all that matters" or "I have to get better as a player to prove I'm worthy of more minutes" something he didn't have to do when going to the Knicks. Or he could answer with "no comments" or there's "writing on the wall" Who knows? 

Who knows if we'd even have a better record right now with him or not? 

I know that we would have lost that game @ MSG if Jamal was on that team. Who would Ben torch and rise over to hit the shot?


----------



## bullsville

spongyfungy said:


> Yes because he understands that if he doesn't accept his role he'll play even less. Jamal said before the Bulls Knicks game that under Skiles, if you don't play defense you don't play. If he lost his starting job to Duhon, the media would constantly be asking "do you wish you could start" like they ask with Ben. They would ask him how he's handling the fewer minutes he's getting and I infer he would answer with "we're winning and that's all that matters" or "I have to get better as a player to prove I'm worthy of more minutes" something he didn't have to do when going to the Knicks. Or he could answer with "no comments" or there's "writing on the wall" Who knows?
> 
> Who knows if we'd even have a better record right now with him or not?
> 
> I know that we would have lost that game @ MSG if Jamal was on that team. Who would Ben torch and rise over to hit the shot?


All I know is that when Jamal was removed from the starting line-up right before Mr Bill was fired, he complained after the game that he was being made the "scapegoat" and that the "writing is on the wall" concerning his future with the Bulls. This was after a Bulls WIN.

It's just one incident, but it certainly seems like Jamal would not be happy with Hinrich and Duhon starting ahead of him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/sports/basketball/28knicks.html
> 
> 
> When the Knicks win again, it won't be because Jamal drives it. The Bulls are winning, and it's being driven by the backcourt drafted to replace him.


I think the last three games show otherwise. Especially when compared to the games without Deng and Curry.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I think the last three games show otherwise. Especially when compared to the games without Deng and Curry.


And the entire season renders those three games statistically insignificant.



Would you be comfortable entering the playoffs without Hinrich?


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I think its obvious that Crawford is the guy.But what determines whether he eliminates himself or not will be what type of contract he demands. As long as he doesnt ask for the 8mil to max contract then I think he will remain a Bull and a starter and I think Pax and Bc will try to get Jay agree to be a bobby jackson type player off the bench for the team.
> 
> Crawford 6 years 42 million 7mil per = done deal


What happened? He wound up getting $8 million per season exactly.

He wound up turning down 6 years $42 million.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> And the entire season renders those three games statistically insignificant.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be comfortable entering the playoffs without Hinrich?


Of course I want Hinrich around for the playoffs.

But.... gun to my head... I have to enter the playoffs with one of these three missing (Hinrich, Deng, Curry)... based on the way the team has played without them.... I choose Hinrich.

EDIT:
Just curious. How many games until something becomes "statistically significant." Since you are throwing it out there, I'm curious as to what the number is?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Of course I want Hinrich around for the playoffs.



Then we're on the same page.


<I>EDIT:
Just curious. How many games until something becomes "statistically significant." Since you are throwing it out there, I'm curious as to what the number is?</i>

Enough for us to know the team as well we know it with him around.

Another 10-15 games. The rest of the season. You can't tell anything from three games.


----------



## bullsville

GB said:


> And the entire season renders those three games statistically insignificant.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be comfortable entering the playoffs without Hinrich?


It's funny, Jamal Crawford has been the same player for 5 years now, yet some people still think he is going to start playing defense.

Eddy Curry's rebounding has gotten worse each of his 4 seasons, but some people still think he is going to become a decent rebounder.

4 or 5 years means nothing, but 3 games without Hinrich? All the proof some people need.

:rotf:


----------



## bullsville

GB said:


> Then we're on the same page.
> 
> 
> <I>EDIT:
> Just curious. How many games until something becomes "statistically significant." Since you are throwing it out there, I'm curious as to what the number is?</i>
> 
> Enough for us to know the team as well we know it with him around.
> 
> Another 10-15 games. The rest of the season. You can't tell anything from three games.


You certainly can't tell much from 9 games...


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> You can't tell anything from three games.


I disagree. I think you can tell that the Bulls, at least for short periods of time, can win without Kirk Hinrich.

I don't think you can say the same about Deng or Curry.


----------



## GB

bullsville said:


> It's funny, Jamal Crawford has been the same player for 5 years now, yet some people still think he is going to start playing defense.
> 
> Eddy Curry's rebounding has gotten worse each of his 4 seasons, but some people still think he is going to become a decent rebounder.
> 
> 4 or 5 years means nothing, but 3 games without Hinrich? All the proof some people need.
> 
> :rotf:


----------



## bullsville

Yep, these last 3 games have proven that the Bulls can win 3 games without Hinrich.

The Philly game proved that we can beat a playoff team on the road without Curry.

Come on, GB, get in the program!!


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree.



http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2049963&postcount=2098


----------



## The True Essence

the knicks dont run jamal off screens like they used to. Jamal has 0 plays run for him, and thats why you see his shot attempts are mostly threes. its not like hes doing crossovers into fadaway three like back in the day, hes just shooting bad threes near the end of the shot clock cause marbury doesnt wanna mess up his FG percentage. you gotta play to a players strengths, not his weaknesses. they should run jamal off screens for open shots, and get him in some pick n roll situations to take the ball to the hoop, dont make him just a guy standing around doing nothing on offense


----------



## madox

madox said:


> "Jamal Crawful"
> 
> By Marc Berman, NY Post
> 
> <<< March 28, 2005 -- SAN FRANCISCO — Friday night in Seattle, Jamal Crawford talked about coming back to his hometown feeling different this time. After four years with the Bulls, Crawford said he was finally returning "in a winning situation."
> 
> Winning situation? What an insult to all the Knick teams that actually won. Crawford must be confused. It's the Bulls, the club that allowed him to flee last summer in return for Knick junk, in the winning situation, six games above .500, vying for homecourt advantage.
> 
> If Crawford thinks he's in "a winning situation," the Knicks have greater problems at shooting guard than anyone imagined. >>>



No one else thinks that Crawford's denial/delusions/borderline complex separation psychosis (considering he knows full well that the Bulls are much much better than the Knicks) is comical? 

See, I think it's great. 

I freaking hate the Knicks.


----------



## bullsville

PennyHardaway said:


> the knicks dont run jamal off screens like they used to. Jamal has 0 plays run for him, and thats why you see his shot attempts are mostly threes. its not like hes doing crossovers into fadaway three like back in the day, hes just shooting bad threes near the end of the shot clock cause marbury doesnt wanna mess up his FG percentage. you gotta play to a players strengths, not his weaknesses. they should run jamal off screens for open shots, and get him in some pick n roll situations to take the ball to the hoop, dont make him just a guy standing around doing nothing on offense


You may be correct, but if so then Jamal has seemingly been misused his entire 5 year NBA career. It's always been the coach's fault, or lousy teammates, or "hidden agendas", but for some people it's never ever been "maybe Jamal isn't that great of a player?"

There have been lots and lots of really talented guys who basically went nowhere in the league for many, many different reasons. If I had to guess, Jamal's complete indifference on defense will be his major downfall (though not with the Knicks, nobody really plays a lot of defense on that team).


----------



## BG7

bullsville, you have know idea what you are talking about when it comes to Kirk, Jamal, Eddy and what not.

Kirk Hinrich is not needed for us to win. We are still a good team without him. I would feel comfortable going into the playoffs without Kirk, but I would feel much more comfortable going into the playoffs with him. Kirk is like the icing on the cake, the cake is still good without it, but even better with the icing. Curry is the batter, and Deng is the filling, without them, we are just missing the main stuff to be any good. Kirk is good no doubt, but he isn't a guy essential to make this team good.


----------



## mizenkay

sloth said:


> bullsville, you have know idea what you are talking about when it comes to Kirk, Jamal, Eddy and what not.
> 
> Kirk Hinrich is not needed for us to win. We are still a good team without him. I would feel comfortable going into the playoffs without Kirk, but I would feel much more comfortable going into the playoffs with him. Kirk is like the icing on the cake, the cake is still good without it, but even better with the icing. Curry is the batter, and Deng is the filling, without them, we are just missing the main stuff to be any good. Kirk is good no doubt, but he isn't a guy essential to make this team good.


 
talk about delusional!!! we are going to need both eddy and kirk and ben and chris everyone playing at a very high level for the bulls to get past the first round.

we don't need kirk to win? get over it kiddo.


----------



## The True Essence

bullsville said:


> You may be correct, but if so then Jamal has seemingly been misused his entire 5 year NBA career. It's always been the coach's fault, or lousy teammates, or "hidden agendas", but for some people it's never ever been "maybe Jamal isn't that great of a player?"
> 
> There have been lots and lots of really talented guys who basically went nowhere in the league for many, many different reasons. If I had to guess, Jamal's complete indifference on defense will be his major downfall (though not with the Knicks, nobody really plays a lot of defense on that team).


i disagree cause jamal was playing great in lennys last days as coach. he had the right plays called for him, had his shot selection under control. Herb has really limited Jamal. Jamal barely even gets to dribble the ball anymore! im not saying let him freelance, give him structure. He can bury open shots, but hes not getting any since theres no plays run for him anymore.


----------



## kukoc4ever

madox said:


> No one else thinks that Crawford's denial/delusions/borderline complex separation psychosis (considering he knows full well that the Bulls are much much better than the Knicks) is comical?
> 
> See, I think it's great.
> 
> I freaking hate the Knicks.


I was more offended by the writer calling our Othella "Knicks Crap."

Pike is "Knicks Crap" by association since we traded a piece of "Knicks Crap" for him.

I'm offended and I'm finishing off a letter to the editor this afternoon.


----------



## bullsville

madox said:


> No one else thinks that Crawford's denial/delusions/borderline complex separation psychosis (considering he knows full well that the Bulls are much much better than the Knicks) is comical?
> 
> See, I think it's great.
> 
> I freaking hate the Knicks.


Comical? How about hilarious? Side-splittingly funny? Spit-your-drink-out-your-nose funny? Those, I'll buy.

Even funnier is that some of his fans suffer from the same delusions. I even had one of his fans here on the Bulls board suggest the other day that he plays better defense than Duhon. Certain NY papers would tell you that Jamal plays NO defense, but hey...

It's all good for a laugh, though. Jamal got exactly what he wanted- $$$$, and away from the organization with the "hidden agenda". Everyone should be happy, but for some reason many of his fans aren't happy.

I don't get it...


----------



## kukoc4ever

mizenkay said:


> talk about delusional!!! we are going to need both eddy and kirk and ben and chris everyone playing at a very high level for the bulls to get past the first round.
> 
> we don't need kirk to win? get over it kiddo.


We did win three games in a row without him. One on the road against our toughest nemesis.

Don't know if Duhon could hold up an entire season... but for a short period of time... it seems we have little trouble winning without Hinrich.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. I think you can tell that the Bulls, at least for short periods of time, can win without Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> I don't think you can say the same about Deng or Curry.


 Mon 7 Milwaukee W 90 - 85
Wed 9 @ Portland W 97 - 84
Fri 11 @ Seattle W 100 - 97

Without Deng, we won three straight, and the quality of teams were better too.


----------



## madox

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm offended and I'm finishing off a letter to the editor this afternoon.


Are you being serious? I can't tell. 

If you are, then you should post the letter in this thread.


----------



## bullsville

sloth said:


> bullsville, you have know idea what you are talking about when it comes to Kirk, Jamal, Eddy and what not.
> 
> Kirk Hinrich is not needed for us to win. We are still a good team without him. I would feel comfortable going into the playoffs without Kirk, but I would feel much more comfortable going into the playoffs with him. Kirk is like the icing on the cake, the cake is still good without it, but even better with the icing. Curry is the batter, and Deng is the filling, without them, we are just missing the main stuff to be any good. Kirk is good no doubt, but he isn't a guy essential to make this team good.


LOL @ you, of all people, telling me that I have no idea what I am talking about.

Coming from you, that's the biggest compliment anyone has paid me in quite some time, thank you very much.

Seriously, son, after reading some of your classics- like "I don't believe that little things even exist"- I am quite proud that you think I don't know what I am talking about.

Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 100.2 103.5 -3.3 
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 103.5 100.0 +3.6 
Net Points -99 +103 -202 
Shots Blocked 5% 6% -1% 
Offensive Rebounding 29.0% 32.7% -3.7% 
Defensive Rebounding 70.2% 70.6% -0.4% 
Total Rebounding 49.6% 51.7% -2.1% 
Turnovers, on Offense 18 15 -3 
Turnovers, on Defense 13 17 -4 

The first column is with Eddy, the second column is without Eddy on the floor, the 3rd column is the difference. 

The Bulls offense scores more points when Eddy isn't on the floor. 
The Bulls defense allows less points when Eddy isn't on the floor. 
The Bulls block more shots when Eddy isn't on the floor. 
The Bulls grab more offensive rebounds when Eddy isn't on the floor. 
The Bulls grab more defensive rebounds when Eddy isn't on the floor. 
The Bulls commit more turnovers when Eddy is on the floor. 
The Bulls force more turnovers when Eddy isn't on the floor. 

These stats are for the entire season, all 68 games we have played. I tend to trust them more than I do stats that take 6 games into consideration. 

The Bulls are 37-22 when Duhon starts and 0-9 when he doesn't. If you want to use those stats, then Duhon is the guy we can't let go of. We haven't won a single game all year that Duhon didn't start.


----------



## mizenkay

kukoc4ever said:


> We did win three games without him. One on the road against our toughest nemesis.
> 
> Don't know if Duhon could hold up an entire season... but for a short period of time... it seems we have little trouble winning without Hinrich.



aww come on! we're not talking about playing the craptors!! and maybe it just seemed like this to me, but the celtic kinda ran outta gas in the 4th of that game. you think it would be the same in a playoff atmosphere?

please. we almost blew the pacers game sat. or weren't you watching?

if you would feel comfortable, like *slothslug* not having kirk play in the playoffs then i just am speechless. dumbstruck. out of words. it is beyond the realm of my understanding.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sir Patchwork said:


> Mon 7 Milwaukee W 90 - 85
> Wed 9 @ Portland W 97 - 84
> Fri 11 @ Seattle W 100 - 97
> 
> Without Deng, we won three straight, and the quality of teams were better too.


Fair point. 

But we also played our 2nd worst stretch of basketball without Deng as well. 

What was our record during Deng’s injury list stint?

I'll be the first to say its only been three games. But, at least for these three games, Hinrich has not been missed. In fact, we won one of the toughest games of the season against Boston without him.

That being said, it nice to have him back tonight. We'll see if the team looks noticeably better... like it did when Deng and Curry returned.


----------



## GB

bullsville said:


> Jamal got exactly what he wanted- $$$$, and away from the organization with the "hidden agenda". Everyone should be happy, but for some reason many of his fans aren't happy.
> 
> I don't get it...


>shrug<


----------



## GB

mizenkay said:


> aww come on! we're not talking about playing the craptors!! and maybe it just seemed like this to me, but the celtic kinda ran outta gas in the 4th of that game. you think it would be the same in a playoff atmosphere?
> 
> please. we almost blew the pacers game sat. or weren't you watching?
> 
> if you would feel comfortable, like *slothslug* not having kirk play in the playoffs then i just am speechless. dumbstruck. out of words. it is beyond the realm of my understanding.


----------



## kukoc4ever

mizenkay said:


> aww come on! we're not talking about playing the craptors!! and maybe it just seemed like this to me, but the celtic kinda ran outta gas in the 4th of that game. you think it would be the same in a playoff atmosphere?
> 
> please. we almost blew the pacers game sat. or weren't you watching?
> 
> if you would feel comfortable, like *slothslug* not having kirk play in the playoffs then i just am speechless. dumbstruck. out of words. it is beyond the realm of my understanding.


I'm looking forward to Kirk's return and hope he's healthy for the playoffs.

But... out of Deng, Curry and Hinrich.... I'd be most comfortable with Hinrich out.

I think I'd pick Chandler and Gordon over him as well.


----------



## spongyfungy

3 games without Kirk is three games without Kirk and we won. Nothing more, nothing less. We've shown we can win without Kirk in those three games. It gets way too sticky when we start projecting how many wins we would have without him. There's no question that we need Kirk though down the stretch since we need as many bodies as possible. Duhon gets abused by the taller PG's. For example Boston game where they kept going to Gary and he kept posting up. They went away from him but if they didn't Boston would have won and as Larivee said, Kirk would have guarded Gary. We do need his defense.


----------



## Ron Cey

"Jamal Crawful"

I just wanted to get the thread back on track.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> What was our record during Deng’s injury list stint?


I don't know, 4-7? 



kukoc4ever said:


> I'll be the first to say its only been three games. But, at least for these three games, Hinrich has not been missed. In fact, we won one of the toughest games of the season against Boston without him.


We beat Seattle on the road without Deng. Boston was a tough game, but the Raptors and Pacers (without Miller and their coach, along with Artest and JO) aren't impressive at all really. The Hawks can handle those teams on some nights. I'd like to think we're better than the Hawks without Hinrich. 



kukoc4ever said:


> That being said, it nice to have him back tonight. We'll see if the team looks noticeably better... like it did when Deng and Curry returned.


I guess we'll see, but beating the Raptors, Pacers and Celtics is a lot different from beating the Grizzlies. The calibur of opponent tonight is better than it has been in the last three games, by a decent margin.


----------



## spongyfungy

bullsville said:


> You may be correct, but if so then Jamal has seemingly been misused his entire 5 year NBA career. It's always been the coach's fault, or lousy teammates, or "hidden agendas", but for some people it's never ever been "maybe Jamal isn't that great of a player?"
> 
> There have been lots and lots of really talented guys who basically went nowhere in the league for many, many different reasons. If I had to guess, Jamal's complete indifference on defense will be his major downfall (though not with the Knicks, nobody really plays a lot of defense on that team).


That's unfair to Jamal and closeminded. Jamal wasn't Jalenesque in his refusal to play defense nor was he indifferent. If Eddy has improved on defense with this team why couldn't have Jamal improved as well under Skiles system.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> I was more offended by the writer calling our Othella "Knicks Crap."
> 
> Pike is "Knicks Crap" by association since we traded a piece of "Knicks Crap" for him.
> 
> I'm offended and I'm finishing off a letter to the editor this afternoon.


Really? 

What, I guess it's only OK for YOU to call Othella "Knicks Crap"?
___________________________________

God bless you Dan Rosenbaum.

I wonder how many people on this board would go ape if the trade was Hinrich for Knicks crap vs *Crawford for Knicks crap* (ignoring CBA)?

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1426757&postcount=10


----------



## spongyfungy

PennyHardaway said:


> the knicks dont run jamal off screens like they used to. Jamal has 0 plays run for him, and thats why you see his shot attempts are mostly threes. its not like hes doing crossovers into fadaway three like back in the day, hes just shooting bad threes near the end of the shot clock cause marbury doesnt wanna mess up his FG percentage. you gotta play to a players strengths, not his weaknesses. they should run jamal off screens for open shots, and get him in some pick n roll situations to take the ball to the hoop, dont make him just a guy standing around doing nothing on offense


 I'll take your word for it since you've probably watched a ton on NY basketball compared to me (12 games or so)


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't know, 4-7?
> 
> I guess we'll see, but beating the Raptors, Pacers and Celtics is a lot different from beating the Grizzlies. The calibur of opponent tonight is better than it has been in the last three games, by a decent margin.


I disagree. The Grizzlies with a still gimpy Gasol at home are not a tougher match up than the red-hot Celtics were on the road.

IMO.


----------



## bullsville

Kukoc4Ever said:


> Trade him and JYD (BAD CONTRACT) for absolute crap and some saved money for Uncle Jerry.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1431529&postcount=33

So now Othella is "absolute crap"?


----------



## kukoc4ever

spongyfungy said:


> If Eddy has improved on defense with this team why couldn't have Jamal improved as well under Skiles system.



This is a great point. So many people gave up on Curry as a lost cause. No reason that Crawford would not have jumped on board. Seems like an impressionable fella.

Its so fun to watch Curry now... living up to the twin towers dream.


----------



## bullsville

spongyfungy said:


> That's unfair to Jamal and closeminded. Jamal wasn't Jalenesque in his refusal to play defense nor was he indifferent. If Eddy has improved on defense with this team why couldn't have Jamal improved as well under Skiles system.


Maybe he could have, we'll never know for sure.

All I can go by is the fact that in NY, he still isn't playing any defense.


----------



## bullsville

So now, Harrington is NOTHING?
_________________________



Kukoc4Ever said:


> As a Bulls fan, why should I be happy about trading a talented player that produces for absolutely NOTHING?


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1431726&postcount=46



> I'm upset about trading assets for nothing.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1432327&postcount=70


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. The Grizzlies with a still gimpy Gasol at home are not a tougher match up than the red-hot Celtics were on the road.
> 
> IMO.


The Celtics lost to the Knicks by 25 the game before the one against the Bulls, and they're on a three game losing streak.


----------



## bullsville

Sir Patchwork said:


> The Celtics lost to the Knicks by 25 the game before the one against the Bulls, and they're on a three game losing streak.


And we all know, 3 games can be quite telling. :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville

Kukoc4Ever said:


> Idiot move of trading Jamal for nothing.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1441222&postcount=114



> Not trades for more draft picks or, in the case of Jamal, NOTHING.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1443699&postcount=75



> Do you think it was wise to trade him for NOTHING?


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1449021&postcount=90



> This was my stance with Crawford as well. I made a fatal assumption that the Bulls would not be foolish enough to just let him go for nothing.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1531301&postcount=26


----------



## spongyfungy

*stop*


----------



## Vintage

Bullsville,

Digging up one post to prove your point was enough.

Continually digging up old posts from K4E proves is over the top. He has a different opinion than you. He is entitled to it. He isn't entitled to continual harassment from you, however.


----------



## bullsville

Vintage said:


> Bullsville,
> 
> Digging up one post to prove your point was enough.
> 
> Continually digging up old posts from K4E proves is over the top. He has a different opinion than you. He is entitled to it. He isn't entitled to continual harassment from you, however.


I'm not sure what opinion you are talking about? 



kukoc4ever said:


> I was more offended by the writer calling our Othella "Knicks Crap."
> 
> Pike is "Knicks Crap" by association since we traded a piece of "Knicks Crap" for him.
> 
> I'm offended and I'm finishing off a letter to the editor this afternoon.


I was just curious how he can be offended by a writer calling Othella "Knicks Crap", when he called Othella "crap" and "nothing" on many, many occasions?

Like I discussed with a mod in PM, I am here trying to talk about basketball. I assume that when I am coversing with someone or reading what someone writes, they are being sincere and not just talking out of their arse. I assume people aren't intentionally writing fiction, and I believe in accountability for what you post.

Since there are no expressed rules against flat-out lying, I should have kept my mouth shut. I already said that I would no longer discuss Hinrich with K4E because of what he kept doing this weekend, and I plan to stick to that. So I try to have another serious conversation in a thread that isn't about Kirk, and now I know better.

I take all the blame, and I apologize again for disrupting the thread and offending anyone who may have been offended. I've learned my lesson, some people just aren't interested in discussing basketball honestly and giving their honest opinions, and from now on I will avoid all such people.

Again, I apologize to anyone who was offended.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

madox said:


> "Jamal Crawful"
> 
> By Marc Berman, NY Post
> 
> <<< March 28, 2005 -- SAN FRANCISCO — Friday night in Seattle, Jamal Crawford talked about coming back to his hometown feeling different this time. After four years with the Bulls, Crawford said he was finally returning "in a winning situation."
> Winning situation? What an insult to all the Knick teams that actually won. Crawford must be confused. It's the Bulls, the club that allowed him to flee last summer in return for Knick junk, in the winning situation, six games above .500, vying for homecourt advantage.
> 
> If Crawford thinks he's in "a winning situation," the Knicks have greater problems at shooting guard than anyone imagined. >>>
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/43304.htm
> 
> EDIT: Can't make link work. Go to www.nypost.com, click on "sports."
> 
> 
> What an idiot.


*More Berman:*



> The lost season continues tonight in Golden State. If you blame Stephon Marbury for this mess, you'd be dead wrong. *This season was not lost at point guard. It was ruined at shooting guard, where Crawford did not live up to expectations and where Allan Houston's bizarre season brought the team down emotionally.*
> 
> Crawford is a better point guard than shooting guard — with a nice handle but streaky outside shot. He's been at 39 percent all season. *But the biggest disappointment with Crawford has been careless defense, perhaps because he's playing out of position, perhaps because he doesn't hustle.
> 
> 
> 
> If Crawford took more pride in his defense than in his pass-to-himself-off-the-backboard trick-play dunk, the Knicks would be a better team.*


ouchkabibbles


----------



## kukoc4ever

Most would agree that Crawford could stand to improve his defense.


----------



## GB

Vintage said:


> He isn't entitled to continual harassment from you, however.



I don't get it. K4E <B>trolls</b> for responses. He says things intentionally with the purpose of getting people riled up.

No less a person than Trueblue absolutely called him on the carpet for it.

And when people respond, and demand that he answer the sometimes outlandish and ridiculous charges that he makes, and keep him pinned until he answers them, posters and mods often come flying to his aid.

Whats the deal? Is he a cancer patient and this is his only form of outlet? Is he an old geezer? Is he an NBA insider? Why is he protected so much? He seems like he receives prefer-- never mind. 

If you put the words out there, you put your backside out there too. Thats the way the board works. If you don't want it kicked, be careful of what you say.

BTW...outstanding post in the "Hinrich" thread he started Trueblue.


----------



## bullsville

Someone just got repped.


----------



## remlover

Things are starting to go bad for Crawful. If you go to the Knicks board @ realgm they are starting to question Jamal. Not a fire just yet, but some sparks.

By the way, one thing im tired of hearing is how about how little basketball experience Jamal has. EVEN JAMAL IS USING THAT AS AN EXCUSE. Who cares if he onlyi played 2 yrs of HS ball and a year of college? The guy has been in the NBA for *5 F****** YEARS!!!!!!* .


----------



## The True Essence

speaking of othella, what the hell happended to Frank Williams. I loved that guy, as did 97 percent of Knick fans. Cant wait to bring him back to NY next year, im surprised you guys didnt use him at all this season. Yeah he looks fat, but he never relied on speed. he was a really smart player, despite his slowness, he got into the paint at will and always made something good happen in the paint. And he shoved Jason Kidd on the floor, that gives him bonus points.

and yeah, othella was a good post scorer. But were not really missing him. hes just a left handed mo taylor. im sure we miss the 3 million expiring deal of his. that would trim our payroll to 102 million.......... great........

were screwed until allan houstons deal expires, which is the same year jerome williams and mo taylor expire. thats literally like 45 million expiring that year. i think shandon andersons comes off the books that year too. until then, were gonna suck


----------



## GB

PennyHardaway said:


> were screwed until allan houstons deal expires, which is the same year jerome williams and mo taylor expire. thats literally like 45 million expiring that year. i think shandon andersons comes off the books that year too. until then, were gonna suck


What FA's will be available?


----------



## fleetwood macbull

I like Frank. every rare time I see him I like what he's doing out there.

On the Bulls though, the ethic is work work work, and apparently, he's being outworked. So others play in front of him. That may not be a talent decision, but a team mantra, that pays off in the big picture as an overall positive effect on team goals


----------



## The True Essence

its not like Frank is a really talented guy, hes just a really smart player. when hes in the paint your guaranteed 2 points whether its a layup or a dish. the knicks went 3-0 when he was starting, and we blew out miami 2 times and blew out orlando. When he played, the ball movement was great. hes a great floor leader, i was a little upset when we got steph cause i really liked frank starting



> What FA's will be available?


.....were still probably gonna be over the cap, but its gonna be alot more managable. we got 30 million coming off next year, but i expect either or both tim thomas and hardaway to be dealed for long term contracts.....probably on draft night. i see zeke trading our lottery pick.the draft looks weak at the knicks spot. so i think zekes gonna package the lottery pick with penny or TT for a player who wants to get off his team...


----------



## kukoc4ever

PennyHardaway said:


> its not like Frank is a really talented guy, hes just a really smart player. when hes in the paint your guaranteed 2 points whether its a layup or a dish. the knicks went 3-0 when he was starting, and we blew out miami 2 times and blew out orlando. When he played, the ball movement was great. hes a great floor leader, i was a little upset when we got steph cause i really liked frank starting


He was the star when I was at Illinois. Big fan of him. I wish they would play him as well... but we're pretty stocked at PG.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

PennyHardaway said:


> its not like Frank is a really talented guy, hes just a really smart player. when hes in the paint your guaranteed 2 points whether its a layup or a dish. the knicks went 3-0 when he was starting, and we blew out miami 2 times and blew out orlando. When he played, the ball movement was great. hes a great floor leader, i was a little upset when we got steph cause i really liked frank starting


he's smooth. I like everything about him. He must just be getting outworked


----------



## dkg1

PennyHardaway said:


> speaking of othella, what the hell happended to Frank Williams. I loved that guy, as did 97 percent of Knick fans. Cant wait to bring him back to NY next year, im surprised you guys didnt use him at all this season. Yeah he looks fat, but he never relied on speed. he was a really smart player, despite his slowness, he got into the paint at will and always made something good happen in the paint. And he shoved Jason Kidd on the floor, that gives him bonus points.
> 
> and yeah, othella was a good post scorer. But were not really missing him. hes just a left handed mo taylor. im sure we miss the 3 million expiring deal of his. that would trim our payroll to 102 million.......... great........
> 
> were screwed until allan houstons deal expires, which is the same year jerome williams and mo taylor expire. thats literally like 45 million expiring that year. i think shandon andersons comes off the books that year too. until then, were gonna suck


Frank's in a tough spot on this team playing behind some good young guards. I know Skiles was less than happy with the shape FWill came into camp in too.

That's a lot of money coming off the books. You would like to think free agents would find New York an attractive market to play in. God knows the Knicks won't be afraid to throw the money around. I hope for your sakes Isiah isn't the guy making decisions for you guys or you could be buried for another 10 years.


----------



## dkg1

I'm really posting in this thread a lot more than I should be. Just browsing the scores around the league and came across the NYK-GS boxscore. GS won 108-100. Sounds like a helluva matchup between Baron Davis and Stephon Marbury. BD scored 33 on 12-18 shooting to go with 9 assists, Marbury tallied 31 on 11 of 20 shooting to go with 8 assists. 

Somewhere RLucas is waking up with a huge chubby as Pietrus scored 17 points in 22 minutes. What impressed me about his statline is the kid got to the foul line 9 times in just 22 minutes! Nice.

The starting two guards, Jason Richardson and JC played to a stalemate. Jamal shot 4-13 (2 of 7 from 3 point line) for 13 points. He got to the line 3 times and had a very good 8 assists with only 1 T.O. JRich shot 4-12 (1 of 4 from 3 point land) and got to the line 6 times to score a total of 12 points. He had 6 assists. Did JC get any run at point guard?

I didn't see this game as I was watching the Bulls game and went to bed shortly after. Did it pretty much evolve into a Baron versus Marbury showdown? It may have been a blast to watch, but if it did turn into a 1 and 1 contest between the two pg's I think it may be a good reason why the Warriors have 25 wins and the Knick have 29 wins. Especially when you look at the success of the Bulls this year. I like the Bulls system as it seems to get everyone involved and provides balanced scoring.


----------



## dkg1

Normally I can't stand Peter Vescey and his "insider talk", but this is pure gold! Anytime someone piles on the Knicks or Isiah, it's worth bringing up (I've been a NYK and Zeke hata for nearly twenty years fwiw). Enjoy the article.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/41933.htm

my favorite part:

*In case you haven't already caught on to the above resource, stay tuned for additional "inside information" in the upcoming weeks and months: 

Utilizing the mid-level and ($1.6M) veteran exceptions, as well as sign-and-trade offers, Thomas also plans to pursue Ray Allen, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Donyell Marshall, Michael Redd, Joe Johnson, Larry Hughes, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Chris Duhon, Zaza Pachulia, Kwame Brown, Vladimir Radmanovic, Bobby Simmons, Marko Jaric, Samuel Dalembert, Kyle Korver, Cutino Mobley, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Udonis Haslem, Stromile Swift, Earl Watson, Bonzi Wells, Eddie Griffin, Latrell Sprewell, Raja Bell, Juan Dixon, Keith McLeod, Dan Gadzuric, Dan Dickau, Gerald Wallace, Reggie Evans, Jerome James, Flip Murray, Michael Ruffin and, of course, Eddie Robinson.*

this was also funny:


*Which brings us Shandon Anderson. Aside from last Saturday night's seven-minute, one-assist cameo, the deported small forward has played a vital role in the Heat's success. In 54 games, he's tightened up Stan Van Gundy's perimeter defense and averaged 4.2 points, shooting 47.5 percent in nearly 18 minutes. In Miami's swaggering home victory last Friday against the Suns, he totaled 10 points on 5-of-7 from the field. 



"I can't believe the Knicks are paying Shandon $6 million to contribute for us!" a Heat official exclaimed. 

The really bad news: Anderson remains on the Knicks' payroll ($6.733M and $7.244M) for another two seasons. 

The good news: John Amaechi ($1.2M) and Bruno Sundov (745G) come off the Knicks' cap July 1. * 

Keep it up Isiah! :clap:


----------



## GB

From the NYTimes today:



> In a rare show of impatience - or perhaps because he simply wanted to shake things up - Williams benched Jamal Crawford only 4 minutes and 46 seconds into the third quarter.
> 
> Crawford had missed his first two shots of the period and was replaced by Jermaine Jackson, who played the rest of the quarter and into the fourth.
> 
> It seemed to be a costly gamble. The Knicks were ahead by 3 points when Crawford sat down, and they trailed by 11 when he returned, with 9:19 left in the game.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/sports/basketball/29knicks.html


----------



## bullsville

Why do I get the feeling there will be a couple of Bulls fans sending angry e-mails to Herb Williams? :biggrin:


----------



## mizenkay

look you guys! jamal's 25th birthday party pictures! starring jamal, jay-z, stephon, paul pierce etc...

awwwww. make a wish!

:djparty: 




http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryLis...&str=&styp=&sfld=&nbc1=1&sortval=3a&PageNum=1


----------



## fleetwood macbull

dkg1 said:


> Normally I can't stand Peter Vescey and his "insider talk", but this is pure gold! Anytime someone piles on the Knicks or Isiah, it's worth bringing up (I've been a NYK and Zeke hata for nearly twenty years fwiw). Enjoy the article.
> 
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/41933.htm
> 
> my favorite part:
> 
> *In case you haven't already caught on to the above resource, stay tuned for additional "inside information" in the upcoming weeks and months:
> 
> Utilizing the mid-level and ($1.6M) veteran exceptions, as well as sign-and-trade offers, Thomas also plans to pursue Ray Allen, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Donyell Marshall, Michael Redd, Joe Johnson, Larry Hughes, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Chris Duhon, Zaza Pachulia, Kwame Brown, Vladimir Radmanovic, Bobby Simmons, Marko Jaric, Samuel Dalembert, Kyle Korver, Cutino Mobley, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Udonis Haslem, Stromile Swift, Earl Watson, Bonzi Wells, Eddie Griffin, Latrell Sprewell, Raja Bell, Juan Dixon, Keith McLeod, Dan Gadzuric, Dan Dickau, Gerald Wallace, Reggie Evans, Jerome James, Flip Murray, Michael Ruffin and, of course, Eddie Robinson.*
> 
> this was also funny:
> 
> 
> *Which brings us Shandon Anderson. Aside from last Saturday night's seven-minute, one-assist cameo, the deported small forward has played a vital role in the Heat's success. In 54 games, he's tightened up Stan Van Gundy's perimeter defense and averaged 4.2 points, shooting 47.5 percent in nearly 18 minutes. In Miami's swaggering home victory last Friday against the Suns, he totaled 10 points on 5-of-7 from the field.
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't believe the Knicks are paying Shandon $6 million to contribute for us!" a Heat official exclaimed.
> 
> The really bad news: Anderson remains on the Knicks' payroll ($6.733M and $7.244M) for another two seasons.
> 
> The good news: John Amaechi ($1.2M) and Bruno Sundov (745G) come off the Knicks' cap July 1. *
> 
> Keep it up Isiah! :clap:


gotta love Zeke. he thinks he can sign _anyone_ to the MLE if all these reports are true! Next up, reports out of NY say Shaq wants to opt out of his deal to be a Knick for the MLE. Any day now :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville

Jamal found his game tonight.

5-11 FG
5-11 3's
1-1 FT
2 reb
9 ast
1 stl
1 TO
16 points

16 points on 11 shots? 9 assists and only 1 TO? That's a max player, right?

Or a guy who stands behind the 3 point line all night, either shooting the 3 or passing to Marbury who was red hot from outside. The one turnover was when he drove the lane, he threw a pass out of bounds. But hey, most people only see the box score, and that's one hell of a line, I'm proud of you.


----------



## Shabadoo

bullsville said:


> Jamal found his game tonight.
> 
> 5-11 FG
> 5-11 3's
> 1-1 FT
> 2 reb
> 9 ast
> 1 stl
> 1 TO
> 16 points
> 
> 16 points on 11 shots? 9 assists and only 1 TO? That's a max player, right?
> 
> Or a guy who stands behind the 3 point line all night, either shooting the 3 or passing to Marbury who was red hot from outside. The one turnover was when he drove the lane, he threw a pass out of bounds. But hey, most people only see the box score, and that's one hell of a line, I'm proud of you.


After Crawford has the kind of game that everyone wants him to have, he still gets dissed. You and a few posters like you are exactly the reason I never post here. It is one thing to get riled up and diss Crawford when Kukoc subliminally disses Kirk, but it is another to invent reasons to slander someone after they have a nice game.

There are so many things wrong with this post it isn't funny. I won't even bother to address it directly, since I’m sure you didn’t mean it to be watertight, and probably put very little thought in to the ramifications of what you were saying.

Posts and posters like this are what I see as the dominant voice on this section of the site, though. This place is full of people who love to sling mud, but whine whenever they get a little dirty. This post is the absolute embodiment of what the Bulls site has become. Before anyone mentions the post count, yes, I have been lurking for a while, and I think I know this place fairly well.

As a somewhat detached observer, I think I have a fairly objective view of what goes on around here. What I see here is an utter contempt for Crawford, and one that is completely unfounded. Sure he has some flaws in his game, but nobody is denying that. Yes, even Kukoc has said on many an occasion that he isn't a perfect player, and that he is in fact far from perfect. He is just a fun guy to watch, and a fountain of untapped potential.

Kirk fans will claim that Crawford fans are continually lambasting Hinrich and rubbing any little accomplishment that Craw has in their faces. What I see is absolutely none of this. I see the exact opposite. Posts like the one above are exactly the sort that the dominant species of this site uses to call for battle. Unsubstantiated assertions and even ad hominem attacks are commonplace throughout the forum. Pre-emptive strikes are the norm, and in a Bush like way, you’re either with the Kirk fans or against them. There is no middle ground.

There’s almost a Napoleonic complex omnipresent in the posters of this Bulls forum. Kirk fans continually claim that Kirk is being bashed left and right by "haters" and fans that are not "real". What I see from the outside is an almost psychosomatic state of delusion. Seriously, how can everyone be against Kirk, when the majority of people at this entire site are Bulls fans, and the majority of the fans here are vocal Kirk supporters? It simply boggles the mind how anyone could have their judgement so clouded that they couldn't see this.

Kukoc and number of others who “hate” on Kirk are and were originally just pointing out flaws in Kirk’s game. Let’s face it, Kirk just isn’t that good. He is praised here as the holy trinity of Jib, bball IQ and effort. He is given his propers through thick and thin, through good and bad game. He is irreplaceable. He is never questioned by his loyal supporters, and if flaws are pointed out they are sure to be accompanied by several qualitative, unquantifiable shining attributes and esoteric calculations of just how important he is to this team. They bash other players for making Kirk look bad, and praise Kirk when they look good. Kirk is a good player, but again, he isn’t that good, nor is he the sole proponent of the Bulls rise to prominence.

Through this “blind” delusion and continual…..yes I’ll exaggerate and say suppression, by the Kirk majority, the Crawford fans eventually had had enough. And when I say fans, I mean a small handful of people who have continued to post through all the insanity. They started to post in the same manner as the Kirk fans: ad hominem assertions and unsubstantiated slander. So the flame wars began.

There is a mob mentality at work here that is dominating each and every facet of this forum. Nobody dares to criticise Hinrich, and when they do, the floodgates open and the Hinrites go after them. So many ludicrous comments are slung around here about players that don’t play “the right way” that I question how many of us really like watching basketball. I mean, seriously, gunners and dunkers are fun to watch, regardless of whether they are good for the team. The level of vitriol for the “And-1” type players is insane. C’mon, am I the only one who thinks they are fun to watch?

Case in point is my only encounter with Kirk fans at this forum. I made a post in the main forum comprised entirely of statistics, and I tried to remain impartial with a slight bit of sarcasm. Within a few hours, I had received about 10 posts from Kirk fans, politely telling me I was an idiot. I was even called a “blind hater” and not a “real” Bulls fan. Bear in mind I was using statistics, and had made it clear that I don’t get to watch Kirk, due to living in Australia, and thus couldn’t provide the full picture.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some great posters here. Two posters who I won’t name (but they know who they are), responded civilly and logically to my posts. While my appreciation of Hinrich isn’t the same as theirs, we more or less came to some agreement. They remained fairly objective, and we had a good debate.

I don’t want to name names here. That would not be constructive, and it would arouse unnecessary bad blood. This may look like an all out assault on Bullsville, but it isn’t. This is an exposition of my feelings as an objective observer. I will no doubt be slandered in the coming hours. My Bulls fandom will be called in to question, and I’ll be forever aligned with Crawford and Kukoc. All of the aforementioned prose will be dismissed as the lunacy of a blind hater.

The saga continues.


----------



## lgtwins

You were right in a way and you were wrong on another count. I have pointed out this before and bashed for attacking poster instead of talking about basketball but here is my serious belief why this particular thread has become of like this.

A lot of so-called Jamal hater doesn’t really hate Jamal. They actually can't stand pro-Jamal poster especially on this thread. Of course you can talk all you want about former Bulls player and I am not saying that is wrong or anything. My point is that clearly Jamal had so many supporters here as well as so-called haters but he had moved on. And I can guarantee that so-called hater could care less about how Jamal was doing for Knicks.

The very reason this thread was being created and grew this far is that so-called Jamal supporter's hidden intention (not so well-hidden at all) to rub Bulls and Bulls fan's face when we were down early in the season. Again, they had all the right to complain and criticize Bulls' decision to let him go and I can totally understand if Bulls let my favorite player go despite my desire against it. But they clearly didn't stop there. They clearly tried to stick a finger up in fellow Bulls fans' nose. The tone of initial Jamal supporters' opinion (not every Jamal fan, but certainly those few who was and is pushing their own agenda) here on this forum was contemptuous to other fellow fans. Even one particular poster come up with his own signature with all out intention to ridicule our early horrible start and Knicks relatively good start (You all know who has this signature saying hey , look how many win Knick has and Bulls win how many? ...!!!!).

What I am trying to say is that this seemingly all out hate toward Jamal is in fact hate toward some Jamal posters. And blame should be equally shared between both sides. In a way, so-called Jamal haters had to bear all those legitimate and sometimes ridiculous excuse that Jamal supporters came up with all the last 4 years. You had to be around especially last 2 years to really understand how things were. They really made it right there was nothing Jamal could do wrong the way they defended him.


I am even wondering if there weren’t thread like this then so-called Haters probably don't even bother to talk about Jamal. But of course we have this thread and it had started with clearly wrong intention from Jamal supporters and that is the main reason this saga continues.

So early it was Jamal supporters trying to stick their finger in Haters' nose and recently with tide turn for both teams, the other way around is what's happening here now. In the end any blame has to go around both ways. Both sides have to admit their own misconduct or not-so-fair intention to prevent this bickering from continuing. 

Otherwise we probably better off with this particular thread being locked up. Enough already, I think. 

Since anybody can start another thread like this right back, we'd all better tone it down and try to be more civic about it. (Although one thing I learned from browsing this forum for the last 2 years is that you can bark, talk, scream, and yell all you want to convert opposite opinion. I have yet to see one person actually succeeding to convert another opinion when both sides came from opposite end.) 

So am I asking for the impossible? 

As we stand (us heading for the playoff and Knick where they are) as of now, I guess we have to start from not bashing Jamal when he hasn't done anything to provoke this reaction here. And hope that the other side comes along as well. Peace.


----------



## dkg1

Shabadoo said:


> Posts and posters like this are what I see as the dominant voice on this section of the site, though. This place is full of people who love to sling mud, but whine whenever they get a little dirty. This post is the absolute embodiment of what the Bulls site has become. Before anyone mentions the post count, yes, I have been lurking for a while, and I think I know this place fairly well.
> 
> 
> There is a mob mentality at work here that is dominating each and every facet of this forum. Nobody dares to criticise Hinrich, and when they do, the floodgates open and the Hinrites go after them. So many ludicrous comments are slung around here about players that don’t play “the right way” that I question how many of us really like watching basketball. I mean, seriously, gunners and dunkers are fun to watch, regardless of whether they are good for the team. The level of vitriol for the “And-1” type players is insane. C’mon, am I the only one who thinks they are fun to watch?
> .



Shabby, you may have been lurking a while on this board and if you were you would truly understand LGTwins post below yours. I personally think Jamal's a nice guy and agree with him when he says most posters don't really hate on Jamal but the guys who were so over the top in support of him. When we sucked, there were many difficult times on this board due to rival factions of take your pick of a player fans(JC, JWill, Kirk fans) attacking each other. Jamal had a huge group of supporters here who attacked and blatantly rooted against Jay Williams and Kirk Hinrich. Hell, this year there were clearly fans (mostly pro JC posters) who ridiculed the selection of Ben Gordon. Go through the archives and look at all of the "Gentle" Ben comments JC-ites were making and all of the cheap shots they took at Ben early on when he was struggling. It seemed like there were Bulls fans and then there were JC fans. I remember one longtime poster saying he couldn't wait for JC to comeback and tear the Bulls up when they played the Knicks. Several fans who were so over the top in their support of Jamal quit cheering for the team or have leftthe board in shame. 



When you talk about a "mob mentality" remember that this is a "Bulls" message board and the player this thread is about is no longer playing for "our" team. Also if someone is going to take cheapshots at our leading scorer on our first playoff team in years, it probably will not go over well. I'm all for improving our team in any way possible even if it means trading Kirk. But you do have to sometimes question the timing and intentions of some of the threads that pop up here from time to time.

I find your comment about "the right way" amusing. If you truly were lurking here you would recall at the beginning of this season the beating "the right way" took. It's even in someone's signature. Do you think he was initially being complimentary when he was putting "the right way" and question marks after each loss the Bulls had? The "right way" is basically the style Pax and Skiles want from attitude to effort. Several "Bulls fans" mocked Pax for getting rid of "talented" players his first couple years and bringing in guys who would bust their asses and be positive influences on a young team. Does Othella ***** when he scores 20 and 10 one game and gets 5 minutes of playing time the next game? Do we have vets who get put on the bench in favor of younger players and complain? He cleaned house on this type of player and the attitude and record reflects the dividends it's paid. I'm going off topic a little more than I should but long story short, many Bulls fans threw the "Right Way" back in the posters faces who ridiculed that philosophy. "And1" is the anti "Right Way". I'll admit that I enjoy watching a good dunk and a crossover that breaks a defenders ankle (as long as it doesn't result in the dribbler shooting a 24 foot jumper as opposed to getting to the basket). However there are some people who would prefer a player who has a sikkk crossover and is not well rounded as opposed to a soild, all around player who gets the job done.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

dkg1 said:


> Shabby, you may have been lurking a while on this board and if you were you would truly understand LGTwins post below yours. I personally think Jamal's a nice guy and agree with him when he says most posters don't really hate on Jamal but the guys who were so over the top in support of him. When we sucked, there were many difficult times on this board due to rival factions of take your pick of a player fans(JC, JWill, Kirk fans) attacking each other. Jamal had a huge group of supporters here who attacked and blatantly rooted against Jay Williams and Kirk Hinrich. Hell, this year there were clearly fans (mostly pro JC posters) who ridiculed the selection of Ben Gordon. Go through the archives and look at all of the "Gentle" Ben comments JC-ites were making and all of the cheap shots they took at Ben early on when he was struggling. It seemed like there were Bulls fans and then there were JC fans. I remember one longtime poster saying he couldn't wait for JC to comeback and tear the Bulls up when they played the Knicks. Several fans who were so over the top in their support of Jamal quit cheering for the team or have leftthe board in shame.


I think this entire paragraph basically proves his point.I would ove to read one of the examples of any regular poster on here who was "over the top" when it comes to jamal and his game .Im willing to bet that everyone of them has admitted countless times he is a flawed player and has tons of work to do on his game .What else needs to be said after that ? 

No one has touted jamal as a mvp candidate but the way but posters fight tooth and nail against anything positive being said about jamal you would think they did .Its as if they magnify everything someone says positive about jamals game so they can go overboard about his negatives.

This thread is this long not because of outrageous declarations of love for Jamals game but because of certain posters who are making sure nothing positive gets said about jamal games period .Its like some of these posters are saying Jamal sucks and if you dont believe that then you _must _ believe hes a superstar because I cant rag on him endlessly without looking like a fool unless you do .Oh so you dont believe that well Ill just post as if you do.

Every player in the nba has there flaws and Jamal is one of them and I dont think anyone who likes his game believes otherwise.But hey you cant go to war unless you create impression that there are weapons of mass destruction there right ?


----------



## dkg1

TRUTHHURTS said:


> This thread is this long not because of outrageous declarations of love for Jamals game but because of certain posters who are making sure nothing positive gets said about jamal games period .Its like some of these posters are saying Jamal sucks and if you dont believe that then you _must _ believe hes a superstar because I cant rag on him endlessly without looking like a fool unless you do .Oh so you dont believe that well Ill just post as if you do.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> By and large I've been on the "anti JC" side, however I still give Jamal credit when he plays well. I believe I complimented him the other day when he had 8 assists and only 1 turnover. Again, my problem is not with Jamal so much as the people who wanted to see the Bulls fall flat on their faces without him. There are posters on both sides of the issue who are over the top and will defend their guys with blinders on. If Jamal and the Knicks were having the season many thought he would have, the majority of the posts over the last couple months would be anti-Chicago and pro-Jamal. However the Knicks and Jamal are not (mostly the Knicks) are not living up to expectations and thus there hasn't been as much positive to say about him. I will agree with you that there are a few guys who like to continually come here and dump on JC and when he plays soft he opens himself up to that criticism. The best way to shut up the hatas is to perform and win games, until then there's not a lot of positive things to say.
> 
> As I've stated several times before, I think it is in the best interest of this board to slide this thread over to the Knick board once the season is over or close it. Sorry for the rambling post, I'm in a hurry and need to go out and do some running around so I didn't have much time to think about things too long, just wanted to quickly respond to your post. I'll try to respond to more of your post later in the morning or afternoon.


----------



## bullsville

Shabadoo said:


> After Crawford has the kind of game that everyone wants him to have, he still gets dissed.


That was the first line of your post, and that's where the innacuracy started.

JC *didn't* have the kind of game that everyone wants him to have. If you had actually read my post, you would see that all he did the entire game was stand outside the 3-point line and chuck. When he didn't, he didn't penetrate, he stayed outside the 3-point line and did a few fancy dribbles, then threw the ball to Marbury. The one TO he did get was on the only time the entire game I saw him drive to the hole, he went up in the air with 4 Lakers around him and tried to pass off when he had no shot and couldn't throw the ball off the backboard to himself. It was ugly.

Your erroneous assumption that JC had "the kind of game that everyone wants him to have" was exactly the point of my post. If you look at the box score, it doesn't look bad. That's how most people judge a player, then argue that he had "the kind of game that everyone wants him to have" even though they have no clue because they didn't watch the game. If you actually watched the game, though, Jamal had about as much impact as you or I. If you don't believe me, ask a Knick or Laker fan, they'll tell you the exact same thing. 

The Laker announcers were ripping on him the whole game, not for his talent but his total cluelessness when it comes to knowing how to play the game. But at least with the Knicks, "defense" and "playing the right way" is just some ancient style the Knicks used back in the '70s (when they actually won a few NBA Titles).


----------



## badfish

bullsville said:


> That was the first line of your post, and that's where the innacuracy started.
> 
> JC *didn't* have the kind of game that everyone wants him to have. If you had actually read my post, you would see that all he did the entire game was stand outside the 3-point line and chuck. When he didn't, he didn't penetrate, he stayed outside the 3-point line and did a few fancy dribbles, then threw the ball to Marbury. The one TO he did get was on the only time the entire game I saw him drive to the hole, he went up in the air with 4 Lakers around him and tried to pass off when he had no shot and couldn't throw the ball off the backboard to himself. It was ugly.
> 
> Your erroneous assumption that JC had "the kind of game that everyone wants him to have" was exactly the point of my post. If you look at the box score, it doesn't look bad. That's how most people judge a player, then argue that he had "the kind of game that everyone wants him to have" even though they have no clue because they didn't watch the game. If you actually watched the game, though, Jamal had about as much impact as you or I. If you don't believe me, ask a Knick or Laker fan, they'll tell you the exact same thing.
> 
> The Laker announcers were ripping on him the whole game, not for his talent but his total cluelessness when it comes to knowing how to play the game. But at least with the Knicks, "defense" and "playing the right way" is just some ancient style the Knicks used back in the '70s (when they actually won a few NBA Titles).



I have to second this post. My bet is that Shabadoo didn't see the game. I really don't understand why Crawford just stands around waiting for the spot up three so much. Despite the fact that we have four years of experience to know that Craw shies away from contact, I think that is the role the Knicks have designed for him, which is absolutely mind-boggling. Crawford is not a pure shooter a la Korver. He's a scorer that needs to create shots for himself which in turn should create for others by breaking a defense down.

I just don't think Crawford and Marbury are a good fit in the backcourt for big minutes. And I don't just mean because of the sieve defense. Crawford is a somewhat dynamic scorer that is average in the "clutchness" department and below average defense. I say somewhat because I think he's a level below the Carters and Pierces of the world. Craw's skills can be maximized somewhere, but not in NY as it is presently constituted. I think a better fit would be a team with a low post presence but no real perimeter scoring threat outside of a spot-up pure shooter. Problem is that there are too many NBA teams that already have a no-defense, scorer that needs to dominate the ball. Perhaps charlotte or Atlanta would be good fits.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Id say the neither Badfish nor Bullsville saw the game or either just being dishonest because only one of Crawfords assists went to marbury so the "he just stood around and picked up assists off of Marburys hot nigh is about as misleading as you can get.

He also started the game penetrating and getting into the lane drawing the defense and kicking it out .

The 3's he took all but one he was WIDEOPEN off of good ball movement if you watched any knicks games this season since Herb took over they mostly run a lot of isolations plays and 2 man games with jamal in the opposite corner and whe the double team comes the simply rotate the ball to him and hes WIDEOPEN most of the time.So this particular game when its said jamal was standing around "chucking " and getting assists off of Marbury its 100% misleading unless you didnt watch the game in which then how can you comment on someone play by reading the boxscore .


----------



## GB

Shabadoo said:


> I will no doubt be slandered in the coming hours. My Bulls fandom will be called in to question, and I’ll be forever aligned with Crawford and Kukoc. All of the aforementioned prose will be dismissed as the lunacy of a blind hater.


You should post more often. You've got the guns to make this thread fun again.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Id say the neither Badfish nor Bullsville saw the game or either just being dishonest because only one of Crawfords assists went to marbury so the "he just stood around and picked up assists off of Marburys hot nigh is about as misleading as you can get.
> 
> He also started the game penetrating and getting into the lane drawing the defense and kicking it out .



You know...it's really starting not to matter anymore. 5 years in the league, on his second team, and they want to upgrade at the position he plays at.

For all his talent, he'll probably never reach his potential. He has to hope now that he can get into a team like Charlotte or a position similer to Roses in Toronto where he can have free run to become whatever kind of scorer he can become. He's becoming systemized...subject to a system, instead of having a system wrapped around him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> You know...it's really starting not to matter anymore. 5 years in the league, on his second team, and they want to upgrade at the position he plays at.
> 
> For all his talent, he'll probably never reach his potential.


Probably true, unless he decides for himself that he wants to become the greatest player he can be. 

As of right now, it looks like he's content to live in NYC and enjoy the "good life." More power to him I guess.... many other multi-millionaires have decided the same. 

That Knicks team is crap right now. Not a good place to learn the values of hard working, winning basketball.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Having seen a couple of Jamal's games lately, I think he's searching for balance in his tendencies. The Jamal we saw last year barely met a shot he didn't like. That's how he started out with the Knicks, too. Now he's trying not to shoot too much, but in doing so, he's become pretty invisible on the floor. Against the Warriors the other night, I kept thinking he was out of the game in the 2nd half because he was literally standing in the corner doing nothing on offense and doing nothing to distinguish himself on defense.

If Jamal can figure out how to be more judicious in his shot attempts, but also make his presence felt in other aspects of the game, he'll be much better for it. To his credit, I think he's trying. And also, he's rotating the ball and setting up other teammates for more shots now, which is showing in his nice assist numbers and low TOs. He's finding Marbury cutting or one of the Thomases for midrange shots quite a bit.


----------



## Mr. T

Shabadoo said:


> After Crawford has the kind of game that everyone wants him to have, he still gets dissed. You and a few posters like you are exactly the reason I never post here. It is one thing to get riled up and diss Crawford when Kukoc subliminally disses Kirk, but it is another to invent reasons to slander someone after they have a nice game.
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this post it isn't funny. I won't even bother to address it directly, since I’m sure you didn’t mean it to be watertight, and probably put very little thought in to the ramifications of what you were saying.
> 
> Posts and posters like this are what I see as the dominant voice on this section of the site, though. This place is full of people who love to sling mud, but whine whenever they get a little dirty. This post is the absolute embodiment of what the Bulls site has become. Before anyone mentions the post count, yes, I have been lurking for a while, and I think I know this place fairly well.
> 
> As a somewhat detached observer, I think I have a fairly objective view of what goes on around here. What I see here is an utter contempt for Crawford, and one that is completely unfounded. Sure he has some flaws in his game, but nobody is denying that. Yes, even Kukoc has said on many an occasion that he isn't a perfect player, and that he is in fact far from perfect. He is just a fun guy to watch, and a fountain of untapped potential.
> 
> Kirk fans will claim that Crawford fans are continually lambasting Hinrich and rubbing any little accomplishment that Craw has in their faces. What I see is absolutely none of this. I see the exact opposite. Posts like the one above are exactly the sort that the dominant species of this site uses to call for battle. Unsubstantiated assertions and even ad hominem attacks are commonplace throughout the forum. Pre-emptive strikes are the norm, and in a Bush like way, you’re either with the Kirk fans or against them. There is no middle ground.
> 
> There’s almost a Napoleonic complex omnipresent in the posters of this Bulls forum. Kirk fans continually claim that Kirk is being bashed left and right by "haters" and fans that are not "real". What I see from the outside is an almost psychosomatic state of delusion. Seriously, how can everyone be against Kirk, when the majority of people at this entire site are Bulls fans, and the majority of the fans here are vocal Kirk supporters? It simply boggles the mind how anyone could have their judgement so clouded that they couldn't see this.
> 
> Kukoc and number of others who “hate” on Kirk are and were originally just pointing out flaws in Kirk’s game. Let’s face it, Kirk just isn’t that good. He is praised here as the holy trinity of Jib, bball IQ and effort. He is given his propers through thick and thin, through good and bad game. He is irreplaceable. He is never questioned by his loyal supporters, and if flaws are pointed out they are sure to be accompanied by several qualitative, unquantifiable shining attributes and esoteric calculations of just how important he is to this team. They bash other players for making Kirk look bad, and praise Kirk when they look good. Kirk is a good player, but again, he isn’t that good, nor is he the sole proponent of the Bulls rise to prominence.
> 
> Through this “blind” delusion and continual…..yes I’ll exaggerate and say suppression, by the Kirk majority, the Crawford fans eventually had had enough. And when I say fans, I mean a small handful of people who have continued to post through all the insanity. They started to post in the same manner as the Kirk fans: ad hominem assertions and unsubstantiated slander. So the flame wars began.
> 
> There is a mob mentality at work here that is dominating each and every facet of this forum. Nobody dares to criticise Hinrich, and when they do, the floodgates open and the Hinrites go after them. So many ludicrous comments are slung around here about players that don’t play “the right way” that I question how many of us really like watching basketball. I mean, seriously, gunners and dunkers are fun to watch, regardless of whether they are good for the team. The level of vitriol for the “And-1” type players is insane. C’mon, am I the only one who thinks they are fun to watch?
> 
> Case in point is my only encounter with Kirk fans at this forum. I made a post in the main forum comprised entirely of statistics, and I tried to remain impartial with a slight bit of sarcasm. Within a few hours, I had received about 10 posts from Kirk fans, politely telling me I was an idiot. I was even called a “blind hater” and not a “real” Bulls fan. Bear in mind I was using statistics, and had made it clear that I don’t get to watch Kirk, due to living in Australia, and thus couldn’t provide the full picture.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong, there are some great posters here. Two posters who I won’t name (but they know who they are), responded civilly and logically to my posts. While my appreciation of Hinrich isn’t the same as theirs, we more or less came to some agreement. They remained fairly objective, and we had a good debate.
> 
> I don’t want to name names here. That would not be constructive, and it would arouse unnecessary bad blood. This may look like an all out assault on Bullsville, but it isn’t. This is an exposition of my feelings as an objective observer. I will no doubt be slandered in the coming hours. My Bulls fandom will be called in to question, and I’ll be forever aligned with Crawford and Kukoc. All of the aforementioned prose will be dismissed as the lunacy of a blind hater.
> 
> The saga continues.


So you want to portray yourself as a fair chap while you're essentially taking your shots at Bush, Hinrich and the posters here. Anyone who replies shall be vilified? 

Looks like you'll fit right in with everybody else here. Welcome aboard.


----------



## bullsville

> Id say the neither Badfish nor Bullsville saw the game or either just being dishonest because *only one of Crawfords assists went to marbury*



I didn't see the entire game, about 3/4 I would say.

1st Quarter
9:45 Marbury jumper assist Crawford

2nd Quarter
none

3rd Quarter
10:47 Marbury 3 assist Crawford
3:30 Marbury 3 assist Crawford
0:28 Marbury 3 assist Crawford

4th Quarter
none

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=250329013&period=0

*Who* didn't watch the game?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> So you want to portray yourself as a fair chap while you're essentially taking your shots at Bush, Hinrich and the posters here. Anyone who replies shall be vilified?
> 
> Looks like you'll fit right in with everybody else here. Welcome aboard.


It is possible to be fair and to have an opinion slightly different from the mainstream.

I thought his points about "ad hominem" were particularly insightful.


----------



## madox

Crawford is a gimp. 

I dont wanna say retarded, but does anyone think he might be "mentally challenged."

"It's nice to finally be in a winning situation..."-JC :laugh: :laugh:

What a boob. 

And in case anyone forgot, he also sucks.


----------



## bullsville

Mr. T said:


> So you want to portray yourself as a fair chap while you're essentially taking your shots at Bush, Hinrich and the posters here. Anyone who replies shall be vilified?
> 
> Looks like you'll fit right in with everybody else here. Welcome aboard.



:clap:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> You know...it's really starting not to matter anymore. 5 years in the league, on his second team, and they want to upgrade at the position he plays at.
> 
> For all his talent, he'll probably never reach his potential. He has to hope now that he can get into a team like Charlotte or a position similer to Roses in Toronto where he can have free run to become whatever kind of scorer he can become. He's becoming systemized...subject to a system, instead of having a system wrapped around him.



You talked to Isiah ? Wow What else did he say ?Do you know who they are drafting ?What was said at the stockholders meetings ?Is Dolan going to sell Voom ?


----------



## Mr. T

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I think this entire paragraph basically proves his point.I would ove to read one of the examples of any regular poster on here who was "over the top" when it comes to jamal and his game .Im willing to bet that everyone of them has admitted countless times he is a flawed player and has tons of work to do on his game .What else needs to be said after that ?


Priceless! :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Mr. T

kukoc4ever said:


> It is possible to be fair and to have an opinion slightly different from the mainstream.
> 
> I thought his points about "ad hominem" were particularly insightful.


"Fair" is always easier to acknowledge, when it affirms your own pov.


----------



## bullsville

Mr. T said:


> "Fair" is always easier to acknowledge, when it affirms your own pov.


LOL.

Fox News: 'Fair' and Balanced


----------



## badfish

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Id say the neither Badfish nor Bullsville saw the game or either just being dishonest because only one of Crawfords assists went to marbury so the "he just stood around and picked up assists off of Marburys hot nigh is about as misleading as you can get.
> 
> He also started the game penetrating and getting into the lane drawing the defense and kicking it out .
> 
> The 3's he took all but one he was WIDEOPEN off of good ball movement if you watched any knicks games this season since Herb took over they mostly run a lot of isolations plays and 2 man games with jamal in the opposite corner and whe the double team comes the simply rotate the ball to him and hes WIDEOPEN most of the time.So this particular game when its said jamal was standing around "chucking " and getting assists off of Marbury its 100% misleading unless you didnt watch the game in which then how can you comment on someone play by reading the boxscore .


The point I tried to make is that Crawford is standing around the three-point line more than I believe he should. I think he's being used improperly or he's a bad fit for the Knicks. Nowhere did I say he *never* drives to the basket. In fact, there do seem to be stretches of games where he does try to drive and create. IMO, he doesn't do this consistently enough.

Also, I'm not even disputing whether or not his 3 pt. shots were WIDEOPEN. He's not a pure shooter. His 3 pt. % bears that out. He needs to create instead of being a 3 pt. specialist.

Next time you decide to invoke my name about a post I wrote, I'd appreciate it if you read the flipping thing.

:cheers:

EDIT: Took out my first two sentences regarding how many Crawford shots were assisted by Marbury . LIESHURT was referring to the shots taken by Marbury. My mistake. Bullsville correctly pointed out the error.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> I didn't see the entire game, about 3/4 I would say.
> 
> 1st Quarter
> 9:45 Marbury jumper assist Crawford
> 
> 2nd Quarter
> none
> 
> 3rd Quarter
> 10:47 Marbury 3 assist Crawford
> 3:30 Marbury 3 assist Crawford
> 0:28 Marbury 3 assist Crawford
> 
> 4th Quarter
> none
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=250329013&period=0
> 
> *Who* didn't watch the game?



I did watch the entire game although I didnt count the 3rd quarter assists but thats makes 4 of his 9 to Marbury but how does that explain this .



bullsville said:


> JC didn't have the kind of game that everyone wants him to have. If you had actually read my post, you would see that all he did the entire game was stand outside the 3-point line and chuck. When he didn't, he didn't penetrate, he stayed outside the 3-point line and did a few fancy dribbles, then threw the ball to Marbury


If you saw the game then you saw him drive the lane draw defenders and dish to jackson for a layup . Your over the top evaluations are hilarious. As I said before the guys post was spot on say anything remotely positive about Jamal Crawford and here comes the posse to make sure its shot down no matter how much the have to exaggerate to get the job done .


----------



## bullsville

badfish said:


> Well, in the interest of defending my honesty (  ), it was actually two shots assisted out of 5 by Marbury. Plus, at leat a couple of his missed three-pointers came off passes from Marbury. But, I could give a rat's *** about who's assisting him. The point I tried to make is that Crawford is standing around the three-point line more than I believe he should. I think he's being used improperly or he's a bad fit for the Knicks. Nowhere did I say he *never* drives to the basket. In fact, there do seem to be stretches of games where he does try to drive and create. IMO, he doesn't do this consistently enough.
> 
> Also, I'm not even disputing whether or not his 3 pt. shots were WIDEOPEN. He's not a pure shooter. His 3 pt. % bears that out. He needs to create instead of being a 3 pt. specialist.
> 
> Next time you decide to invoke my name about a post I wrote, I'd appreciate it if you read the flipping thing.
> 
> :cheers:


I wouldn't worry, when someone resorts to blatantly making up "facts", you obviously can't take their criticisms to heart.



TRUTHHURTS said:


> only one of Crawfords assists went to marbury


Sure, everyone stretches the truth and/or exaggerates to make their point. But if you are going to flat-out make something up, it probably shouldn't be something that can easily be proven to be a bold-faced lie.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

badfish said:


> The point I tried to make is that Crawford is standing around the three-point line more than I believe he should. I think he's being used improperly or he's a bad fit for the Knicks. Nowhere did I say he *never* drives to the basket. In fact, there do seem to be stretches of games where he does try to drive and create. IMO, he doesn't do this consistently enough.
> 
> Also, I'm not even disputing whether or not his 3 pt. shots were WIDEOPEN. He's not a pure shooter. His 3 pt. % bears that out. He needs to create instead of being a 3 pt. specialist.
> 
> Next time you decide to invoke my name about a post I wrote, I'd appreciate it if you read the flipping thing.
> 
> :cheers:



I did read it and you said 



badfish said:


> I have to second this post


If you didnt agree with all he said in his post why did you say you did ?

I read it I think its back to did you ?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Probably true, unless he decides for himself that he wants to become the greatest player he can be.


Even if he did, coaches around the league are going to keep a tight reign on him now. He's done it to himself.



> As of right now, it looks like he's content to live in NYC and enjoy the "good life."


So you're admitting laziness is a Crawford problem? Good for you.



> That Knicks team is crap right now. Not a good place to learn the values of hard working, winning basketball.


Stop making excuses for him. It's been 5 years, and Tyson and Eddy seemed to have learned the lesson very well.


----------



## badfish

bullsville said:


> I wouldn't worry, when someone resorts to blatantly making up "facts", you obviously can't take their criticisms to heart.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, everyone stretches the truth and/or exaggerates to make their point. But if you are going to flat-out make something up, it probably shouldn't be something that can easily be proven to be a bold-faced lie.


Yes, but unfortunately in his case, the TRUTHHURTS.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> You talked to Isiah ?


Yes.



> Wow What else did he say ?


He said a lot of Crawford fans on the Bulls boards are 5 pennies short of making change for a nickel.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> I wouldn't worry, when someone resorts to blatantly making up "facts", you obviously can't take their criticisms to heart.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, everyone stretches the truth and/or exaggerates to make their point. But if you are going to flat-out make something up, it probably shouldn't be something that can easily be proven to be a bold-faced lie.


I made a mistake on the numbers and openly admit that I missed the 3rd quarter when I went back though the play by play but Im not out here just lying like some are doing trying to get there point across. Its gettin gto the point where you can see whats coming with some people before they even post.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

badfish said:


> Yes, but unfortunately in his case, the TRUTHHURTS.


It sure does especially when you dont even read what you write or what someone else writes that you agree with .


----------



## GB

You want a real conspiracy?

Why hasn't this thread been locked or moved to a more appropriate forum?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> , and Tyson and Eddy seemed to have learned the lesson very well.


Exactly my point. A winning atmosphere can do wonders.

So many people here ripped Curry a new one. Now they are riding his jock. 

Its comical.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> You want a real conspiracy?
> 
> Why hasn't this thread been locked or moved to a more appropriate forum?


because then we wouldnt be able to read your posts or have to go to the other forum to read them :biggrin: .


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> You want a real conspiracy?
> 
> Why hasn't this thread been locked or moved to a more appropriate forum?


Why don't you stop posting in it?


----------



## badfish

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I did read it and you said
> 
> 
> 
> If you didnt agree with all he said in his post why did you say you did ?
> 
> I read it I think its back to did you ?


Yes I did and perhaps I should have excluded one sentence that was written as an absolute but probably not intended to be taken literally. At least I didn't take it that way. The essence of the post I wholeheartedly agree with, but I realize "essence" is subjective.

I'm curious. Do you think Crawford is being used in a way to maximize his talents? I made this point in my posts but you've completely disregarded it and somehow thought I was calling him a chucker, hence by doubt that you've read my posts.


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> If you saw the game then you saw him drive the lane draw defenders and dish to jackson for a layup . Your over the top evaluations are hilarious. As I said before the guys post was spot on say anything remotely positive about Jamal Crawford and here comes the posse to make sure its shot down no matter how much the have to exaggerate to get the job done .


Like I said, I didn't see the entire game, only about 3/4 of it. But you are right, I did miss the dish to Jackson for the layup. I am so ashamed. 

But as long as all of Jamal's are happy, I certainly couldn't be more thrilled.

I guess I am just confused, I'm still trying to figure out how the Bulls are so damned good this year when we traded away a great player like Jamal for NOTHING.


----------



## BealeFarange

I...uh...

Sigh. 

(//Beale Continues online shopping for S.Carter Basketball Mids...)


----------



## badfish

TRUTHHURTS said:


> It sure does especially when you dont even read what you write or what someone else writes that you agree with .


Wow, I took the bait. I'm actually trapped in this meaningless debate. I'm so ashamed. Peace!


----------



## Mr. T

BealeFarange said:


> I...uh...
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> (//Beale Continues online shopping for S.Carter Basketball Mids...)


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

badfish said:


> Yes I did and perhaps I should have excluded one sentence that was written as an absolute but probably not intended to be taken literally. At least I didn't take it that way. The essence of the post I wholeheartedly agree with, but I realize "essence" is subjective.
> 
> I'm curious. Do you think Crawford is being used in a way to maximize his talents? I made this point in my posts but you've completely disregarded it and somehow thought I was calling him a chucker, hence by doubt that you've read my posts.


Not everything in my post was directed toward your comments but just some of the exaggerating that was done in the post that you agreed with some use when it comes to jamal.

I dont think Jamal is being used the right way offensively although I do think that some of the other stuff thats coming along with it is helping him .I think what he needs is stability which is what Curry and chandler received this year with Skiles.

Also and this aint directed at you Badfish but chuckers are generally are referred to as player who need to take a lot of shot to get their points so when a player shoots 45% from 3 and 5-11 thats normally considered pretty good but when its jamal its still considered chucking ?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Like I said, I didn't see the entire game, only about 3/4 of it. But you are right, I did miss the dish to Jackson for the layup. I am so ashamed.
> 
> But as long as all of Jamal's are happy, I certainly couldn't be more thrilled.
> 
> I guess I am just confused, I'm still trying to figure out how the Bulls are so damned good this year when we traded away a great player like Jamal for NOTHING.


Who said anyone was happy ?This falls right into my theory of posters needing someone to claim jamals a superstar or exaggerate his good so they can keep these senseless debates on how bad he is going . 

Of course you cant argue with someone who said he played well or just ok or even good it has to be that he was a superstar or that he played a fantastic game with only average numbers though and everyone is hyping him .

That is really disturbing


----------



## The True Essence

im sure drafting luol deng ben gordon nocioni and duhon had NOTHING to do with the bulls being good. It was only cause jamals gone. If you had none of your rookies, your team would be lucky to win 17 games. you act as if the only offseason move was getting rid of jamal.


----------



## BealeFarange

Mr. T said:


>



:rofl: 

Now _ that's _ a photoshop job I can get behind! New wallpaper anyone? 

:banana:


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Who said anyone was happy ?This falls right into my theory of posters needing someone to claim jamals a superstar or exaggerate his good so they can keep these senseless debates on how bad he is going .
> 
> Of course you cant argue with someone who said he played well or just ok or even good it has to be that he was a superstar or that he played a fantastic game with only average numbers though and everyone is hyping him .
> 
> That is really disturbing


Well, I'm sorry if anyone is unhappy, really. I'm not sorry about dissing a player who dissed the Bulls, even if it was a minor dis.

I'm certainly not sorry about taking shots at a KNICKS player on the BULLS message board. I don't understand why some BULLS fans go to such lengths to defend a KNICK, but that's their right. I completely understand people being happy with seeing a KNICK struggle and seeing how the BULLS are much better now than we were last season. "Hating" the enemy is all part of sports.


----------



## bullsville

PennyHardaway said:


> im sure drafting luol deng ben gordon nocioni and duhon had NOTHING to do with the bulls being good. It was only cause jamals gone. If you had none of your rookies, your team would be lucky to win 17 games. you act as if the only offseason move was getting rid of jamal.


No, but it certainly is a beautiful, enjoyable fact that the Bulls are much better without Jamal in the line-up and the Knicks are now much worse with Jamal in the line-up.


----------



## badfish

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Not everything in my post was directed toward your comments but just some of the exaggerating that was done in the post that you agreed with some use when it comes to jamal.
> 
> I dont think Jamal is being used the right way offensively although I do think that some of the other stuff thats coming along with it is helping him .I think what he needs is stability which is what Curry and chandler received this year with Skiles.
> 
> Also and this aint directed at you Badfish but chuckers are generally are referred to as player who need to take a lot of shot to get their points so when a player shoots 45% from 3 and 5-11 thats normally considered pretty good but when its jamal its still considered chucking ?


Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Actually, I don't think yesterday's game was commensurate with his rep as a chucker. I think most, if not all of his shots were open, with the exception of one he took when the shot clock was winding down. IMO he has displayed chucker tendencies, but much less so this year than when he was asked to be the MAN last year. On a team of players who are shot-happy, it would be hard single him out in this way. Actually, my definition of chucker also includes taking too many ill-advised shots (off-balance, closely -guarded, early in the shot clock).

The fact remains that Crawford's 3 pt% is 34.6 career and 36.1 this year. Not even in the Top 50 in the league this year. He takes 7 3 pt. attempts per game, twice as many as the next player on the Knicks. He's not even the best 3 pt. shooter on the team (Thomas and Houston are better, but Houston is hurt).

I'm not a Crawford hater, but I am a Knicks hater. Therefore, I do root against him since he is on the Knicks. Perhaps if he was on a different team I would have more indifference.


----------



## lgtwins

I guess there is some truth in what badfish said just before. I openly admit in other thread that I hate "Knick" and I think that's part of fun in professional sports. Hating your enemy team. And I certanly think that being a Bulls fan makes you "Knicks hater" (pun intended). Including former a Bull.

I have heard this anecdote from UNC alumi. Of course she is die hard UNC fan by default. But she said during their freshmen orientation in the middle of campus tour, the guide turned to them and he said " This here is the library and that's commonse, blah, blah.... Oh, by the way we HATE DUKE."

So I don't think I can't be that objective evaulating Jamal after all. :biggrin:


----------



## The True Essence

bullsville said:


> No, but it certainly is a beautiful, enjoyable fact that the Bulls are much better without Jamal in the line-up and the Knicks are now much worse with Jamal in the line-up.


of course subtracting allan houston, penny hardaway, and tim thomas should technically count as missing for the first half of the season. if the team was healthy they would be on top of the division like they were in december before the team broke down with injuries.

sure its excuses, but its the truth.

and its funny that the same guys bashing jamal today praised him as a bull and were saying that they wouldnt take the knicks "crap" for jamal. and after the trade happened everyone does a 180, hate jamal and like a couple of expiring deals.


----------



## dkg1

badfish said:


> I'm not a Crawford hater, but I am a Knicks hater. Therefore, I do root against him since he is on the Knicks. Perhaps if he was on a different team I would have more indifference.


That's also similar to what I said. I've never liked the Knicks, never will. It's hard to cheer for them even when they're playing a team slightly ahead of us in the standings while they're a non-entity. Also, my problem isn't so much with JC as it was with the JC supporters who wanted to see the Bulls fall on their face without him. I believe one "Bulls Fan" even put a Knicks logo in his avater.


----------



## madox

kukoc4ever said:


> So many people here ripped Curry a new one. Now they are riding his jock.
> 
> Its comical.



Curry deserved to get "ripped a new one."

He was a fat loser. 

I don't know about "riding his jock" either. I've heard some optimism in people's recent assessments of EC but I'm still hearing plenty of criticism as well. 

I think what you call "comical" (your perception that people went from ripping new ones to riding jocks) is really just people making assessments that are based in reality. 

i.e. Curry used to suck and now he's a little bit better...

And this gives you hope as a JC lover. You think that a day will come when people are no longer ripping JC a new one, but instead, in some crazy way, they'll be buckling up tight for a wild ride on the JC Jock, an Escalade-smooth ride that goes nonstop to the promised land. 

You think it's comical because on that day you'll be able to shout:

"Hey you jock riders... I'm the king of this mountain dammit! I've been here all along! I was sniffing this jock when you were nothing! Nothing!!!"


----------



## dkg1

PennyHardaway said:


> and its funny that the same guys bashing jamal today praised him as a bull and were saying that they wouldnt take the knicks "crap" for jamal. and after the trade happened everyone does a 180, hate jamal and like a couple of expiring deals.



Just remember this thread is on a Bulls messageboard so don't come here expecting a Knicks/JC lovefest.


----------



## kukoc4ever

PennyHardaway said:


> and its funny that the same guys bashing jamal today praised him as a bull and were saying that they wouldnt take the knicks "crap" for jamal. and after the trade happened everyone does a 180, hate jamal and like a couple of expiring deals.


The interesting thing is that many of these same people disliked Jamal as a Bull.

They ripped him on the Bulls. They ripped him on the Knicks.

Just like many here so enjoyed ripping on our budding star Eddy Curry. Rip. Rip. Rip. Its not about the Bulls. Its about something else.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Exactly my point. A winning atmosphere can do wonders.


Thats a very chicken or the egg comment.

Did the Twins learn [email protected] because the team started winning, or did the team start winning because the Twins finally got the H&H thing?


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> Exactly my point. A winning atmosphere can do wonders.
> 
> So many people here ripped Curry a new one. Now they are riding his jock.
> 
> Its comical.


Is this why you are reluctant to give Paxson his due? :wink:


----------



## kukoc4ever

badfish said:


> Is this why you are reluctant to give Paxson his due? :wink:


I started a thread months ago saying "Paxson is OK" and have said several times that I think Paxson did a great job this off-season. This season Paxson gets an A+ in my book. 

I also said months ago that I'm staying in the "Fire Pax" club until I see the towers situation resolved this off-season. Since I believe those two (and Deng) are the key components to our magnificent future title run, I don't want to see it messed up.


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> I started a thread months ago saying "Paxson is OK" and have said several times that I think Paxson did a great job this off-season. This season Paxson gets an A+ in my book.
> 
> I also said months ago that I'm staying in the "Fire Pax" club until I see the towers situation resolved this off-season. Since I believe those two (and Deng) are the key components to our magnificent future title run, I don't want to see it messed up.


I know, I remember those posts. I was just trying to josh you a little bit. In fact, didn't you ask to be removed from the Fire Skiles Club also?

Point is, people's opinions can change if there is evidence that performance has improved. I don't see anything comical about that.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Thats a very chicken or the egg comment.
> 
> Did the Twins learn [email protected] because the team started winning, or did the team start winning because the Twins finally got the H&H thing?


Probably a combination of the two.

That's why I say this has a lot more to do with just basketball.

I think most here would agree that ...

1.) Jamal is a pretty good person.
2.) Jamal has a lot of talent.

Is a person a product of their environment?
Or is a person failing because they didn't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps?"

I have a feeling that most Crawford supporters/dislikers would answer differently to the above questions as well. 

I also think that Curry’s contract status is a big part of the turnaround in attitude, positive press quotes as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever

badfish said:


> Point is, people's opinions can change if there is evidence that performance has improved. I don't see anything comical about that.


Try telling that to some of the quote-mongers around here who love to go back to a time where I was a bit more..... errrrr.... negative.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I think what he needs is stability which is what Curry and chandler received this year with Skiles.


He had a season with Skiles.

With Cartwright too.

Floyd.


He didn't get along with any of them.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> =Rip. Rip. Rip. Its not about the Bulls. Its about something else.


I'll say this: It's not in you to place nice over a sustained period of time. You always fallback to chucking insults.


----------



## ace20004u

Can we calm down here guys? I think most of us are adults...agreeing to disagree is alright ya know?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> I'll say this: It's not in you to place nice over a sustained period of time. You always fallback to chucking insults.


Its not an insult man. There is just no logical explanation for a debate this long and this fierce without there being other issues involved.


----------



## fl_flash

kukoc4ever said:


> Rip. Rip. Rip. Its not about the Bulls. Its about something else.


Is the pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> 2.) Jamal has a lot of talent.


Athletic, not basketball.

See exhibit A: Kevin Garnett.

Much athletic effort, turned himself into a superstar.

See exhibit B: Kobe Bryant

Much athletic effort, turned himself into a superstar.


For the record...I don't think the gulf separating Kobes athletic talent is very wide compared to Jamals athletic talent.

Not as good, but Jamal could certainly be one bang up inside/outside scorer if he wanted it and if he worked on it the way Kobe did his first few years in the league.


----------



## GB

fl_flash said:


> black?


Keep your racism to yourself.


----------



## kukoc4ever

fl_flash said:


> Is the pot calling the kettle black?


I'm not quite sure what you mean.

All I know is that these message boards were filled with negative posts about Jamal and Jalen and plenty of BULLS in the past. 

Its not just about whoever is wearing the red and black... otherwise those shots would not have been taken.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not just about whoever is...the...black...


Oh the racist tendencies of some Bulls fans. :curse: 


:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Not as good, but Jamal could certainly be one bang up inside/outside scorer if he wanted it and if he worked on it the way Kobe did his first few years in the league.


I think you are probably right.... although Kobe seems at a different level physically than Jamal is.

That's why I dislike guaranteed contracts and the current NBA incentive structure.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> He had a season with Skiles.
> 
> With Cartwright too.
> 
> Floyd.
> 
> 
> He didn't get along with any of them.



Who said he had problems with Skiles ?he has never said that and neither has Skiles ?

He didnt have a problem with Lenny or now with Herb ? yyooouuuuu aaaarrrreee rrreeeeeeaaching :biggrin:


----------



## MVPKirk

Skiles said he liked Jamal and his exact words were "Jamal was easy to coach"


----------



## ace20004u

MVPKirk said:


> Skiles said he liked Jamal and his exact words were "Jamal was easy to coach"



He had some run ins with an asst in college or something...Skiles DID say that, I remember the quote, actually said he liked Jamal too I believe. Jamal's HS coach said that he would take Crawford over any player he has ever coached OR SEEN PLAY to build an NBA team around...said he was a great leader and had great ability of a floor general or something similar. Thats pretty high praise in My estimation.


----------



## bullsville

PennyHardaway said:


> of course subtracting allan houston, penny hardaway, and tim thomas should technically count as missing for the first half of the season. if the team was healthy they would be on top of the division like they were in december before the team broke down with injuries.
> 
> sure its excuses, but its the truth.
> 
> *and its funny that the same guys bashing jamal today praised him as a bull and were saying that they wouldnt take the knicks "crap" for jamal.* and after the trade happened everyone does a 180, hate jamal and like a couple of expiring deals.


That's just not true.

I'm sure some people may have, but many, many of us thought Jamal deserved no more than the MLE Paxson was offering him and didn't see the trade as Jamal for the Knicks "crap". The funny thing is, you mention that people like "expiring deals", when the truth is that Othella has been huge for us this season. He has done all that has been asked of him and he has become an important part of our rotation.

I know Knicks fans don't think a "role player" like Othella is worth anything, but he has been very valuable to us. Pike and Griff (who we got for Deke) have also had their moments, and Griffin is one of our co-captains along with Hinrich and Davis.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> The interesting thing is that many of these same people disliked Jamal as a Bull.
> 
> They ripped him on the Bulls. They ripped him on the Knicks.
> 
> Just like many here so enjoyed ripping on our budding star Eddy Curry. Rip. Rip. Rip. Its not about the Bulls. Its about something else.


It's amazing, some people don't like Jamal's game, and they are "ripping" him.

Of course, saying "Eddy Curry is a lousy rebounder", which is a widely acknowledged and provable FACT, is "ripping" him to some people.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> The interesting thing is that many of these same people disliked Jamal as a Bull.
> 
> They ripped him on the Bulls. They ripped him on the Knicks.
> 
> Just like many here so enjoyed ripping on our budding star Eddy Curry. Rip. Rip. Rip. Its not about the Bulls. Its about something else.


What is it about then? I've never gotten an answer to that one.

It's called "watching a player and giving your evaluation". Bull or Knick or any other player, I watch and give my opinion of the player's game. So do other people. 

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "ripping" the player in question.

Did you ever think that maybe people are giving their honest evaluations?

What is so hard to understand about that?

Why is it that if someone doesn't like the way Jamal plays the game of basketball, they must have some other agenda.

It's hilarious, I was once told that my evaluation of Jamal was the way it is because I am "jealous". What the hell could do I possibly have to be jealous of Jamal? Jealous that he plays for a lousy team? What?


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> He had some run ins with an asst in college or something...Skiles DID say that, I remember the quote, actually said he liked Jamal too I believe. Jamal's HS coach said that he would take Crawford over any player he has ever coached OR SEEN PLAY to build an NBA team around...said he was a great leader and had great ability of a floor general or something similar. Thats pretty high praise in My estimation.


Skiles has spoken highly of Kidd too. 

His HS coach? What NBA team is he associated with now? Honest question, I'm curious.


----------



## madox

Please stop comparing Jamal Crawford to Kobe Bryant. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all week. 

Kobe is twice as strong, just as fast and probably just as agile.

In the meantime Crawford is still a stringbean.


----------



## GB

madox said:


> Please stop comparing Jamal Crawford to Kobe Bryant.
> 
> .



You just did. You said the only difference is strength.


----------



## Shabadoo

Alright, there's a lot for me to reply to, so I'll just talk about a few things that caught my eye.

Firstly, I thought it would be a cold day in hell before I got a compliment from GB. During my lurking I took particular note of this man's odyssey to destroy Crawford. Through constant subliminal insults and repeated badgering he's certainly done a good job. He's cooled off recently, and even seems fairly amicable with Kukoc. Props for being civil.

Bullsville. You're sure to become my nemesis :wink: In regards to your observations about Crawford, I'll respect them, but I'll take it with a grain of salt. I say this as you correctly pointed out that I didn't watch the game. I'll hesitate to agree with you as TruthHurts had a completely different perception of the game, and the statistics show a completely different story. I've heard of average games with great stats, but not often have I watched terrible games with decent stats.

To Mr T, who essentially called me a hypocrite for claiming to be impartial when I was essentially placing myself in the Crawford camp, I'll say good pickup. I should have said I was more impartial then most, rather then masquerading as completely objective. I say this as I have not been, until now, involved in this forum at all. However, when I reread my post, I don't see any overt homerism towards Crawford or any vitriolic Kirk bashing. Rather I see some mildly negative comments to some of the posters here and their Kirk fandom. That you correctly pointed out. My pre-emptive vilification of the posters was me being melodramatic, as well as being a Plan B. After all, if I get attacked it is what I predicted. If I am left alone, my words stand strong :biggrin: 

I think you are really reaching with the Bush Bashing though. I say this as Bush has actually said this exact quote.



George W Bush said:


> 'In the war on terror, you are either with us, or against us'.


Lgtwins and DKG1, nice posts. While I don't completely agree with the "he started it" name calling argument, it is certainly one of the causes of "the struggle". DKG I respect your rebuttal on my "mob mentality" call, but I don't know what you were getting at. I believe you were agreeing with me, but were in affect saying “so what”. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll add a few observations I noted about the responses.

Firstly, well done everyone. There's not a lot here that I cringed about. It all remained civil and usually constructive.

I must note that my sentiment regarding Kirk was completely ignored. I guess the title of the thread doesn't render rebuttal to the subject particularly pertinent, but I expected some to defend him vehemently. My commentary on Kirk and his legion of followers was more or less untouched, apart from some who said "so what" about the Kirk fans being sometimes irrational and always confrontational. . I didn’t viciously bash him, but I expected some action. Perhaps it would have proven my point to well.


Others attempted to discredit me by picking faults in individual ideas or sentences of my extended prose.

Mr T suggested I was a hypocrite, and that the entire idea of my post was discredited. While some of what you said was right, I don’t think it removes the underlying merit of what I wrote. I addressed this above.

Bullsville suggested that his post was in fact correct and attempted to render my post irrelevant. What you just did was illustrate another facet of the Crawford suppression. That is, that it is literally impossible for Crawford to have a good game. I’ve seen him score 40, and get slung with mud. I’ve seen him shoot 6 shots and get bashed. Yesterday, I saw him get 9 assists and 1 turnover, and get slandered. It seems anything short of perfection is utter failure for Craw.

I also shouldn't forget the sardonic banter that often surfaces when Kukoc and GB hit the stage.

Although I feel that my argument has more or less remained intact, I should add that I didn't make my post to "win" or better yet "own" anyone. I simply felt that it was a harsh, edgy dose of commentary that needed to be made. I'm glad that most read it, and appreciated it, even if their views differed.

Finally, to all those who suggested I post more, I'll say that there is little point for me to do so. While I think I have some skills in stringing together longwinded expositions, there is really little I have to talk about here. I admit that I don't get to watch the Bulls, nor Crawford, very much due to my location. Therefore a lot of what I would add is exactly what I advocated against- ad hominem attacks, unsubstantiated assertions and esoteric calculations.

Saying that though, I think I'll be back with Photoshoped Pictures :dead: (yeah I used this once before)


----------



## dkg1

Hahaha!!!!! Classic picture Shabby!!!!! Good work my friend, from a confessed Hinrich Kool Aid drinker. :clap: :laugh: :rotf:


----------



## ace20004u

GB said:


> Skiles has spoken highly of Kidd too.
> 
> His HS coach? What NBA team is he associated with now? Honest question, I'm curious.


I think you know that his HS coach ISN'T affiliated with any NBA team. He is however a well respected HS coach.


----------



## mizenkay

Shabadoo said:


> I must note that my sentiment regarding Kirk was completely ignored. I guess the title of the thread doesn't render rebuttal to the subject particularly pertinent, but I expected some to defend him vehemently. My commentary on Kirk and his legion of followers was more or less untouched, apart from some who said "so what" about the Kirk fans being sometimes irrational and always confrontational. . I didn’t viciously bash him, but I expected some action. Perhaps it would have proven my point to well.


*shabbydoobie*, um, a couple of things:

1) this thread was created by our departed friend and sometime nemesis, *mikeofAZ* to specifically rub it in the faces of bulls fans, pax lovers, skiles supporters etc about how great and wonderful and successful jamal would be in new york under the bright lights playing with the knicks. it was intended to be petty and has succeeded wildly. probably beyond his wildest imagination. but we will never know, since he never posts here anymore now that jamal is gone and the bulls are WINNING. 

but hey, it's working out really well for jamal, isn't it? if you need proof, look at the signature that is updated daily on *k4e's* stuff. or better yet. come back when the bulls are in the playoffs and jamal is home in nyc watching on tv and we'll update you. 

2) i remember you from the main nba page saying how you never get to see the games (_but hey, you get to live in sydney which is one of the most beautiful cities in the world - i lived there for three wonderful years, so i know - so you have that going for you_)...but you did post a lot of stuff as i recall about kirk and called him *mediocre at best*, or something to that effect. mediocre! hmmmm. can't really go there with you on that. maybe that's cause i do get to watch all the games. but believe what you want and surround yourself with statistics, it's cool. 

3) you say you haven't been involved in this forum at all to date, but now you are here to what? pit kirk against jamal? hahahaha. been there, done that. you should have gotten in on that action last season cause whew, it was rockin' and rollin'. as it is, jamal no longer plays for the bull. so it's kinda stale and old if you ask me.

4) if you don't want to talk about the bulls but you want to talk about jamal, this forum also has a nifty thing called the "knicks board". 

5) this is a message board. all in good fun. back and forth. pithy. snippy. witty. lame. we get it all. it's still a message board. people try and make it about _themselves_ ALL. THE. TIME. nothing new. at the end of the day i think you find most people will wish jamal well, he isn't a bad person, but frankly, as a basketball player, he is what he is. pax knew it. knick fans are finding it out. 

6) kirk _is_ the obi-wan. people here still have their knickers in a knot over the fact that he is here and jamal isn't. i'm guessing you are one of those? well, i don't really care. just as long as you remember WHY this particular thread is even in existence. 

7) my final point: this is my *30th!* post in this thread. good lord. i need to go out with a bang. so here it is:

















may the force be with you, shabbadabbadooooooooo!


photoshop image used with permission from mr. T, all rights reserved.


----------



## BealeFarange

Miz, that's the exact kind of post that riles people up. Granted, it's about three thousand times more articulate than the typical "Jamal fans are lame" post but it still basically states the pro-Kirk side as fact and the pro-Jamal side as immature, uninformed, and delusional. 

There really are few fans who are here in the Bulls forums that are upset Kirk is here and Jamal isn't. In fact, I cannot think of one. Not one. Not K4E, surely...I know he doesn't blame Kirk a bit for still being around and I'm sure he's happy that we have a nifty combo guard to guide the ship most days. Not Grinch, not Ace, not anyone...I can't think of even the most rabid Jamal supporter that has his or her "knickers in a knot that [Kirk] is here and [Jamal] is not." 

I've said it a billion times and I'll say it a billion and one: * this is a theraputic thread. * This is a community and this thread is the safehouse in that community for those poor, damaged souls that took losing Jamal and losing the dream harder than the rest of you. WE ALL HAD THE SAME DREAM: that Jamal, Eddy, Jalen, Tyson, JWill, and Donyell would lead this team to greatness last season after a brilliant finish two season ago. 

* The Knicks board does not help. * Again, this is a community. Only other Bulls fans can understand _ that _ specific loss. Irrational? Hell yeah! But it's all about being a fan. To be honest, I'd _ rather _ that those of you who don't understand stay out of this thread so that I don't have to keep posting things like this that no one even reads. It's a waste of my time. It would almost be nice to have a much less active Jamal update thread that occasionally chimes in to say "Gee, that's nice. Our old pal Jamal had 18 points and 7 assists last night." And that's it. No "but he had five turnovers." No anything. 

I dunno. I always get burned out writing these posts and I never finish them well. I love Kirk. I love Duhon. I freaking LOVE the Bulls. But I also love Jamal and what he brought when he was here. I've let go...and I probably would never post in the subdued Jamal update thread I envision. As it stands, I cannot let the "haters" (for lack of a more recognizable term) have the last word on this thread and close the Jamal Crawford Era with a resounding thud, a kick in the butt, and a snotty "Good Riddance." I will not accept my favorite player, while he was here, going out like that. I think it's unfair...and so do other Jamal fans...and we'll keep posting until we have the last word because it actually _ means _ something to us. 

I don't care why MichaelOFAZ started the thread. It means much more than that now and I just wish we were allowed to have given Jamal the sendoff some of us felt he deserved.


----------



## bullsville

"Theraputic"??

I have seen tha word thrown around a lot.

If you need therapy because Jamal got traded, then you really need some "therapy". Jeez, it's basketball, it's not like Jamal died or something.


----------



## BealeFarange

Good one.


----------



## bullsville

BealeFarange said:


> Good one.


Hey Beale- do you ever get compulsive? :biggrin:


----------



## BealeFarange

Eh, what's that? 

I'm arranging my Jamal bobbleheads from tallest to shortest like I do every Thursday.
Why aren't they all the same height? 
Maybe I should file them down.


----------



## Shabadoo

mizenkay said:


> *shabbydoobie*, um, a couple of things:
> 
> 1) this thread was created by our departed friend and sometime nemesis, *mikeofAZ* to specifically rub it in the faces of bulls fans, pax lovers, skiles supporters etc about how great and wonderful and successful jamal would be in new york under the bright lights playing with the knicks. it was intended to be petty and has succeeded wildly. probably beyond his wildest imagination. but we will never know, since he never posts here anymore now that jamal is gone and the bulls are WINNING.
> 
> but hey, it's working out really well for jamal, isn't it? if you need proof, look at the signature that is updated daily on *k4e's* stuff. or better yet. come back when the bulls are in the playoffs and jamal is home in nyc watching on tv and we'll update you.
> 
> 2) i remember you from the main nba page saying how you never get to see the games (_but hey, you get to live in sydney which is one of the most beautiful cities in the world - i lived there for three wonderful years, so i know - so you have that going for you_)...but you did post a lot of stuff as i recall about kirk and called him *mediocre at best*, or something to that effect. mediocre! hmmmm. can't really go there with you on that. maybe that's cause i do get to watch all the games. but believe what you want and surround yourself with statistics, it's cool.
> 
> 3) you say you haven't been involved in this forum at all to date, but now you are here to what? pit kirk against jamal? hahahaha. been there, done that. you should have gotten in on that action last season cause whew, it was rockin' and rollin'. as it is, jamal no longer plays for the bull. so it's kinda stale and old if you ask me.
> 
> 4) if you don't want to talk about the bulls but you want to talk about jamal, this forum also has a nifty thing called the "knicks board".
> 
> 5) this is a message board. all in good fun. back and forth. pithy. snippy. witty. lame. we get it all. it's still a message board. people try and make it about _themselves_ ALL. THE. TIME. nothing new. at the end of the day i think you find most people will wish jamal well, he isn't a bad person, but frankly, as a basketball player, he is what he is. pax knew it. knick fans are finding it out.
> 
> 6) kirk _is_ the obi-wan. people here still have their knickers in a knot over the fact that he is here and jamal isn't. i'm guessing you are one of those? well, i don't really care. just as long as you remember WHY this particular thread is even in existence.


I do get the sense that the thread was started with bad intentions, but that doesn't make the bulk of the behaviour here less palatable, and less acceptable. With the vast majority of people here being Kirk fans, and the Jamal fans more or less having egg on their face due to the Bulls record dwarfing the Bulls record, is it really necessary to keep rubbing it in?

About your point, and everyone else's point, that this thread should be moved to the Knicks forum, I more or less agree in principal. It is the logical place for it to go (after this season). I can only think of two points to counter this with. Firstly, it has become such an integral part to the wacky Bulls spectrum of experience, whether you like it or not. It is the most visited thread here and a major topic of discussion now that the skepticism and rampant negativity of losing has run dry. Secondly, I know myself (who just joined here), and other Jamal fans are not really interested in visiting the Knicks board. I know it may shock you, but it is possible to be a fan of other team's players (and *gasp* a critic of some of our own players) and still be a Bulls fan. Perhaps we're just not as optimistic as you....

Thanks for complimenting Sydney, although I got the sense that you were more or less saying that it is the only thing I have going for me. Perhaps before you make covert jabs at me, you should see where I'm coming from. Again, I've said it many many times, that my analysis in that thread was purely statistical. I stated that Kirk was mediocre statistically. I made it clear that I don't know about the more qualitative aspects of Kirk's game (which there seems to be a lot of). If you read until the end of the thread, you would see that I rated (based not on stats this time, but on limited viewing and quite a lot of reading) Kirk 11th best PG in the NBA, which is above average. If that makes me a "blind hater", then so be it.

Everything else you said is pure opinion, which is well and good since that is the nature of the message board.

I sense some aggression in what you wrote, and I definitely sensed it in the thread on the main board. I guess my initial post was somewhat confrontational, so I don't blame you for going after me. At least everyone else will help you out. You have a nice skill at treading the thin line between wit and personal attack. Shabbydoobie and the Sydney comment are enough evidence of that. It is part of your “success” as a Kirk defender I guess.

You are the epitome of what I am talking about. The above post was pretty much the longest thing I've seen you write in a while. That's strange when it’s targeting someone you believe knows little about the situation, since he's himself admitted he doesn't get the chance to watch the games. I knew when I wrote that initial post that you would go after it. It was what I expected and wanted. You are guided by an inner compunction to defend Kirk at all costs. Getting people riled up with subliminal attacks and qualitative hearsay normally does the job. People get aggressive and say stupid things. The quotes are brought up in due course, and the Kirk majority has a good laugh.

Unfortunately, I see what you are doing.


----------



## bullsville

From the new _ESPN The Magazine_:

*What I Suck At*

Jamal Crawford, Knicks-

"Rap. People think athletes want to be rappers, but not me. I'm the worst."

Way to go, Pax, who needs a SG who can't rap?


----------



## badfish

Shabadoo said:


> I do get the sense that the thread was started with bad intentions, but that doesn't make the bulk of the behaviour here less palatable, and less acceptable. With the vast majority of people here being Kirk fans, and the Jamal fans more or less having egg on their face due to the Bulls record dwarfing the Bulls record, is it really necessary to keep rubbing it in?
> 
> About your point, and everyone else's point, that this thread should be moved to the Knicks forum, I more or less agree in principal. It is the logical place for it to go (after this season). I can only think of two points to counter this with. Firstly, it has become such an integral part to the wacky Bulls spectrum of experience, whether you like it or not. It is the most visited thread here and a major topic of discussion now that the skepticism and rampant negativity of losing has run dry. Secondly, I know myself (who just joined here), and other Jamal fans are not really interested in visiting the Knicks board. I know it may shock you, but it is possible to be a fan of other team's players (and *gasp* a critic of some of our own players) and still be a Bulls fan. Perhaps we're just not as optimistic as you....
> 
> Thanks for complimenting Sydney, although I got the sense that you were more or less saying that it is the only thing I have going for me. Perhaps before you make covert jabs at me, you should see where I'm coming from. Again, I've said it many many times, that my analysis in that thread was purely statistical. I stated that Kirk was mediocre statistically. I made it clear that I don't know about the more qualitative aspects of Kirk's game (which there seems to be a lot of). If you read until the end of the thread, you would see that I rated (based not on stats this time, but on limited viewing and quite a lot of reading) Kirk 11th best PG in the NBA, which is above average. If that makes me a "blind hater", then so be it.
> 
> Everything else you said is pure opinion, which is well and good since that is the nature of the message board.
> 
> I sense some aggression in what you wrote, and I definitely sensed it in the thread on the main board. I guess my initial post was somewhat confrontational, so I don't blame you for going after me. At least everyone else will help you out. You have a nice skill at treading the thin line between wit and personal attack. Shabbydoobie and the Sydney comment are enough evidence of that. It is part of your “success” as a Kirk defender I guess.
> 
> You are the epitome of what I am talking about. The above post was pretty much the longest thing I've seen you write in a while. That's strange when it’s targeting someone you believe knows little about the situation, since he's himself admitted he doesn't get the chance to watch the games. I knew when I wrote that initial post that you would go after it. It was what I expected and wanted. You are guided by an inner compunction to defend Kirk at all costs. Getting people riled up with subliminal attacks and qualitative hearsay normally does the job. People get aggressive and say stupid things. The quotes are brought up in due course, and the Kirk majority has a good laugh.
> 
> Unfortunately, I see what you are doing.


I'm a little confused Shab (my attmept at witticism :biggrin: ). You admittedly are new to the board and yet you come out labeling groups of people and admonishing their behavior as if they were children. That's a sure-fire way to bait a little hostility. While you acknowledged that your post was a bit confrontational, I don't understand why you maintain that you are an "objective" observer. If anything I'd say you are guilty of the same things you criticize others for. It doesn't make sense.

Heck, I can get as dumbfounded as you were about some of the arguments that go on here. I may even participate in them from time to time (usually to my regret). Still, I don't think sweeping criticisms of the board and its posters are going to help matters.

On another note, I hope you aren't too discouraged from posting here because I enjoy reading articulate posters. Peace!


----------



## GB

badfish said:


> That's a sure-fire way to bait a little hostility.



We should rename this thread to "All thing trollin'' or "The Trollers Nook"


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Some thoughts.

What I find interesting is that I would say that there is a fair amount of truth in shabadoo's posts, yet I think a lot of it is totally off-base. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that there are some die-hard Kirk fans who always rise to his defense, no matter how innocent the criticism of him may be. Sometimes those defenses go to absurd extremes or contradictory lengths. However, I don't think it's the unruly mob that's been portrayed in his posts. 

There is no "Kirk can do no wrong - criticize him and be flamed" golden rule on this board, in my opinion. (Look at k4e's poll asking if he's the team's best player. He's not exactly running away with it.) Seems to me that that whole idea is the result of an echo chamber that started last season, when a vocal group of posters decided that people were overrating Kirk and praising him too much for their tastes, and started hemming and hawing about how Kirk was off-limits to criticism. Those who have been here a while know who I'm referring to, and at least two of the ringleaders of that movement don't post here now. I almost feel like there are more posts that make the CLAIM that Kirk is above criticism than there are posts that prove the claim's merit. But then, I like Kirk, so I won't claim to be 100% objective either. Thing is, he's NOT above criticism, even among most of his own fans.

Yes, people defend Kirk a lot. But when you get threads insinuating that we should trade him because we won a few games without him, or that his poor fg% makes him a liability, yeah, people are going to argue against those points, because they don't tell the whole story. Still, plenty of Kirk's biggest fans express disgust with his failure to shoot a better percentage - look at the game threads where Kirk had a bad night - he's not above reproach at all, and even his fans would probably admit that some of his real stinkers have cost us a few wins this season. He also doesn't get to the line enough, and he could improve his post-entry passing. But guess what? He's a good defender, solid passer, good ball-handler, plays his guts out every night, and is clearly the floor general of this team (the coach and his teammates are on record as such, as well). Even when he's not shooting well, he helps the team win on most nights. That's probably a big thing that differentiates Kirk from Jamal in some people's minds - IMO, Jamal struggled (and still does) to help his team when he's not scoring, though he's improving at that. For the reasons above, Kirk has loyal fans. Perish the thought. In general, it's not some complete blindness to reality or logic or reason, as shab claimed. At least I don't see it that way.

A similar volume and voracity of arguments happened over Jamal, independent of Kirk. Jamal vs. Jay. Jamal's shot selection. Jamal's defense. Jamal's attitude. Jamal's relationship with the coach. And on and on. He had, and continues to have, a fanbase just as loyal as Kirk's, who would defend HIS every action. He shoots 5-18? Blame the NBDLers or Skiles. He complains about coming off the bench after a WIN? Cartwright's being unfair. He gets benched in the 4th for making mistakes? Fire Skiles. He gets S&Ted to NY? Fire Paxson. There was probably a feeling among those who weren't as enamored with him, that HE could do no wrong in some people's eyes. But their feelings were still made known, just as the non-Kirk-fans' feelings are known now. I think, for players who are subjects of controversies, or whose potential has not been fully tapped, these kinds of discussions are almost inevitable. Eddy's been through that ringer too. Now that he's playing so much harder and smarter, it's quieted down compared to previous years.

Factions are a part of this board, I've come to realize. Sometimes the debates are fun, other times they're like having a tooth pulled. Paxson and Skiles. Jamal. Jalen. Eddy. Trades made/not made. When topics get discussed enough, "battle lines" tend to get drawn. We have a huge community of posters here who all see the game differently, value different characteristics, and have their own ideas on how the team should be managed. That's the board's greatest strength, and occasionally, one of its biggest weaknesses.


----------



## ScottMay

GB said:


> "The Trollers Nook"


:laugh: 

I wish we could hang one of those wood-carved summer cottage signs on this thread.


----------



## Mr. T

Shabadoo said:


> Saying that though, I think I'll be back with Photoshoped Pictures :dead: (yeah I used this once before)


Now you're talking my language, Shabadoo! Again, welcome aboard and post when you can.


----------



## VincentVega

ViciousFlogging said:


> Some thoughts.
> 
> What I find interesting is that I would say that there is a fair amount of truth in shabadoo's posts, yet I think a lot of it is totally off-base. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that there are some die-hard Kirk fans who always rise to his defense, no matter how innocent the criticism of him may be. Sometimes those defenses go to absurd extremes or contradictory lengths. However, I don't think it's the unruly mob that's been portrayed in his posts.
> 
> There is no "Kirk can do no wrong - criticize him and be flamed" golden rule on this board, in my opinion. (Look at k4e's poll asking if he's the team's best player. He's not exactly running away with it.) Seems to me that that whole idea is the result of an echo chamber that started last season, when a vocal group of posters decided that people were overrating Kirk and praising him too much for their tastes, and started hemming and hawing about how Kirk was off-limits to criticism. Those who have been here a while know who I'm referring to, and at least two of the ringleaders of that movement don't post here now. I almost feel like there are more posts that make the CLAIM that Kirk is above criticism than there are posts that prove the claim's merit. But then, I like Kirk, so I won't claim to be 100% objective either. Thing is, he's NOT above criticism, even among most of his own fans.
> 
> Yes, people defend Kirk a lot. But when you get threads insinuating that we should trade him because we won a few games without him, or that his poor fg% makes him a liability, yeah, people are going to argue against those points, because they don't tell the whole story. Still, plenty of Kirk's biggest fans express disgust with his failure to shoot a better percentage - look at the game threads where Kirk had a bad night - he's not above reproach at all, and even his fans would probably admit that some of his real stinkers have cost us a few wins this season. He also doesn't get to the line enough, and he could improve his post-entry passing. But guess what? He's a good defender, solid passer, good ball-handler, plays his guts out every night, and is clearly the floor general of this team (the coach and his teammates are on record as such, as well). Even when he's not shooting well, he helps the team win on most nights. That's probably a big thing that differentiates Kirk from Jamal in some people's minds - IMO, Jamal struggled (and still does) to help his team when he's not scoring, though he's improving at that. For the reasons above, Kirk has loyal fans. Perish the thought. In general, it's not some complete blindness to reality or logic or reason, as shab claimed. At least I don't see it that way.
> 
> A similar volume and voracity of arguments happened over Jamal, independent of Kirk. Jamal vs. Jay. Jamal's shot selection. Jamal's defense. Jamal's attitude. Jamal's relationship with the coach. And on and on. He had, and continues to have, a fanbase just as loyal as Kirk's, who would defend HIS every action. He shoots 5-18? Blame the NBDLers or Skiles. He complains about coming off the bench after a WIN? Cartwright's being unfair. He gets benched in the 4th for making mistakes? Fire Skiles. He gets S&Ted to NY? Fire Paxson. There was probably a feeling among those who weren't as enamored with him, that HE could do no wrong in some people's eyes. But their feelings were still made known, just as the non-Kirk-fans' feelings are known now. I think, for players who are subjects of controversies, or whose potential has not been fully tapped, these kinds of discussions are almost inevitable. Eddy's been through that ringer too. Now that he's playing so much harder and smarter, it's quieted down compared to previous years.
> 
> Factions are a part of this board, I've come to realize. Sometimes the debates are fun, other times they're like having a tooth pulled. Paxson and Skiles. Jamal. Jalen. Eddy. Trades made/not made. When topics get discussed enough, "battle lines" tend to get drawn. We have a huge community of posters here who all see the game differently, value different characteristics, and have their own ideas on how the team should be managed. That's the board's greatest strength, and occasionally, one of its biggest weaknesses.


Awesome post.


----------



## DaBullz

During one of the game threads when I was doing play-by-play, Hinrich had taken (and hit) about 4 shots in a row. He took a 5th, and my post said something like "Hinrich, feeling it, AIR BALL"

And the criticism from certain circles was immediate (and LAME, IMO).

He was feeling it, and he did air ball it. I wasn't criticising him in the least for taking the shot, or even putting up an air ball.

Talk about innocent.

Now, K4E creates a poll yesterday that was actually interesting. Is Hinrich the bulls' best player? (I think our best player is AD, but not for long, but that's another subject). And he gets ragged on. So be it.

But I thought a better poll would have been "Does Hinrich walk on water?"


----------



## ViciousFlogging

DaBullz said:


> But I thought a better poll would have been "Does Hinrich walk on water?"


My answer is no. but that's just my opinion. I've seen longtime Kirk fans like VincentVega and mizenkay, among many others, myself included, express disappointment in his play when it's warranted that I think this whole idea that "you can't criticize Kirk 'round here" is baloney and like I said, due to a drumbeat of sorts. 

I won't dispute that there are plenty of times when the arguments in his defense are knee-jerk reactionary and flimsy, but I simply don't think it's some sort of rabid mob of blind partisans. Despite my disagreements with various people about various topics, I think this is a great group of fans and most of us are capable enough of independent thought that this idea of groupspeak is a little over the top. We certainly divide into factions on certain recurring and controversial topics, but I rarely think anyone is blind or ignorant for it, and I'm actually a little bit insulted by the very idea.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ViciousFlogging said:


> My answer is no. but that's just my opinion. I've seen longtime Kirk fans like VincentVega and mizenkay, among many others, myself included, express disappointment in his play when it's warranted that I think this whole idea that "you can't criticize Kirk 'round here" is baloney and like I said, due to a drumbeat of sorts.



I was *floating* the idea of trading Hinrich for RAY ALLEN or LARRY HUGHES. 

Two players that most NBA fans would acknowledge are better than Kirk Hinrich.

People seem to forget this......


----------



## DaBullz

ViciousFlogging said:


> My answer is no. but that's just my opinion. I've seen longtime Kirk fans like VincentVega and mizenkay, among many others, myself included, express disappointment in his play when it's warranted that I think this whole idea that "you can't criticize Kirk 'round here" is baloney and like I said, due to a drumbeat of sorts.
> 
> I won't dispute that there are plenty of times when the arguments in his defense are knee-jerk reactionary and flimsy, but I simply don't think it's some sort of rabid mob of blind partisans. Despite my disagreements with various people about various topics, I think this is a great group of fans and most of us are capable enough of independent thought that this idea of groupspeak is a little over the top. We certainly divide into factions on certain recurring and controversial topics, but I rarely think anyone is blind or ignorant for it, and I'm actually a little bit insulted by the very idea.


Maybe that's the best poll of all. "Is there a mob of blind partisan Hinrich fans on the board?"


----------



## ViciousFlogging

DaBullz said:


> Maybe that's the best poll of all. "Is there a mob of blind partisan Hinrich fans on the board?"


tee hee. I'll cast my vote, if one is created.

edit: it has to be sure to ask if the mob is rabid, too.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ViciousFlogging said:


> tee hee. I'll cast my vote, if one is created.
> 
> edit: it has to be sure to ask if the mob is rabid, too.


or "frothing"...

perhaps we need 2 polls.

1 for "rabid" and 1 for "frothing."


----------



## Mr. T

ViciousFlogging said:


> Some thoughts.
> 
> What I find interesting is that I would say that there is a fair amount of truth in shabadoo's posts, yet I think a lot of it is totally off-base. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that there are some die-hard Kirk fans who always rise to his defense, no matter how innocent the criticism of him may be. Sometimes those defenses go to absurd extremes or contradictory lengths. However, I don't think it's the unruly mob that's been portrayed in his posts.
> 
> There is no "Kirk can do no wrong - criticize him and be flamed" golden rule on this board, in my opinion. (Look at k4e's poll asking if he's the team's best player. He's not exactly running away with it.) Seems to me that that whole idea is the result of an echo chamber that started last season, when a vocal group of posters decided that people were overrating Kirk and praising him too much for their tastes, and started hemming and hawing about how Kirk was off-limits to criticism. Those who have been here a while know who I'm referring to, and at least two of the ringleaders of that movement don't post here now. I almost feel like there are more posts that make the CLAIM that Kirk is above criticism than there are posts that prove the claim's merit. But then, I like Kirk, so I won't claim to be 100% objective either. Thing is, he's NOT above criticism, even among most of his own fans.
> 
> Yes, people defend Kirk a lot. But when you get threads insinuating that we should trade him because we won a few games without him, or that his poor fg% makes him a liability, yeah, people are going to argue against those points, because they don't tell the whole story. Still, plenty of Kirk's biggest fans express disgust with his failure to shoot a better percentage - look at the game threads where Kirk had a bad night - he's not above reproach at all, and even his fans would probably admit that some of his real stinkers have cost us a few wins this season. He also doesn't get to the line enough, and he could improve his post-entry passing. But guess what? He's a good defender, solid passer, good ball-handler, plays his guts out every night, and is clearly the floor general of this team (the coach and his teammates are on record as such, as well). Even when he's not shooting well, he helps the team win on most nights. That's probably a big thing that differentiates Kirk from Jamal in some people's minds - IMO, Jamal struggled (and still does) to help his team when he's not scoring, though he's improving at that. For the reasons above, Kirk has loyal fans. Perish the thought. In general, it's not some complete blindness to reality or logic or reason, as shab claimed. At least I don't see it that way.
> 
> A similar volume and voracity of arguments happened over Jamal, independent of Kirk. Jamal vs. Jay. Jamal's shot selection. Jamal's defense. Jamal's attitude. Jamal's relationship with the coach. And on and on. He had, and continues to have, a fanbase just as loyal as Kirk's, who would defend HIS every action. He shoots 5-18? Blame the NBDLers or Skiles. He complains about coming off the bench after a WIN? Cartwright's being unfair. He gets benched in the 4th for making mistakes? Fire Skiles. He gets S&Ted to NY? Fire Paxson. There was probably a feeling among those who weren't as enamored with him, that HE could do no wrong in some people's eyes. But their feelings were still made known, just as the non-Kirk-fans' feelings are known now. I think, for players who are subjects of controversies, or whose potential has not been fully tapped, these kinds of discussions are almost inevitable. Eddy's been through that ringer too. Now that he's playing so much harder and smarter, it's quieted down compared to previous years.
> 
> Factions are a part of this board, I've come to realize. Sometimes the debates are fun, other times they're like having a tooth pulled. Paxson and Skiles. Jamal. Jalen. Eddy. Trades made/not made. When topics get discussed enough, "battle lines" tend to get drawn. We have a huge community of posters here who all see the game differently, value different characteristics, and have their own ideas on how the team should be managed. That's the board's greatest strength, and occasionally, one of its biggest weaknesses.


Beautifully said VF. Unfortunately, it'll have to be repeated every 10-20 pages.

We're coming off a season high in locked threads ragging Kirk last week so I don't blame miz for coming down like that. I think its natural to react like that when a newer poster makes generalizations about the board. Nobody likes to be stereotyped negatively. 

We've been here and been through the heated debates and we all know sometimes you're gonna get a little dirty from time to time. I think its clear Shabadoo ain't no gipper though. Personally, I'm looking forward to more of his photoshop efforts. :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T

DaBullz said:


> During one of the game threads when I was doing play-by-play, Hinrich had taken (and hit) about 4 shots in a row. He took a 5th, and my post said something like "Hinrich, feeling it, AIR BALL"
> 
> And the criticism from certain circles was immediate (and LAME, IMO).
> 
> He was feeling it, and he did air ball it. I wasn't criticising him in the least for taking the shot, or even putting up an air ball.
> 
> Talk about innocent.
> 
> Now, K4E creates a poll yesterday that was actually interesting. Is Hinrich the bulls' best player? (I think our best player is AD, but not for long, but that's another subject). And he gets ragged on. So be it.
> 
> But I thought a better poll would have been "Does Hinrich walk on water?"


I thought that shot was tipped! As for the walk on water, don't you think that thought would be more appropriate when mentioned in reference to Ben at this point in time? 

As for game threads, they're usually sheer lunacy. Griffin misses a shot, why is he in the NBA. Pike misses a shot, quit shooting. Hinrich misses a shot, give it to Ben. Half the people here would shoot less than 30% with nobody guarding them in their backyard, but we act as though a player should make every shot he takes. Funny stuff. They're also oblivious to Skiles coaching philosophy which says you find the best available shot. If that means Griffin shoots, AD shoots, Pike shoots, so be it. I like to think we're more balanced because of it.

Just my opinion, but I still believe the real dynamic here is people tend to build up / worship a guy [insert any name past or present] and the other side disagrees and begins to tear him down. Soon enough, everybody essentially winds up on one side or the other as battle lines get drawn and the debate gets more devisive.

A more interesting poll than the "certain to be locked" poll you suggest, might be - why aren't we happy now that we've got some very talented players at EVERY position?


----------



## Mr. T

DaBullz said:


> Maybe that's the best poll of all. "Is there a mob of blind partisan Hinrich fans on the board?"


Are you suggesting they filled the vacuum left by the mob of blind partisan Crawford fans who left or linger on the board?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Mr. T said:


> A more interesting poll than the "certain to be locked" poll you suggest, might be - why aren't we happy now that we've got some very talented players at EVERY position?


For the record... I'm quite happy. Happy go lucky. 

The only thing I'm not happy about is that Gordon wears #7.


----------



## Shabadoo

First of all, very good post Vicious Flogging. While it does nothing to mend wounds and "heal the board" (which mine didn't do obviously......I probably made things worse), it is a nice summation of the situation on this site. Good observations. Of course I will disagree and suggest that Kirk is heavily favoured here, but generally nicely written.

Badfish, you are right. I started out somewhat (please people, note somewhat....or comparatively objective), but now I'm obviously in the heat of the battle. I have exercised my views as a leftist (left being Crawford, as Hinrich is obviously "right" :biggrin: .....I can see the responses "Yes, if you like Crawford, you obviously must be a communist"), and yes, I am doing some of the things I said were what everyone else was doing.

Dabullz' "airball" comment is exactly the sort I am talking about. That won't surprise anyone that I agree with it, but neither will Bullsville clapping every post Mr T makes in response to me (j/k).

GB, good to hear from you. I love the irony of you naming this place, the "troller's nook". A poignant self-reflexive comment.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> I was *floating* the idea of trading Hinrich for RAY ALLEN or LARRY HUGHES.
> 
> Two players that most NBA fans would acknowledge are better than Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> People seem to forget this......


And I think that most NBA fans would acknowledge that Jamal is better than Harrington, Pike and Griff. But I was all for that trade, and it worked out great.

And I think that most NBA fans would acknowledge that Webber is better than any of the players he was traded for.

It's not having a collection of "best players", it's about chemistry and teamwork and defense. It's not a video game, it's a real basketball game. A lot of people don't seem to understand that.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> And I think that most NBA fans would acknowledge that Jamal is better than Harrington, Pike and Griff. But I was all for that trade, and it worked out great.
> 
> And I think that most NBA fans would acknowledge that Webber is better than any of the players he was traded for.
> 
> It's not having a collection of "best players", it's about chemistry and teamwork and defense. It's not a video game, it's a real basketball game. A lot of people don't seem to understand that.


The main reason it worked out great is because of Curry, Chandler, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni and Duhon.

I'm going back to ignoring you after this. You refuse to converse without insulting... and that leads to the tension IMO.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> The main reason it worked out great is because of Curry, Chandler, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni and Duhon.
> 
> I'm going back to ignoring you after this. You refuse to converse without insulting... and that leads to the tension IMO.


Insulting? What did I say?


"And I think that most NBA fans would acknowledge that Jamal is better than Harrington, Pike and Griff. But I was all for that trade, and it worked out great.

And I think that most NBA fans would acknowledge that Webber is better than any of the players he was traded for.

It's not having a collection of "best players", it's about chemistry and teamwork and defense. It's not a video game, it's a real basketball game. A lot of people don't seem to understand that."

That, after you said,


> I was *floating* the idea of trading Hinrich for RAY ALLEN or LARRY HUGHES.
> 
> Two players that most NBA fans would acknowledge are better than Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> People seem to forget this......


Again, people said that Jamal is better than Othella, but that trade worked out great. 

People know your agenda, it's no biggie.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I was *floating* the idea of trading Hinrich for RAY ALLEN or LARRY HUGHES.
> 
> Two players that most NBA fans would acknowledge are better than Kirk Hinrich.



:clown:


----------



## GB

Shabadoo said:


> GB, good to hear from you. I love the irony of you naming this place, the "troller's nook". A poignant self-reflexive comment.


Yo mama.

:kissmy:


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> The main reason it worked out great is because of Curry, Chandler, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni and Duhon.


That doesn't make it a bad trade. It was still a great trade for the Bulls.


----------



## bullsville

Yeah, it worked out because Paxson brought in the right kinds of players. 

Jamal isn't one of those right kind of players. Othella is.

That will make a trade work out OK, just like trading Rose got us the right kind of player (AD), who you earlier said was our best player.


----------



## bullet

Haha , I just caught up with the Jamal Crawful article now.

The guy not only cannot bring wins , he definitely brings Losess with his out of team play offense and total lack of caring defense.

Best line in the article to describe Jamal is 'If he took more pride in his defense than his board to dunk the Knicks would be better...


----------



## badfish

Shabadoo said:


> Badfish, you are right. I started out somewhat (please people, note somewhat....or comparatively objective), but now I'm obviously in the heat of the battle. I have exercised my views as a leftist (left being Crawford, as Hinrich is obviously "right" :biggrin: .....I can see the responses "Yes, if you like Crawford, you obviously must be a communist"), and yes, I am doing some of the things I said were what everyone else was doing.
> 
> Dabullz' "airball" comm


Funny analogy. A lot of this does seem to go the way of polititcs, what with the agendas and all. Still I think k4e and GB are like brothers in the same family. One takes after Mama Krause while the other Papa Jerry (but tries to be more like Uncle John).


----------



## bullet

Jamal with an impressive 3-17 4 to's to help his team lose again to the Bucks.


----------



## L.O.B

Got this quote from Sam's latest 



> Jamal Crawford has a new name, thanks to one New York tabloid: Jamal Crawful. The former Bull had a 3-for-17 shooting performance Sunday in a 106-102 loss to the Bucks. It marked the fifth time in six games the Knicks yielded more than 100 points. Crawford, shooting under 39 percent on the season, says he is "confused" after being benched for defensive reasons. Counseled teammate Stephon Marbury: "When in doubt, shoot. That's how I look at it." At least Crawford is in the right place.



LMAO


----------



## madox

> *Counseled teammate Stephon Marbury: "When in doubt, shoot. That's how I look at it." At least Crawford is in the right place. *



:rofl:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

And if Crawford turned in some great performances, you Ph.D candidates would attribute his performance to being meaningless and the end of the season.


----------



## L.O.B

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> And if Crawford turned in some great performances, you Ph.D candidates would attribute his performance to being meaningless and the end of the season.


unless his great performances lead the Knicks to the playoffs, what would be the point? BTW the goal in the NBA is to win basketball games not trying to make ESPN's sportscenter.


----------



## madox

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> And if Crawford turned in some great performances, you Ph.D candidates would attribute his performance to being meaningless and the end of the season.


Every Crawford performance is meaningless... People need to accept it.


----------



## GB

There is no potential left.

We're seeing what he is. A streaky, inefficient scorer who can fill it up when he's on, and needs to sit when he's not.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> There is no potential left.
> 
> We're seeing what he is. A streaky, inefficient scorer who can fill it up when he's on, and needs to sit when he's not.


It also seems that when asked, he's able to create for others as well.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> It also seems that when asked, he's able to create for others as well.


With all the same consistency as his shooting, not on demand.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Crawford, shooting under 39 percent on the season, says he is "confused" after being benched for defensive reasons.


Yeah, I think it is safe to say that Crawford and Skiles were never going to see eye-to-eye.


----------



## The Truth

L.O.B said:


> unless his great performances lead the Knicks to the playoffs, what would be the point? BTW the goal in the NBA is to win basketball games not trying to make ESPN's sportscenter.



"Hello! We play to win the game!"
--Herm Edwards


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Quick interview:

24 Seconds With Jamal Crawford


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Crawford, shooting under 39 percent on the season, says he is "confused" after being benched for defensive reasons.


This is it for Jamal. He's made it to the league and become a multi-millionaire while only starting playing organized basketball at around 16-17 and 1/2 a year of college. His natural talents have got him this far.

He needs to take a look at himself and decide that he wants to start *winning* basketball games or he'll forever be an average player.

Eddy did it. I'd like to see Jamal do it as well, even if it is for the Knicks, except when playing the Bulls. (yes, i root for brand, artest, miller, kukoc, rose in the same way!)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Another great piece of writing on the Knicks snoozer on Sunday:

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr...lRUV5eTY2NzUxMTUmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2



> *Had Herb Williams been coaching sausages Sunday instead of the Knicks, maybe he would've been happier.
> 
> At least those wacky, racing Milwaukee sausages played to a spirited 6-6 tie in a halftime mascots game that also featured a guy dressed like a pizza slice, two bogus cows in skirts and everyone's favorite, Mr. Pig from the Piggly-Wiggly grocery chain - who posed for pictures afterward.*
> 
> As for the Knicks, Williams gave them credit for four or five minutes of effort - and even that seemed like an overestimate after a 106-102 loss to the Bucks that prompted the question: If two lottery-bound teams played to snap lengthy losing streaks, would anyone care? To Williams' way of thinking, his players didn't for more than 40 minutes and found themselves down by 13 with less than two minutes to play before storming back to within two with 17.3 seconds left.
> 
> That effort proved much ado about nothing, however, as the Knicks dropped their sixth in a row (one short of their season high) while the Bucks snapped an eight-game schneid.
> 
> "The way we played the last four, five minutes, we've got to do that for 48 minutes," an angry Williams said after indicating he told his team just that after the game for the first time during his 12-21 tenure as head coach.
> 
> "You can't do that at the end of the game, the middle of the game. You come out and play as hard as you can and when you can't play any more, you put your hand up and I'll sub for you. ... You can't give any other effort [other than] what we gave the last four, five minutes."
> 
> "If some of us play hard and some of us don't, we're not going to get it done," Maurice Taylor said after producing his Knicks' high of 18 points off the bench.
> 
> *"[In] the fourth quarter, we turned it up for whatever reason," Jamal Crawford said after a 3-for-17 shooting performance bettered in the mascots game by both Ronald McDonald and Bango, the Bucks' mascot.* "We [got] relaxed."
> 
> Tim Thomas (who scored 23 in his second trip back to Milwaukee following last season's trade) suggested that relaxation resulted from an up-and-down, pickup game-caliber first half befitting two teams going nowhere: a 54-all tie in which both shot better than 50 percent.
> 
> "It was easy for us ... because there wasn't any defense involved," he said.
> 
> By now he and his teammates ought to know what happens when they don't play defense, for it's the reason why they now have to win their last 10 games just to match last season's 39-43 record.
> 
> Williams cited one fourth-quarter play in particular as indicative of his team's malaise: a three-quarter-court inbounds pass to Michael Redd (32 points) underneath the basket that caught the Knicks so asleep, Jermaine Jackson practically tackled Redd to prevent an uncontested layup.
> 
> "You can't fall into lapses like that," Williams said. "You've got to come out and you've got to be ready to play, every single play, every single minute that you're on the court."






























:rofl:


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> This is it for Jamal. He's made it to the league and become a multi-millionaire while only starting playing organized basketball at around 16-17 and 1/2 a year of college.


This post makes you sound like an apologist.



> He needs to take a look at himself and decide that he wants to start *winning* basketball games or he'll forever be an average player.
> 
> Eddy did it. I'd like to see Jamal do it as well


Except Eddy could always score when he was on the floor. He was never an average scorer.

It was the other things he was refusing to do that kept him benched.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

GB said:


> This post makes you sound like an apologist.
> 
> 
> 
> Except Eddy could always score when he was on the floor. He was never an average scorer.
> 
> It was the other things he was refusing to do that kept him benched.



You know what? Lay off the guy. He is a Jamal fan, who was against the trade. He has been generally realistic about JCs strengths and weaknesses, and seems to agreee that Jamal isn't doing much better on the Knicks than he did here. The kid got his fat contract and its now time to see if the guy is willing and able to become an all around baller, or an average guard, with a nice crossover, a streaky J and a fat contract.

Give the man a little breathing room, instead of jumping down his throat every time he posts.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> This post makes you sound like an apologist.


Like I've said before, I think the incentive structure in the NBA for young players is out of whack. 




> Except Eddy could always score when he was on the floor. He was never an average scorer.
> 
> It was the other things he was refusing to do that kept him benched.


And Eddy was the #4 pick in the draft and Jamal was #8. Eddy will be paid more than Jamal at the end of this season. There was never any doubt about who was the least valuable and most expendible of the 3 "Cs."

And... just like Eddy... .its the "other things" that are getting Jamal benched.


----------



## GB

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You know what? Lay off the guy.
> --
> Give the man a little breathing room, instead of jumping down his throat every time he posts.


Thats a tad bit unfair. I said the same thing to him that other posters said...Jamal doesn't need excuses, he's a multi-year veteran.

Excuse my loquacious speech. :grinning:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> "[In] the fourth quarter, we turned it up for whatever reason," Jamal Crawford said after a 3-for-17 shooting performance bettered in the mascots game by both Ronald McDonald and Bango, the Bucks' mascot. "We [got] relaxed."


I don't know if this has been an issue for other players and it's probably a general comment that can be said for anybody else, but Jamal seems to have this problem with being either too lax or too uptight which probably causes inconsistencies in his game, from shooting too much or not shooting at all. 

Basically, he's an insecure player, and I would argue that a lot of it has to do with these various environments he's played in and him bringing a decent array of skills, which has made it tough for him to find a niche. I mean, when he started his career, he said he wanted to be an assists and steals leader like Slick Watts, but once he took the headband off and we added Jalen Rose, he's been a little like that, meaning taking shots to keep us in the game. 

Now these last few weeks with the Knicks, those two identities have been clashing as he's recorded 8 assist games along with 3-17 shooting performances.

If I had to pick an identity for Jamal, it would be the Slick Watts that he originally wanted to be namely because he really can get the offense moving with those moves.


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Jamal seems to have this problem with being either too lax or too uptight which *probably causes inconsistencies in his game*,
> ---
> Basically, he's an insecure player, and I would argue that *a lot of it has to do with these various environments he's played in*



My, my, my.





I disagree, btw. He is who he is by nature of him making himself who he is.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> My, my, my.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, btw. He is who he is by nature of him making himself who he is.


Not really any kind of revelation. I'm a Jamal fan, but I've done my best to be fair as have most fans. You just seem to think that because I remain a fan that I must uphold this godly view of Jamal.


----------



## dkg1

Jamal without the headband is akin to Sampson with a haircut.


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> I must uphold this godly view of Jamal.



:wink:




Kidding, kidding.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

BTW, GB, Elton Brand, Tyson Chandler. Who plays more "right" ?


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> BTW, GB, Elton Brand, Tyson Chandler. Who plays more "right" ?



There is wrong. There is right.

There is no more.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> There is wrong. There is right.
> 
> There is no more.


Oh GB, come on, don't bob and weave. Who's your million dollar (actually 10 million) boo ?


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Oh GB, come on, don't bob and weave. Who's your million dollar (actually 10 million) boo ?


Thats a very different question than "who plays more right".


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> Thats a very different question than "who plays more right".


Yeah I know. I just wanted to throw a bunch of Tyson Chandler/Elton Brand questions at you.


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Yeah I know. I just wanted to throw a bunch of Tyson Chandler/Elton Brand questions at you.


y?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> y?


To take the thread in a different direction and shed light on your own biases so you'd forget a bit about micro-analyzing the same points about Jamal.


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> To take the thread in a different direction and shed light on your own biases so you'd forget a bit about micro-analyzing the same points about Jamal.



What are my biases?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> What are my biases?


Not so much biases as allegiances. . .to both Tyson as a Bull and Elton as your long lost boo. It seems like it would be akin to liking anyone on the current Bulls and Jamal as the long lost boo.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

But anyway, congratulations on the 2,300th reply !

EDIT: But excuse me for a bit while I bow out and save my own 999th and 1000th posts, maybe even 1001th post for something meaningful.


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Not so much biases as allegiances. . .to both Tyson as a Bull and Elton as your long lost boo. It seems like it would be akin to liking anyone on the current Bulls and Jamal as the long lost boo.



*chuckle*

Dude isn't my long lost boo. He's actually the kind of player Jamal should strive to be: Someone who took great care to learn the fundamentals of his position, gets maximum use of his athletic talent, and never, ever, ever plays outside of his game. I wonder if that discipline came from without, or if it's the Coach K effect.

I'd argue that he's not a great player, in other words, a superstar. He is, as I've always said, a piece.


----------



## truebluefan

I have commented a lot about Jamal. The reason I do so is because I think he can be much better than he is. 

Is he coachable? That might be an issue now. BC, Skiles and now H Williams benching Crawford for the exact same reasons. You would think Jamal would be less confused by now. 

I am really concerned for him. Of coure how concerned should I be? He makes millions of dollars.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Way to go, ace, it's nice to see you take your lumps like a man.
> 
> Unlike K4E, who wussed out on a technicality...


I like this post. It amuses me.


----------



## remlover

Kirk v Jamal Friday Night.

Good v Evil

The Right way v the Wrong Way









vs









Time to break out the Rocky IV soundtrack! 

:banana:


----------



## GB

remlover said:


> Kirk v Jamal Friday Night.
> 
> Good v Evil
> 
> The Right way v the Wrong Way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to break out the Rocky IV soundtrack!
> 
> :banana:










vs.


----------



## remlover

GB said:


> vs.











v


----------



## Shabadoo

Cmon' guys, the Bulls Knicks game doesn't need to be a Kirk vs Jamal battle. It will just cause undue agitation and bitter conflict between the factions of this board.

I think we should think about just how good this season has been, set aside our differences and "heal the board".


----------



## GB

Amazing statistic:

*86%* of his shots are jumpers.
http://82games.com/04NYK4A.HTM

He NEVER goes to the hole. Never!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> Amazing statistic:
> 
> *86%* of his shots are jumpers.
> http://82games.com/04NYK4A.HTM
> 
> He NEVER goes to the hole. Never!


and Kirks is like 84% and Bens is like 81% so does that mean they also


> NEVER goes to the hole. Never!


 as well .

I really dont even see the point in keeping this stuff going


----------



## Da Grinch

TRUTHHURTS said:


> and Kirks is like 84% and Bens is like 81% so does that mean they also as well .
> 
> I really dont even see the point in keeping this stuff going


if crawford hit more of them it wouldn't be an issue ...the same goes for kirk btw.

JC had a good individual night 26 , 5 and 4 the knicks lost though ,took and made 9 free throws as he drove to the hoop quite a bit tonight.


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> and Kirks is like 84% and Bens is like 81% so does that mean they also


No, it means that their opponents fear their drive enough to give them room to take jumpers (how are Bens tear drops counted??).

Jamal? No. He just shoots into the opponents fingertips.


----------



## GB

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> JC had a good individual night 26 , 5 and 4


Trash time. I saw you guys were down 72-46 at one point.


----------



## Da Grinch

GB said:


> No, it means that their opponents fear their drive enough to give them room to take jumpers (how are Bens tear drops counted??).
> 
> Jamal? No. He just shoots into the opponents fingertips.


GB , do opponents fear kirk's drives based on his driving 2% more than crawford?

or the fact that crawford actually has a better efg%(.458 vs. .448) on his jumpshots probably has it the other way around.


----------



## fl_flash

Offensively, Crawford had a pretty nice game. Hit some threes, actually drove the lane. Defensively, he and Marbury were flat-out abused by Kidd and Carter. The Knicks just looked old and slow on defense most of the night.


----------



## Da Grinch

GB said:


> Trash time. I saw you guys were down 72-46 at one point.


if it were garbage time in the 4th kidd or the rest of their starters wouldn't have been in the game til the final 30 or so sec. , the knicks made a pretty big comeback .


----------



## GB

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> GB , do opponents fear kirk's drives


Yes.

He actually knows what to do when he gets in deep.


----------



## Da Grinch

GB said:


> Yes.
> 
> He actually knows what to do when he gets in deep.


knowing and doing are 2 different things ....for instance when gordon is in the lane ...vs. when kirk is. Crawford is really only about avg. for a guard as a finisher not especially good at it.

I would say ben is very good and kirk is below avg. at that aspect of the game for a guard.


----------



## such sweet thunder

remlover said:


> v












v.










______________________________________________










v.










_______________________________________________











v.













_______________________________________________










v.


----------



## The True Essence

knicks are on tank mode. you see steph laughing after sucking 90 percent of the game. you cant take their play lately seriously


----------



## Wynn

PennyHardaway said:


> knicks are on tank mode. you see steph laughing after sucking 90 percent of the game. you cant take their play lately seriously


I haven't taken their play all year seriously. Why start now?!



























_damn.... back on this thread. It's a slow night...._


----------



## fleetwood macbull

latest update...NY reporters becoming increasingly hostile to our hero

Thomas frustrated with his players according to Frank Isola
can't watch his team self destruct:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/297878p-255008c.html



> The Knicks are now 12-22 since Williams replaced Lenny Wilkens, including a 2-16 record on the road. Williams desperately needs wins to bolster his case, starting with tonight's game against the playoff-bound Chicago Bulls, who have already beaten the Knicks twice this season. *(Three times, if you include the Jamal Crawford deal.)*


Hiyoh!! 

======================================
Lawrence:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/297876p-255011c.html



> After running with Bulls for 5 seasons, Jamal Crawford is gunning for Knicks.
> 
> *There might be something worse than Jamal Crawford's shot selection.
> It's his team selection.*
> 
> Crawford chose to leave the Chicago Bulls and sign for big bucks with the Knicks last summer. You know how they scored that one, don't you?
> 
> Turnover, No. 11.






> *But the Bulls' success without him also doesn't reflect well on Crawford, who was deemed expendable by GM John Paxson last summer. During his four seasons in Chicago, Crawford played for three coaches who didn't have the word "interim" before their title. All three tried to convince him that he didn't have to put the ball up the minute he stepped over the midcourt line. All three attempted to get him to play some semblance of defense. All three failed, miserably.*





> But Isiah Thomas saw something in Crawford. Exactly what is still unknown. Because as Thomas' first big free-agent acquisition for the Knicks, Crawford certainly hasn't given any indication that he'll be a major player in the future. *Most of his memorable plays have involved him throwing the ball off the backboard to himself for a follow-up shot.*
> 
> Not exactly the stuff of NBA legends. Maybe schoolyard legends. But the Knicks are paying $56 million for a player who will finish the season shooting less than 40%.








> After getting the best of Stephon Marbury once again, Kidd kicked some sand in the Knicks' faces, saying he doesn't get excited anymore when he drills New York.
> 
> "They're just another bad team," he said.
> 
> Real bad. Maybe 50-loss bad, when all is said and done.
> 
> *Nice career decision, Mr. Crawford.*






> For a rookie averaging only 24 minutes a game, Gordon has shown signs that he could be a special player. Probably the biggest thing holding him back from becoming an upper echelon player is that he's only 6-3. But he'll have plenty of time to disprove that theory.
> 
> "I knew he could play and I knew he could fit in with this league," Carter said. "But he's played at another level."
> 
> Where? *More than a few above Jamal Crawford.*



Ouch baby. Very ouch


----------



## remlover

Reading the Knicks board @ the other site its obvious that Jamal is no longer the Apple in NYK fans eyes. 

But come on, he is so young, before this season he has barely played any basketball in his life  He will get better one day


----------



## The True Essence

fans are so fickle. especially knick fans

like i said before, herb williams playbook runs 0 plays deep. jamals plays great in a set offense.thats why hes sucked under williams, and was playing much better earlier in the year.


----------



## Mr. T




----------



## Shabadoo

Mr. T said:


>


Hehe very nice. How did you like my Kirk & Jamal under a rainbow one?


----------



## Mr. T

Shabadoo said:


> Hehe very nice. How did you like my Kirk & Jamal under a rainbow one?


It was outstanding Shabadoo! Unfortunately, I wasn't certain that I grasped its true symbolic meaning. 

Jamal looks like he's talking a little smack to Kirk telling him he got his pot at the end of the rainbow and bought a castle with some of his coin. 

Kirk looks like his reply is, "it doesn't matter man, me and my homies are raiding the castle tonight to rape and pillage the Knick".

Can you maybe do a followup illustration - for clarity?

:clown:


----------



## Shabadoo

The line is crossed, the horse is dead and the fat lady is singing.

This is the end....the end of dog racing.


----------



## L.O.B

> "I'm happy here. The season hasn't gone like we wanted. But we're building for the future. Short term is not our goal. I feel we have the pieces in place to build something."


Yeah Jamal, I look at the Knicks current roster filled w/ young players w/ small salaries and I think of their future. lmao


----------



## truebluefan

PennyHardaway said:


> fans are so fickle. especially knick fans
> 
> like i said before, herb williams playbook runs 0 plays deep. jamals plays great in a set offense.thats why hes sucked under williams, and was playing much better earlier in the year.


He does play great in a set offense? Well if that is true he has changed from last year. He took many shots out of our offensive scheme. so we might as well not had a scheme in some games.


----------



## truebluefan

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2103459#post2103459

For those following the vbookie wager on who will have a better shooting pct, Hinrich or Crawford? Kirk has now passed Jamal and the season is almost over. Not gloating or nothong. 

Still that's not saying much either way, both guys need to really work on their shot. If Hinrich can improve dramatically...the bulls will be even better than they are now.


----------



## Mr. T

Shabadoo said:


> The line is crossed, the horse is dead and the fat lady is singing.
> 
> This is the end....the end of dog racing.


Nice, very nice! :clap:


----------



## such sweet thunder

PennyHardaway said:


> fans are so fickle. especially knick fans
> 
> like i said before, herb williams playbook runs 0 plays deep. jamals plays great in a set offense.thats why hes sucked under williams, and was playing much better earlier in the year.


very insightful comment Penny:

Skiles spent all last season trying to teach Jamal how to shoot coming off up-screens. Jamal only had moderate success but he did make significant improvements form the beginning of the season when he wasn't hitting anthing. Kinda' modeling him after a rip hamilton type shooter. I agree, this is probably the most sure route for him to be a consistent performer. For a part of the season I even felt that Jamal was buying into him being a "system" player and not a free-lancer.


----------



## VincentVega

Anybody who even tries to compare the two players anymore has got to be on some grade-A peyote.


----------



## GB

> The last time the Knicks lost as many as nine in a row came during the franchise-record losing streak of 12 games from March 23 to April 13, 1985.
> 
> Now the Knicks (29-46) can only hope the draft produces young players the quality of Chicago's Kirk Hinrich, who had 20 points and five assists, and rookie Ben Gordon, who led the Bulls (43-32) with 22 points.


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...9,0,477268.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines

:cheers: 



> Jason Kidd rubbed their noses in it by saying Thursday's win no longer means as much as it once did to the Nets because the Knicks are "just another bad team." That was a departure for Kidd, who usually shows more respect for opponents.
> 
> Asked if Kidd's comments stung, Crawford said, "A little, but if you have a choice between playing in New Jersey or New York, I think most guys would choose New York."


Not if Kidd is there...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Good game for Crawford as the Knicks knock off the red-hot Pacers in Indy.

13-20 FG
4-7 3FG
5 rebounds
5 assists
1 TO
1 steal
2 blocks
32 points

nice game for *JAMAL*


----------



## dkg1

Living in the midwest, I seldom get to see a Knicks game in it's entirety. Jamal was fantastic offensively. However, his defense left a lot to be desired. He still cannot fight through or around screens. Reggie Miller looked like he was 24 running around out there with JC guarding him. They even had to resort to putting Marbury on Reggie at certain times. Jermain Jackson by far did the best job on Miller. When Jamal started guarding Anthony Johnson, he started tearing it up for the Pacers. Jamal was so worried about keeping AJ in front of him at the end of regulation he gave him a 4 to 5 foot cushion at the top of the key, allowing Johnson to put up an uncontested shot at the buzzer. Having said that, it was nice to see Jamal go off on the offensive end and have a good game against the Pacers.


----------



## GB

Don't fall out of your chair:

_ "Sixteen months is not enough to rebuild a team," said the respected Walsh. "I do like the pickups he's made. He's getting quality players at the 1-2-3 and could move [Tim] Thomas to 4. He needs that one remaining position. Those are hard to come by. But he made great strides in breaking up the team he got, bringing in good players like [Stephon] Marbury, [Jamal] Crawford, [Trevor] Ariza."

Ariza's selection at No. 43 stands as Isiah's best move. Marbury, statistically, has had terrific season but did not make enough big plays in the final two minutes of games. And Crawford was erratic offensively, a bust on defense.

However, Walsh says the Knicks should not give up on Crawford. One confidant of Phil Jackson says the Zen Master likes Crawford, believes he'd work well in the triangle, giving his game more structure.

"I think Jamal's going to be a terrific player, I really do," Walsh said. "He's figuring it out now. It looks to me he's trying to play the right way. He's not racing down the court and firing shots up. He's trying to play within the offense. It takes a player a year to adjust unless they walk into a ready-made team and it's not." _

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/44244.htm


----------



## johnston797

> And Crawford was erratic offensively, a bust on defense. But still has a lot of potential.


Boy, I am glad that my team is still not waiting on this potential.....


----------



## GB

Crawford is on the Apprentice _right_ now...


----------



## JRose5

GB said:


> Crawford is on the Apprentice _right_ now...


"I can't believe I'm in the presence of Jamal Crawford."
- Tana
:laugh:



You see Trump nail that J?
I think Isiah's gonna try to sign him as a free agent.


----------



## Da Grinch

against the cavs crawford had 25 point 4 boards and 9 assists (10-16 fg)


----------



## kukoc4ever

Good article about Jamal.

Good game by him tonight.

( I think u have to be a subscriber to see this article... but maybe not )

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/sports/basketball/13knicks.html?


----------



## kukoc4ever

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> against the cavs crawford had 25 point 4 boards and 9 assists (10-16 fg)


Jamal should take the lead in the big Crawford - Hinrich FG% race after this one.

He's already well ahead in eFG of course.


----------



## bullsville

I wish there was a way to know Jamal's stats in 'games after your team has already been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs'. I know his best single-season numbers came when he only played in March and April, and this April he is over 18 points/game after a lousy January and February.


----------



## GB

<I> At Coach Herb Williams's urging, Crawford has used the last two months of the season to diversify his game. It is a self-improvement project that Crawford will take into the off-season, which begins in eight days.

"It definitely changed as the year went on," Crawford said before last night's 105-93 loss to the Toronto Raptors at the Garden. "Before, I was just scoring a lot, and then it became a point where I made a really concentrated effort on passing. I think my game is definitely going to be more well rounded going into the future."</i>

You know...I've seen people butt their heads up against a bad situation (like in a marriage or job), not think it's them, leave, and find the same problem wherever they end up.

Then they realize it's _them_.

I'm just happy for the kid.

<I> Crawford began weight-training during the season, adding eight pounds.

"We'd like to continue to build upon that," said Brittenham, who noted that the slightly built Crawford was much stronger than he looked.

Crawford plans to split his summer between his Seattle-area home and New York.

"I'm definitely going to get stronger," he said. "Greg's one of the best I've ever seen, so I'm sure he'll put something together for me."

Crawford has plans for his game, too.

"I think next year you'll see a whole lot more of me driving," he said. "I think I let people off the hook a lot by settling for jumpers."</i>


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> I wish there was a way to know Jamal's stats in 'games after your team has already been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs'. I know his best single-season numbers came when he only played in March and April, and this April he is over 18 points/game after a lousy January and February.


For this season....

His best month EFF wise has been this month.

His 2nd and 3rd best months were Dec and Jan.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Seems like the Cavs and Lebron were interested in winning last nite.



> *Crawford's 25
> stuff LeBron's guarantee*
> 
> CLEVELAND - LeBron James guaranteed that he'll make his first playoff appearance this season, only to see the Cavs suffer a potentially devastating 95-89 loss to the Knicks last night.
> 
> "We ain't worried about not making it," James said before the game. "We're going to make it."
> 
> With Stephon Marbury on the bench for the entire fourth quarter, the Knicks used a 13-0 run midway through the period to take the lead for good. The win was the second straight for the Knicks (31-47) on the road against a team with a winning record. They went 3-1 against Cleveland this season.
> 
> Jamal Crawford led the Knicks with 25 points and Maurice Taylor added 16 off the bench.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/300152p-256943c.html


----------



## bullet

> *How delinquent is Jamal Crawford's defense? The Bulls claim he was so disinterested about bending his back when in Chicago he didn't even want to be bothered yelling "Help!" when his man breezed by him *


http://www.nypost.com/sports/44580.htm


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullet said:


> http://www.nypost.com/sports/44580.htm


Haha... I didn't know Peter Vescey was still around.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Haha... I didn't know Peter Vescey was still around.



Funny, I just saw him yesterday afternoon on NBA-TV (was taped Wed night), and I thought the same thing. I figured he went Pat O'Brien, Petey would be perfect for the Hollywood scene with his 'accurate, reliable reporting'.


----------



## yodurk

GB said:


> <I> At Coach Herb Williams's urging, Crawford has used the last two months of the season to diversify his game. It is a self-improvement project that Crawford will take into the off-season, which begins in eight days.
> 
> "It definitely changed as the year went on," Crawford said before last night's 105-93 loss to the Toronto Raptors at the Garden. "Before, I was just scoring a lot, and then it became a point where I made a really concentrated effort on passing. I think my game is definitely going to be more well rounded going into the future."</i>
> 
> You know...I've seen people butt their heads up against a bad situation (like in a marriage or job), not think it's them, leave, and find the same problem wherever they end up.
> 
> Then they realize it's _them_.
> 
> I'm just happy for the kid.
> 
> <I> Crawford began weight-training during the season, adding eight pounds.
> 
> "We'd like to continue to build upon that," said Brittenham, who noted that the slightly built Crawford was much stronger than he looked.
> 
> Crawford plans to split his summer between his Seattle-area home and New York.
> 
> "I'm definitely going to get stronger," he said. "Greg's one of the best I've ever seen, so I'm sure he'll put something together for me."
> 
> Crawford has plans for his game, too.
> 
> "I think next year you'll see a whole lot more of me driving," he said. "I think I let people off the hook a lot by settling for jumpers."</i>


The first step is admitting you have a problem, Jamal. I proud of you young man. And thanks for that demoralizing victory at Cleveland. That's 2 favors in a week.


----------



## bullsville

yodurk said:


> The first step is admitting you have a problem, Jamal. I proud of you young man. And thanks for that demoralizing victory at Cleveland. That's 2 favors in a week.


Let's see if he can make it 3 favors when they play the Whiz on Wednesday? They say good things come in 3's...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

The end.

:biggrin:


----------



## Electric Slim

Hirich almost improved to match Jamal in assists tonight!

(Hinrich 5) (Crawford 6)


----------



## Ron Cey

Darius Miles Davis said:


> The end.
> 
> :biggrin:


My thoughts exactly. _Fine_.


----------



## Electric Slim

One more thing, can we finally lock this thread? :clown:


----------



## ChiBulls2315

Electric Slim said:


> One more thing, can we finally lock this thread? :clown:



I was just going to say, isn't this the perfect opportunity to close this mother effer. Come on, how perfect of an ending can this be? Seriously, end it now. Man oh man, there's some freakin good memories in this bad boy. Do it now on the high note. 

End it and make a book out of it. Everyone splits the $$$ accordingly to how active they were in the thread, with me receiving 50% for the idea. :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

11-24 FG (45.8%)
1-4 FT
6 rbs
6 asts
6 TOs
1 steal
1 block

Another crappy outing for Crawford.


----------



## jnrjr79

kukoc4ever said:


> 11-24 FG (45.8%)
> 1-4 FT
> 6 rbs
> 6 asts
> 6 TOs
> 1 steal
> 1 block
> 
> Another crappy outing for Crawford.



Do you deny though that despite a good game on paper that Jamal melted down at the end and essentially cost the Knicks the W?


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> 11-24 FG (45.8%)
> 1-4 FT
> 6 rbs
> 6 asts
> 6 TOs
> 1 steal
> 1 block
> 
> Another crappy outing for Crawford.


Raw statistics mean a lot.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> 11-24 FG (45.8%)
> 1-4 FT
> 6 rbs
> 6 asts
> 6 TOs
> 1 steal
> 1 block
> 
> Another crappy outing for Crawford.


 :cheers: I'll drink to that!


----------



## Electric Slim

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you deny though that despite a good game on paper that Jamal melted down at the end and essentially cost the Knicks the W?



I don't know much about basketball, but 1-4 for ft's and 6 TO's are pretty good, right?

I love this pointless thread!

4ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kukoc4ever

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you deny though that despite a good game on paper that Jamal melted down at the end and essentially cost the Knicks the W?


Of course! Those FTs were a joke and the three was a stupid shot IMO.

But... he was also one of the main reasons they were hanging tough @ the end. While "clutch" is exciting... its often overrated, IMO. That's why I'm a Chandler for 6th man guy.

I'm happy the Bulls won the game... it would have sucked to lose home court.... and I didn't want to tangle with the Pacers tomorrow.

It was a fitting "good bye" for Crawford..... it was an epic showdown to observe in person... especially given all the back and forth on this message board. If this message board were made into a movie, Hollywood would not have been able to top tonight's game for an ending.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Raw statistics mean a lot.


I'll take raw statistics over the spin any day! 

[edit sst: i know, smiley face, but please keep comments on content]


----------



## BealeFarange

The game tonight was a suspsense thriller. And Ben killed 'em. 

Really, K4E, I agree...Hollywood could not have written a better ending for this one from a Bulls fan's perspective. Absolutely amazing...that time after the timeout towards the end when the crowd was going INSANE during the "noise meter" and Crawford simply knifed threw the d and hit a J...? THAT'S what live basketball is all about. I think I almost passed out. 

Watching Ben, though, take Crawford's once seemingly destined role of clutch Bulls scorer, fan fave, trick dribble champion, and all around good guy...? Even better. 

I sorta felt bad for Jamal...but he and his teammates know he was the one who kept them in it for so long. So he choked...isn't that we always wanted? Jamal wins an exciting game for the Bulls down the stretch to clinch home-court in the playoffs? Some things work out in the end. 

Looked for you at the game, actually, but couldn't remember where your seats were. Figured today of all days would be a great day to chat with a fellow Jamal fan...what a great game.


----------



## GB

Marbury:



> Marbury said he understood that he would be the primary object of criticism when his team lost.
> 
> "I'm at the point in my career where I can deal with that," he said. "I can deal with getting criticized for not winning, because that's just basically it - that's what it all boils down to. Regardless of 11 other people being on the team. Because that seems to not be a factor. But it's about, 'Stephon Marbury, he didn't win again.'
> 
> "If I could win by myself," he continued, pausing to exhale in exasperation, "believe me, I'd be trying to do it every night. But that's not the case. So for me, it's not about numbers."
> --
> Regarding reinforcements, Marbury said he would welcome "some wing players that are very athletic, guys that are long, as far as for defense, guys that can really lock up."


http://nytimes.com/2005/04/20/sports/basketball/20knicks.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Marbury:
> 
> 
> 
> http://nytimes.com/2005/04/20/sports/basketball/20knicks.html


Interesting article... but Steph should start concentrating on earning his massive salary and actually leading his team (for the first time in his life) to the playoffs then blaming his teammates.

Knicks payroll.

Allan Houston 
$17,531,250

Anfernee Hardaway 
$14,625,000

Stephon Marbury 
$14,625,000

Tim Thomas
$12,900,000

Maurice Taylor 
$8,450,000

Shandon Anderson 
$7,300,000

Kurt Thomas 
$5,884,500

Jamal Crawford
$5,800,000

Jerome Williams 
$5,600,000

Malik Rose
$5,462,500

Its pretty clear who is earning their $$$ and who is not. The Knicks battled in that 4th quarter while the "STAR"bury was wrapped almost entirely in towels. He looked silly.


----------



## GB

I don't think Marbury would have missed two free throws in a row in a game like this.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Great win for the bulls tough loss for jamal although he played a great game up until the end .He played the entire second half and was basically the knicks entire offense the 4th quarter while chasing around Duhon whose shot was falling ,Kirk who was hot and Ben who has big 4th quarters .It was a great game from just a basketball fans perspective .


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> I don't think Marbury would have missed two free throws in a row in a game like this.


It happens. If the Knicks won, you'd probably be talking about how useless the whole Knick season was anyway.


----------



## GB

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> It happens. If the Knicks won, you'd probably be talking about how useless the whole Knick season was anyway.


Wrong.

I'd be talking about the stupidity of losing to a team like the Knicks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> I don't think Marbury would have missed two free throws in a row in a game like this.



Well, he was not even on the court for most of the 4th quarter.... so he didn't make much of an impact either way.

He was wrapped in towels while this teammates were trying to win a game.

He's the 7th highest paid player in the NBA. Earn it. I respect Marbury's game a ton... but he does not seem like he's the best player on a good team. He should shut up, lick his wounds, and try again next season.

When you look at that Knicks payroll and then you look at who contributed tonight against the Bulls…. Damn… what a waste of money.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> I don't think Marbury would have missed two free throws in a row in a game like this.


Marbury has blown several game winning or game tying ft's in the closing second of games this year which is a reason why the knicks have lost soo many games close games .


----------



## GB

<I>Marbury didn't play in the fourth quarter with a sore left foot.

"It was more my bunion, I got a bad bunion," said Marbury. "It was hurting. It was hurting real bad."</i>

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=250419004


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> I'd be talking about the stupidity of losing to a team like the Knicks.


yup, that's what i was saying as well. there was no good reason that the knicks should have been in that game.

:clap:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

GB said:


> Wrong.
> 
> I'd be talking about the stupidity of losing to a team like the Knicks.


Something along those lines where you're putting down Jamal's team. Not much of a difference.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> When you look at that Knicks payroll and then you look at who contributed tonight against the Bulls…. Damn… what a waste of money.



Why just tonight? How would the Knicks season have been without Steph and with JC given the green light from the organization and coaches to be the 'best player' ?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> yup, that's what i was saying as well. there was no good reason that the knicks should have been in that game.
> 
> :clap:



Was it Jamals good play or the Bulls bad play that kept them in it?

'A combination of the two' is not an acceptable answer.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Was it Jamals good play or the Bulls bad play that kept them in it?
> 
> 'A combination of the two' is not an acceptable answer.


Well... that's what it was. Sorry.

The Bulls D was crap tonight... up until the 3rd and 4th.... and even then only for spurts... not the usual good D. The Knicks were in our lane whenever they wanted.

Crawford was hitting some tough shots down the stretch with good D being applied. He was silencing the crowd. He also made some boneheaded decisions... but so did some of our Bulls as well. 

Crawford had an average game IMO. He kept his team in the ball game but screwed it up the last couple of plays. I guess he just didn't play like a 5.8 million a year player tonight. ? :whoknows:


----------



## bbertha37

kukoc4ever said:


> Crawford had an average game IMO. He kept his team in the ball game but screwed it up the last couple of plays. I guess he just didn't play like a 5.8 million a year player tonight. ? :whoknows:


If by page 160, someone still doesn't understand the role that the virtues of prudence and foresight play in rebuilding a team, I really don't know what to say to them anymore...


----------



## DontBeCows

Sometimes I wonder if this thread will still be around by the time when Jamal retires and the Bulls have won 3 more championships.


----------



## bullsville

bbertha37 said:


> If by page 160, someone still doesn't understand the role that the virtues of prudence and foresight play in rebuilding a team, I really don't know what to say to them anymore...


 :whoknows:


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> He's the 7th highest paid player in the NBA. Earn it. I respect Marbury's game a ton... but he does not seem like he's the best player on a good team. He should shut up, lick his wounds, and try again next season.



But we do know that Stephon is the best PG in the NBA , just ask him. :biggrin:


----------



## truebluefan

160 pages! Wow All on a guy that was extremely happy to play for a real organization. (or something like that)

I wish him well playing for in the future. 

Hey we swept this real orginization didn't we? 

So I predict in the future there will not be another 160 page thread on Jamal. I agree with the opinions of others. Time to put it to rest. Jamal is doing his thing, the Bulls are doing theirs. 

The Bulls made the playoffs and a #4 seed the Knicks did not. I am not blaming Jamal. Plenty of blame to go around there starting with IT. They could have used Mutomobo and Othella this season! Houston's contract hurts them.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bbertha37 said:


> If by page 160, someone still doesn't understand the role that the virtues of prudence and foresight play in rebuilding a team, I really don't know what to say to them anymore...


Perhaps... but given playoff guarantee last season (foresight?) and "thick and thin" this season (foresight?) and almost waiving Duhon (foresight?)... 

I'll do a search on your old posts to try and find the playoff prediction for this season. The majority of GMs picked the Knicks to win their division this year. Nobody picked the Bulls. I guess the GMs lack foresight as well.

Scott Skiles himself even expressed surprise in the pre-game show yesterday that the Knicks were not better... said something the effect of "from a coaching perspective, with that talent, I'm not sure how they don't win.


----------



## GB

> Nash is averaging 15.5 points and 11.5 assists and has made everyone around him better. And with the exception of Quentin Richardson, Marbury had the same supporting cast as Nash.
> 
> There are whispers inside the organization that Isiah Thomas will either draft or sign a point guard this summer in order to move Marbury to shooting guard.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/301798p-258360c.html

Jamal is going to blow his top if he loses his burn and gets pushed to the bench by another rookie...



> On Crawford's year, Marbury said, "He was having a stellar season before he got hurt [Dec. 26]. That kind of set him back. I think next year he's going to be a lot better."


http://nypost.com/sports/knicks/23254.htm

What does Isaiah think?



> With Jamal Crawford assuming some of his ballhandling chores, Marbury has been able to move without the ball, spot up for shots and taken less of a beating, much as Allen Iverson did in Philadelphia with Eric Snow as his point guard.
> 
> There's also a theory that, if Isiah Thomas can land someone such as Wake Forest's Chris Paul or Illinois' Deron Williams in the draft, Marbury could play even more two-guard with Crawford coming off the bench as a sixth man.


http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...lRUV5eTY2ODIzMTkmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2


----------



## truebluefan

Jamal coming off of the bench? Drafting yet another guard? 

uh-oh!


----------



## GB

truebluefan said:


> Jamal coming off of the bench? Drafting yet another guard?
> 
> uh-oh!



Uh-oh?

It give him a chance to be a 6'5" Gordon.


----------



## spongyfungy

NBA: Former Bull Jamal Crawford talks about his trip back to Chicago (4/19)


----------



## ViciousFlogging

truebluefan said:


> Jamal coming off of the bench? Drafting yet another guard?
> 
> uh-oh!


I want to see Jamal succeed when he's not playing us, but after all the arguments we've had here where I've been on the anti-Jamal side of the spectrum (not because I hate him, just because I think he's a flawed player that we could do without and moving him was a positive move), I must say that a small part of me would chuckle if the Knicks brought in guards to compete with Jamal the way we did.


----------



## truebluefan

ViciousFlogging said:


> I want to see Jamal succeed when he's not playing us, but after all the arguments we've had here where I've been on the anti-Jamal side of the spectrum (not because I hate him, just because I think he's a flawed player that we could do without and moving him was a positive move), I must say that a small part of me would chuckle if the Knicks brought in guards to compete with Jamal the way we did.


That why I said what said. He gripped every year we brought in a guard through the draft. Then he goes to play for a real organization, and what are they considering doing? Drafting yet another guard! Jamal must have nightmares at night. Groundhogs day gone bad. And to top it all off, considering bringing Jamal off of the bench. 

Houston really hurts this club. 

NY needs more than just another guard. They need a center in the worse way.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Didn't Crawford think he'd be coming off the bench when he signed with a team that had Marbury, Houston and Penny?


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> Didn't Crawford think he'd be coming off the bench when he signed with a team that had Marbury, Houston and Penny?


Crawford has a tendency to get "confused".


----------



## kukoc4ever

On who JAMAL is rooting for in the playoffs.

"I'll be rooting for Tyson, Eddy and Kirk. The guys I played with. I'm happy for the fans for sure."

What a jack-***. Good riddance.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> Didn't Crawford think he'd be coming off the bench when he signed with a team that had Marbury, Houston and Penny?


quite possibly. But I bet he also thinks that he's earned the chance to keep a starting guard job without having to compete with a hotshot rookie based on his performance this year. I think he'd even have trouble letting Houston take the SG spot back (if Houston actually makes a full recovery, which I doubt).

I'm with tbf though. The Knicks have some OK players, no matter how overpaid they are, but they have absolutely NOTHING in the middle. I still can't believe they traded Nazr away for Malik Rose. Wow.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> On who JAMAL is rooting for in the playoffs.
> 
> "I'll be rooting for Tyson, Eddy and Kirk. The guys I played with. I'm happy for the fans for sure."
> 
> What a jack-***. Good riddance.


Leave it to k4e to defend what isn't being attacked. 

The only words spoken from Jamal that have caused him some negative perception are those spoken about his coaches and management. He tends to let his frustrations make his way into the NY Times. Other than that, I think most of us here think he's a sweetheart, fan of his game or not.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Didn't Crawford think he'd be coming off the bench when he signed with a team that had Marbury, Houston and Penny?



Isn't there a difference between playing behind an older player you think you'll eventually replace, and having to play behind a rookie that management is cheering for?


----------



## GB

truebluefan said:


> 160 pages! Wow All on a guy that was extremely happy to play for a real organization. (or something like that)
> 
> I wish him well playing for in the future.
> 
> Hey we swept this real orginization didn't we?
> 
> So I predict in the future there will not be another 160 page thread on Jamal. I agree with the opinions of others. Time to put it to rest. Jamal is doing his thing, the Bulls are doing theirs.
> 
> The Bulls made the playoffs and a #4 seed the Knicks did not. I am not blaming Jamal. Plenty of blame to go around there starting with IT. They could have used Mutomobo and Othella this season! Houston's contract hurts them.


You're right. I'm going to turn my back on this thread eventually...

Have to get it out of my system first.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Another bad game for the piece of trash Crawford.

11-21 FG 
7-12 3PFG
7-7 FT
4 rbs
5 assists
3 TOs
1 block
36 points

Knicks beat the Whiz.

Brutal. Just brutal.


----------



## NYKBaller

terrible game, only 36 points...


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> Another bad game for the piece of trash Crawford.
> 
> 11-21 FG
> 7-12 3PFG
> 7-7 FT
> 4 rbs
> 5 assists
> 3 TOs
> 1 block
> 36 points
> 
> Knicks beat the Whiz.
> 
> Brutal. Just brutal.


Sarcasm? I like sarcasm. You've shown us that more than half of Jamal's shots are threes. *Most of us don't know that*. I like to nitpick to turn the argument in my favor! I can go on all day! I never get boring! This is why I'm here!


----------



## kukoc4ever

Electric Slim said:


> Sarcasm? I like sarcasm. You've shown us that more than half of Jamal's shots are threes. *Most of us don't know that*. I like to nitpick to turn the argument in my favor! I can go on all day! I never get boring! This is why I'm here!


lol

3 > 2

you must have hated duhon's game against the hawks.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> lol
> 
> 3 > 2
> 
> you must have hated duhon's game against the hawks.


 [kukoc4ever logic]What's so great about playing well against the worst team (record-wise) in the NBA?

ATL - 13 wins (<------be sure to include a stat!)

Maybe you guys just like beating on people weaker than you!(<-----include a barely relevant and vague accussation to invoke guilt).


----------



## bullsville

Electric Slim said:


> Crawford has a tendency to get "confused".


Actually, he only "thinks" he's confused...


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Another bad game for the piece of trash Crawford.
> 
> 11-21 FG
> 7-12 3PFG
> 7-7 FT
> 4 rbs
> 5 assists
> 3 TOs
> 1 block
> 36 points
> 
> Knicks beat the Whiz.
> 
> Brutal. Just brutal.


Like I said somewhere in this thread, I'd bet that Jamal puts up All-NBA numbers in "games in which your team has been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs."


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Like I said somewhere in this thread, I'd bet that Jamal puts up All-NBA numbers in "games in which your team has been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs."


That's why he's a piece of trash.


----------



## bullsville

Me thinks that the being 100% wrong about Jamal and therefore having to argue ridiculous positions may be getting to some posters...


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> That's why he's a piece of trash.


[kukoc4ever logic]Jamal cannot be trash. his EFF ranking is +14.23. Gordon's EFF ranking is +10.15 (<------be sure to include a stat!) so he must be trash too, right?


sst: edit, ug.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Electric Slim said:


> [kukoc4ever logic]Jamal cannot be trash. his EFF ranking is +14.23. Gordon's EFF ranking is +10.15 (<------be sure to include a stat!) so he must be trash too, right?
> 
> It's scary to think that you'd call someone like Jamal Crawford trash with so many child molesters out there. Did Crawford molest you as a child? I doubt it. (<-----include a barely relevant and vague accussation to invoke guilt).


This has been pent up for a while i see.

Let it all out. You’ll feel better.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> This has been pent up for a while i see.
> 
> Let it all out. You’ll feel better.


Sorry. Can we have a mod move this thread to the games forum?


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Me thinks that the being 100% wrong about Jamal and therefore having to argue ridiculous positions may be getting to some posters...


Hey. I may be wrong. Are you the genius that predicted Tayshaun Prince would be a great NBA player. You really should think of patting yourself on the back for that one. Maybe you can make an update on Bullsville.com.


----------



## Kismet

kukoc4ever said:


> Another bad game for the piece of trash Crawford.
> 
> 11-21 FG
> 7-12 3PFG
> 7-7 FT
> 4 rbs
> 5 assists
> 3 TOs
> 1 block
> 36 points
> 
> Knicks beat the Whiz.
> 
> Brutal. Just brutal.


...vs. one of the worst defensive teams in the league (24th) in a meaningless game. Three cheers for Clutch Crawford!


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> *I'll do a search on your old posts to try and find the playoff prediction for this season. The majority of GMs picked the Knicks to win their division this year. Nobody picked the Bulls. I guess the GMs lack foresight as well.*
> 
> Scott Skiles himself even expressed surprise in the pre-game show yesterday that the Knicks were not better... said something the effect of "from a coaching perspective, with that talent, I'm not sure how they don't win.


thats not the point. Some people thought this team was headed in the WRONG direction, and had NO HOPE for the future with Pax and Skiles, and these players EVER!

Some people thought this team was headed in the right direction, and liked these players, and thought that they would be a force some day fairly soon. Just not THIS soon.

thats the difference. No hope Vs hope. 

Those people who said the team was a trainwreck now and forever are proven hopelessly wrong. Those people who had hope and belief in this team were only wrong about how soon it would happen....

so....the red herring about playoff predictions are just not important. WE believed in these guys...and we were right. Just wrong about the speed of maturity

those who didn't believe in these guys at all?...well they were proven to have badly misjudged things. you can't obviscate that with these reinventions of the argument


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> thats not the point. Some people thought this team was headed in the WRONG direction, and had NO HOPE for the future with Pax and Skiles, and these players EVER!
> 
> Some people thought this team was headed in the right direction, and liked thes players, and thought that they would be a force some day fairly soon. Just not THIS soon.
> 
> thats the difference. No hope Vs hope.
> Those people who said the team was a trainwreck now and forever are hopelessly wrong. Thise people who had hope and belief were only wrong about how soon
> 
> so....the red herring about playoff predictions are just not important. WE believed in these guys...and we were right. Just wrong about the speed of maturity
> 
> those who didn't belive in these guys at all?...well they were proven to have badly misjudged things



You were right about what? The Bulls being good this season? If you didn't predict it, you are not right. 

Yah... "someday" the Bulls would be good again. Maybe someday soon. That's a bold statement.

A team with 5 high lotto picks and a solid supporting cast should eventually win.

Everything went right. I'm just as happy as you are about the team. I don't know what enemy you think you are fighting against.

Teams full of rookies, young players and older, castoff vets don't usually win in the NBA. That's true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow. This team is an anomaly. As a Bulls fan, I'm happy it is.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> You were right about what? The Bulls being good this season? *If you didn't predict it, you are not right*
> 
> Yah... "someday" the Bulls would be good again. Maybe someday soon. That's a bold statement.
> 
> A team with 5 high lotto picks and a solid supporting cast should eventually win.
> 
> Everything went right. I'm just as happy as you are about the team. I don't know what enemy you think you are fighting against.
> 
> Teams full of rookies, young players and older, castoff vets don't usually win in the NBA. That's true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow. This team is an anomaly. As a Bulls fan, I'm happy it is.


I predicted these players, and this management was going in the right direction. I didn't know how soon it would come together. So I was wrong only about how soon

you were wrong about everything. You had NO HOPE


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> I predicted these players, and this management was going in the right direction. I didn't know how soon it would come together. So I was wrong only about how soon
> 
> you were wrong about everything. You had NO HOPE


Congratulations. You had hope. 

The Bulls labeled this season "Through Thick and Thin."

Not 1 NBA GM predicted this. Hell, I don't remember anyone on this board even predicting a 10+ over .500 season. Everyone was wrong about everything.

I liked these players just fine. I just doubted that a bunch of 19-22 year olds and salty vets would not get their brains beaten in. Given the preseason predictions here, and the ones made by the "experts".... most agreed with that assessment.

Once again, congratulations. This must be a great moment. I'm happy Paxson is going to resign the towers.

Like I said.... 5 high lotto picks should.... eventually... win. That's not much of a stretch at all. But... be proud you thought that eventually they would win... that they were going in the right direction.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> Congratulations. You had hope.
> 
> The Bulls labeled this season "Through Think and Thin."
> 
> Not 1 NBA GM predicted this. *Hell, I don't remember anyone on this board even predicting a 10+ over .500 season. Everyone was wrong about everything.*
> 
> Once again, congratulations. This must be a great moment. I'm happy Paxson is going to resign the towers.


you are still trying to reinvent the argument

it wasn't how good the Bulls will be _this_ year. Hell, everyone though they would be in trouble _this_ year.
Myself, i said they would be ready to rock next season. When Pax took over, he said two years. BUt we believed in these guys, and that THESE guys had it in em. Others did not think they had it in em

It was does this team, and these players, and this managment philosophy have any validity? Some said No. Some said yes. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT..........Not this phony red herring about THIS YEAR


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> it wasn't how good the Bulls will be _this_ year. Hell, everyone though they would be in trouble _this_ year.
> Myself, i said they would be ready to rock next season. When Pax took over, he said two years. BUt we believed in these guys, and that THESE guys had it in em. Others did not think they had it in em
> 
> It was does this team, and these players, and this managment philosophy have any validity? Some said No. Some said yes. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT..........Not this phony red herring about THIS YEAR


And like I said above, eventually a team with 5 high lotto picks on it, when they mature, should be pretty good. That's not saying much at all. 

My nightmare scenario was the team sucking this year, lots of negativity... and then we lose the towers. Then what? That pretty much describes the start of the season. Luckily, a miracle happened. The great next year would not have happened if the team got smoked this year, IMO.

Once again, congratulations on not predicting correctly what happened this season.


----------



## Da Grinch

fleetwood macbull said:


> you are still trying to reinvent the argument
> 
> it wasn't how good the Bulls will be _this_ year. Hell, everyone though they would be in trouble _this_ year.
> Myself, i said they would be ready to rock next season. When Pax took over, he said two years. BUt we believed in these guys, and that THESE guys had it in em. Others did not think they had it in em
> 
> It was does this team, and these players, and this managment philosophy have any validity? Some said No. Some said yes. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT..........Not this phony red herring about THIS YEAR


In Trouble?

what is in trouble ?

thats pretty vague considering even the most pessimistic fans thought the bulls would win more than last years 23.

most everyone predicted more wins than last season but fell far short of the bulls 47 win season .

most fans figured a 30-35 win season ...


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey. I may be wrong. Are you the genius that predicted Tayshaun Prince would be a great NBA player. You really should think of patting yourself on the back for that one. Maybe you can make an update on Bullsville.com.


With your record of judging talent, the fact that you dissed Tayshaun just tells me how right I am.

Maybe you've never seen Tayshaun play defense, ask Crazy Ron or TMac or Kobe if Tayshaun is a great player...


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> With your record of judging talent, the fact that you dissed Tayshaun just tells me how right I am.
> 
> Maybe you've never seen Tayshaun play defense, ask Crazy Ron or TMac or Kobe if Tayshaun is a great player...


Actually... and I have no evidence to back this up... I liked Tayshaun a lot in college as well and was surprised that he was being predicted to go in the 2nd round by some services. I was hoping and praying that the Bulls could get him with their 2nd round pick.

And Chandler is my favorite bull, along with Deng. So I'm sure we can find something to agree on.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

kukoc4ever said:


> And like I said above, eventually a team with 5 high lotto picks on it, when they mature, should be pretty good. That's not saying much at all.
> 
> My nightmare scenario was the team sucking this year, lots of negativity... and then we lose the towers. Then what? That pretty much describes the start of the season. Luckily, a miracle happened. The great next year would not have happened if the team got smoked this year, IMO.
> 
> *Once again, congratulations on not predicting correctly what happened this season*.


and congratulations on not predicting correctly anything at all, especially about this team not having any hope forever. I'll live with being wrong about this year. It was never about this year for me anyways :biggrin: 

hell you know the argument wasn't about this season. It was about the future of this team, which you thought was hopeless

and Pax just torpedoed all that a year early, saving you the suspense :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> and congratulations on not predicting correctly anything at all, especially about this team not having any hope forever. I'll live with being wrong about this year. It was never about this year for me anyways :biggrin:
> 
> hell you know the argument wasn't about this season. It was about the future of this team, which you thought was hopeless
> 
> and Pax just torpedoed all that a year early, saving you the suspense :biggrin:


And I'm happy as hell about it. Once again, I don't know what enemy you think you are fighting against. You are claiming some kind of victory over something you were wrong about. 

You think if the Bulls won 28 games this season we'd be matching every offer for Tyson and Eddy?


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Hell, I don't remember anyone on this board even predicting a 10+ over .500 season. *Everyone was wrong about everything.*


Really? Back on Dec 20, when we were 7-15, I emphatically stated that we were the 3rd best team in the East, and lo and behold, *we are the 3rd best team in the East.*
_________________________________

Link To My Dec 20 Post 

Right now, the only teams in the East that I see are clearly better than us are the Heat, the Pistons, and maybe the Cavs- although the Cavs may be the benificiary of their easy early schedule.
___________________________

Although I was wrong about one thing, how to spell 'ben*e*ficiary'.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> In Trouble?
> 
> what is in trouble ?
> 
> thats pretty vague considering even the most pessimistic fans thought the bulls would win more than last years 23.
> 
> most everyone predicted more wins than last season but fell far short of the bulls 47 win season .
> 
> most fans figured a 30-35 win season ...


we weren't arguing about this season. In fact we were vitually unanimus on how the Bulls were only going to be a little better right away. I said between 27-33 wins, with much progress being made in the positive direction of the team

we were arguing about whether of not Pax and Skiles were right in what they were doing. I said they were. other said they were MORONS, going in the wrong direction and should be fired. I leave who was right on that to the judges. :banana:


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Really? Back on Dec 20, when we were 7-15, I emphatically stated that we were the 3rd best team in the East, and lo and behold, *we are the 3rd best team in the East.*
> _________________________________
> 
> Link To My Dec 20 Post
> 
> Right now, the only teams in the East that I see are clearly better than us are the Heat, the Pistons, and maybe the Cavs- although the Cavs may be the benificiary of their easy early schedule.
> ___________________________
> 
> Although I was wrong about one thing, how to spell 'ben*e*ficiary'.


That's great. Really, that's quite a call. Keep making predictions. You'll be wrong some of the time and right some of the time.

I remember that you guaranteed victory against Washington in our last regular season game. That one didn’t pan out.

And you put to song your desire to “trade Eddy to Atlanta for a high draft pick.” We’ll see how that one pans out.

And you didn't predict we would finish with the 3rd best record in the east. You just were talking about what teams were "better." 

And you made sure to add the "clearly" to cover yourself as well. 

I have not read all of your posts ever, but I didn't see a prediction of 3rd best record in those posts. 

Just that we were going to make the playoffs. Nice call though, really. No sarcasm. Those were some quality posts. 

You thought Orlando may be better than us. That was not true. 

You thought the Cavs would be a lock. Not true.

So, you are not right about everything. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, just like everyone else.

It takes guts to speak your mind. Some posters don’t predict anything and just make smarmy comments when someone does. That’s cowardly, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> we were arguing about whether of not Pax and Skiles were right in what they were doing. I said they were. other said they were MORONS, going in the wrong direction and should be fired. I leave who was right on that to the judges. :banana:


This turnaround is one for the ages. It would have been a very tough call for Paxson to resign the towers in the offseason to big $$$ if we were a 28 win team.

Chandler had a back issue. Curry was still an enigma (still is, really).

Duhon and Noc being as good as they are... and 19 year old Deng really being able to contribute... and the health/fitness of the towers... and the great coaching by Skiles saved the day. All of our key players have something to play for as well. Be it proving themselves in the league or playing for contracts. 

It was a risky proposition, but it paid off. As a Bulls fan I'm happy. When pocket 2s beats pocket As, its not a highly probable event.... but it does not make a difference if you win the pot. 

But... you'll lose with that hand more times then you'll win.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Really? Back on Dec 20, when we were 7-15, I emphatically stated that we were the 3rd best team in the East, and lo and behold, *we are the 3rd best team in the East.*
> _________________________________
> 
> Link To My Dec 20 Post
> 
> Right now, the only teams in the East that I see are clearly better than us are the Heat, the Pistons, and maybe the Cavs- although the Cavs may be the benificiary of their easy early schedule.
> ___________________________
> 
> Although I was wrong about one thing, how to spell 'ben*e*ficiary'.






One more thing... while your post was impressive.... it was not a preseason prediction. The team was playing pretty well at that point. The East was weak. It was pretty clear that Curry was in shape, Chandler was healthy, Deng could play, Noc was OK… Gordon was coming out of his early season funk.... a lot of the ?s before the season started were already answered.

Nice call… but it still was not a preseason prediction. Most of the ?s were answered at that point.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> It takes guts to speak your mind. Some posters don’t predict anything and just make smarmy comments when someone does. That’s cowardly, IMO.


That's a pretty avatar you have. Why is it that Jamal is wearing horns? I thought you liked him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> That's a pretty avatar you have. Why is it that Jamal is wearing horns? I thought you liked him.


Actually, I could remove it on a technically, as you know.  

And he’s wearing horns because he’s a Bull for life.


----------



## Da Grinch

fleetwood macbull said:


> we weren't arguing about this season. In fact we were vitually unanimus on how the Bulls were only going to be a little better right away. I said between 27-33 wins, with much progress being made in the positive direction of the team
> 
> we were arguing about whether of not Pax and Skiles were right in what they were doing. I said they were. other said they were MORONS, going in the wrong direction and should be fired. I leave who was right on that to the judges. :banana:



If I remember correctly most fans thought it was a good idea to be a bad team for 2 years wait for contracts to end and make a splash in the free agent market in 2006 .(pax's vision)

how many fans would still endorse that ideology now?...I'm guessing not many if it meant not resigning the current bulls ...which will likely end that plan...with othella surely being able command more than a 1 year deal so he'll be on the cap come 2006, and duhon's free agency as well also curry's heart hopefully will be a thing of the past and if thats the case his value shoots right back up along with chandler's if not higher.

i remember saying it was stupid then and i'm standing by it now , not everyone on this board can say the same. The only thing that would actually make that plan a good one is if curry's heart is a bad risk, meaning we no longer want him leaving the bulls with enough money once again to be a player in the 2006 , something i doubt most bulls fans want.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> If I remember correctly most fans thought it was a good idea to be a bad team for 2 years wait for contracts to end and make a splash in the free agent market in 2006 .(pax's vision)
> 
> how many fans would still endorse that ideology now?...I'm guessing not many if it meant not resigning the current bulls ...which will likely end that plan...with othella surely being able command more than a 1 year deal so he'll be on the cap come 2006, and duhon's free agency as well also curry's heart hopefully will be a thing of the past and if thats the case his value shoots right back up along with chandler's if not higher.
> 
> i remember saying it was stupid then and i'm standing by it now , not everyone on this board can say the same. The only thing that would actually make that plan a good one is if curry's heart is a bad risk, meaning we no longer want him leaving the bulls with enough money once again to be a player in the 2006 , something i doubt most bulls fans want.


Yep yep, you were right all along. 

Or...not so much. Yes, the fact that we did so well this year DOES change the plan, but the plan was never to simply "be a bad team". And I don't think any fans WANTED that. I think a lot of fans thought this team was further away from being playoff material than they were, but thought the young core we had, with a little help from the vets, would improve as the season went on, finish on a high note, and be a possible playoff contender next year. Then, we could use the cap room to add a good player and take us to another level. Suggesting that we (the royal we) wanted to "be a bad team for 2 years" is a misrepresentation of what the hope was for this team among the optimists. Yeah, our success changed the plan because Duhon and OH deserve to come back with a decent paycheck. But the idea is still the same. Keep this team together and use our flexibility to add pieces where necessary. We won't have a boatload of cap space anymore, but we still have nice contracts and MLEs to retain and add players. I might be wrong, but I think even after retaining OH and Duhon and resigning Eddy and Tyson, we might still have a tick more than the MLE. That could mean we get the pick of the MLE-caliber litter to choose from, and some good players usually sign for MLE money. That works for me.


----------



## truebluefan

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> If I remember correctly most fans thought it was a good idea to be a bad team for 2 years wait for contracts to end and make a splash in the free agent market in 2006 .(pax's vision)
> 
> how many fans would still endorse that ideology now?...I'm guessing not many if it meant not resigning the current bulls ...which will likely end that plan...with othella surely being able command more than a 1 year deal so he'll be on the cap come 2006, and duhon's free agency as well also curry's heart hopefully will be a thing of the past and if thats the case his value shoots right back up along with chandler's if not higher.
> 
> i remember saying it was stupid then and i'm standing by it now , not everyone on this board can say the same. The only thing that would actually make that plan a good one is if curry's heart is a bad risk, meaning we no longer want him leaving the bulls with enough money once again to be a player in the 2006 , something i doubt most bulls fans want.


Huh? Wait a minute. I said paxson built this team with 2006 in mind. I never once said they were going to be a bad team. If you want to put everyone in a neat little title then you're wrong. 

I do believe this team is put together for 2006. I also believe the success of the bulls has not only surprised the fans but also Paxson hmself. 

The Miami Heat made the playoffs last season. Yet that didn't end their plan did it? They traded for Shaq. So why would our sudden success end any plans for 2006?


----------



## truebluefan

ViciousFlogging said:


> Yep yep, you were right all along.
> 
> Or...not so much. Yes, the fact that we did so well this year DOES change the plan, but the plan was never to simply "be a bad team". And I don't think any fans WANTED that. I think a lot of fans thought this team was further away from being playoff material than they were, but thought the young core we had, with a little help from the vets, would improve as the season went on, finish on a high note, and be a possible playoff contender next year. Then, we could use the cap room to add a good player and take us to another level. Suggesting that we (the royal we) wanted to "be a bad team for 2 years" is a misrepresentation of what the hope was for this team among the optimists. Yeah, our success changed the plan because Duhon and OH deserve to come back with a decent paycheck. But the idea is still the same. Keep this team together and use our flexibility to add pieces where necessary. We won't have a boatload of cap space anymore, but we still have nice contracts and MLEs to retain and add players. I might be wrong, but I think even after retaining OH and Duhon and resigning Eddy and Tyson, we might still have a tick more than the MLE. That could mean we get the pick of the MLE-caliber litter to choose from, and some good players usually sign for MLE money. That works for me.


Thank you.


----------



## ScottMay

This isn't meant to be a knock on anyone -- I thoroughly enjoy all the posters who post here, regardless of which side they're on, and heaven knows I've beaten more than my fair share of dead horses -- but FWIW every time I visit the site lately, I'm hopeful this'll have a lock on it.


----------



## Da Grinch

ViciousFlogging said:


> Yep yep, you were right all along.
> 
> Or...not so much. Yes, the fact that we did so well this year DOES change the plan, but the plan was never to simply "be a bad team". And I don't think any fans WANTED that. I think a lot of fans thought this team was further away from being playoff material than they were, but thought the young core we had, with a little help from the vets, would improve as the season went on, finish on a high note, and be a possible playoff contender next year. Then, we could use the cap room to add a good player and take us to another level. Suggesting that we (the royal we) wanted to "be a bad team for 2 years" is a misrepresentation of what the hope was for this team among the optimists. Yeah, our success changed the plan because Duhon and OH deserve to come back with a decent paycheck. But the idea is still the same. Keep this team together and use our flexibility to add pieces where necessary. We won't have a boatload of cap space anymore, but we still have nice contracts and MLEs to retain and add players. I might be wrong, but I think even after retaining OH and Duhon and resigning Eddy and Tyson, we might still have a tick more than the MLE. That could mean we get the pick of the MLE-caliber litter to choose from, and some good players usually sign for MLE money. That works for me.


One of the things that bothered me is there was no MLE players in the Pax vision plan , none that would be on the cap in 2006 anyway .

what really good players sign as free agents for only 2 years or now 1 year?

pax didn't even use the vet exception last summer, something we could have used over the past month or so before finally signing funderburke who i am not sure is even elgible for the playoffs.

so the group you saw come training camp 2004 was it , there was less flexibility that you think , how many quality players can a team sign or trade for when they have to off the cap in 2 years ...and now 1 year?

griffin ? remember he was supposedly playing on one leg.
pike was coming off the worst year of his career
othella was also coming off his worst season of his career
duhon was on the cut block pretty much until opening day after forcing pax to give him a make good min. contract or lose his rights

these are the players the bulls brought in and the circumstances surrounding them...not much was expected, no one thought the bulls were very deep because of these players, time showed they were , but no one thought so before the season


logically if a player is really any good he can some years out of someone unless he is so old or injured no team will take a chance on him , usually not the type of player who signs for a losing team unless he has to.

most losing teams dont finish on a high note 


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stand...ue&column=gamesBehind&order=null&seasontype=2

one team out of the playoffs finished with a winning record in their final 10 games (the warriors with baron added after midseason ) , 1 extra team won 5 of their last 10(the clippers won won 37 close to a .500 team anyway) , the other 12 teams had a losing record . so the odds are the bulls if they didn't start winning, by midseason weren't going to unless something drastic happened...its is somewhat rare a team starts out bad and becomes good especially if people didn't think they had it in them to be good to begin with , the bulls were truly a surprise team.

the heat the previous year had similar turnaround , but expectations were higher for them in the preseason then they were for the bulls , most thought they were a fringe playoff team, the bulls according to just about everyone were headed to the lottery 

i said bad, a better term for what you describe is an improving team but no one confuses that with a good team.

thats not a good plan, simply because it very rarely works , neither is playing the lotto , good things do occasionally happen when people take what are in common sense bad risk. Its a good thing we won out but to say it was a good plan is wrong .


----------



## ChiBulls2315

Dear Lord...

The plan was never only to wait until 2006. We were going to have a handful of good players regardless by then. Most expected us to add onto the core in 2006, not CREATE the core. You make it sound like we were waiting for that like it was the summer of 2000 again.  

And we can _still _ go that route if we wanted to and stay very competitive. Duhon is not going to break the bank. The big hit would be from Othella. It would definately hurt to lose Othella, and as much as I appreciate how much he's done for this team and how big he's been for us, losing him is not going to make us a team that would miss the playoffs next year. You could replace him by signing a veteran backup PF looking for a job. He won't be as good as O, but I'm sure Pax could find a guy to fill the role. Let's not even mention the cap is expect to go up 2-4 million dollars just this summer alone. :|

Don't give us this "not everyone can say the same" nonsense b/c no one here was pointing to 2006 and saying "That's when we're going to build this thing." It was always and only a way of _adding_ to the core. 

"Paxson's vision - 2006" Yeah. :|


----------



## Da Grinch

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Dear Lord...
> 
> The plan was never only to wait until 2006. We were going to have a handful of good players regardless by then. Most expected us to add onto the core in 2006, not CREATE the core. You make it sound like we were waiting for that like it was the summer of 2000 again.
> 
> And we can _still _ go that route if we wanted to and stay very competitive. Duhon is not going to break the bank. The big hit would be from Othella. It would definately hurt to lose Othella, and as much as I appreciate how much he's done for this team and how big he's been for us, losing him is not going to make us a team that would miss the playoffs next year. You could replace him by signing a veteran backup PF looking for a job. He won't be as good as O, but I'm sure Pax could find a guy to fill the role. Let's not even mention the cap is expect to go up 2-4 million dollars just this summer alone. :|
> 
> Don't give us this "not everyone can say the same" nonsense b/c no one here was pointing to 2006 and saying "That's when we're going to build this thing." It was always and only a way of _adding_ to the core.
> 
> "Paxson's vision - 2006" Yeah. :|



i used the term most ...not everyone , and i never said anything about creating a core i said pax was ruining his own ability to add to it by waiting til 2006 , that means no decent vet exception last year or this year ... no new MLE free agent this year , no trades for players whose contracts are not now ending deals .

thats very limiting , for all the bemoaning you did , nothing you said actually disputes that.

if you are going to disagree with me ...then disagree , dont misquote or argue things i never said , if the cap goes up ...it goes up but according to the latest news on the subject ...well there is no news the sides have stalemated , and since the cap increased by all of 60k last season if there is no deal , there will either be a lockout or a continuation of the deal that is in effect now where there will be a minimal change in the cap.

who is this cheap 4 free agent that can replace othella but cant do better than a 1 year deal , and duhon could very well demand starter money , if not from the bulls than from somewhere else ....and then the bulls would be forced to match.


----------



## truebluefan

But we won 47 games with the "bad team" and the players you mentioned, Piatowski, OH, Griffth, Duhon...etc all played major roles in the 47 wins. We won 47 games withough using the veteran minumum. so? what is your point?

Duhon has proved everyone wrong and that is a bad thing? Harrington has had a very good year and that is a bad thing? Piatowski and Griff did was was asked of them. How much more can a GM expect? 

Funderburke is eligable for playoffs. SA signed Big Dog and I assure you it was not just for a few regular season games. 

Well everyone was wrong about the Bulls too! 

Experts and fans can be wrong. The team fooled everyone. But all of that being said, it was still built for 2006. I am sure Paxson was expecting improvement from within and he got it, though I doubt he expected 47 wins. 

As for no mid-level guy on the radar, we are in the playoffs, why worry about that now? And just because he has not talk about it to the media does not mean he does not have anyone in mind. We could use a big sg. We could use Funderburke as well next season. But we need to keep the core together first. 

As for no one expecting much from the bulls and no one thinking the bulls were not very deep, who is "no one?" I thought the bulls would be deeper than they have been. I liked getting Harrington and even F Williams, though he really let me down. He is a better talent than he has shown. His work ethic was awful. 

I was very happy to see Piatowski signed. A lot of bulls fans were not. But a lot is not everyone. 

I loved seeing Gordon and Deng here. Very happy for that. We lose Crawford and JYD and add Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Piatowksi, Griffith, harrington, and that is not much Depth?????? Not a very deep team? I disagree. 

Please HG, Disgruntled. Please quit speaking for the masses you think you know. Because some of us with our opinion do not deserve to be labeled and put in a group. Please quit saying no one That is not true. All my posts are here to support what I am saying now! I knew we're deeper (so there goes your "no one thought this team would be deeper) and I knew the players we had were not going to be stiffs and were going to help us(you seemed to indicate no one saw that coming either. Not true) Just how good or how much better we were going to be was to be seen in time. 

I still hold firm to my idea that the bulls were built for 2006. They success does not change that just because we made the playoffs, thought it can, if someone steps forward next season and be a real star.


----------



## truebluefan

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> i used the term most ...not everyone , and i never said anything about creating a core i said pax was ruining his own ability to add to it by waiting til 2006 , that means no decent vet exception last year or this year ... no new MLE free agent this year , no trades for players whose contracts are not now ending deals .
> 
> thats very limiting , for all the bemoaning you did , nothing you said actually disputes that.
> 
> if you are going to disagree with me ...then disagree , dont misquote or argue things i never said , if the cap goes up ...it goes up but according to the latest news on the subject ...well there is no news the sides have stalemated , and since the cap increased by all of 60k last season if there is no deal , there will either be a lockout or a continuation of the deal that is in effect now where there will be a minimal change in the cap.
> 
> who is this cheap 4 free agent that can replace othella but cant do better than a 1 year deal , and duhon could very well demand starter money , if not from the bulls than from somewhere else ....and then the bulls would be forced to match.


Is harrington going some where? 

the team won 47 games. The team is very young. We have a lot of improving to come from within yet. That would be true even if we were a lottery team. Let's say we won 35 games...the same would be true. The team should get better. Better than 47 wins or better than 35 wins. 

Maybe I am wrong but I was under the impression we could sign a fa this summer. Sure he may not be a star but he could help the team. Am I wrong?

To me, pax has a plan. A good one. You can go back and look and say what if all you wanted, you can question things all you want, ... but it didn't turn out the way you are saying. We are fine and building for the future. First step. 2006.


----------



## BealeFarange

uke: uke: uke: uke:

I'm so glad for all of you that thought this team was going to lead us to the playoffs. 

I feel so ashamed for having been skeptical and for having developed a fondness for a "bad" player that I beat myself bloody every night and have trouble sleeping.

uke: uke: uke: uke: 

I really wish the Bulls were still bad and that Jamal and Erob were still around. It made me feel "tough" and now I just hate myself. 

   

Man, I hate the Bulls. How could I not have seen a 47 win season coming? They make me feel very stupid.


----------



## GB

ScottMay said:


> This isn't meant to be a knock on anyone -- I thoroughly enjoy all the posters who post here, regardless of which side they're on, and heaven knows I've beaten more than my fair share of dead horses -- but FWIW every time I visit the site lately, I'm hopeful this'll have a lock on it.


This is one of the few times I'm in agreement with Scott.

If old arguments aren't being re-hashed, new positions are being taken so the old arguments can be re-argued.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> One of the things that bothered me is there was no MLE players in the Pax vision plan , none that would be on the cap in 2006 anyway .
> 
> what really good players sign as free agents for only 2 years or now 1 year?
> 
> pax didn't even use the vet exception last summer, something we could have used over the past month or so before finally signing funderburke who i am not sure is even elgible for the playoffs.
> 
> so the group you saw come training camp 2004 was it , there was less flexibility that you think , how many quality players can a team sign or trade for when they have to off the cap in 2 years ...and now 1 year?
> 
> griffin ? remember he was supposedly playing on one leg.
> pike was coming off the worst year of his career
> othella was also coming off his worst season of his career
> duhon was on the cut block pretty much until opening day after forcing pax to give him a make good min. contract or lose his rights
> 
> these are the players the bulls brought in and the circumstances surrounding them...not much was expected, no one thought the bulls were very deep because of these players, time showed they were , but no one thought so before the season
> 
> 
> logically if a player is really any good he can some years out of someone unless he is so old or injured no team will take a chance on him , usually not the type of player who signs for a losing team unless he has to.
> 
> most losing teams dont finish on a high note
> 
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stand...ue&column=gamesBehind&order=null&seasontype=2
> 
> one team out of the playoffs finished with a winning record in their final 10 games (the warriors with baron added after midseason ) , 1 extra team won 5 of their last 10(the clippers won won 37 close to a .500 team anyway) , the other 12 teams had a losing record . so the odds are the bulls if they didn't start winning, by midseason weren't going to unless something drastic happened...its is somewhat rare a team starts out bad and becomes good especially if people didn't think they had it in them to be good to begin with , the bulls were truly a surprise team.
> 
> the heat the previous year had similar turnaround , but expectations were higher for them in the preseason then they were for the bulls , most thought they were a fringe playoff team, the bulls according to just about everyone were headed to the lottery
> 
> i said bad, a better term for what you describe is an improving team but no one confuses that with a good team.
> 
> thats not a good plan, simply because it very rarely works , neither is playing the lotto , good things do occasionally happen when people take what are in common sense bad risk. Its a good thing we won out but to say it was a good plan is wrong .


I think you misconstrued what I meant by flexibility. I didn't mean flexibility with regards to THIS season's roster so much. I meant flexibility in a general sense first off, so that our payroll wasn't bloated with long term bad deals. Thus, we could have traded for a big contract if need be, or added a player(s) in 2006 with the cap room we were projected to have. You're right that we won't have the big cap room now. That's the price of success. But we still have big deals coming off the books that will make it easier for us to make trades or add MLE-type players in 2006. I'd like for Pax to make a run at a solid SG/SF role player this offseason, but if he can't get that done because of Duhon and Othella, so be it. I have confidence in this team's core to improve even if no additions are made.

Otherwise I feel like this discussion is destined to go in circles, so I'll quietly exit (again). Let's see how long I stay away from this cockroach of a thread this time


----------



## bullsville

This thread is the crack of the internet, one post and you're hooked!


----------



## ChiBulls2315

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> i used the term most ...not everyone , and i never said anything about creating a core i said pax was ruining his own ability to add to it by waiting til 2006 , that means no decent vet exception last year or this year ... no new MLE free agent this year , no trades for players whose contracts are not now ending deals .
> 
> thats very limiting , for all the bemoaning you did , nothing you said actually disputes that.
> 
> if you are going to disagree with me ...then disagree , dont misquote or argue things i never said , if the cap goes up ...it goes up but according to the latest news on the subject ...well there is no news the sides have stalemated , and since the cap increased by all of 60k last season if there is no deal , there will either be a lockout or a continuation of the deal that is in effect now where there will be a minimal change in the cap.
> 
> who is this cheap 4 free agent that can replace othella but cant do better than a 1 year deal , and duhon could very well demand starter money , if not from the bulls than from somewhere else ....and then the bulls would be forced to match.


Right. You didn't say create the core in 2006. You just said 2006 was "Paxson's vision" and implied it was was the make a break point for this team by calling it his plan. My mistake. :|

And if there was a one year continuation period on the CBA, what does that matter? The Bulls cap space wouldn't open up until 2006 anyway, not '05. The NBA isn't going NHL style and not going to have a deal by then. There's going to be a new deal in place by '06 and every indication is there's going to be a higher cap. Not that it even matters since I was just pointing out that _that was a bonus_. 

Duhon is not going to demand a starting salary. What do you think he's going to get, 5, 6 milion dollars? Almost everyone thinks we can nab him for the 1.8 exception, but I think he can get up to 3 and many disagree w/ that number. That wouldn't break the 2006 plan since most of the bigger name free agents aren't max level players anyway so we wouldn't need the full 10-11 million anyway to offer someone as a starting salary. 

Who would replace Othella? Cliff Robinson, Tom Googs has played nice since going to Atlanta, E. Cambell, Traylor, Dale Davis, C. Laetner, A. Henderson, Bo Outlaw, R. Horry are all capable candidates. None being better than Othella obviously, some being better options than others, but all guys who will likely have 1 year deals next year. And given our GM's eye for talent, who's to say he couldn't trade for a 2nd rounder or just pick up someone else would be a surprise player? Let's not even mention Tyson and Eddy only combine for 56 minutes this year a game. God forbid they each play 34-36 minutes. Especially with those big new contracts they're going to get. And it's not like this team can play small ball for stretches either, right? That would leave only a few minutes for a backup after you throw in AD's 14-20 mpg. We're talking about our 7/8th man here. You take O out, and add in a Cliffy, Laetner type and you're not talking about a huge dropoff. 

And may I add, who cares if we didn't use the 1.8 exception last year or if they didn't this year? FYI, we couldn't even use it last year since you can only use it every other year. Blount was signed with it in 2003. And even if we could have used it then, it would have expired by the summer of 2006 anyway since they can only be a max of 2 years on the contract. As for this coming year, I don't see why we couldn't. Most of those guys that sign the 1.8 exception aren't in any type of position to say they're not going to sign if they don't get the 2 year deal. That signing would have very little impact on the season given what we already have. You give the guy a team option for the 2nd year and be done with it like Pax did w/ Blount. 

As far as trades/a MLE signing for this summer, I tell you like I told many others before the season on this debate. It's really pretty simple. We had Kirk/Gordon/Deng/Chandler/Curry/Noce/AD and likely one of the backup PGs as locks over the next 2 years. You sign a couple vets to fill in the holes for 05'-06 and you can stay competitive b/c you have your top 7, maybe 8 locked up anyway. And the Pikester. We didn't *need* to make a drastic move. And I also said if something came along that would eat into the 2006 cap, you evaluate and see if it's worth it. If it's a big upgrade and will help over the long haul, then pull the trigger. It would be worth it in those circumstances. Just use common sense basically. And it's really only for this year that that would be for b/c next season you have AD and Pike's expiring contracts that you'll be getting offers for all season long. You pull the trigger on that and yeah, you don't have capspace in 2006, but the point is is that you just cashed in on your free agent prize early. 

MLE Signings-Same logic. You evaluate the field. If you can get a Billups, Posey, Turkoglu type impact player then sign him. Again, the '06 field isn't going to have a bunch of max available players so you sign a quality mid level player in 05 and 06 and you're looking just as good if not better. 

Really, it wasn't a stupid idea nor was it one that was going to be very hard to carry out.


----------



## GB

> Thomas listed his priorities as a center and stronger perimeter defenders. He said that his starting guards, Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford, were lacking defensively.
> 
> "They've got to get better," Thomas said. "If you're athletic enough to score 20 points a night, you're athletic enough to defend."
> 
> Allan Houston's knee troubles limited him to 20 games, forcing Crawford to play a larger role than planned. "I think that hurt him," Thomas said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/sports/basketball/22knicks.html

Looks like someones minutes might get cut.



> Thomas admitted yesterday, "This is going to be a down-and-dirty job for the next two or three years. It's going to be a roll-up-your-sleeves and get dirty [job]."
> 
> And Thomas hasn't made it much better.
> 
> For all Thomas' wheeling and dealing, the Knicks remain a badly constructed team. Their hope of a turnaround next season hinges on too many things that must all go right at the same time: Maurice Taylor has to quit being an enigma; Allan Houston needs to be healthy; Jamal Crawford has to prove he's more than a *highly paid gunner*; Kurt Thomas needs to stay.


http://www.newsday.com/sports/colum...22,0,1851229.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists



> Williams inherited a confused team and posted a 16-27 record. He gained a lot of support in the locker room as well.
> 
> "I think he has us going in the right direction," Jamal Crawford said. "I don't know if it equates to wins and losses, but as a team, he has us going in the right direction and definitely everybody here respects him."


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050422/SPORTS01/504220324/1108/SPORTS01

Pack your bags Herb...



> These Knicks are what currently represent his vision, his values, his philosophies, and they won all of 33 games this year after beginning the season talking of winning the Atlantic Division title. Isiah has completely revamped a dreadful team and upgraded it to a terrible one.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/23374.htm


----------



## Kismet

GB, looks like the jig is up for Thomas. Marbury, Crawford, Wilkins, etc., their individual and collective failures provide plenty of evidence that Thomas has no business running a team from the bench or the GM's office. If the Knicks ever want to regain some level of respectability their first move should be to dump Thomas and bring in a GM who isn't interested in seeing his name in the headlines more than his team or its players.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> Thomas listed his priorities as a center and stronger perimeter defenders. He said that his starting guards, Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford, were lacking defensively.
> 
> "They've got to get better," Thomas said. "If you're athletic enough to score 20 points a night, you're athletic enough to defend."


No ****, Sherlock. Did you scout _at all_ before signing all these big time contracts?


----------



## GB

Kismet said:


> GB, looks like the jig is up for Thomas. Marbury, Crawford, Wilkins, etc., their individual and collective failures provide plenty of evidence that Thomas has no business running a team from the bench or the GM's office. If the Knicks ever want to regain some level of respectability their first move should be to dump Thomas and bring in a GM who isn't interested in seeing his name in the headlines more than his team or its players.



Could be:



> People within in the organization insist that Thomas is committed to the Knicks long-term and already has begun planning for a busy offseason in New York, scouting potential draft picks and free agents.
> 
> There are, however, still people around the league who wonder if Thomas is busy planning his own exit strategy. That perhaps he never really understood the daunting task in front of him and that with all the head coaching vacancies available this summer, Thomas may want to try his hand at coaching again and bequeath the rebuilding of New York's floundering basketball team to the next guy.


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/300218p-256941c.html



> If Scott Layden's regime were the Titanic, then Thomas' is the Andrea Doria - not as epic a failure in scope, but a failure nonetheless.
> 
> He has officially reached that part in the general manager's cycle where his credit line is just about dry. If that seems unfair for a tenure that's lasted just under two seasons, then that's the consequence when you walk in the door, as Isiah did, pledging giant strides and delivering backward baby steps. The Knicks, thanks to the presence of Stephon Marbury, may be a more entertaining shipwreck than they were when Thomas took over, but remain a terrible basketball blight eyesore.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/23374.htm



> In his previous N.B.A. life, Isiah Thomas was a certified winner, the point guard for two championship teams. Now he is the chief architect of a 49-loss team and is admittedly queasy with the identity change.
> 
> In a postseason meeting with the Knicks' players and coaches Thursday morning, Thomas was said to be angry and animated and sometimes profane. But an hour later, when he addressed the team's future publicly, Thomas's demeanor was decidedly more measured.
> 
> "I went through a lot of range of emotions over these last two weeks," Thomas said. "Angry, mad, disappointed, embarrassed. I'm not used to being on this side."
> 
> Despite the Knicks' failure to make the playoffs, or even win half their games, *Thomas said changes to the roster would be moderate.
> 
> "I really like what we have," he said.*


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/sports/basketball/22knicks.html

That last part is going to kill him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*overpaid?*

here's a list of the eastern conference players that made bewtween 5 and 7 million this season and their 2004-2005 EFF scores.


<pre>
*Eddie Robinson	CHI	DNP*
*Scottie Pippen	CHI	DNP*
Anthony Mason	MIL	DNP
Jason Caffey	MIL	DNP
Todd MacCulloch	PHI	DNP
Alvin Williams	TOR	DNP
Vin Baker	BOS	1.33
Jahidi White	CHA	2.18
Jonathan Bender	IND	2.86
Calvin Booth	MIL	3.94
Aaron McKie	PHI	5.5
Jerome Williams	NYK	6.39
Scott Pollard	IND	6.8
C Robinson	NJ	7.59
Kwame Brown	WAS	7.79
Alonzo Mourning	TOR	9.51
Hedo Turkoglu	ORL	11.52
Antonio McDyess	DET	12.22
Reggie Miller	IND	12.59
Ricky Davis	BOS	13.29
Desmond Mason	MIL	14.03
*Jamal Crawford	NYK	14.5*
Joe Smith	MIL	14.6
D Marshall	TOR	14.89
Al Harrington	ATL	16.3
C Billups	DET	17.66
Kurt Thomas	NYK	18.28
Ben Wallace	DET	19.16
Larry Hughes	WAS	21.85
Ron Artest	IND	25.14 (only 7 games)
</pre>

Its hard to make the argument that Jamal didn't earn his medium sized NBA wage this season, IMO.


----------



## GB

*Re: overpaid?*



> "I've always admired his style of play and the way they played the game," Thomas said. "There was a certain old-time feel to it. It was the way that we were all taught the game."
> 
> Thomas referred to the triangle offense, a system developed by Tex Winter, a longtime assistant for Jackson. The offense emphasizes ball and player movement and is designed to involve all five players. Thomas said he incorporated some elements of the triangle when he coached the Pacers from 2000 to 2003.
> 
> The offense requires high basketball acumen and works best with guards who do not dominate the ball. Both Knicks guards, Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford, are at their best with the ball in their hands.
> 
> Asked if the triangle would work with the current roster, Thomas said: "I don't know. We'll have to see when we talk."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/sports/basketball/22thomas.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: overpaid?*

From the same NYT article referenced above.



> Allan Houston's knee troubles limited him to 20 games, forcing Crawford to play a larger role than planned. "I think that hurt him," Thomas said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/sports/basketball/22knicks.html


NYT Breakdown of the Knicks season.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/sports/basketball/21knicks.html


> Where did it all go wrong? Everywhere.
> 
> Allan Houston could not get healthy, Penny Hardaway could not stay healthy (or happy) and Tim Thomas started the season in a funk.
> 
> Knicks management fired an assistant coach, Dick Helm, two games into the season, forced out Wilkens two months later and in between spent $20 million to make forward Shandon Anderson go away. None of the decisions were fully explained.





> For a time, they appeared capable of winning a weak Atlantic Division and wresting local bragging rights away from the Nets.
> 
> None of that came to pass. They went from a division-leading 16-13 in late December to a despondent 18-29 by Feb. 5, as Hardaway, Tim Thomas and Crawford all missed games.






> (Tim) Thomas figured to be the Knicks' second-best scorer and a critical piece of a playoff drive. But after two deaths in his family last summer, and illnesses to his mother and wife last fall, Thomas struggled on the court. Although he regained his form the last two months, Thomas averaged only 12 points a game, on 43.9 percent shooting, his worst numbers in three years.
> 
> "It's been stressful," said Thomas, a New Jersey native whose family still resides there. "But at the same time, I feel as though I've been blessed, just to be here in the area when everything was going on."


----------



## GB

*Re: overpaid?*



kukoc4ever said:


> From the same NYT article referenced above.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/sports/basketball/22knicks.html




YAWN

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2165017&postcount=2449


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: overpaid?*



GB said:


> YAWN
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2165017&postcount=2449


Fair and balanced.


----------



## GB

*Re: overpaid?*



kukoc4ever said:


> Fair and balanced.



Not the Knicks roster.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: overpaid?*



GB said:


> Not the Knicks roster.


Very true.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2154228&postcount=2370


----------



## Wynn

Isaiah Thomas' professional life since leaving the Piston has been a spectacular and unmitigated failure. He's the King Midas of bizzaro world. Everything he touches seems to turn into a turd. Can't blame Jamal for this...


----------



## GB

*Re: overpaid?*



kukoc4ever said:


> Very true.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2154228&postcount=2370




They're both equals: losing, playoff avoiding, defensively inattentive PG's.

Jamal has a good case to ask for a raise.


----------



## GB

Wynn said:


> Isaiah Thomas' professional life since leaving the Piston has been a spectacular and unmitigated failure. He's the King Midas of bizzaro world. Everything he touches seems to turn into a turd. Can't blame Jamal for this...


No, you can't.

Isiah should have known, though, when no one else was chasing the guy around.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> No, you can't.
> 
> Isiah should have known, though, when no one else was chasing the guy around.





Should have known what? That his 5.8 million a year guard that he signed to come off the bench was not enough to compensate for injuries to Houston, Penny and a severe drop-off from Thomas? 

Jamal is earning his money. He's fairly paid. He's making Desmond Mason, Hedo Turkaglu, Scott Pollard type money... not SHAQ, Stephon and Antonio Davis type money.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal is earning his money.


Says you.


Not Isiah, not the NY Media.


Just you.


----------



## Wynn

GB said:


> Isiah *should* have known, though, when no one else was chasing the guy around.


True. And Jamal fans were sure giving IT all the love in the world when he signed JC. Can't blame Jamal for following the money, though. Just another in a long list of poor decisions by Isaiah.


----------



## GB

Wynn said:


> Can't blame Jamal for following the money, though.


No, but you can question his thinking when he slips knives into the back of the organization in the way he's prone to when asked about the Bulls.


What did he say about the organization? About the coach?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Says you.
> 
> 
> Not Isiah, not the NY Media.
> 
> 
> Just you.


Really. Isiah said Jamal was overpaid?

Look at the list and the players around him. 

Its obvious.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> True. And Jamal fans were sure giving IT all the love in the world when he signed JC. Can't blame Jamal for following the money, though. Just another in a long list of poor decisions by Isaiah.


Jamal's contract is not a poor decision.

What Jamal currently brings to the table is certainly worth 5.8 million. Look at the other players in the league that make that much and what they produce.

Tim Thomas, Penny, Houston.... those are the contracts that are crippling the Knicks.

Jamal at 5.8 mil for this year is a good contract.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2165949&postcount=2453


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Really. Isiah said Jamal was overpaid?


He sure as heck didn't say he was pleased with the product he paid for.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> He sure as heck didn't say he was pleased with the product he paid for.



OK.

So Isiah hasn't said he's overpaid and the only quotes you have from the NY Media claiming he's "highly-paid" are from a trashy tabloid.

Jamal is not highly-paid or overpaid in NBA terms. That column is incorrect.

The Times said he's going through "growing pains"... which is a better way to look at it.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal's contract is not a poor decision.


Says you. 


And only you.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal is not highly-paid or overpaid <B>in NBA terms</b>. That column is incorrect.


The clear sign that rationalizing is going on.

Saying he has to get better means: "This ain't what I'm paying you for"


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Says you.
> 
> 
> And only you.


Yah... and you and the trash tabloids from NYC are right on the same page. Lock step.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Saying he has to get better means: "This ain't what I'm paying you for"


Wrong. It means he has to improve as time goes on.

They paid a young guard 5.8 million this year. Of course they are hoping that he improves through the life of his contract.

Was he expecting a lockdown defender? Certainly not. That's why he's paid 5.8 million.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Wrong. It means he has to improve as time goes on.


He didn't say he had to play <B>BETTER</b> defense.

He said he needed to *START PLAYING* defense.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah... and you and the trash tabloids from NYC are right on the same page. Lock step.


You're curiously detached from reality.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Here it is again.


<pre>
*Eddie Robinson	CHI	DNP*
*Scottie Pippen	CHI	DNP*
Anthony Mason	MIL	DNP
Jason Caffey	MIL	DNP
Todd MacCulloch	PHI	DNP
Alvin Williams	TOR	DNP
Vin Baker	BOS	1.33
Jahidi White	CHA	2.18
Jonathan Bender	IND	2.86
Calvin Booth	MIL	3.94
Aaron McKie	PHI	5.5
Jerome Williams	NYK	6.39
Scott Pollard	IND	6.8
C Robinson	NJ	7.59
Kwame Brown	WAS	7.79
Alonzo Mourning	TOR	9.51
Hedo Turkoglu	ORL	11.52
Antonio McDyess	DET	12.22
Reggie Miller	IND	12.59
Ricky Davis	BOS	13.29
Desmond Mason	MIL	14.03
*Jamal Crawford	NYK	14.5*
Joe Smith	MIL	14.6
D Marshall	TOR	14.89
Al Harrington	ATL	16.3
C Billups	DET	17.66
Kurt Thomas	NYK	18.28
Ben Wallace	DET	19.16
Larry Hughes	WAS	21.85
Ron Artest	IND	25.14 (only 7 games)
</pre>


The guys in the east that make 5-7 mil and their EFF from this year.

Jamal is in the top 1/3. And he's below this groups average salary. The NBA market priced these players this way, and Jamal is giving his team more than they paid for.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> You're curiously detached from reality.


And you are aligning your views with NYC tabloid columnists and quoting Isiah Thomas, the man who you think is an idiot.


----------



## GB

Atlantic W L GB 
Celtics 45 37 0.0 
Sixers 43 39 2.0 
Nets 42 40 3.0 
Raptors 33 49 12.0 
<B>Knicks 33 49 12.0 </b>


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> And you are aligning your views with NYC tabloid columnists and quoting Isiah Thomas, the man who you think is an idiot.


I'm quoting Isiah because he says what everyones been saying about Jamal since Cartwright, um Floyd, um college...


You're riding.


----------



## GB

What you don't see is the other 9 players fast breaking toward the basket on the other side of the court.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Atlantic W L GB
> Celtics 45 37 0.0
> Sixers 43 39 2.0
> Nets 42 40 3.0
> Raptors 33 49 12.0
> <B>Knicks 33 49 12.0 </b>


Right, and as explained in the Times article, the main culprits were Houston's injury, Penny's injury and a disappointing Tim Thomas. They then went on to say how Jamal was thrust into a role that he was not brought in for, and that he was going through "growing pains." Inferring of course, that he's growing, right?... that there is going to be likely growth.


Here's what one of your favorite papers to quote from, Newsday had say.

Five keys to the Knicks' offseason:

1. Make the obligatory run at Phil Jackson and then hire a hard-nosed, experienced coach who will demand tough defense.

2. Find a shot-blocking center in the draft or trade market, but don't overpay for health risks Zydrunas Ilgauskas or Theo Ratliff.

3. If a three-point shooter such as Phoenix's Joe Johnson or Minnesota's Wally Szczerbiak is available, make the deal.

4. Acquire a pass-first point guard who can defend so Stephon Marbury can play more shooting guard and Jamal Crawford can come off the bench.

5. Don't trade Kurt Thomas without getting equal rebounding, defense and pick-and-roll shooting. In other words, forget it.


That makes sense. Build a nice three guard rotation and toughen up in the paint.

5.8 million does not usually get you a franchise changing player.

Yah, Jamal needs to play harder defense. I think a full season with Skiles would have done him a lot of good. Bringing in a tough, defense minded coach is what he needs to take his game to the next level... which... when looking at 5-7 million a year type players... is well within reach.


----------



## remlover




----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> I'm quoting Isiah because he says what everyones been saying about Jamal since Cartwright, um Floyd, um college...
> 
> 
> You're riding.


And now you're quoting Cartwright and Floyd.


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> 5.8 million does not usually get you a franchise changing player.


I'm curious. What will Jamal make next year? His deal avg. is like 8 million right?


----------



## kukoc4ever

badfish said:


> I'm curious. What will Jamal make next year? His deal avg. is like 8 million right?


6.5 million next year.

The deal average is a smidge under 8, counting the player option.


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> 6.5 million next year.
> 
> The deal average is a smidge under 8, counting the player option.


Given his youth, one would think that improvement will come, commensurate with the increases in his contract. However, he has not really improved leaps and bounds at any point in his career. Any improvements that did come disappeared as quickly as they came. It's a gamble.

I agree that his salary compared to many in the NBA seems reasonable, especially his team. It just so happens, I feel, that many in the league are overpaid. But, that's my problem. As it pertains to the Bulls, I only care about how salaries affect our cap situation. Once we get our core resigned and add a key player or two, to hell with the cap. In the meantime, I'm glad we are picking and choosing our contracts.


----------



## GB

No NY for the Zen Master?



> Before Phil Jackson would agree to coach the Knicks or anyone else, he would want to know a team is committed to winning now, willing to spend to win and also willing to give him the final say on players, his longtime friend and biographer, Charley Rosen, told Newsday.
> 
> The Knicks hold some allure for Jackson - "he dug the fans," Rosen said - but they'll still need a dynamic sales job to lure Jackson. *"In a sense, he's done New York," Rosen said*.
> 
> Indications are Jackson - at the top of the Knicks' wish list - would insist on significant roster changes, not a terrible idea.
> --
> Malik Rose ("the best trade Isiah made"), Maurice Taylor ("if he ever gets in shape, a terrific offensive player"), Jamal Crawford ("would be super-duper in the triangle ... a bright kid").


Doesn't like Marbury.

Could Jamal have a Hughes like future? Stay tuned.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

The Zen Master just might be the father figure Jamal needs. If he listens to what Phil has to say and teach about team ball and defensive intensity, the sky could be the limit.


----------



## Electric Slim

Will someone tell me why some here think the "I won't back down in my arguments" credo is so noble?


----------



## GB

Electric Slim said:


> Will someone tell me why some here think the "I won't back down in my arguments" credo is so noble?


As you(?) told me once: Keep it about basketball.


----------



## bullsville

Playoff stats so far:

Bulls guards:
Hinrich 17.0 ppg, 7.0 apg, 5.0 rpg, 3.0 spg, 1.0 bpg
Duhon 7.0 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.0 spg
Gordon 30.0 ppg, 60% 3's, 2.0 bpg

Last year's Bulls guard:
Crawford 0 ppg, 0 rpg, 0 apg

Next update: Wednesday night


----------



## Shabadoo

bullsville said:


> Playoff stats so far:
> 
> Bulls guards:
> Hinrich 17.0 ppg, 7.0 apg, 5.0 rpg, 3.0 spg, 1.0 bpg
> Duhon 7.0 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.0 spg
> Gordon 30.0 ppg, 60% 3's, 2.0 bpg
> 
> Last year's Bulls guard:
> Crawford 0 ppg, 0 rpg, 0 apg
> 
> Next update: Wednesday night


That is....


----------



## Blueoak

Shabadoo said:


> That is....


Usually I'd expect one word per picture, but it looks like you're trying to say "dumb".


----------



## Wynn

Shabadoo said:


> That is....


I'm guessing irrelevant.....


----------



## ace20004u

Jamal will hit his stride middle of next season when he comes back with some added muscle and a commitment to playing better defensively and driving the lane more. At that point his salary will seem like a bargain. And his salary is veryt commensurate with what he did last season. I think a lot of folks just don't get the way NBA salaries work or something because Jamal's deal is actually a pretty nice deal for the Knicks. It's the fact that it is a poorly built team that is the problem. They really shouldn't have gotten rid of Mohammed and they really need some more balance.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Playoff stats so far:
> 
> Bulls guards:
> Hinrich 17.0 ppg, 7.0 apg, 5.0 rpg, 3.0 spg, 1.0 bpg
> Duhon 7.0 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.0 spg
> Gordon 30.0 ppg, 60% 3's, 2.0 bpg
> 
> Last year's Bulls guard:
> Crawford 0 ppg, 0 rpg, 0 apg
> 
> Next update: Wednesday night


Make sure to add Lebron, AK47, Redd, Francis, Elton, KG, Baron and Kobe to the bottom portion.


----------



## DaBullz

From K4e's sig:

Raptors 33-49
Knicks 33-49

Hmm....

33 wins. Better than Paxson's 1st as GM or Skiles' as coach.

In fact, better than any season the Bulls have had since Jordan retired (and before this one).


----------



## giusd

Hi Ace,

To this post "Jamal will hit his stride middle of next season when he comes back with some added muscle and a commitment to playing better defensively and driving the lane more. At that point his salary will seem like a bargain. And his salary is veryt commensurate with what he did last season. I think a lot of folks just don't get the way NBA salaries work or something because Jamal's deal is actually a pretty nice deal for the Knicks. It's the fact that it is a poorly built team that is the problem. They really shouldn't have gotten rid of Mohammed and they really need some more balance" and in all seriousness, this could have been post last year, two years ago, and three years ago. I just don't seem to see much improvement in JC game.

The issue is not his physical skills, or how much weigth or muscle he may or may not put on in the off season. The problem with JC is supertentoral. Or better but from his neck up. He just can not seem to find a way to fit his game and skills into the league. He still plays by feel instead of thinking his way around the court. until he does that i think his game will be where it is right now for several years to come.

david


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

This is post 2,500 on this thread.

The Bucks forum has about 3,200 posts _total_

Pretty soon this thread will be passing _forums_ in post count.

:laugh:


----------



## ace20004u

giusd said:


> Hi Ace,
> 
> To this post "Jamal will hit his stride middle of next season when he comes back with some added muscle and a commitment to playing better defensively and driving the lane more. At that point his salary will seem like a bargain. And his salary is veryt commensurate with what he did last season. I think a lot of folks just don't get the way NBA salaries work or something because Jamal's deal is actually a pretty nice deal for the Knicks. It's the fact that it is a poorly built team that is the problem. They really shouldn't have gotten rid of Mohammed and they really need some more balance" and in all seriousness, this could have been post last year, two years ago, and three years ago. I just don't seem to see much improvement in JC game.
> 
> The issue is not his physical skills, or how much weigth or muscle he may or may not put on in the off season. The problem with JC is supertentoral. Or better but from his neck up. He just can not seem to find a way to fit his game and skills into the league. He still plays by feel instead of thinking his way around the court. until he does that i think his game will be where it is right now for several years to come.
> 
> david


Hey, Skiles said Crawford was a joy to coach. He will be fine. we simply disagree about what his problem is. Once he adds muscle he will be more confident fighting through screens and driving the lane IMO. Then we will see what he is made of.


----------



## dkg1

DaBullz said:


> From K4e's sig:
> 
> Raptors 33-49
> Knicks 33-49
> 
> Hmm....
> 
> 33 wins. Better than Paxson's 1st as GM or Skiles' as coach.
> 
> In fact, better than any season the Bulls have had since Jordan retired (and before this one).



Somehow I don't think the Toronto and Knicks organizations are beating their chests to the media, bragging about their 33 wins. Unless I missed an earlier post, I just don't understand what Pax and Skiles have to do with this thread?


----------



## mizenkay

DaBullz said:


> From K4e's sig:
> 
> Raptors 33-49
> Knicks 33-49
> 
> Hmm....
> 
> 33 wins. Better than Paxson's 1st as GM or Skiles' as coach.
> 
> In fact, better than any season the Bulls have had since Jordan retired (and before this one).



i swore i would never post in this thread again, but something about this just strikes a nerve.

*who cares?*

are you a nostalgic fellow, dabullz? enjoy living in the past? afraid to move on and accept the fact that the hothouse flower is sitting home watching the game on tv (probably cheering for the wizards, don't let those quotes in the paper fool ya)

i log on this morning and what is the most active thread the day after a great playoff win? the freakin' crawford epic. whoohoo. jamal's team won 33. bulls won *47*. without him. and bulls are in the playoffs and the knicks and the raptors are a mess. 

makes me just shake my head and wonder who people are really cheering for. oh wait, i know, the bulls, right? sure.

guisd is right. with jamal what you see is what you get. pax knew it. 

don't be afraid to admit defeat guys. he ain't all that.


----------



## The Truth

DaBullz said:


> From K4e's sig:
> 
> Raptors 33-49
> Knicks 33-49
> 
> Hmm....
> 
> 33 wins. Better than Paxson's 1st as GM or Skiles' as coach.
> 
> In fact, better than any season the Bulls have had since Jordan retired (and before this one).



  

Wow...all I can say is...wow.


----------



## The Truth

dkg1 said:


> Somehow I don't think the Toronto and Knicks organizations are beating their chests to the media, bragging about their 33 wins. Unless I missed an earlier post, I just don't understand what Pax and Skiles have to do with this thread?


It has to do with his sig.

It has to do with the fact that Skiles and Paxson have experienced success going in a direction that DaBullz didn't agree with.

Hatred can be blinding.


----------



## Good Hope

kukoc4ever said:


> 4. *Acquire a pass-first point guard who can defend so Stephon Marbury can play more shooting guard and Jamal Crawford can come off the bench.*
> 
> 5. Don't trade Kurt Thomas without getting equal rebounding, defense and pick-and-roll shooting. In other words, forget it.
> 
> 
> That makes sense. Build a nice three guard rotation and toughen up in the paint.
> 
> 5.8 million does not usually get you a franchise changing player.
> 
> Yah, Jamal needs to play harder defense. I think a full season with Skiles would have done him a lot of good. Bringing in a tough, defense minded coach is what he needs to take his game to the next level... which... when looking at 5-7 million a year type players... is well within reach.


K4E,

but this is exactly what Paxson said to JC and to the media during the negotiations last year.

JC and his handlers (and his fans, I might add) overestimated what JC meant to the team. He wanted to be a starter. To get what he wanted and wasn't ready for, he gave up the chance to receive the kind of guidance and training he needed to get there.

It wasn't the situation that was his problem, it was his lack of willingness to humble himself and receive the training he needed to grow. He should have taken Pax's offer.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> Somehow I don't think the Toronto and Knicks organizations are beating their chests to the media, bragging about their 33 wins. Unless I missed an earlier post, I just don't understand what Pax and Skiles have to do with this thread?


No, but both of these "horrible" teams had a better year than the Bulls did in their Paxson playoff guarantee season last year. Many of the same fervent Paxson supporters, even in the face of last season's playoff guarantee failure, are the same ones that are hammering Jamal for somehow not earning his *5.8 million dollars* this year.

Paxson decided not to resign Jamal. He pulled off an off-season for the ages (some have called it a miracle) to restock the Bulls talent pool in one year. Nice job Pax. 

Personally, I think there would be a large logjam at this point if we kept Jamal. OTOH, Skiles has done a masterful job this season motivating his troops to play his way. I don't see why Jamal would be different than the other players. If Curry was swept up in the fever, I think Jamal would have been as well. Whatever. The Bulls are good again and I hope Jamal keeps improving as well.


----------



## The Truth

kukoc4ever said:


> No, but both of these "horrible" teams had a better year than the Bulls did in their Paxson playoff guarantee season last year. Many of the same fervent Paxson supporters, even in the face of last season's playoff guarantee failure, are the same ones that are hammering Jamal for somehow not earning his 5.8 million dollars this year.
> 
> Paxson decided not to resign Jamal. He pulled off an off-season for the ages (some have called it a miracle) to restock the Bulls talent pool in one year. *Nice job Pax.*
> 
> Personally, I think there would be a large logjam at this point if we kept Jamal. OTOH, Skiles has done a masterful job this season motivating his troops to play his way. I don't see why Jamal would be different than the other players. If Curry was swept up in the fever, I think Jamal would have been as well. Whatever. The Bulls are good again and I hope Jamal keeps improving as well.


I guess I still don't understand why people are still so intent to point out that the playoff prediction did not work out last year. The Bulls were broken, Paxson and Skiles fixed them. Nice job.


----------



## DaBullz

The Truth said:


> It has to do with his sig.
> 
> It has to do with the fact that Skiles and Paxson have experienced success going in a direction that DaBullz didn't agree with.
> 
> Hatred can be blinding.


It has something to do with relativity and how bulls fans are so quick to suggest that if a player isn't on the bulls, he must suck.

It's a fact that Jamal Crawford played on a team that won the most games, ever, in his short (so far) career. He played on a team that won 10 more games than his team did last year.

Can't you be happy for him?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Good Hope said:


> K4E,
> 
> but this is exactly what Paxson said to JC and to the media during the negotiations last year.
> 
> JC and his handlers (and his fans, I might add) overestimated what JC meant to the team. He wanted to be a starter. To get what he wanted and wasn't ready for, he gave up the chance to receive the kind of guidance and training he needed to get there.
> 
> It wasn't the situation that was his problem, it was his lack of willingness to humble himself and receive the training he needed to grow. He should have taken Pax's offer.....


Do you think Gordon is going to humble himself when its time to resign his contract? I don't think he's going to want to come off the bench his whole life. Will Duhon be happy about this? He wants to be a starting PG as well... and has shown he's more than capable.

Deng? Will he humble himself and come off the bench for Noc if need be? If the Bulls bench him for too long he'll want to leave. And... if Noc is only getting 20 minutes a game for this squad because Deng is eating his minutes, and he keeps improving, he'll want to leave as well.

These guys are trying to make $$$. The winning is fun, but almost all young players are trying to make the most $$$. You don't usually get paid max $$$ by coming off the bench.... or even accepting coming off the bench. You need to put up #s and to do that you need PT. 

As for overestimating Jamal's value to the team, I disagree. Most had the Bulls being brutal at the start of the season. Most of the posters here. Most of the experts interviewed. A miracle happened. Its great.... but these types of team don't usually win in the NBA.

If anyone thought that losing Jamal and replacing him with rookies would make the Bulls better off this season, then why didn't anyone predict such a successful season for the Bulls?

Jamal should have taken the money. Come on. Its a job. He had a pretty good individual season. His EFF was better than most that are paid what he’s being paid. 33 wins is bad… but not brutal. They will be in the running to make the playoffs next year. I agree that Jamal could have used some better development... but that's not his fault. The Bulls had him for 4 years. It was a crap environment. Last year's PaxSkiles playoff guarantee year included. Its time to get paid.

Any young player on our current team would leave it for more $$$ or better opportunities. And they should not be criticized for doing so.


----------



## The Truth

DaBullz said:


> It has something to do with relativity and how bulls fans are so quick to suggest that if a player isn't on the bulls, he must suck.
> 
> It's a fact that Jamal Crawford played on a team that won the most games, ever, in his short (so far) career. He played on a team that won 10 more games than his team did last year.
> 
> Can't you be happy for him?


I have absolutely no issue with Jamal. However, I don't think 33 wins is something to be happy about.

And I'm not exactly sure what comparing Jamal's team this year to Jamal's team last year is going to get you. I'm not sure how that is relevant at all. They are completely different teams with different players (with the exception of a few).

And I'm also not sure of the validity of your statement "It has something to do with relativity and how bulls fans are so quick to suggest that if a player isn't on the bulls, he must suck." I would venture a guess that there are a lot of players in the NBA who are not considered to "suck" by Bulls fans.

And I have no idea what the relevance of Paxson's and Skiles' first season has to do with your point.

Get over it, the Bulls are good. And Paxson is the GM, and Skiles is the Head Coach. And Jamal Crawford plays for the Knicks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

The Truth said:


> I guess I still don't understand why people are still so intent to point out that the playoff prediction did not work out last year. The Bulls were broken, Paxson and Skiles fixed them. Nice job.


If we're going to praise people for their accomplishments, they should be criticized for their failures.

Paxson didn't evaluate the team properly last year. He guaranteed playoffs. If the team truly was "broken" he should have correctly seen that. He didn't. He guaranteed playoffs. One month later, he blew up the team. Then he turned the Bulls into a minor league squad and people started ripping the remaining guys for losing. It was a train wreck. Since he was the announcer for the team for years before becoming GM, he should have known the mood of the club. He traveled with them. He was around them all the time.

This year was labeled "through thick and thin." Big signal as to what the Bulls organization expected. The experts agreed. The posters here agreed. He ended up putting the pieces in place for a miraculous turnaround and deserves the credit... but like he deserved some blame for last year.


----------



## The Truth

kukoc4ever said:


> If we're going to praise people for their accomplishments, they should be criticized for their failures.


That may be true, but past failures aren't always relevant to a current situation.



> Paxson didn't evaluate the team properly last year. He guaranteed playoffs. If the team truly was "broken" he should have correctly seen that. He didn't. He guaranteed playoffs.


Why is this so important? He predicted playoffs, he was wrong. How is that relevant to their current success?



> One month later, he blew up the team. Then he turned the Bulls into a minor league squad and people started ripping the remaining guys for losing. It was a train wreck. Since he was the announcer for the team for years before becoming GM, he should have known the mood of the club. He traveled with them. He was around them all the time.


Yes, he blew up the team. And where are they now?



> This year was labeled "through thick and thin." Big signal as to what the Bulls organization expected. The experts agreed. The posters here agreed. He ended up putting the pieces in place for a miraculous turnaround and deserves the credit... but like he deserved some blame for last year.


But how is last year relevant to this season?


----------



## Good Hope

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Gordon is going to humble himself when its time to resign his contract? *I don't think he's going to want to come off the bench his whole life.* Will Duhon be happy about this? He wants to be a starting PG as well... and has shown he's more than capable.
> 
> ....
> These guys are trying to make $$$. The winning is fun, but almost all young players are trying to make the most $$$. You don't usually get paid max $$$ by coming off the bench.... or even accepting coming off the bench. You need to put up #s and to do that you need PT.
> 
> As for overestimating Jamal's value to the team, I disagree. Most had the Bulls being brutal at the start of the season. Most of the posters here. Most of the experts interviewed. A miracle happened. Its great.... but these types of team don't usually win in the NBA.
> 
> *If anyone thought that losing Jamal and replacing him with rookies would make the Bulls better off this season, then why didn't anyone predict such a successful season for the Bulls?*
> 
> Jamal should have taken the money. Come on. Its a job. He had a pretty good individual season. His EFF was better than most that are paid what he’s being paid. 33 wins is bad… but not brutal. They will be in the running to make the playoffs next year. I agree that Jamal could have used some better development... but that's not his fault. The Bulls had him for 4 years. It was a crap environment. Last year's PaxSkiles playoff guarantee year included. Its time to get paid.
> 
> *Any young player on our current team would leave it for more $$$ or better opportunities. And they should not be criticized for doing so.*


Well, I'm sorry for stepping on your toes. I tried to bring up the point in a reasonable manner, that Jamal made a MISTAKE by not signing with the Bulls last year, which everything in the post I quoted from you indicated that you would agree with. That is, JC needs to come off the bench, he's not ready (and isn't being paid) to be the star, that he needs some more training, etc. Which was the Bulls' position, and many posters' position during the whole negotiation process. But at that time, this position was considered a terrible INSULT to JC. Whatever.

I'm not criticizing him. You did it all for me. You analyzed his game, and where he is at, and stated what he needs to be successful in the future. I agree with your analysis. I was pointing out that you were agreeing with Paxson's analysis, and vision for Jamal as a major part of a three guard rotation.

It is ironic, perhaps, that Paxson was right, and now you agree with him, but not enough to let go of the hurt feelings (which I just don't get, to be honest). 

JC is making a little more money now. But he is also set up to fail. And you know what, money isn't everything. Being a human being is a little bit more than how much money you do or don't have. It sounds like platitudes, but happiness has a lot more to do with growing and living up to one's potential, than getting a payday. By the way, I should mention here that a lot of people thought that the team would be better off without JC, (giusd comes to mind), though perhaps not as good, not as soon.

Pax was not asking JC to work for free (Don't go all hyperbolic on me!). He asked him to accept a salary and position on the team that was commensurate with JC's skill and ability to impact the team's performance. JC had to humble himself, not because he is an uppity, skinny kid, but because his value to the team (and, it turns out, to NY) was less than what he imagined. He was duped, perhaps, by others, who saw his potential and convinced him that he was already "all that". 

As for your arguments about the rest of the players on the Bulls, the unfortunate truth, as far as JC is concerned, is that they are going to be in a position to receive a bigger payday, because they have found a way to contribute to a winning program. If they lose perspective, and think that it was somehow "all me", then they will go for the money, and that's it. If they remember what got them the success they have already achieved, then, perhaps, they might be willing to grow and receive the compensation that matches what they contribute, and continue to enjoy the success that really makes it all worthwhile. 

I don't blame or criticize Jamal, except to say that he made a mistake. It's not wrong to make mistakes. It is wrong not to learn from them. That's a lesson a few people around here need to learn.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Gordon is going to humble himself when its time to resign his contract? I don't think he's going to want to come off the bench his whole life. Will Duhon be happy about this? He wants to be a starting PG as well... and has shown he's more than capable.
> 
> Deng? Will he humble himself and come off the bench for Noc if need be? If the Bulls bench him for too long he'll want to leave. And... if Noc is only getting 20 minutes a game for this squad because Deng is eating his minutes, and he keeps improving, he'll want to leave as well.
> 
> These guys are trying to make $$$. The winning is fun, but almost all young players are trying to make the most $$$. You don't usually get paid max $$$ by coming off the bench.... or even accepting coming off the bench. You need to put up #s and to do that you need PT.
> 
> As for overestimating Jamal's value to the team, I disagree. Most had the Bulls being brutal at the start of the season. Most of the posters here. Most of the experts interviewed. A miracle happened. Its great.... but these types of team don't usually win in the NBA.
> 
> If anyone thought that losing Jamal and replacing him with rookies would make the Bulls better off this season, then why didn't anyone predict such a successful season for the Bulls?
> 
> Jamal should have taken the money. Come on. Its a job. He had a pretty good individual season. His EFF was better than most that are paid what he’s being paid. 33 wins is bad… but not brutal. They will be in the running to make the playoffs next year. I agree that Jamal could have used some better development... but that's not his fault. The Bulls had him for 4 years. It was a crap environment. Last year's PaxSkiles playoff guarantee year included. Its time to get paid.
> 
> Any young player on our current team would leave it for more $$$ or better opportunities. And they should not be criticized for doing so.


You sound like one of those guys who would make me turn off the Bulls game in favor of a Cubs or Sox game when I used to bartend.

But we feel what you're saying:

- Jamal should be above criticism becuse his current contract is "average"
- Pax built a playoff team by accident
- Our current players are more interested in $$$ than playing in a winning system
- All turnarounds in the NBA should be instant. Anybody who believed last summer that the Bulls were 1) Heading in the right direction and 2) would miss the playoffs _this season_ are hypocrites because missing the playoffs is bad.

Yet you pompously imply that playoffs for the Knicks next year is a given, but that's your prediction.

No one predicted that the Bulls would make the playoffs this year. We should all be hanging our heads in shame, and when some suppossed Bulls fan rants all season in defense of Jamal Crawford rather than enjoying the first winiing season in 7 years, we should all try to hold back our laughter.


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> Jamal will hit his stride middle of next season



How long have we been hearing that? Keep moving the sticks, one day you'll be right.


----------



## Good Hope

Electric Slim said:


> But we feel what you're saying:
> 
> - Jamal should be above criticism becuse his current contract is "average"
> - Pax built a playoff team by accident
> - Our current players are more interested in $$$ than playing in a winning system
> - All turnarounds in the NBA should be instant. Anybody who believed last summer that the Bulls were 1) Heading in the right direction and 2) would miss the playoffs _this season_ are hypocrites because missing the playoffs is bad.


Pretty nice summary, I would say.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Make sure to add Lebron, AK47, Redd, Francis, Elton, KG, Baron and Kobe to the bottom portion.


Why, was Paxson ridiculed last summer for trading away any of those players for the Knicks "garbage"?

This is a BULLS board, so I could see discussing Elton on the BULLS board, but not really in a JAMAL CRAWFORD thread. This thread is, I"m assuming, here for the purpose of discussing JAMAL, which is what I was doing...

Nice try, though...


----------



## GB

Moderator Miz is has been a roll. Wow.

www.smackdown.com

Good post. I just laughed at that one too. Some folks, in my humble opinion, are happy the Bulls are in the playoffs and winning...but it's a tempered happiness, they're not as happy as they would be with _their_ people in charge and on the roster.

Maybe they're right. This season _could_ be a fluke success for a sub-optimal roster, sub-optimal coach, and a sub-optimal GM. 

Not sure if Reinsdorf is still considered a sub-optimal chairman/owner considering the success of his *two* teams though.




mizenkay said:


> i swore i would never post in this thread again, but something about this just strikes a nerve.
> 
> *who cares?*
> 
> are you a nostalgic fellow, dabullz? enjoy living in the past? afraid to move on and accept the fact that the hothouse flower is sitting home watching the game on tv (probably cheering for the wizards, don't let those quotes in the paper fool ya)
> 
> i log on this morning and what is the most active thread the day after a great playoff win? the freakin' crawford epic. whoohoo. jamal's team won 33. bulls won *47*. without him. and bulls are in the playoffs and the knicks and the raptors are a mess.
> 
> makes me just shake my head and wonder who people are really cheering for. oh wait, i know, the bulls, right? sure.
> 
> guisd is right. with jamal what you see is what you get. pax knew it.
> 
> don't be afraid to admit defeat guys. he ain't all that.


----------



## Good Hope

Here's Wennington's quote on what made the Bulls bad....



> "I know when we played there was a lot of pride in wearing the uniform," said Wennington, who played on three of the Bulls' NBA championship teams, including the one in 1998, and is now a radio analyst for WMVP-AM 1000. "I think that got lost there for a little while. *Everyone was concerned about their own [statistics] and collecting their paychecks. They thought their talent alone was good enough to win and it wasn't. *There was the attitude on the court of 'Let's just get it over with' and after 20 games, you could see they were done. It wasn't pretty."



"It's all about the money" is exactly what got the team playing "THE WRONG WAY!"

Go Bulls! Play the right way!


----------



## bullsville

DaBullz said:


> It has something to do with relativity and how bulls fans are so quick to suggest that if a player isn't on the bulls, he must suck.
> 
> It's a fact that Jamal Crawford played on a team that won the most games, ever, in his short (so far) career. He played on a team that won 10 more games than his team did last year.
> 
> Can't you be happy for him?


Why should anyone be "happy" for Jamal? Unless you know him personally (which I've never even met the kid), he's no longer a Bull, so who cares if he is "happy"?

Certainly not me, any more than I hope *any* total stranger is happy...


----------



## ace20004u

GB said:


> How long have we been hearing that? Keep moving the sticks, one day you'll be right.



I have been pretty consistent with saying it would be between 3-5 years after he entered the league and he lost a year with his ACL injury. A poster asked me just around the beginning of the season when Jamal would "get it" and I said middle of next season, so I will stand by that and there hasn't been a "moving of the sticks".


----------



## ScottMay

bullsville said:


> Why should anyone be "happy" for Jamal? Unless you know him personally (which I've never even met the kid), he's no longer a Bull, so who cares if he is "happy"?
> 
> Certainly not me, any more than I hope *any* total stranger is happy...


Methinks this is taking the "us vs. the world" mentality a little too seriously.

I'm guessing the fact you're a Bulls fan doesn't necessarily mean that any of the Bulls players are overly concerned with your happiness, either.


----------



## ScottMay

Good Hope said:


> Here's Wennington's quote on what made the Bulls bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's all about the money" is exactly what got the team playing "THE WRONG WAY!"
> 
> Go Bulls! Play the right way!


It's going to be pretty interesting to see what happens when it comes time for some of these guys to get paid -- Skiles, Duhon, Chandler, and Curry in the short term. And then Hinrich, Deng, and Gordon will step up with max/near max demands (and justifiably so). 

I wonder if it'll be okay for guys to get rewarded for playing the right way, or if getting paid, period, is what seems to chap so many hides around here.


----------



## Good Hope

ScottMay said:


> It's going to be pretty interesting to see what happens when it comes time for some of these guys to get paid -- Skiles, Duhon, Chandler, and Curry in the short term. And then Hinrich, Deng, and Gordon will step up with max/near max demands (and justifiably so).
> 
> I wonder if it'll be okay for guys to get rewarded for playing the right way, or if getting paid, period, is what seems to chap so many hides around here.


It will be. But the fact remains that if the money is the first motivation, then the success won't ever come. I just happened to see something on Carl Lewis, the track star, on ESPN (I think) last night. He said he told his coach, "I want to make money, lots of it." His coach told him, "Be the best at what you do, and that will take care of itself." He learned to be patient and improve his technique, until the money did come.

I think the lesson that can be learned from this about NBA economics is that "value" is not defined by the contract amount. You yourself made a comment in another thread about how the UAW shot itself in the foot and has hamstrung the auto industry.... They overstated the value of the workers in making the company succeed. For long term success, it is important that everyone on the "team" have a reasonable handle on what their contribution to the team's success really is. 

It's the same in life. If you depend on external things to determine your value, you are never going to be happy. We all need sober judgment to know what our contributions really are.

I have stated this elsewhere, but I'll do so here again, just to avoid misinterpretation: self-evaluation has to include the management as well as the employees. If management becomes too self-important (read: Jerry Krause, and many, many others), that will also upset the boat. 

But I would say that so far, Pax has managed pretty well to walk the tightrope. I hope he can keep it up. It's not easy. Name a country, company, team, etc., that has stayed on top forever......


----------



## remlover

mizenkay said:


> i swore i would never post in this thread again, but something about this just strikes a nerve.
> 
> *who cares?*
> 
> are you a nostalgic fellow, dabullz? enjoy living in the past? afraid to move on and accept the fact that the hothouse flower is sitting home watching the game on tv (probably cheering for the wizards, don't let those quotes in the paper fool ya)
> 
> i log on this morning and what is the most active thread the day after a great playoff win? the freakin' crawford epic. whoohoo. jamal's team won 33. bulls won *47*. without him. and bulls are in the playoffs and the knicks and the raptors are a mess.
> 
> makes me just shake my head and wonder who people are really cheering for. oh wait, i know, the bulls, right? sure.
> 
> guisd is right. with jamal what you see is what you get. pax knew it.
> 
> don't be afraid to admit defeat guys. he ain't all that.


Bump


What the hell is wrong with you guys???? Yesteday we win our first playoff game w/ our young core, and are only THREE games away from the Conf. Semi-finals, and what is being discussed?? Jamal, Jamal, Jamal. 

It's about time this thread gets a lock. Let Crawford supporters/detractors go to the Knicks board to discuss Jamal.


----------



## Electric Slim

remlover said:


> Let Crawford supporters/detractors go to the Knicks board to discuss Jamal.


 :cheers:


----------



## ace20004u

remlover said:


> Bump
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you guys???? Yesteday we win our first playoff game w/ our young core, and our only THREE games away from the Conf. Semi-finals, and what is being discussed?? Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.
> 
> It's about time this thread gets a lock. Let Crawford supporters/detractors go to the Knicks board to discuss Jamal.



I'm as excited about the Bulls playoff hopes as anyone. I don't really care to discuss Jamal all that much right now either but someone keeps bringing it up and I can post a reply and not forget all of my Bulls playoff hopes in doing so. The thread doesn't need to be locked, people just have to learn not to post here if it is a problem for them...real simple.


----------



## dkg1

Electric Slim said:


> :cheers:



i'll drink to that as well


----------



## GB

remlover said:


> Bump
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you guys???? Yesteday we win our first playoff game w/ our young core, and are only THREE games away from the Conf. Semi-finals, and what is being discussed?? Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.
> 
> It's about time this thread gets a lock. Let Crawford supporters/detractors go to the Knicks board to discuss Jamal.



:greatjob:

Mods? -- it really does belong more on the general NBA board by this time
(me thinks they might like the eyeballs -- mebbe we should all vow to followup a lock or move with buying memberships for ourselves)


----------



## ChiBulls2315

dkg1 said:


> i'll drink to that as well


I don't drink, but I think I may have to have a few after reading the crap on here today. ****ing sickening.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

remlover said:


> Bump
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you guys???? Yesteday we win our first playoff game w/ our young core, and are only THREE games away from the Conf. Semi-finals, and what is being discussed?? Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.
> 
> It's about time this thread gets a lock. Let Crawford supporters/detractors go to the Knicks board to discuss Jamal.


Here's what actually happens on this board, divided in steps.

1) It's not as if K4E or anyone else is here trying to brag about all that Jamal has done. They're simply defending their favorite player from inane TROLL attacks like the Bullsville post about "Jamal's playoff stats." 

2) K4E defends Jamal. 

3) More casual Jamal-haters like you see K4E posting positives about his player. That can't happen at all ! It irks you, and you think that positive post is a legitimate reason to shoot down a K4E post. 

4) When frustrated by yet more facts and statistics, you (and not just you) make yet another response like the one above calling for this thread to be knocked off.

5) Start back at Step #1

In actuality the thread does occasionally die, but some poster usually on the "right" side of things (meaning anti-Jamal), finds some "interesting nugget" about Jamal. It seems like that poster on the right side of things wants to prove once and for all how "right" Paxson was and is trying to eliminate any fandom of Jamal at all. 

And that's what keeps this thread going.

But anyway, I'm not as mad as my posts almost exclusively defending Jamal might indicate.

I can follow a lot of what Ace has said already. 

I am extremely happy that the Bulls won last night. Piss-my-pants happy. 

However, I guess that won't show in my posts if I feel I have to keep defending one of my favorite players.

Incidentally, I did not visit the board last night.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Here's what actually happens on this board, divided in steps.
> 
> 1) It's not as if K4E or anyone else is here trying to brag about all that Jamal has done. They're simply defending their favorite player from inane TROLL attacks like the Bullsville post about "Jamal's playoff stats."
> 
> 2) K4E defends Jamal.
> 
> 3) More casual Jamal-haters like you see K4E posting positives about his player. That can't happen at all ! It irks you, and you think that positive post is a legitimate reason to shoot down a K4E post.
> 
> 4) When frustrated by yet more facts and statistics, you (and not just you) make yet another response like the one above calling for this thread to be knocked off.
> 
> 5) Start back at Step #1
> 
> In actuality the thread does occasionally die, but some poster usually on the "right" side of things (meaning anti-Jamal), finds some "interesting nugget" about Jamal. It seems like that poster on the right side of things wants to prove once and for all how "right" Paxson was and is trying to eliminate any fandom of Jamal at all.
> 
> And that's what keeps this thread going.
> 
> But anyway, I'm not as mad as my posts almost exclusively defending Jamal might indicate.
> 
> I can follow a lot of what Ace has said already.
> 
> I am extremely happy that the Bulls won last night. Piss-my-pants happy.
> 
> However, I guess that won't show in my posts if I feel I have to keep defending one of my favorite players.
> 
> Incidentally, I did not visit the board last night.



:clap: :biggrin: Absolutely classic !!


----------



## GB

TRUTHHURTS said:


> :clap: :biggrin: Absolutely classic !!


...and generally wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Good Hope said:


> I agree with your analysis. I was pointing out that you were agreeing with Paxson's analysis, and vision for Jamal as a major part of a three guard rotation.


That's fine. If Paxson's analysis was that Jamal is a valuable commodity but not a star, then fine, I agree. If Paxson and Skiles’ analysis is that Jamal is no-defense playing, stupid, cancerous, selfish.... all the stuff that's been said by “Bulls fans” over the years... then I disagree.



> It is ironic, perhaps, that Paxson was right, and now you agree with him, but not enough to let go of the hurt feelings (which I just don't get, to be honest).


I like the Bulls just fine. Usually you can't plug in some guy from Argentina, a 2nd round draft pick and a couple rookies and be successful. Jamal earned his salary this year. The numbers show that. There is no dispute over that. So nobody was wrong. Jamal was fairly paid and Paxson managed to compensate for the loss of talent by having a miraculous off-season. Its a win-win, I guess..... as long as the Bulls put the saved Cap Space to good use. Given how surprisingly good Duhon, Pargo, even Pike and how ready Gordon and Deng were the Bulls are fine. Perhaps Paxson has discovered a new paradigm for rebuilding. I doubt it, but we'll see. Jalen Rose was a very good college player with "big game" experience but people hated him. 



> JC is making a little more money now. But he is also set up to fail. And you know what, money isn't everything. Being a human being is a little bit more than how much money you do or don't have. It sounds like platitudes, but happiness has a lot more to do with growing and living up to one's potential, than getting a payday. By the way, I should mention here that a lot of people thought that the team would be better off without JC, (giusd comes to mind), though perhaps not as good, not as soon.


I'm sure Jamal is having a great time in one of the best cities in the world. He has a nice shoe deal... millions of dollars... security.... he's on a team that will spend money. Better then being in a place where he's not wanted.

I doubt Jamal is crying himself to sleep about leaving the Bulls. 




> Pax was not asking JC to work for free (Don't go all hyperbolic on me!). He asked him to accept a salary and position on the team that was commensurate with JC's skill and ability to impact the team's performance. JC had to humble himself, not because he is an uppity, skinny kid, but because his value to the team (and, it turns out, to NY) was less than what he imagined. He was duped, perhaps, by others, who saw his potential and convinced him that he was already "all that".


Not true, IMO. He signed an average contract. A Scott Pollard, Desmond Mason type contract. His deal is very realistic for what he brings to the table. Look at the list of people that are paid what he makes. Very fair. Very realistic. Crawford had an OK individual season last season.



> As for your arguments about the rest of the players on the Bulls, the unfortunate truth, as far as JC is concerned, is that they are going to be in a position to receive a bigger payday, because they have found a way to contribute to a winning program. If they lose perspective, and think that it was somehow "all me", then they will go for the money, and that's it. If they remember what got them the success they have already achieved, then, perhaps, they might be willing to grow and receive the compensation that matches what they contribute, and continue to enjoy the success that really makes it all worthwhile.


I don't think there is anyway this will happen. As a Bulls fan, I hope you are right.




> I don't blame or criticize Jamal, except to say that he made a mistake. It's not wrong to make mistakes. It is wrong not to learn from them. That's a lesson a few people around here need to learn.


I don't think he made a mistake. He's a multi-millionaire, in a nice city, has security, young... seems like good times to me. Sadly, last season with the Knicks was better than any of the four years he was with the Bulls. I think most of our right way players would make the same mistake in a second.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Electric Slim said:


> You sound like one of those guys who would make me turn off the Bulls game in favor of a Cubs or Sox game when I used to bartend.
> 
> But we feel what you're saying:
> 
> - Jamal should be above criticism becuse his current contract is "average"


Of course. Most of the honest critiques of Jamal's game I agree with. He's an average NBA player @ this point. He's paid accordingly.



> - Pax built a playoff team by accident


It was certainly unexpected. By all involved.



> - Our current players are more interested in $$$ than playing in a winning system


Do you disagree with this? Do you think our younger players would take less $$ and a bench role over a starting position and more $$ with another team? No way, IMO.



> - All turnarounds in the NBA should be instant.


I never said this.



> Anybody who believed last summer that the Bulls were 1) Heading in the right direction and 2) would miss the playoffs _this season_ are hypocrites because missing the playoffs is bad.


Not hypocrites. Just agreed with me that the team would be pretty rotten this year.



> Yet you pompously imply that playoffs for the Knicks next year is a given, but that's your prediction.


That's not what I said. I said "in the running."



> No one predicted that the Bulls would make the playoffs this year. We should all be hanging our heads in shame, and when some suppossed Bulls fan rants all season in defense of Jamal Crawford rather than enjoying the first winiing season in 7 years, we should all try to hold back our laughter.


Right, I didn't enjoy the season this year. :laugh: 

I laugh at all the bandwagon jumping and unearned righteousness.


----------



## Good Hope

kukoc4ever said:


> That's fine. If Paxson's analysis was that Jamal is a valuable commodity but not a star, then fine, I agree. If Paxson and Skiles’ analysis is that Jamal is no-defense playing, stupid, cancerous, selfish.... all the stuff that's been said by “Bulls fans” over the years... then I disagree.


Well, I think you're choosing to take the extreme statements over the vast majority of statements that evaluate Jamal in precisely these terms. 



> I'm sure Jamal is having a great time in one of the best cities in the world. He has a nice shoe deal... millions of dollars... security.... he's on a team that will spend money. Better then being in a place where he's not wanted.
> 
> I doubt Jamal is crying himself to sleep about leaving the Bulls.
> 
> Not true, IMO. He signed an average contract. A Scott Pollard, Desmond Mason type contract. His deal is very realistic for what he brings to the table. Look at the list of people that are paid what he makes. Very fair. Very realistic. Crawford had an OK individual season last season.
> 
> I don't think he made a mistake. He's a multi-millionaire, in a nice city, has security, young... seems like good times to me. Sadly, last season with the Knicks was better than any of the four years he was with the Bulls. I think most of our right way players would make the same mistake in a second.


His contract with the Bulls would have been for one year less, and a few million less. He would be winning, featured on national TV, and with his buddies. In NY, he is exposed, and likely to be eviscerated if things don't turn around. 

So, NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT WINNING DOESN"T REALLY MATTER, AND ALL THAT MATTERS IS MONEY? That's all he needed to be happy? 

I don't think the facts support your claim. He wanted to be a featured player in a system that would let him shine. He thought he could get that in NY, after Isaiah sweet-talked him over. But Isaiah's team left him high and dry. He's featured alright. He would have been better off, and he would have achieved his aims and desires more quickly, if he had stayed in Chicago, and if he had acknowledged the weaknesses in his game and worked on them with people who knew him and in fact cared about him. It was a MISTAKE for him to leave, given the aims he had for himself as a basketball player. 

Well, here I am on a thread that I voted to have moved. 

K4E, I have to admit, you are an amazing fellow. 

I bow down before your tenacity. Jamal could learn a thing or two from you. :biggrin:


----------



## remlover

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> 3) More casual Jamal-haters like you see K4E posting positives about his player. That can't happen at all ! It irks you, and you think that positive post is a legitimate reason to shoot down a K4E post.


What IRKS me is that this thread has run it's course. All the arguments have been made, what more is there to talk about?

What will change next year? Jama's salary increases to about 6.5million...So will that be the new argument? Is Jamal worth the coin he is getting? 

I could see the point of this thread if we were a 25 win team, but we have the 3rd best record in our Conf and *like i said before* are 3 wins away from a trip to the East. conf semi-finals. 

*Why are some posters (both pro/anti Jamal) so obsessed with the past? * 

Maybe some posters just like to argue.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Good Hope said:


> So, NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT WINNING DOESN"T REALLY MATTER, AND ALL THAT MATTERS IS MONEY? That's all he needed to be happy?


Very, very few thought the Bulls would be better than the Knicks this season. The 2004-2005 Knicks were better than all the Bulls teams Jamal was on. No, that's not what I'm saying.... that money is everything. Happiness and security are more important. There was a lot of history between the Bulls and Jamal. JWILL. Kirk. He got the hint and decided to leave. 

In the end, he chose to go to a team where there was a fresh start, was widley expected to better than the team he was leaving and where he was going to be paid more money in the largest market there is. I disagree that his decision making was flawed in choosing the Knicks over the Bulls.



> I don't think the facts support your claim. He wanted to be a featured player in a system that would let him shine. He thought he could get that in NY, after Isaiah sweet-talked him over. But Isaiah's team left him high and dry. He's featured alright. He would have been better off, and he would have achieved his aims and desires more quickly, if he had stayed in Chicago, and if he had acknowledged the weaknesses in his game and worked on them with people who knew him and in fact cared about him. It was a MISTAKE for him to leave, given the aims he had for himself as a basketball player.


I would suspect that Jamal is happier in NY than he was here. I think he made the best decesion based on the information he had. Its only a mistake if you think the decision making was poor. Its only a mistake with the benefit of hindsight... and even then I think he's happier in NYC.

In a way, I agree with you. The harsh lights of NYC are tough. But... if you spend a couple days looking at all of the NYC newspapers.... as opposed to the "fair and balanced" quotes there are offered up on this thread.... you'll see that the blame for the Knicks is not falling on Crawford. We'll see what happens. Of course, I'd rather that Jamal decided to stay with the Bulls. But, I can't blame him for making the decision he did.


----------



## HookEmHorns

I heard Jamal had Fruit Loops for breakfast today...just what a ballhog would eat.

(If this makes no sense to you, thats good, because it makes no sense to me)


----------



## Shabadoo

Alright, with all the somewhat repetitive conversation surrounding Crawford in this, the "troller's nook", I figured that we needed something fresh. I thought, what better then to give Crawford a new nickname. "Crawfish", "Cancer" and "*Obscenity*" are a little played out.

My Proposal is: Hypotenuse










Think back to Middle School mathematics for the solution to this riddle.


----------



## Marcus13

Shabadoo said:


> Alright, with all the somewhat repetitive conversation surrounding Crawford in this, the "troller's nook", I figured that we needed something fresh. I thought, what better then to give Crawford a new nickname. "Crawfish", "Cancer" and "*Obscenity*" are a little played out.
> 
> My Proposal is: Hypotenuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think back to Middle School mathematics for the solution to this riddle.



Crawford> Hinrich ??


----------



## Marcus13

Brandon Funston has Crawford listed as an on the bubble top 50 player next season along with Tyson Chandler


----------



## Shabadoo

Marcus13 said:


> Crawford> Hinrich ??


Not the answer. Keep Guessing.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Shirley > Reiner > Hinrich > Crawford :yes:


----------



## Da Grinch

Marcus13 said:


> Brandon Funston has Crawford listed as an on the bubble top 50 player next season along with Tyson Chandler


who is brandon funston?


----------



## Marcus13

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> who is brandon funston?



Yahoo! Sports columnist


----------



## Electric Slim

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> who is brandon funston?


Y'know, the Funstonater! Jeesh!


----------



## Da Grinch

i like pro=crawford stuff as much as the next guy but brandon funston is ranking fantasy players , which means very little to me. Fantasy rankings are just #s, being ranked regardless of actual impact.


----------



## The Truth

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> i like pro=crawford stuff as much as the next guy but brandon funston is ranking fantasy players , which means very little to me. Fantasy rankings are just #s, being ranked regardless of actual impact.


which means that the ranking was probably generous to Crawford. :wink:


----------



## Marcus13

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> i like pro=crawford stuff as much as the next guy but brandon funston is ranking fantasy players , which means very little to me. Fantasy rankings are just #s, being ranked regardless of actual impact.



very true but the Knicks are doing nothing next year, all Crawford can live for is individuality


----------



## DaBullz

<FONT SIZE=7>Echo...</FONT>
<FONT SIZE=6>Echo...</FONT>
<FONT SIZE=5>Echo...</FONT>
<FONT SIZE=4>Echo...</FONT>
<FONT SIZE=3>Echo...</FONT>
<FONT SIZE=2>Echo...</FONT>
<FONT SIZE=1>Echo...</FONT>


----------



## bbertha37

Why?


----------



## Marcus13

bbertha37 said:


> Why?



Why what?


----------



## bullet

First good thought I had since the game ended - Jamal ain't with us.

though I do agree that Jamal would save us this heartache , since we'd be waiting for the Ping Pong balls for 2 weeks already had he stayed...


----------



## GB

Why was this bumped??

Oh well, time to do my thing:



> As a member of the Knicks' last NBA championship team in 1973, Earl Monroe would love nothing better than to see his old teammate Phil Jackson return to New York to pick up the coaching legacy of Red Holzman. But after speaking to at least two people close to Jackson, Monroe said Sunday that the Knicks don't have the franchise player necessary to attract a coach who has won nine titles.
> --
> The Knicks finished 33-49 this past season. Monroe was polite when asked how the Knicks' current backcourt, featuring shooters Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford, compares with how he worked with Walt "Clyde" Frazier, but he couldn't conceal his disdain.
> 
> Of Crawford, who was a loose cannon firing up shots from everywhere, Monroe said, "The main thing in a nutshell is being able to understand the game and how to play the game in the confines of who you're playing with."
> 
> Asked if he can see Marbury and Crawford becoming a winning backcourt, Monroe said, "I could see it working. I just think they need to be schooled in terms of how to play together. Marbury is a great talent as long as he controls the ball. But in that sense of working together, that chemistry is only there when you interact with each other on the floor." Monroe said Marbury and Crawford don't make the players around them better.


http://www.nynewsday.com/sports/bas...nix0502,0,5968700.story?coll=ny-knicks-bigpix

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## lgtwins

GB said:


> Why was this bumped??
> 
> Oh well, time to do my thing:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nynewsday.com/sports/bas...nix0502,0,5968700.story?coll=ny-knicks-bigpix
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.


Damn you, GB. Let the thread die. God!!!


----------



## Marcus13

bullet said:


> First good thought I had since the game ended - Jamal ain't with us.
> 
> though I do agree that Jamal would save us this heartache , since we'd be waiting for the Ping Pong balls for 2 weeks already had he stayed...



If Jamal was on this team instead of Duhon we would have AT LEAST made it to game 7 and probably into the second round


----------



## Marcus13

The agent LeBron signed with is also Crawford's agent


----------



## ChiBulls2315

Marcus13 said:


> If Jamal was on this team instead of Duhon we would have AT LEAST made it to game 7 and probably into the second round



Paper basketball sure is fun.


----------



## Marcus13

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Paper basketball sure is fun.



Wait actually we might not have because if we had a player that was of Crawford's calibur such as Ben Gordon our terrible excuse for a coach would probably just bench him if we needed points.


----------



## kukoc4ever

At least Jamal can pass the basketball and create for others. And get some steals and blocks too.

I still think Crawford would be a nice player on this team. He's shown this year with the Knicks that he's willing to defer. 

Long after Pike and Othella are sent out to pasture and forgotten Crawford will be an starting caliber NBA basketball player.

Once we land that star in 2006 though all of Paxson's trades will look like genius.

I remember when the Knicks looked like they would make the playoffs... many would write "yah... great... make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round.... big deal." Now many of the same are lauding Paxson for doing the same.


----------



## ChiBulls2315

kukoc4ever said:


> At least Jamal can pass the basketball and create for others. And get some steals and blocks too.
> 
> I still think Crawford would be a nice player on this team. He's shown this year with the Knicks that he's willing to defer.
> 
> Long after Pike and Othella are sent out to pasture and forgotten Crawford will be an starting caliber NBA basketball player.
> 
> Once we land that star in 2006 though all of Paxson's trades will look like genius.
> 
> I remember when the Knicks looked like they would make the playoffs... many would write "yah... great... make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round.... big deal." Now many of the same are lauding Paxson for doing the same.


kukoc, are you genuinely being serious when you ask things like this?


----------



## Marcus13

ChiBulls2315 said:


> kukoc, are you genuinely being serious when you ask things like this?


He didnt ask any questions


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Marcus13 said:


> If Jamal was on this team instead of Duhon we would have AT LEAST made it to game 7 and probably into the second round



Did you REALLY have to bump this damn thread again just to make that wholly unsupported conclusion? If Duhon hadn't hurt his back...If Curry hadn't had heart problems...If Deng hadn't needed wrist surgery...

If ands or buts...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> I remember when the Knicks looked like they would make the playoffs... many would write "yah... great... make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round.... big deal." Now many of the same are lauding Paxson for doing the same.


If the Knicks had made the playoffs and got knocked out of the first round, they'd have got some laud from me.


----------



## truebluefan

The knicks were suppose to make the playoffs. They were a playoff team last season. Isaih traded too many people away and I am not talking about JC only. The team was suppose to be there. They went backwards. Drastically. 

The bulls won 23 games last year. We traded away our leading scorer from a 23 win team. Were we suppose to make the playoffs? 

What Pax and skiles did with this team, this year, was amazing. So amazing that Skiles was third for COY. 

I applaud the bulls for making the playoffs. Not only making the playoffs but doing so short handed. Our leading scorer and starting sF did not play during the stretch run. 

And, our age makes this even more amazing.


----------



## giusd

If fact what we were writting and posting was even if the knicks made the playoffs IMHO the bulls still have a better and brighter future will a strong core of young players and some leadership in management. Many, including me, made this point. 

The Universal retort was, the knicks were in first place in the atl (like 3 games above 500) and going to to the playoffs and JC was the starting SG on a playoff team and the bulls succk and always will. 

We also tried to point out things like the bulls had the hardest schedule in the NBA the first 6 weeks and the the knicks had one of the softest but again the same thing and it sound like this.

Skiles should be fired, Paxson should be fired, yada, yada, yada. So lets not re-write history here. 

david


----------



## dkg1

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Did you REALLY have to bump this damn thread again just to make that wholly unsupported conclusion? If Duhon hadn't hurt his back...If Curry hadn't had heart problems...If Deng hadn't needed wrist surgery...
> 
> If ands or buts...


Exactly. I don't know what the hell the point of bumping this thread after nobody had commented since April was. For a minute I was expecting some delusional fan to start talking about Jamal's performance in this years playoffs.


----------



## kukoc4ever

giusd said:


> We also tried to point out things like the bulls had the hardest schedule in the NBA the first 6 weeks and the the knicks had one of the softest but again the same thing and it sound like this.
> 
> Skiles should be fired, Paxson should be fired, yada, yada, yada. So lets not re-write history here.
> 
> david


But even with all that... most predicted 25-35 wins.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> At least Jamal can pass the basketball and create for others. And get some steals and blocks too.
> 
> I still think Crawford would be a nice player on this team. He's shown this year with the Knicks that he's willing to defer.
> 
> Long after Pike and Othella are sent out to pasture and forgotten Crawford will be an starting caliber NBA basketball player.
> 
> <B>Once we land that star in 2006 though all of Paxson's trades will look like genius.</b>
> 
> I remember when the Knicks looked like they would make the playoffs... many would write "yah... great... make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round.... big deal." Now many of the same are lauding Paxson for doing the same.


Thanks for adding that line to remind us you're a Bulls fan. 

We wouldn't have rebounded without Pike and Othella. Any future contributions Jamal makes for the Knicks will pale in comparison to the contributions they made in helping the Bulls return to competitiveness. And basketball talent isn't the only way to measure that trade.

You know this. You're doing *that* activity again. 

 ...wondering what excuses we'll hear when we win 55 and have 2 or 3 allstars on the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> We wouldn't have rebounded without Pike and Othella. Any future contributions Jamal makes for the Knicks will pale in comparison to the contributions they made in helping the Bulls return to competitiveness. And basketball talent isn't the only way to measure that trade.


And I look at Fred Hoiberg as a better Pike.

And Trenton Hassell as the defensive minded 2 guard that many want.

If the cap space is used to bring in a star level player, then it was a good trade in my book. We'll see what happens.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> But even with all that... most predicted 25-35 wins.



...this season. But the performance of this years team, <B>as a team</b>, was expected next season or the season after that.

So we can give credit to Skiles and Paxson and their staff for creating an environment that promoted rapid growth and development.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> And I look at Fred Hoiberg as a better Pike.
> 
> And Trenton Hassell as the defensive minded 2 guard that many want.



You also look at Jamal and think LeBron James, so...whatever.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> So we can give credit to Skiles and Paxson and their staff for creating an environment that promoted rapid growth and development.


No doubt.

EDIT: Although, not many Bulls individually have experienced rapid growth and development. Curry is putting up similar numbers to what he put up at the end of 2002-2003. Chandler was playing like he did this season at the start of last season, before the back injury. Hinrich took small steps forward this year. Gordon is a one-dimensional player at this point. Duhon showed off his skills.

Paxson's main strategy appears to be targeting young players in the draft that don't need a lot of development.... veteran college players.... who "know how to win" and have "played in the big games." 

In the end, Paxson's best move, and KC Johnson alluded to this in one of his articles, was to bring together a group of players that were receptive to Skiles’ directives. That has a lot more to do with contract status. A bunch of rookies with something to prove. Duhon playing each game like his NBA life depended on it. Washed up vets with something to prove. Twin Towers that were playing in their contract year.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> You also look at Jamal and think LeBron James, so...whatever.


Do you disagree that Hoiberg is a better version of what Pike offers and that we could use a guy like Hassell?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> No doubt.
> 
> EDIT: Although, not many Bulls individually have experienced rapid growth and development. Curry is putting up similar numbers to what he put up at the end of 2002-2003. Chandler was playing like he did this season at the start of last season, before the back injury. Hinrich took small steps forward this year. Gordon is a one-dimensional player at this point.


You're a nitpicker.

Curry's numbers may be the same, but think, was scoring the only problem he had?

Did Tysons role change? Was the team more talented than the one Hinrich played on last year? Did Gordon look the same at the same at the beginning of the season as he did at the end?


You're an intelligent guy, so I know you don't see the team in the one dimensional, black or white way you express on the boards.

If your avatar had on a blue and orange uni instead of red and black, the mods would run you off to post this stuff on another board with the rest of them, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Marcus13

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Did you REALLY have to bump this damn thread again just to make that wholly unsupported conclusion? If Duhon hadn't hurt his back...If Curry hadn't had heart problems...If Deng hadn't needed wrist surgery...
> 
> If ands or buts...



We didnt score for the last three minutes of Game 6 and only lost by a basket or something. There's no way in teh world Jamal Crawford would have gone without socring (or Ben Gordon for that matter) if Skiles had the right player in the game.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> We didnt score for the last three minutes of Game 6 and only lost by a basket or something. There's no way in teh world Jamal Crawford would have gone without socring


[sic]

Oh, Good God. We're talking about Jamal Crawford, not Reggie Miller. Jamal is just as streaky a shooter as any of the guards we had available, and where you get the idea Crawford would have absolutely, positively been there to be Mr Clutch for us as time ticked down, I have no idea. Certainly not from watching him play at Michigan, for the Bulls or for the Knicks.

I'm trying to play through this fantasy concoction in my head...the Would We Have Kicked Wizard Butt If Only We Still Had Jamal daydream. 

Could he have made a shot that made a difference? Sure. Its possible. He could have. Its complete pipe dream speculation, but it is a possibility. You take that incomplete hypothetical, that you cannot possibly back up, and state it as pound-fist-on-table gospel truth, "There's no way in the world Jamal Crawford would have gone without scoring" which I write off as the bravado of a 17 year old. No offense. 

Come on. Is it likely that Jamal Crawford would have willed our shorthanded, injury riddled team to a win, where the squad we had could not get the job done? I seriously doubt it. He's a good kid, a long guard with a pretty J when he's on and a frustrating J when he's not. He's a good passer and has a devastating crossover, but remains an inconsistent defender (although his length would have been welcome). 

Just as he could have made a shot that made a difference, he could have got rattled in his first playoffs and had another of his 4 for 26 nights in Game 6. We'll never know. But I think its safe to say Jamal is not a guy who is going to carry a team on his narrow shoulders. Which isn't a knock on him -- its simply the fact that he's not a guy who is The Man. I don't think there is any legitimate reason to bemoan "If only Jamal had been there, everything woulda been OK..."

Its second guessing, excuse making and "I told you so" sour grapes, where the "I told you so" is based on an unfounded assumption that the outcome would have been different if Jamal had been in the game. Weak.

If the Knicks get their house in order, and especially if they land PJax as coach, Jamal will get his chance to experience the playoffs, and as much maligned as the Knicks were in the second half of the season, and as much as Zeke has been razzed for the moves he's made, the Knicks are a team that could be a pretty good team, if they got a healthy dose of "The Right Way" and bought into it. And if that happens, Jamal will be an important part of their success. And I am rooting for that to happen for him, except when it comes to facing the Bulls.

He is a Knick. And he is happy to be a Knick. He used to be a Bull. The Bulls are doing OK since they parted ways. Maybe they would have done a little better, a little worse or just the same if we'd re-signed him. Its hard to say, because if we had done that, who knows how our other moves last off-season would have played out. Its impossible to know. Lets let it go. The first season for Jamal post-Bulls is over. The first Bulls season in the post-Jamal era is over. Everyone had gone fishin'. Uhhh, how about we take that as closure...you know?

Now, God willing, this thread will slink its way back down the front page, and then drop to page 2, 3 and beyond obscurity.

And God Bless the United States of America.


----------



## remlover




----------



## truebluefan

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> [sic]
> 
> Oh, Good God. We're talking about Jamal Crawford, not Reggie Miller. Jamal is just as streaky a shooter as any of the guards we had available, and where you get the idea Crawford would have absolutely, positively been there to be Mr Clutch for us as time ticked down, I have no idea. Certainly not from watching him play at Michigan, for the Bulls or for the Knicks.
> 
> I'm trying to play through this fantasy concoction in my head...the Would We Have Kicked Wizard Butt If Only We Still Had Jamal daydream.
> 
> Could he have made a shot that made a difference? Sure. Its possible. He could have. Its complete pipe dream speculation, but it is a possibility. You take that incomplete hypothetical, that you cannot possibly back up, and state it as pound-fist-on-table gospel truth, "There's no way in the world Jamal Crawford would have gone without scoring" which I write off as the bravado of a 17 year old. No offense.
> 
> Come on. Is it likely that Jamal Crawford would have willed our shorthanded, injury riddled team to a win, where the squad we had could not get the job done? I seriously doubt it. He's a good kid, a long guard with a pretty J when he's on and a frustrating J when he's not. He's a good passer and has a devastating crossover, but remains an inconsistent defender (although his length would have been welcome).
> 
> Just as he could have made a shot that made a difference, he could have got rattled in his first playoffs and had another of his 4 for 26 nights in Game 6. We'll never know. But I think its safe to say Jamal is not a guy who is going to carry a team on his narrow shoulders. Which isn't a knock on him -- its simply the fact that he's not a guy who is The Man. I don't think there is any legitimate reason to bemoan "If only Jamal had been there, everything woulda been OK..."
> 
> Its second guessing, excuse making and "I told you so" sour grapes, where the "I told you so" is based on an unfounded assumption that the outcome would have been different if Jamal had been in the game. Weak.
> 
> If the Knicks get their house in order, and especially if they land PJax as coach, Jamal will get his chance to experience the playoffs, and as much maligned as the Knicks were in the second half of the season, and as much as Zeke has been razzed for the moves he's made, the Knicks are a team that could be a pretty good team, if they got a healthy dose of "The Right Way" and bought into it. And if that happens, Jamal will be an important part of their success. And I am rooting for that to happen for him, except when it comes to facing the Bulls.
> 
> He is a Knick. And he is happy to be a Knick. He used to be a Bull. The Bulls are doing OK since they parted ways. Maybe they would have done a little better, a little worse or just the same if we'd re-signed him. Its hard to say, because if we had done that, who knows how our other moves last off-season would have played out. Its impossible to know. Lets let it go. The first season for Jamal post-Bulls is over. The first Bulls season in the post-Jamal era is over. Everyone had gone fishin'. Uhhh, how about we take that as closure...you know?
> 
> Now, God willing, this thread will slink its way back down the front page, and then drop to page 2, 3 and beyond obscurity.
> 
> And God Bless the United States of America.


 :clap:


----------



## kukoc4ever

I don't think that Jamal would have gone out there and put up a goose egg. At the very least he's an adequate ball handler and passer... and have the length to not be intimidated by hughes and arenas. But who knows… the intensity of the playoffs might have rattled Crawford as it did Gordon.

Crawford is a *better* defender than Gordon at this point. Better passer. Better ball handler. Gordon is the better scorer/shooter and has that killer instinct aura more than Crawford. 

But, in the end, who cares? (can't wait for GB to quote just that last sentence with a clapping emoticon  ) We could have both of these talented guards on our team, but we don't. He could still have Hassell, Hoiberg and Crawford, but we don't. The Bulls are a respectable team again and that's cool We need a big guard and let several slip away for little in return, but that's life. Beats praying for a 30 win season next year.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> We need a big guard and let several slip away for little in return


We didn't need them at the time we let them go. Not as badly as:

1. We needed other pieces.

2. We needed to get rid of other undesirable characteristics.



GB


----------



## Electric Slim

truebluefan said:


> :clap:


Yeah, it was a good post by TomB#1, but you can find hundreds of the same quality as far cak as page 3. We're currently on page 173. Kukoc4ever is still on page 1.


----------



## GB

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> [sic]
> Now, God willing, this thread will slink its way back down the front page, and then drop to page 2, 3 and beyond obscurity.



Lock it for two, maybe three weeks to permit it to sink into the mire and give everyone else the chance to chomp on fresher meat. 

Then don't announce when you unlock it again.


We all know it's going to keep popping up.


----------



## Marcus13

GB said:


> Lock it for two, maybe three weeks to permit it to sink into the mire and give everyone else the chance to chomp on fresher meat.
> 
> Then don't announce when you unlock it again.
> 
> 
> We all know it's going to keep popping up.



That wouldn't be fair to all of the great Jamal Crawford fans-- This thread deserves to be popped up, in fact, it should be stickied


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Marcus13 said:


> That wouldn't be fair to all of the great Jamal Crawford fans-- This thread deserves to be popped up, in fact, it should be stickied










Stop the Insanity


----------



## nanokooshball

jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez

175 pages about nothing err Crawford?

wow
:cheers:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

nanokooshball said:


> jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
> 
> 175 pages about nothing err Crawford?
> 
> wow
> :cheers:


Actually more about board politics. It's not like we Jamal fans are the only ones or even the ones actively bumping this one up.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1




----------



## DaBullz

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Stop the Insanity


Smiley beating a dead bull on the head with a hammer.

Bald guy beating dead bull with a stick.

Smiley beating sleeping bull with a stick. Why does the bull have a saddle on?


----------



## Marcus13

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


>



That picture isn't working for me


----------



## dkg1

Marcus13 said:


> That picture isn't working for me



It's called a dead horse, get it? Better yet, get off it.


----------



## DaBullz

dkg1 said:


> It's called a dead horse, get it? Better yet, get off it.


That's not a horse, though. It's an alpaca


----------



## GB




----------



## dkg1

DaBullz said:


> That's not a horse, though. It's an alpaca


Sigh... Well then get off the dead alpaca and all other things dead (Greek, get off the dead sheep)! I probably haven't been on the site since Thursday. Figured I would check out what Bulls discussion (is this a Bulls or Knicks forum? or a forum to post pics of animals?) I missed and see this thread at the very top of the page, amazing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

DaBullz said:


> That's not a horse, though. It's an alpaca











I'm an alpaca, and I endorse the message to let this thread retire to the greener pastures of page 2. A far, far better place, where the thread can frolic with other topics that have outlived their interest and relevence. Its the only humane thing to do.

All we are saying, is 
Give Peace a Chance.


----------



## GB

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm an alpaca, and I endorse the message to let this thread retire to the greener pastures of page 2.



It'll just get raised the next time Jamal does something of interest (or disinterest depending on your bulls board political leanings). It'll always be around.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

GB said:


> It'll just get raised the next time Jamal does something of interest (or disinterest depending on your bulls board political leanings). It'll always be around.


There is no real reason to lock the thread, but for the love of God, lets just let it drop at least until that time. Not that I look forward to it getting bumped even if there is something new about Jamal, but for now...there is nothing.

Horses.

Bulls.

Alpacas.

Your Meat.

Whatever needs to stop being beaten in order for this thread to die off, lets pledge to do it.

Be a master of your own domain.


----------



## Rhyder

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> There is no real reason to lock the thread, but for the love of God, lets just let it drop at least until that time. Not that I look forward to it getting bumped even if there is something new about Jamal, but for now...there is nothing.
> 
> Horses.
> 
> Bulls.
> 
> Alpacas.
> 
> Your Meat.
> 
> Whatever needs to stop being beaten in order for this thread to die off, lets pledge to do it.
> 
> Be a master of your own domain.



We could just turn this into a 2004-2005 season Crawford thread, and start a 05-06 one after the playoffs are over.

I don't really want to catch up on 2000 posts I haven't read since the first week of its existence


----------



## GB

I can make that pledge and live up to it.

Can the others?


Although I'll say that the mods have closed other threads when "theres nothing more going on here". Perhaps there are other reasons.











I know how important it is for you to get in the last word.

God willing, this is it. TB#1


----------



## Marcus13

The Knicks site recently posted a Player Recap for Jamal Crawford of the 04-05 season- there are sime interesting points made and is definately worth the read, check it out;

http://www.nba.com/knicks/news/recap0405_crawford.html


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

OK. I've done everything I can to get this thread to drop on its own. I'm sick of looking at it and the heartburn it causes.

Since it looks like people are just going to keep bumping it, I'm locking it down.
End of an era.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

OK. I've had several requests to re-open his thread, as if there is unfinished business to discuss. At K4E's suggestion, I'll give it another turn. 

But if it lingers to the point of regret, like bar bait and a hangover, I'm locking it again.


----------



## BG7

The legacy lives on.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

Who thinks that Jamal will have a better year for the Knicks this year than last?

I think he's finally in a good situation. The Knicks seem like a mess... but I think Larry Brown may be the coach that takes our hero to the next level.

A talent like Jamal can't be denied. He won't allow himself to whither on the bench. 

After all, he has the heart of a champion.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> Who thinks that Jamal will have a better year for the Knicks this year than last?
> 
> I think he's finally in a good situation. The Knicks seem like a mess... but I think Larry Brown may be the coach that takes our hero to the next level.
> 
> A talent like Jamal can't be denied. He won't allow himself to whither on the bench.
> 
> After all, he has the heart of a champion.


Larry will look to have him traded at the earliest possible opportunity.


----------



## Ron Cey




----------



## BG7

kukoc4ever said:


> Who thinks that Jamal will have a better year for the Knicks this year than last?
> 
> I think he's finally in a good situation. The Knicks seem like a mess... but I think Larry Brown may be the coach that takes our hero to the next level.
> 
> A talent like Jamal can't be denied. He won't allow himself to whither on the bench.
> 
> After all, he has the heart of a champion.


I think he'll have a good season next year.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> Larry will look to have him traded at the earliest possible opportunity.


Do you think Hinrich will improve to catch Jamal in FG% this season?

I think Hinrich has spent too much time running through peoples yards and at lollapalooza after parties and not enough time working on his game.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Hinrich will improve to catch Jamal in FG% this season?


Well, I think Hinrich will improve a little, he was only 0.17% behind Jamal last season so it's not far to go. It depends on whether or not Jamal buys into Brown's system and style of play and raises his own FG%.


And FWIW, if you include the playoffs, Kirk shot higher than Jamal *last season*.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> And FWIW, if you include the playoffs, Kirk shot higher than Jamal *last season*.


That is pretty interesting.

Does the same hold true for eFG?

Crawford's eFG was much higher than Hinrich's last year (.482 vs .462).


----------



## ace20004u

I predicted that this year, midway through the year, that Crawford will breakout and I think that is still the case. I also think that Crawford will end up playing a more...integral..role than a lot of people are envisioning. I don't think Isaish is planning to trade him, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Marbury moved and Jamals role increase.


----------



## truebluefan

I think he will play about the same if not less. Marbury will take his shots, so will Q. They didnt trade for Q just to have Jamal take his shots. 


OMG, the thread from hell, brought back from the Grave! Isn't this the sign of the apocalypse?


----------



## DaBullz

Both (Crawford,Hinrich) are going to be better next season.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> That is pretty interesting.
> 
> Does the same hold true for eFG?
> 
> Crawford's eFG was much higher than Hinrich's last year (.482 vs .462).


No, Hinrich's eFG only goes up to .467 if you include the playoffs.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

could care less what Jamal does with his numbers or his Knicks. Or his Knicks/antiBulls fans.
We're better off without paying him and the capspace next summer...and we're better off with Kirk and Ben, other Bulls kinds of players....and thats how we'll stay

bottom line. Threads about what Knicks players are doing can exist 'till the cows come home for some people to enjoy. Thats on them


----------



## yodurk

The Quention Richardson trade has a pretty big impact on Jamal's role next season, IMO. I'm not sure who will start, but I think it's highly likely Jamal's minutes decrease to around 32-33 per game. With less minutes, I think there will be less defensive pressue on JC, and subsequently his FG% will go up. However, with less shots his scoring average is bound to either stay the same (assuming FG% improves) or decrease slightly. My prediction for his stats are:

32 min/game, 42% FG, 85% FT, 15 ppg, 3 reb, 4 ast, 1.2 stl, 2 TO

A good season, but pretty much on par with his level of play over the past 2-3 years. I still think he's best suited as a combo-guard off the bench. He's just too much of a tweener to be a starter, unless he found just the perfect situation. Honestly, I have no idea how he meshes with Larry Brown's style of coaching either. Just wait and see I guess. The Knicks as a team will be improved, but still out of playoff contention; I think 38 wins is a good guess.


----------



## kukoc4ever

fleetwood macbull said:


> could care less what Jamal does with his numbers or his Knicks. Or his Knicks/antiBulls fans.


Its an interesting point here. I wonder why I still care about players like Jalen Rose, Jamal Crawford, Elton Brand, Brad Miller and Ron Artest.

I think its just the type of fan I am. Some people root for laundry while I tend to root for the people. After they leave the team, I wish them success and keep up with their progress.

For instance, just because Crawford is on the Knicks now does not mean I hate Crawford. I don't even hate the Knicks. I hated the Knicks that MJ and the boys battled against, but not the current squad. I used to hate the Pistons as well... but now I actually root for them to win the title once the Bulls are eliminated.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Its an interesting point here. I wonder why I still care about players like Jalen Rose, Jamal Crawford, Elton Brand, Brad Miller and Ron Artest.
> 
> I think its just the type of fan I am. Some people root for laundry while I tend to root for the people. After they leave the team, I wish them success and keep up with their progress.


All well and good. I wish good things for ex-Bulls as well.

Interesting though that 95% of your ex-Bull appreciation is pining away for your Boo with the remainder the occasional Jalen reach-around.

 :raised_ey


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Interesting though that 95% of your ex-Bull appreciation is pining away for your Boo with the remainder the occasional Jalen reach-around.
> 
> :raised_ey


Hey now.

The Crawford situation did seem to cause more of a stir than any of the others.

Perhaps its because we only received low-tier players in return. 

For whatever reason… Jalen and Jamal seemed a lot more hated than the other players I mentioned.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey now.
> 
> The Crawford situation did seem to cause more of a stir than any of the others.
> 
> Perhaps its because we only received low-tier players in return.
> 
> For whatever reason… Jalen and Jamal seemed a lot more hated than the other players I mentioned.


Jalen was traded for lower-tier players as well.


----------



## Ron Cey

fleetwood macbull said:


> bottom line. Threads about what Knicks players are doing can exist 'till the cows come home for some people to enjoy. Thats on them


Best post in this entire dad-gum thread. Dang-nabbit. :spits red man golden-blend in a bucket:

:cheers: 

And for what its worth, I DO root for the laundry and make no apologies for it.


----------



## Da Grinch

www.peterjun.com/media/nate1.mpg 
www.peterjun.com/media/nate2.mpg 
www.peterjun.com/media/nate3.mpg


----------



## mizenkay

thanks grinch!










love the pine tree air freshener in the shiny new H2. don't know why, but that made me laugh.





damn, did i just post in this thread again?!?!


----------



## Da Grinch

mizenkay said:


> thanks grinch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> love the pine tree air freshener in the shiny new H2. don't know why, but that made me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, did i just post in this thread again?!?!


my pleasure , my favorite part was when Crawford said spud webb didn't have **** on nate.


----------



## badfish

There's a lot of material in them thar videos. Enough for at least 20 more pages on this thread. Good stuff!

Seriously though, Crawford must have put on AT LEAST 20 lbs of lean muscle this summer.


----------



## yodurk

badfish said:


> Seriously though, Crawford must have put on AT LEAST 20 lbs of lean muscle this summer.


You bet he did!










(We can all thank Shabadoo for fine piece of photography.)


----------



## badfish

yodurk said:


> You bet he did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (We can all thank Shabadoo for fine piece of photography.)


Oh yeah....forgot about that. Classic! :biggrin:


----------



## remlover

It's good to hear that Mr Robinson is going to "soak up all the information" he can from Jamal Crawford. I wonder if that will include 1 vs. 5 offensive sets, taking an outside shot with over 17 seconds left on the clock, etc etc.


----------



## MitchMatch

You guys are such Haters.... all cause Crawford is now a Knick. Honestly, kid has MAD game. All he needs is to learn how to play, the man isn't near as experienced as 3/4 of the League on terms of organized ball. He just oozes talent, regardless of how muscular or how much he weighs. That sh-t is overrated...you don't need to be huge and muscular to be a successful and good basketball player. JC, Starbury, Q Rich, and Nate are going to be Banging kats this year. But please, don't be a hater for the simple fact he is now a Knick as oppossed to a Bull. Nate and Craw are ready to smash some people, and I wouldn't be suprised if some of those people were Chris Duhon and Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## Sham

MitchMatch said:


> You guys are such Haters.... all cause Crawford is now a Knick. Honestly, kid has MAD game. All he needs is to learn how to play, the man isn't near as experienced as 3/4 of the League on terms of organized ball. He just oozes talent, regardless of how muscular or how much he weighs. That sh-t is overrated...you don't need to be huge and muscular to be a successful and good basketball player. JC, Starbury, Q Rich, and Nate are going to be Banging kats this year. But please, don't be a hater for the simple fact he is now a Knick as oppossed to a Bull. Nate and Craw are ready to smash some people, and I wouldn't be suprised if some of those people were Chris Duhon and Kirk Hinrich.




Well I'm guessing someone here didn't read all 2000 posts. :naughty:


----------



## badfish

MitchMatch said:


> You guys are such Haters.... all cause Crawford is now a Knick. Honestly, kid has MAD game. All he needs is to learn how to play, the man isn't near as experienced as 3/4 of the League on terms of organized ball. He just oozes talent, regardless of how muscular or how much he weighs. That sh-t is overrated...you don't need to be huge and muscular to be a successful and good basketball player. JC, Starbury, Q Rich, and Nate are going to be Banging kats this year. But please, don't be a hater for the simple fact he is now a Knick as oppossed to a Bull. Nate and Craw are ready to smash some people, and I wouldn't be suprised if some of those people were Chris Duhon and Kirk Hinrich.


....It's time for me to take the proverbial ScottMay nap in a dark room for my aching head.....


----------



## yodurk

ShamBulls said:


> Well I'm guessing someone here didn't read all 2000 posts. :naughty:


Whoa now, we're well over 2600 as you can clearly see. :curse:


----------



## Ron Cey

MitchMatch said:


> All he needs is to learn how to play


True. That is "all" he needs.


----------



## kukoc4ever

And even with all of Crawford's foibles... he's still pretty much the statistical equivalent of Kirk Hinrich.

Hinrich
PER: 15.23
eFG: 46.1

Crawford
PER: 15.13
eFG: 48.3

Neither had a great impact from a +/- perspective either, although Crawford hurt his team less than Hinrich from a net +/- perspective. Both players started for average eastern conference teams. We can trumpet the #3 in the east all we want... but if ya can't beat the Wizards (who where later SMOKED by the Heat) in a 7 game series you are average, I'm sorry.

If (big if?) Larry Brown can get though to Crawford, then the Knicks could have quite a player. Right now they have an average to above average player. 

Crawford is able to match Hinrich statistically... even with a supposedly bad "jib." Just imagine if Crawford buys into what Brown preaches.


----------



## johnston797

kukoc4ever said:


> We can trumpet the #3 in the east all we want... but if ya can't beat the Wizards (who where later SMOKED by the Heat) in a 7 game series you are average, I'm sorry.


Smoked? It was a 6 game series. We had 2 starters out due to injury.

47 wins vs. 33 wins are not the same IMHO.


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> Both players started for average eastern conference teams. We can trumpet the #3 in the east all we want... but if ya can't beat the Wizards (who where later SMOKED by the Heat) in a 7 game series you are average, I'm sorry.


You're right, we should stop trumpeting the fact that we were 3rd in the East. Let's talk more about the fact that we were 4-0 against the Knicks. We are, afterall, both average teams.


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> And even with all of Crawford's foibles... he's still pretty much the statistical equivalent of Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> Hinrich
> PER: 15.23
> eFG: 46.1
> 
> Crawford
> PER: 15.13
> eFG: 48.3
> 
> Neither had a great impact from a +/- perspective either, although Crawford hurt his team less than Hinrich from a net +/- perspective. Both players started for average eastern conference teams. We can trumpet the #3 in the east all we want... but if ya can't beat the Wizards (who where later SMOKED by the Heat) in a 7 game series you are average, I'm sorry.
> 
> If (big if?) Larry Brown can get though to Crawford, then the Knicks could have quite a player. Right now they have an average to above average player.
> 
> Crawford is able to match Hinrich statistically... even with a supposedly bad "jib." Just imagine if Crawford buys into what Brown preaches.


I agree that Crawford could have a Billups-esque transformation under Brown. Not sure I'd bet any real money on it though.

What I would bet money on, however, is that, if given a choice between the two guards, Brown would take Hinrich in a flipping heartbeat. Hinrich's versatility on both sides of the ball trumps Crawford in spades. Not to mention the fact that Crawford tends to get a little "confused". :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

johnston797 said:


> Smoked? It was a 6 game series. We had 2 starters out due to injury.


Our series with an average Washington team was a close one. I was saying that Heat, a legitimately good team, destroyed (SMOKED) the team that beat us in 6 games.


----------



## kukoc4ever

yodurk said:


> You're right, we should stop trumpeting the fact that we were 3rd in the East. Let's talk more about the fact that we were 4-0 against the Knicks. We are, afterall, both average teams.


We sure were not "3rd in the east" when everyone is playing hard, which is the playoffs.

Our margins of victory over the Knicks were ...

1
2
2
and
8

We were the better team, no doubt. But not by much.


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> Our series with an average Washington team was a close one. I was saying that Heat, a legitimately good team, destroyed (SMOKED) the team that beat us in 6 games.


You say the Knicks were average with a 33-49 record, and so were the Wizards and Bulls with 45 & 47 wins respectively. Aren't "average" teams by definition at, or at least near, the 41-41 mark? You really use that word loosely. After all these months, I suppose I've come to understand that "average" by your definition means somewhere between the 25th and 75th percentile; or in other words, not championship caliber nor cellar dwellers. But for some reason, it just doesn't feel right to put a team like the Bulls last year in the same category with the Knicks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

badfish said:


> I agree that Crawford could have a Billups-esque transformation under Brown. Not sure I'd bet any real money on it though.


And even if he does not, he still, assuming identical levels of improvement, will basically match Hinrich in PER. 



> What I would bet money on, however, is that, if given a choice between the two guards, Brown would take Hinrich in a flipping heartbeat.


And he probably would take Eric Snow over both of them. 



> Hinrich's versatility on both sides of the ball trumps Crawford in spades.


Perhaps... depends on what "trumps" means. Last season Hinrich's versatility led to a negative plus/minus (worse than Crawford’s) and a "Crawford-like" PER. Maybe Hinrich’s “adjusted +/-“ was better… I don’t have that.


----------



## Ron Cey

This is probably a silly question, but what goes into calculating a player's PER?


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> We sure were not "3rd in the east" when everyone is playing hard, which is the playoffs.
> 
> Our margins of victory over the Knicks were ...
> 
> 1
> 2
> 2
> and
> 8
> 
> We were the better team, no doubt. But not by much.


I agree, we're not 3rd in the east when every team is at full strength and playing hard; but we're still in the top 5 or 6 I would think, which is still better than average (at least what I consider average). We got a free gift from the Pacers last season who dealt with major suspensions and injuries, thus boosting our rank in the East. Same thing with injury-plagued New Jersey. I don't expect to be so fortunate next season. But that doesn't change the fact that we're a young winning team that is still getting better, and has the flexibility to make a significant signing or two after the upcoming season. None of which can be said of the Knicks. The two teams don't belong in the same sentence right now.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> This is probably a silly question, but what goes into calculating a player's PER?


It's simple, really.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

yodurk said:


> I agree, we're not 3rd in the east when every team is at full strength and playing hard; but we're still in the top 5 or 6 I would think, which is still better than average (at least what I consider average). We got a free gift from the Pacers last season who dealt with major suspensions and injuries, thus boosting our rank in the East. Same thing with injury-plagued New Jersey. I don't expect to be so fortunate next season. But that doesn't change the fact that we're a young winning team that is still getting better, and has the flexibility to make a significant signing or two after the upcoming season. None of which can be said of the Knicks. The two teams don't belong in the same sentence right now.


We're in good shape Cap Space wise. My Cap Space jersey and foam finger are both on back order but they should be here for the start of the season. Let's hope Paxson can do something meaningful with it.

Take away Curry and Chandler and i don't see us being in a much better situation than the Knicks talent wise. Our young bigs are what separates us from the pack, IMO.

Last year I think the east was pretty much two great teams and a big blob in the middle.


----------



## MitchMatch

badfish said:



> Not to mention the fact that Crawford tends to get a little "confused". :biggrin:


And Hinrich doesn't? Statistically they are the same calibur of player. But Crawford has much more talent than Hinrich, and once he gets a coach willing to work with it and hone it. He may be one of the best guards in the league. Kirk is overrated as hell on these boards. He plays hard, yes...but don't make him out to be a great guard.


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> It's simple, really.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html


Thank you. 

Looks pretty unreliable, like most stats, in evaluating a player's impact on the defensive end of the court.


----------



## badfish

MitchMatch said:


> And Hinrich doesn't? Statistically they are the same calibur of player. But Crawford has much more talent than Hinrich, and once he gets a coach willing to work with it and hone it. He may be one of the best guards in the league. Kirk is overrated as hell on these boards. He plays hard, yes...but don't make him out to be a great guard.


um, the "confused" remark is a reference to something Crawford said during last season. It was meant in jest. 

It is a pity that Crawford is on his 6th coach, though I don't blame him for it. I hope he improves under Brown. He really does ooze a great deal of physical talent. I'm just not sure he has the mental game or commitment to make the leap.

And by the way, it is ok for me to "hate" on Jamal because he's a Knick. I'm a Bulls fan. :banana: 

As for Kirk, I think he's a SOLID player, not a great player. He has areas where he can improve. He's one of my favorite players because of his toughness, attitude and style of game. But that's my personal preference. Maybe I'm old school.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> In other words, its pretty unreliable, like most stats, in evaluating a player's impact on the defensive end of the court.


It has trouble with "on-ball" defense.

The great players usually have great PERs and the horrible players usually have horrible PERs. So it passes the "bull****" test, IMO.

It tends to underrate great defensive players who do not get a lot of blocks and steals. It also does not take "jib" into account. Hinrich fans will point to this over and over I'm sure. 

I guess Hinrich could fall into this category... although his big negative +/- indicates that the team played poorly when he was in the game. If his defense was so good and it helped the team win, then I would expect the team to be winning when he’s on the floor, yes?

Its tough to explain away the average PER and the poor +/- though when talking about the greatness of Hinrich. 

I'm not a +/- zealot, but the great players in the league tend to be pretty good in net +/-... with positive and often team leading net +/-s. 

Hinrich is -4.5.


----------



## johnston797

Ron Cey said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Looks pretty unreliable, like most stats, in evaluating a player's impact on the defensive end of the court.


Hollinger would agree. He developed a Defensive PER in his last book. I expect him to continue to try to expand his efforts in this area.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> It has trouble with "on-ball" defense.
> 
> The great players usually have great PERs and the horrible players usually have horrible PERs. So it passes the "bull****" test, IMO.
> 
> It tends to underrate great defensive players who do not get a lot of blocks and steals. It also does not take "jib" into account. Hinrich fans will point to this over and over I'm sure.
> 
> I guess Hinrich could fall into this category... although his big negative +/- indicates that the team played poorly when he was in the game. If his defense was so good and it helped the team win, then I would expect the team to be winning when he’s on the floor, yes?
> 
> Its tough to explain away the average PER and the poor +/- though when talking about the greatness of Hinrich.
> 
> I'm not a +/- zealot, but the great players in the league tend to be pretty good in net +/-... with positive and often team leading net +/-s.
> 
> Hinrich is -4.5.


Both stats are suspect to prove any big picture point but, unfortunately, both stats are usually used by posters here for that very purpose. 

I'm not saying this because of the present discussion. You won't likely see me use either stat to criticize/defend any player, ever. 

I'm simple. I trust my knowledge of the game, my belief in my own objectivity (which I realize is a subjective belief), what I see, and how what I see fits into my personal idea of what it takes to play consistent, winning basketball. By and large, thats what it comes down to for me. 

Not very scientific, I'll grant you.


----------



## Ron Cey

johnston797 said:


> Hollinger would agree. He developed a Defensive PER in his last book. I expect him to continue to try to expand his efforts in this area.


I suspect it would be extremely difficult (impossible?) to develope. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done effectively. Defense is so much more about what doesn't happen as opposed to what does happen. 

I'm not saying steals, blocks, and rebounds don't count. But they are a small slice of the pie for reasons we all know and that have been discussed here in the past, ad nauseum, I'm sure.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Looks pretty unreliable, like most stats, in evaluating a player's impact on the defensive end of the court.


For instance, here's the top guys in PER in the NBA.

The guys at the top are pretty much the greatest players in the league, would you not agree?

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/jh_ALL_PER.htm

Looking at the top 40 in PER, and then looking at the net +/-, only 4 of the top 40 in the NBA in PER have negative net +/-s... which makes sense. Only one (Ming) has a net +/- anywhere close to Hinrich's.

Yao Ming -3.9
Dwyane Wade -0.1
Jason Richardson -1.5
Michael Redd -1.0

All the rest have positive net +/-s. PER seems to do a pretty good job. Maybe lost in all of this is the "on-ball" defense... I dunno.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> For instance, here's the top guys in PER in the NBA.
> 
> The guys at the top are pretty much the greatest players in the league, would you not agree?
> 
> http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/jh_ALL_PER.htm


Evidently Jason Hart is a better basketball player than Antawn Jamison. Same with Drew Gooden vs Jason Kidd. 

The failure to adequately balance the importance of Defense vs. Offense and its impact on team play is personified in the ranking of Ben Wallace, who is behind (just for example because he is behind many others as well), Marbury, Marion, Drew Gooden, Mehmet Okur, Jason Terry, Dan Gadzuric, and Antonio Daniels. 

Lets take arguably the "best" player of that group: Marbury. If the Knicks traded Marbury straight up for Ben Wallace, do you think their team would be better or worse? Yet Marbury is ranked WAY above Wallace. 

Of course, what I have done here can be picked apart as well. But what cannot be dispelled is that this PER statistic has serious flaws, many of which relate to the quantification of defensive prowess.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Of course, what I have done here can be picked apart as well. But what cannot be dispelled is that this PER statistic has serious flaws, many of which relate to the quantification of defensive prowess.


"teach the controversy." 

Yes, it does not explain everything perfectly. That does not make it invalid. 

Wallace is #43 in the league in PER.... that's still very good. If someone said that Wallace was the 43rd best player in the NBA, I don't think its laughable.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> "teach the controversy."
> 
> Yes, it does not explain everything perfectly. That does not make it invalid.


It does make it invalid to compare two players in determining their over-all worth, unless that relative worth is already inarguably obvious, i.e., Kevin Garnett is better than Kevin Duckworth. 

In other words, it is invalid unless it is otherwise not needed, which invalidates it again I suppose. 

Like I said, you won't see me use PER or +/- for any purpose, even if it could "support" a point I'd like to make. If you guys trust those stats, then by all means use them.


----------



## yodurk

I know that Dan Rosenbaum has discussed the drawbacks of +/- before. I believe one of them is that players who are in the starting lineup for teams with a very deep and productive bench tend to get penalized. I think it's very possible Hinrich gets penalized in this same way. For example, Hinrich plays versus the opposing 1st unit and when he leaves the game the score is tied. Then the Bulls' 2nd unit (led by bench studs like Gordon, Chandler, Nocioni, and Harrington) comes in and crushes the opposing 2nd unit leading to a 10-point lead when Hinrich comes back in the game. That, in effect, would hurt Kirk Hinrich's +/-, right? And if the Bulls had a pathetic 2nd unit who got crushed by opposing 2nd units, wouldn't that IMPROVE Hinrich's +/-? If that's true, therein lies a flaw. I'm no expert on +/- formulas or anything, but this is what I've gathered from reading people's posts.


----------



## DaBullz

yodurk said:


> I know that Dan Rosenbaum has discussed the drawbacks of +/- before. I believe one of them is that players who are in the starting lineup for teams with a very deep and productive bench tend to get penalized. I think it's very possible Hinrich gets penalized in this same way. For example, Hinrich plays versus the opposing 1st unit and when he leaves the game the score is tied. Then the Bulls' 2nd unit (led by bench studs like Gordon, Chandler, Nocioni, and Harrington) comes in and crushes the opposing 2nd unit leading to a 10-point lead when Hinrich comes back in the game. That, in effect, would hurt Kirk Hinrich's +/-, right? And if the Bulls had a pathetic 2nd unit who got crushed by opposing 2nd units, wouldn't that IMPROVE Hinrich's +/-? If that's true, therein lies a flaw. I'm no expert on +/- formulas or anything, but this is what I've gathered from reading people's posts.


You'd think that the 2nd unit _deserves_ the credit for the + points if they're the ones pounding the guys they play against.

Kirk's +/- would obviously be higher if our first unit did better, eh?


----------



## Wynn

Just thought I'd save everyone the time of rehashing all of the same arguments here for Eddy. Everywhere you see "Jamal" just replace with "Eddy", everywhere you see "Crawford" just replace with "Curry".

Same people throwing the same insults at the same other people.

Please note that when all is said and done, you are not allowed to point out that those people who are insulting everyone else and dismissing our opinions were *WRONG*.

I'm out.

Loved this community. Am loving it less. May learn to enjoy it again in the future.

Peace.


----------



## johnston797

Wynn said:


> Just thought I'd save everyone the time of rehashing all of the same arguments here for Eddy. Everywhere you see "Jamal" just replace with "Eddy", everywhere you see "Crawford" just replace with "Curry".
> 
> Same people throwing the same insults at the same other people.


That's just not the case.

I predicted the JC trade way before it happened, rooted for the trade when it was a rumor in the papers and defended the trade since it happened.

It was pretty clear that we had the main replacement(s) for JC on the ball team - Hinrich and Gordon. Granted, Duhon was a pleasent surprise.

Guess what - *we don't have the replacement for Curry on the ballclub.* He is not going to be easy to replace. And Chandler is at best a partial replacement that downgrades us at 2 positions (PF and backup C). See the 'Chandler is a C' thread for more details.


----------



## Da Grinch

From HOOPSWORLD.com
In Brown's dog house? Jamal Crawford and Maurice Taylor speak out. 
By Alex Labidou
Oct 5, 2005, 10:00



All throughout the Knicks off-season, Jamal Crawford and Maurice Taylor have walked around with giant bull-eyes on their chests. With the hiring of Larry Brown as the Knicks head coach, a return to the style that the Knicks were famous for during the Riley and Van Gundy days is expected. All three coaches have an emphasis on maximizing each possession and finding "smart" shots. With that being said, at times both Maurice Taylor and Jamal Crawford were criticized last season by both coaches and the media for their shot selection and unwillingness to spread the offense. However at the Knick's media day event, both Jamal Crawford and Maurice Taylor spoke about their willingness to adapt to Brown's system. 

When asked about what the transition from last season disappointing record to this year, Knicks forward Maurice Taylor responded, "We have a lot of talent, a lot of young guys. We have a great coach...probably the best coach out there. So I think there is a lot of optimism this year. I think last year is still in the back of a lot of people's minds. We're still embarrassed about what happened (in terms of wins and loses). " Taylor continued to elaborate about the difficult transition from being traded from a rising team in Houston to a lottery bound team in New York. "It's always hard being traded...I was in Houston for five and a half years so I had roots there. Off the court, I think it was harder than dealing with it on the court. You go from being on a team like Houston which was basically on its way to the Playoffs and you come here where we struggled this season." Maurice also talked about how being on the Knicks for essentially six weeks didn't allow him to establish his game like he had in Houston. However as mentioned before, Maurice is definitely excited about the talent that is on the Knicks. "I think that here (New York), we're kind of in the same situation that I was in when signing with Houston. Its the same (type of) team, we were a team with a lot of talent that was right on the brink of making the playoffs but it never happened till the last couple of years (with the changes making to the Rockets' coaching staff)." 

Similar to the recent acquisition of Eddy Curry, the Knicks made a huge splash signing Jamal Crawford last season. The expectations were for Jamal were extremely high as his impressive performances in the pre-season were impressive; many were proclaiming him as a future All-Star. To a certain extent, the initial praise was warranted. He proved to be better than advertised from the arc and had a couple of impressive performances which included some game winning shots and a 41 point performance against Charlotte. However his shot selection was questioned as he took up to seven threes a game and his defense was between porous and non-existent. Willing to put last season's inconsistent performance behind him, Jamal Crawford reflected about last year's disappointing record and optimistically about this upcoming season. "I was very excited (to come to New York), coming to a team with great veterans and a Hall of Fame coach in coach Wilkens. You know playing with Stephon, Allan and Penny...Hey we started out good. We were first in our division, Chicago's 0-9....Hey we're in it for the long haul. We made some key acquisitions this year. We've obviously got the talent this year." 

* Asked about whether or not he regretted leaving Chicago especially considering the Bulls resurgence, Jamal said, "Not once, never have because I knew that it wasn't going to be something that could be changed overnight." When the Eddy Curry move was still a rumor, Jamal spoke glowingly about his good friend arriving in NY despite losing some teammates in the trade. "I've played with Eddy for 3 years, so I am a little biased but he's a great big man." When the deal was finalized last night, Jamal Crawford had this to say to the Chicago Sun. " "With the deals he has done this summer, Isiah's the front-runner for Executive of the Year in my opinion,'' Crawford said. ''He brought in one of the best coaches of all time [in Larry Brown], who does nothing but win. He brought in a talented center in Jerome James, and now he brings in Eddy, one of the best centers in the game. And Antonio Davis is a tremendous leader and talented forward."*

Even before the trade to acquire Eddy Curry, the Knicks had a lot to be optimistic about going into this season. Even if Brown's plans for his offense seem a bit vague, especially since other than Marbury no one of the team knows their role starting or not. Both Jamal and Maurice, despite not knowing there roles yet, are very optimistic about Larry Brown's game plan; something that many experts had predicted otherwise. Maurice Taylor spoke about how he is looking forward to being a part of turning things around.

"You know playing for six weeks in New York, I didn't have full experience as others did (playing the entire season on the Knicks) but last season left a nasty taste in our mouth. So we definitely keep that in the back of our minds because we don't want to have the feeling that we had at the end of the season." Contemplating his role on the Knicks this season under Brown's system, Taylor said " He (Larry Brown) just wants me to play my game. He knows my strengths, he knows my weaknesses, he knows what he has to get out of me and what I can bring to the table. That's what I am focusing on, I am focusing on doing the things I am capable of to make this team better." Neither Jamal Crawford nor Maurice Taylor knew for certain whether or not Brown would place them on the starting lineup, however both believe they can make an impact no matter what role Brown gives them. Trying to give a glimpse into this upcoming season, Maurice continued to talk about his possible role on the Knicks. "Obviously everyone wants to start. I see myself going into camp and competing for a job. You know I've had two of my best years in the league as a sixth man, had some of my best years as a starter so I think I can fulfill any role. "

Unable to specifically elaborate what his role would be this season after starting all of last season, *Jamal Crawford shared his teammates optimism about whatever role Brown decides for him. While Crawford and Brown haven't any specific conversations about his role this season, Jamal talked about the versatility that the Knicks have no matter what lineup Brown decides to use. "We're so deep in every position. Whoever starts, when you go to the bench you don't lose anything. There wouldn't be a drop off or anything because everyone is talented." He continued talking about the Knicks talent by analyzing the Knicks' new additions in Quentin Richardson, Channing Frye, Jerome James, Nate Robinson and David Lee. "I think David Lee is very underrated, I think our fans are going to love him because he plays so hard and is energetic. I think Channing Frye is a great low post presence, he can shoot out there or bang with the big guys. Then you got a guy like Jerome James, whose a huge body to rebound and he takes up so much space out there. Then you got Q Richardson who is a low post threat. He's going to go back to banging it like he did before arriving at Phoenix. Plus he can take it out and shoot. Then you got Nate Robinson who just brings excitement and he plays so hard. So I think all additions are really good (for the Knicks)." Finally when asked if he agreed with the criticisms that many are saying about his supposed inability to mesh with Brown, Jamal Crawford spoke out. " I am just going to try to play as hard as I can when I am out there. Of course I am going to make mistakes: I am human but I think I am going to try to bring the effort, try to keep guys competing. You know coach Brown and I hit it off great (in their conversations) and I see a great connection between us." * 
Ultimately the Knicks will be a very interesting team to watch this season. Despite taking a lot of criticism for almost all of his moves, Isiah Thomas has put together a team that features both young and veteran talent, perimeter and interior scoring along with Hall of Fame coaching. Not many GMs in this league can boost that in their resumes. Getting everyone on the same page will be difficult at times for Larry Brown. However if Jamal Crawford and Maurice Taylor are genuine towards being willing to accept whatever role Larry Brown gives them: they might earn Brown's respect and display what being model teammates are all about. That would go a long in way in proving the so called experts wrong.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/printer_14443.shtml


----------



## truebluefan

Nice read!


----------



## johnston797

I'm not a huge Crawford fan and always figured if he was successfull it would be with his 4th NBA team. He is not quite there but he is on his 6th NBA coach. And getting a new coach like Larry Brown is going to be as big an adjustement as a new team.

If Brown has the same amount of success in NY as other places, then that ability to swap spots in 2007 may not help us very much.


----------



## nanokooshball

will this thread ever die?

or why not make a new one called

Crawford & Eddy Update


----------



## bullsville

Why not just add a link to the Knicks' various message boards?


----------



## NYKBaller

yay its back


----------



## kukoc4ever

Do you think Jamal's Crawsover will be sikkkkkker or less sikkkkkkk than last season?


----------



## Da Grinch

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Jamal's Crawsover will be sikkkkkker or less sikkkkkkk than last season?


jamal will crossover people the right way next season.


----------



## bullet

*Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



> Meet Crawford The Convert. It's refreshing to hear him talk enthusiastically about defense.
> 
> "I'm very excited [about the defense]," Crawford said. "You don't have to score a ton of points to win a basketball game. He's getting that across. *You can score 85 a game and keep a team to 80, you win* ."


watch out Jamal - Einstein is right behind you on the quantum theory. 

It took him 5 years in the league to Realize D ain't a Myth , and my opinion is it will take him 2 hours to forget it. Sadly , I think Eddy is even slower than him on that. props to Pax once again.



> "It's crazy," the Knicks guard said before last night's 80-71 preseason victory over the 76ers. "I was about to ask him a question. He knew what I was about to ask and he already had the answer for it. He's always two steps ahead of everyone else.
> 
> "That's why he's the best out there," Crawford said. "He didn't have to hear what I had to say."


and it would take a serious operation to get his tongue out of Browns a*s , guess he's really worried about his minutes.

oh - and I'm not even getting into this me and Bullsville (and some others) against the world on this one , Just posting my opinion which is Jamal=Dammage , at least as he played so far , both sides. simple facts are that Bulls improved while NY drowned (for a million reasons). Pax just sees it and gets rid of it...

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/37678/20051026/craw_picks_up_on_d/


----------



## ace20004u

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*

Take what swipes you will, Jamal & Curry both played solid defense last night. I think Brown has them "getting it".


----------



## kamego

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*

Jamal will do whatever he needs to in order to get paid.


----------



## bullet

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



ace20004u said:


> Take what swipes you will, Jamal & Curry both played solid defense last night. I think Brown has them "getting it".


I did not see the game so I won't argue that. but I will only take it seriously after a full season they play decent D (and I remember you always thought higher on there D than Me anyway ace). If LB gets them playing defense it will be hats off , but I think it's more likely Ariza will see lots of minutes.
also , with the recent love Brown gives Matt Burns (who is a freaky athlete really) and the talks of trade with Blazers (DM or Ruben) , along with Q , the 2/3 minutes in NY are fading quite fast for Jamal. If he can keep his defense up maybe not (along with better Shot selection of course) , but I truely doubt it will happen. How many players in the league you remember to be considered bad defensive players (on effort) and after 5 years to improve to good ones. Now - to your help Ace I'd give you one , and even further help it happened to him under Coach Brown - Mister Billups discovered D late in his career , and if Brown can do it with Jamal , I'd be shocked (weak character with the wrong things to be important) but very impressed.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*

Luckily we'll have a years' worth of blurbs about the Knicks to distract us from our return to the lottery!

:banana:


----------



## CredeCrew24

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*

i am lookin forward to see how the knicks do this year. i mean i am a big bulls fan but i was also a huge eddy curry fan. i am very interested to see how they do. i think they have a good team and it is goin to kill us that curry isnt here. i quarantee it.


----------



## bullet

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



Mikedc said:


> Luckily we'll have a years' worth of blurbs about the Knicks to distract us from our return to the lottery!
> 
> :banana:


with the NY pick as I see it.

and again , if we're in lottery too - this year really does not matter. patience matters more imo. I would'nt want another step back to improve this year in expense of future. It already took Pax long enough to get rid of all the characters , so now , one year before true chance of improvement , it just ain't worth it imo. If we suck - it only means we'd have 2 lottery picks :biggrin:


----------



## bullet

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



CredeCrew24 said:


> i am lookin forward to see how the knicks do this year. i mean i am a big bulls fan but i was also a huge eddy curry fan. i am very interested to see how they do. i think they have a good team and it is goin to kill us that curry isnt here. i quarantee it.


Don't forget we gotta root against Knicks success , we own their 1st rounder - the worse they are the higher it gets. my concern is LB is really a great coach , so the question is if he can get this bunch of lazy talented wanna be stars to play the right way as he sees it , I hope he fails and so should every die hard Bulls fan.


----------



## CredeCrew24

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*

yea i dont think this is goin to be our season. i mean just look at our team. you are right about the two lottery picks. if we can get some good solid players with the draft then we have a chance to be very good if we keep the type f players that we have right now


----------



## NYKBaller

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*

we wont be in the lottery


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



bullet said:


> I did not see the game so I won't argue that. but I will only take it seriously after a full season they play decent D (and I remember you always thought higher on there D than Me anyway ace). If LB gets them playing defense it will be hats off , but I think it's more likely Ariza will see lots of minutes.
> also , with the recent love Brown gives Matt Burns (who is a freaky athlete really) and the talks of trade with Blazers (DM or Ruben) , along with Q , the 2/3 minutes in NY are fading quite fast for Jamal. If he can keep his defense up maybe not (along with better Shot selection of course) , but I truely doubt it will happen. *How many players in the league you remember to be considered bad defensive players (on effort) and after 5 years to improve to good ones*. Now - to your help Ace I'd give you one , and even further help it happened to him under Coach Brown - Mister Billups discovered D late in his career , and if Brown can do it with Jamal , I'd be shocked (weak character with the wrong things to be important) but very impressed.



LARRY HUGHES who was widely considered garbage by many when he arrived in Washington and then went on to become 1st team all defense.

But listen to what youre saying about a player shortcomings being effort and how that would be some great feat to get him to try harder at 25 . Not too long ago people expected most players to round into form at age 25/26 .

I really dont think anything special is happening with jamal besides the fact that hes growing up in terms of BBall and its right around the age where you expect most players will anyway.

As for minutes its been said that the knicks will go as far as Marbury and Crawford take them.Brown plans to use Crawford and Marbury together because it allows him to play Marbury off the ball.He expects them to use their passing skills to make their teamates better and then use their ability to take over games when needed .When they acquired Curry they now have given their offense focus and taken ours away.

I just read on the other board that the knicks are top 10 in fg% and while its only preseason thats a start if they keep it up we lose a good pick :curse: and they will be a pretty good AND deep basketball team.


----------



## bullet

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



TRUTHHURTS said:


> LARRY HUGHES who was widely considered garbage by many when he arrived in Washington and then went on to become 1st team all defense.
> 
> But listen to what youre saying about a player shortcomings being effort and how that would be some great feat to get him to try harder at 25 . Not too long ago people expected most players to round into form at age 25/26 .
> 
> I really dont think anything special is happening with jamal besides the fact that hes growing up in terms of BBall and its right around the age where you expect most players will anyway.
> 
> As for minutes its been said that the knicks will go as far as Marbury and Crawford take them.Brown plans to use Crawford and Marbury together because it allows him to play Marbury off the ball.He expects them to use their passing skills to make their teamates better and then use their ability to take over games when needed .When they acquired Curry they now have given their offense focus and taken ours away.
> 
> I just read on the other board that the knicks are top 10 in fg% and while its only preseason thats a start if they keep it up we lose a good pick :curse: and they will be a pretty good AND deep basketball team.


Effort should be their from day one imo. character is hard to play with. and about the Knicks being good - I recall those sounds last year too , though I agree this year is different - you never know what Larry Brown can do to a team , he's their most important piece at the moment. Noone can deny they have talent , high scale , but mostly players that never proved to help their teams win , and that might change under LB.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



bullet said:


> Effort should be their from day one imo. character is hard to play with. and about the Knicks being good - I recall those sounds last year too , though I agree this year is different - you never know what Larry Brown can do to a team , he's their most important piece at the moment. Noone can deny they have talent , high scale , but mostly players that never proved to help their teams win , and that might change under LB.


Effort should always be there thats true but in basketball the attitude has alaways been that a player with great offensive skills tends to think they can win it on the offensive end while players who lack offensive skills tend to focus on making their mark on the defensive end .Sometimes that offensive player takes a step toward becoming a great all around player and realizes he has to play both ends of the court sometimes he doesnt.

Last year the talk was the knicks can be a playoff team no one really hyped them as going to be a _goood_ team more of the first rd exit type .Ive watched the knicks on league pass the is preseason and the one thing I notice now is how they contest shots and how big they are in the inside I mean they are really a huge team and these guys arent lugs they all have skills of some sort.

Curry/AD
James/Mo Taylor 
Rose /Lee/Frye 

and they have this guy who came out of hs Jackie Butler who was one of the top hs bigmen in the country and he looks solid for a 19 yr old.

The knicks as a team have absolutely punished teams on the glass. Brown has those guys playing hard and as evident last year with effort,unselfishness and talent you can make a quick turnaround .

They are not contenders but with that size I wanna see what happens when they play the Pacers,Pistons and HEAT.


----------



## DaBullz

My perspective is that it's actually easy to play defense, but it takes effort. Virtually all of the NBA players are superb athletes, so it's obvious to me that they all could play very good defense.

Some phenominally gifted offensive players/scorers can get away with not putting out the effort on D. Matador Defense was apropos to describe how Pete Maravich played on the defensive end - I literally saw him just wave at his man as he went by sooooo many times. There's no denying he was an oustanding player.

On the other hand, there was Dr. J, who was extraordinarily gifted in all respects. He talked about playing D all the time and said it took concentration and effort.

I think it's funny to read about how Ben Gordon "worked on his defense" over the summer. How do you do that? By lifting weights? The only way I see to do it is to be in great shape AND to work at it under actual game conditions.


----------



## Da Grinch

DaBullz said:


> My perspective is that it's actually easy to play defense, but it takes effort. Virtually all of the NBA players are superb athletes, so it's obvious to me that they all could play very good defense.
> 
> Some phenominally gifted offensive players/scorers can get away with not putting out the effort on D. Matador Defense was apropos to describe how Pete Maravich played on the defensive end - I literally saw him just wave at his man as he went by sooooo many times. There's no denying he was an oustanding player.
> 
> On the other hand, there was Dr. J, who was extraordinarily gifted in all respects. He talked about playing D all the time and said it took concentration and effort.
> 
> I think it's funny to read about how Ben Gordon "worked on his defense" over the summer. How do you do that? By lifting weights? The only way I see to do it is to be in great shape AND to work at it under actual game conditions.


i dont know if i'd agree with that, i think defense is a talent like any other skill exhibited at the nba level, it can be worked on but a slow, weak guy is usually at disadvantange no matter how hard he tries


----------



## ace20004u

*Re: Jamal finally discovers there are two sides to the court!!*



bullet said:


> I did not see the game so I won't argue that. but I will only take it seriously after a full season they play decent D (and I remember you always thought higher on there D than Me anyway ace). If LB gets them playing defense it will be hats off , but I think it's more likely Ariza will see lots of minutes.
> also , with the recent love Brown gives Matt Burns (who is a freaky athlete really) and the talks of trade with Blazers (DM or Ruben) , along with Q , the 2/3 minutes in NY are fading quite fast for Jamal. If he can keep his defense up maybe not (along with better Shot selection of course) , but I truely doubt it will happen. How many players in the league you remember to be considered bad defensive players (on effort) and after 5 years to improve to good ones. Now - to your help Ace I'd give you one , and even further help it happened to him under Coach Brown - Mister Billups discovered D late in his career , and if Brown can do it with Jamal , I'd be shocked (weak character with the wrong things to be important) but very impressed.



Yeah, obviously it will take them playing solid defense for the majority of a season before it really means much of anything. I think LB can get them to do it. I don't know what yuo mean about Ariza, he will see a lot of minutes, mostly Q's to start the season but Ariza is mostly a 3 so...

I think you mean Matt Barnes, out of UCLA, he looked pretty good last night but I would suspect that Ariza will see more at the 3 than Barnes will. In any case, neither Ariza or Barnes will be competing with Jamal for minutes since they mostly play the three. I can see Q coming back healthy and challenging for minutes potentially. Brown is very much in love with Jamal too and he should see heavy minutes. There are more players that improved in 5 years defensively than you probably realize, Billups as you said, Larry Hughes, Rip Hamilton, and several other players. I think that with Jamal a lot of it is about strength and getting stronger to fight through screens. I also think that since Jamal didn't really start playing organized ball until his sophomore year in HS he is behind on the learning curve. I personally don't believe Jamal has the "weak character" you ascribe to him..I think it gets said a lot on the messageboards but that doesn't make it so. Fighhting back from an ACL injury to return to the Bulls earlier than expected dispels that notion that Crawford doesn't work hard which I believe is an internet misnomer anyway.


----------



## futuristxen

Larry Hughes defense was never considered good. Until last year. Players can get better. Especially if like Jamal, they started playing basketball really late, and then spent their formulative years in a Mickey Mouse organization with no stability of focus or message or identity. We saw under Skiles that Crawford got measurably better at D. He stalled last year in New York. I think he's just a kid that needs a coach to stay on him and push him. I think whether it's good or bad attention, Jamal likes the coach to acknowledge him and teach him. He's always seemed the eager beaver when it came to taking coaching. He doesn't like getting blamed for things, but I think he likes being coached, at least from his comments when he was under Skiles and his comments under Brown.

Crawford knows how to play defense, it's just a matter of hustling and focusing on it. And under Brown he's doing that right now. He also looks stronger this year. He'll find his minutes at the one and 2. Brown won't play Nate Robinson as much as he has in the preseason. Robinson isn't really a threat to taking Crawford's minutes. Robinson drives Brown nuts. Nate the great is plays more out of control than even Jamal does. It will take him awhile to win Brown over, plus he's a rookie. So expect Crawford to get the starting Shooting guard minutes, and the point guard minutes when Marbury is off the floor. I think he'll play about 34 minutes per game.


----------



## kukoc4ever

nice pic


----------



## NYKBaller

DaBullz said:


> My perspective is that it's actually easy to play defense, but it takes effort. Virtually all of the NBA players are superb athletes, so it's obvious to me that they all could play very good defense.
> 
> Some phenominally gifted offensive players/scorers can get away with not putting out the effort on D. Matador Defense was apropos to describe how Pete Maravich played on the defensive end - I literally saw him just wave at his man as he went by sooooo many times. There's no denying he was an oustanding player.
> 
> On the other hand, there was Dr. J, who was extraordinarily gifted in all respects. He talked about playing D all the time and said it took concentration and effort.
> 
> I think it's funny to read about how Ben Gordon "worked on his defense" over the summer. How do you do that? By lifting weights? The only way I see to do it is to be in great shape AND to work at it under actual game conditions.


The NBA is more of a science now, you can work on your defense by positioning, forcing your man baseline, post defense by like pulling away when your opponent is posting up, etc...


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> nice pic


LOL...at first glance it looks like he's going for a dunk. Then I look closer and see a Sixer player right next to him, assumingly blocking his shot. Then I realized that they're probably just tipping up a rebound. Nice try, though. 

Edit: I looked again and still can't tell what the play is for sure. I've settled on the fact that Crawford is trying to finish a fast break but is getting fouled. How dramatic.


----------



## johnston797

NYKBaller said:


> The NBA is more of a science now, you can work on your defense by positioning, forcing your man baseline, post defense by like pulling away when your opponent is posting up, etc...


It's pretty clear to me that it's not all effort as well. Some guys are more talented on D just like on O. It's not like guys can just will themselves into being Ben Wallace any easier they they can will themselves into Jalen Rose.


----------



## bullsville

johnston797 said:


> It's pretty clear to me that it's not all effort as well. Some guys are more talented on D just like on O. It's not like guys can just will themselves into being Ben Wallace any easier they they can will themselves into Jalen Rose.


No doubt about that, some guys can give 110% effort on defense but never be a Mutombo or Pippen or Russell. And look at Tyson, for example, no doubt his skills are more suited to defense (and rebounding) than offense.


----------



## Ron Cey

yodurk said:


> LOL...at first glance it looks like he's going for a dunk. Then I look closer and see a Sixer player right next to him, assumingly blocking his shot. Then I realized that they're probably just tipping up a rebound. Nice try, though.
> 
> Edit: I looked again and still can't tell what the play is for sure. I've settled on the fact that Crawford is trying to finish a fast break but is getting fouled. How dramatic.


That is a nice pic. They caught it at exactly the right moment in time. Because if this was live action, in about a half a second, you'd see Crawford clank that dunk of the back of the rim followed by a 76er's fast break off the long rebound leading to an easy bucket in transition. I watched the game.

Good pic, though.


----------



## badfish

Ron Cey said:


> That is a nice pic. They caught it at exactly the right moment in time. Because if this was live action, in about a half a second, you'd see Crawford clank that dunk of the back of the rim followed by a 76er's fast break off the long rebound leading to an easy bucket in transition. I watched the game.
> 
> Good pic, though.


Yeah, I saw the game as well. It was a very athletic move. I don't recall seeing him take it that strong before, but I missed his first three seasons since I was abroad. 

Wonder why he didn't just throw it off the backboard. Looks like that would have worked. :biggrin:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> That is a nice pic. They caught it at exactly the right moment in time. Because if this was live action, in about a half a second, you'd see Crawford clank that dunk of the back of the rim followed by a 76er's fast break off the long rebound leading to an easy bucket in transition. I watched the game.
> 
> Good pic, though.


he missed the dunk and then there was a timeout :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> That is a nice pic. They caught it at exactly the right moment in time. Because if this was live action, in about a half a second, you'd see Crawford clank that dunk of the back of the rim followed by a 76er's fast break off the long rebound leading to an easy bucket in transition. I watched the game.
> 
> Good pic, though.


When did you start watching the games?


----------



## ace20004u

kukoc4ever said:


> When did you start watching the games?



If he did watch the game, as I also did, he can no doubt tell us that Jamal played pretty good defense and was very selective with his shots. While he may have missed that dunk he went 7-11 for the game with a couple of those shots being 3pters.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

More from Jamal 

journal news



> "It's time, man," Crawford said. "This is my sixth year in the league. It's time. I'm 25 years old. I want to be an all-around player, and I really want to win."






> The criticism flowed freely last season while he threw shots up from difficult angles early in the clock. Eventually, he slowed down to prove a point and started looking to set up teammates.
> 
> A happy medium proved elusive.
> 
> "Some of it was actually warranted, some of it wasn't," Crawford said of the hard knocks. "I think my reputation will chase me until I'm on a winning team. If this team has a successful year, hopefully it will start to go away. Winning cures everything





> Brown is optimistic a corner's already been turned.
> 
> "I don't judge a player on what I saw or what I hear," he said. "It's based on how he responds to what we're asking him to do, and he's been terrific.
> 
> "Jamal and Stephon (Marbury), you've got to be real careful. You can ask them to do certain things, but you don't want to take away their ability to score the ball or make a play. I've been really thrilled with both of them. They're doing more and more things to give us a chance to win. They're expanding their games."





> I think I'm a lot more knowledgeable about the game," said Crawford, who's attempted half of the team's 32 shots from behind the arc. "I watched a lot of tape this summer. I think I'm a little better than last year, honestly. You're going to see a more complete game this year. Instead of just scoring and assists, you'll see defense and rebounding."
> 
> "I realize I have to play both ends," Crawford said. "Coach and Isiah Thomas both emphasized that. We have to be all-around players to help our team win — not just me, everybody. You can't just do one thing. You have to do all that to stay in."


----------



## bullsville

Too bad we heard the same BS from Jamal last summer, how playing for a HOF coach like Wilkens with a great organization and a godly GM was going to make him become an All-Star.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal has turned in a solid preseason.

<pre>
Minutes	FG	3s	FT	Off	Reb	Ast	TO	Stl	Blk	PF	Pts
J. Crawford 33	7-11	2-3	0-0 0	1	2	3	3	0	2	16
J. Crawford 27	5-11	0-1 3-5	0	4	6	1	0	0	1	13
J. Crawford 37	3-9	1-3	4-4	1	8	4	1	1	0	1	11
J. Crawford 32	5-10	2-5	2-2	0	1	7	4	1	0	4	14
J. Crawford 24	1-6	0-2 0-0 0	3	2	2	0	0	2	2
J. Crawford 27	3-5	1-2	1-2	2	2	3	2	1	0	0	8
</pre>

He's shooting 46%, playing more in control, the TOs are a little high on some nights but the assist/TO is good for a SG (not that assist/TO is a great stat).

The defense is better. Larry Brown appears happy with him, given the playing time Jamal has recieved especially in the recent games.

He even led the team in rebounding one night with 8 boards! 

If Isiah put together an environment where Crawford can play up to his obvious talent-level, the Knicks have a very nice SG/combo guard for the next few years.

Granted, its only preseason.


----------



## Ron Cey

TRUTHHURTS said:


> he missed the dunk and then there was a timeout :biggrin:


Is that right? I'm confusing it with another fast-break-to-fast-break play then. But he most certainly did clank that dunk.


----------



## truebluefan

181 pages and still growing!! 

I agree with bullsville, JC said all of this last summer. 

However, he did have a nice game. I will give him that.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Too bad we heard the same BS from Jamal last summer, how playing for a HOF coach like Wilkens with a great organization and a godly GM was going to make him become an All-Star.
> 
> Pardon me if I don't hold my breath...



hmmmm

he didnt mention anything about the coach or gm other than they emphasized an all around game 

he didnt say anything about the "organization"

he said nothing about becoming an all star just that he wants to be an all around player 

so far this preseason hes been doing it 




> I think my reputation will chase me until I'm on a winning team. If this team has a successful year, hopefully it will start to go away. Winning cures everything



I think it speaks volume that he understands how hes perceived around the league and that he understands what must happen to change it .


----------



## Ron Cey

ace20004u said:


> If he did watch the game, as I also did, he can no doubt tell us that Jamal played pretty good defense and was very selective with his shots. While he may have missed that dunk he went 7-11 for the game with a couple of those shots being 3pters.


Jamal Crawford has good games all the time. His shot selection has been quite good this preseason so far, relative to his past. So good, in fact, one might call it timid. 

As for his defense, he did look "pretty good" in that game, but in each of the other 3 games I watched he looked like garbage on the defensive end of the court.

Like I said, Jamal Crawford has good games all the time. I was only commenting on the picture because it was obviously posted to impress, when in reality the play failed.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Like I said, Jamal Crawford has good games all the time. I was only commenting on the picture because it was obviously posted to impress, when in reality the play failed.


No, it was posted because I thought it was a nice looking picture.

I didn't expect people to jump all over the damn thing. Of course, this is a harsh bunch, especially when it comes to Jamal and Eddy.

Also, if Crawford is attacking the rim like he is in this picutre all season, even if a dunk or two clanks off the rim, he's much better off. He needs to take it to the hole more.


----------



## ace20004u

Ron Cey said:


> Jamal Crawford has good games all the time. His shot selection has been quite good this preseason so far, relative to his past. So good, in fact, one might call it timid.
> 
> As for his defense, he did look "pretty good" in that game, but in each of the other 3 games I watched he looked like garbage on the defensive end of the court.
> 
> Like I said, Jamal Crawford has good games all the time. I was only commenting on the picture because it was obviously posted to impress, when in reality the play failed.


I actually thought his defense looked good in the Dallas game too, particularly in the first half. But your right, the only thing inpressive about that picture is A.) Obviously Jamal has a great deal of atheleticism and B.) he was attacking the hoop, something people complained about him not doing enough of in Chi town. 

Your right though, he blew that dunk so the picture is less that impressive.


----------



## mizenkay

2,705 replies in this thread. dayum. eddy's has a long way to go!

*k4e* owns!

*kukoc4ever	540*
GB	336
bullsville 154
Wynn 97
Da Grinch 80
TomBoerwinkle#1	72
DaBullz	70
ace20004u	69
TRUTHHURTS	66
Ron Cey 61
johnston797 60
Mr. T	60
yodurk	57
dkg1	52
truebluefan	49
ScottMay	47
ViciousFlogging	45
fleetwood macbull 41
lgtwins	39
ChiBulls2315	39
The 6ft Hurdle	37
giusd	36
badfish	33
mizenkay	32
superdave	29
remlover	27
bullet	26
PennyHardaway	26
spongyfungy	25
truth	22
BealeFarange	22
Electric Slim	21
fl_flash 20
transplant	17
madox	15
ShamBulls	15
Marcus13	13
SPMJ	12
bbertha37	12
Mikedc	12
Shabadoo	10
MichaelOFAZ	9
Dan Rosenbaum	8
The Truth	7
NYKBaller	7
such sweet thunder	6
sloth	6
Darius Miles Davis	6
jnrjr79	6
Good Hope	6
Future	6
PC Load Letter	5
JRose5	5
rlucas4257	5
L.O.B	5
Johnny Mac	5
Sir Patchwork	5
sp00k	5
Machinehead	5
The Krakken	4
adam	4
The ROY	4
Jim Ian	4
HAWK23	4
deranged40	4
VincentVega	3
Benny the Bull	3
Chicago N VA	3
MemphisX	3
son of oakley	3
lorgg	3
futuristxen	3
Xantos	2
Hustle	2
CredeCrew24	2
Happyface	2
Kismet	2
7thwatch	2
nanokooshball	2
Showtyme	2
Qwst25	2
Chicago_Cow	2
Kramer	2
MitchMatch	2
SilvoDante	1
DaFuture	1
kamego	1
lou4gehrig	1
DontBeCows	1
chefboyarg	1
Chi_Lunatic	1
evalam23	1
Rhyder	1
Pioneer10	1
jokeaward	1
TheLegend	1
thebullybully	1
uracornball	1
HINrichPolice	1
Vintage	1
Greg Ostertag!	1
HKF	1
MVPKirk	1
RoRo	1
ogbullzfan	1
Killuminati	1
Cager	1
PobreDiablo	1
YearofDaBulls	1
Bolts	1
notbeat	1
HookEmHorns	1
Bulls4Life	1
Blueoak	1
garnett	1
thebizkit69u	1
Sigifrith	1
Pinball	1


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> No, it was posted because I thought it was a nice looking picture.


Sure ya did. 

And I think this is simply a nice looking picture, intended to signify nothing about what I think of Crawford's toughness:


----------



## Ron Cey

ace20004u said:


> I actually thought his defense looked good in the Dallas game too, particularly in the first half. But your right, the only thing inpressive about that picture is A.) Obviously Jamal has a great deal of atheleticism and B.) he was attacking the hoop, something people complained about him not doing enough of in Chi town.
> 
> Your right though, he blew that dunk so the picture is less that impressive.


Well, actually Jamal Crawford's athleticism isn't all that great in the jumping category. But he is very quick with the basketball, which is where he sets himself apart.

And that dunk attempt was on the lead of a fast break. Look at the picture. Everyone is behind him running down court except the guy who caught him from behind to contest the shot. 

Everyone "attacks the hoop" when they are in the lead on a fast break. What Crawford fails to do is attack the rim in the half court. Maybe that'll finally change this year.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Sure ya did.


Yah, I did.

I'm glad you are finally watching the games though.


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> Granted, its only preseason.


Well yeah, but it's also a small sample size. Jamal and the Knicks had a hot start last year, but it was pretty short lived. It's a long long season. I will say this though...Larry Brown seems to have a role in mind for Jamal that I think he is very capable of playing. Roughly 25-30 minutes, possibly off the bench, as a combo-guard. Half of his minutes as the backup point guard, the other half as a complimentary scorer. I've always thought of Crawford as a good player if he's put into the right role, such as the one I've described. If the Knicks expect much more, then they're misusing him which will come back to hurt them.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I did.
> 
> I'm glad you are finally watching the games though.


Not quite sure what that means, but okay. I think I've seen every single pre-season Knicks game televised this year. For Curry.


----------



## Da Grinch

Ron Cey said:


> Sure ya did.
> 
> And I think this is simply a nice looking picture, intended to signify nothing about what I think of Crawford's toughness:


i find it a little funny that someone who harps on crawford's toughness , can find find only negativity (and some of it wrong , there was no fast break after that dunk attempt) with crawford taking it hard to the rack .

makes me think you care less about you critism ,and would rather just being critical.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> Well, actually Jamal Crawford's athleticism isn't all that great in the jumping category. But he is very quick with the basketball, which is where he sets himself apart.
> 
> And that dunk attempt was on the lead of a fast break. Look at the picture. Everyone is behind him running down court except the guy who caught him from behind to contest the shot.
> 
> Everyone "attacks the hoop" when they are in the lead on a fast break. What Crawford fails to do is attack the rim in the half court. Maybe that'll finally change this year.



actually jamal was the trailer on the play and Ariza was ahead of him but on the right side with the ball and kicked it back to him and he tried to finish over Iggy.


----------



## kukoc4ever

mizenkay said:


> 2,705 replies in this thread. dayum. eddy's has a long way to go!
> 
> *k4e* owns!


Where is the "i swore i'd never post again in here" caveat?


----------



## Da Grinch

TRUTHHURTS said:


> actually jamal was the trailer on the play and Ariza was ahead of him but on the right side with the ball and kicked it back to him and he tried to finish over Iggy.


for someone who was _watching _ the game , you would think he would have described the situation better.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

yodurk said:


> Well yeah, but it's also a small sample size. Jamal and the Knicks had a hot start last year, but it was pretty short lived. It's a long long season. I will say this though...Larry Brown seems to have a role in mind for Jamal that I think he is very capable of playing. Roughly 25-30 minutes, possibly off the bench, as a combo-guard. Half of his minutes as the backup point guard, the other half as a complimentary scorer. I've always thought of Crawford as a good player if he's put into the right role, such as the one I've described. If the Knicks expect much more, then they're misusing him which will come back to hurt them.



the knicks entire game plan is built around Curry in the middle and Crawfords and Marburys ability to score for themselves and create for others on offense. Brown seems to have asked them to get everyone else the ball first and then if needed for them to take over games and asked for a greater commitment on the defensive end and they seem to have responded well.

Crawford seems to have adjusted better to Browns game plan that Marbury has hes been very good at the point so far this preseason and Brown went to him in the 4th the last 3 games . The Dallas game Jamal basically blew the game by calling the wrong play and mised a shot at the buzzer.The spurs game he hit several big shots in the last 3/4 minutes of the game and came up with a couple of big defensive plays .In the NJ game with NJ threatening in the last 3 minutes he scored 6 straight points and a big steal top basically close them out.

Hes no all star but his floor game has matured tremendously on both ends and the effort is there all the time now defensively where before he would take quite a few plays off .


----------



## mizenkay

kukoc4ever said:


> Where is the "i swore i'd never post again in here" caveat?


haha. ya got me. d'oh and here i am again. i just wanted to give you your proper due for owning this thread in such a dominating manner. you really love your boo. it's admirable. 

:smilewink

2700+ replies. dumbfounding and amazing. or as scoop would say, 'umbfounding and 'mazing.


:clown:


----------



## spongyfungy

did jordan have an update thread when he wizards on us.


----------



## truebluefan

spongyfungy said:


> did jordan have an update thread when he wizards on us.


MJ is no JC.


----------



## ScottMay

spongyfungy said:


> did jordan have an update thread when he wizards on us.


The MJ-in-DC era was not a fun time to be a Bulls fan.


----------



## Da Grinch

.............Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
Jamal Crawford 6 5 30.0 .462 .375 .769 .50 2.70 3.20 4.0 1.00 .00 2.17 1.70 10.7 

very under control right now , putting up good stats especially considering how sloppy pre season ball tends to be.


----------



## ace20004u

Babble & whomever else...I wasn't ripping on Gordon as much as I was pointing out that the people who used to complain about Jamal being a "streetballer" (which is false btw) Ignored Bens lil razzle dazzle, no big deal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Another solid night at the pre-season office for crawford last night.

6-12 shooting. "Only" 3 3-pointers. 3 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 TOs, 3 steals. 

Crawford looks to be listening to Brown and playing under control. Will this last the whole season? Who knows. 

I do know I would not be anywhere near as worried about the Bulls this season if Ben Gordon could have the preseaon that Crawford just finished.


----------



## truebluefan

kukoc4ever said:


> Another solid night at the pre-season office for crawford last night.
> 
> 6-12 shooting. "Only" 3 3-pointers. 3 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 TOs, 3 steals.
> 
> Crawford looks to be listening to Brown and playing under control. Will this last the whole season? Who knows.
> 
> I do know I would not be anywhere near as worried about the Bulls this season if Ben Gordon could have the preseaon that Crawford just finished.


I am not as worried as you are. Gordon didnt kick in until a few games into the season last year. Preseason means nothing.


----------



## kukoc4ever

truebluefan said:


> I am not as worried as you are. Gordon didnt kick in until a few games into the season last year. Preseason means nothing.


Depends what you mean by "kick in."

Because at the end of last season Ben Gordon was still not capable of starting an NBA game. And, that still appears to be the case.

If "kick in" means a selfish yet exciting and game altering / sportscenter highlight creating burst of doing little else than shooting the ball, then yah, Gordon is primed and ready.

The Bulls can't be pleased with his off-season development at this point.

Also, while you may not be worried, I also think your expectations are far lower than mine.


----------



## truebluefan

I didnt say anything about him starting. I was talking about his scoring whether it be off of the bench or not.

The statement "Because at the end of last season Ben Gordon was still not capable of starting an NBA game." is misleading. He was very capable of starting but with Hinich and Duhon starting, why fix what wasn't broken? If a person wins sixth man of the year, he is capable of starting. 

They may not be pleased but then it depends upon what they were looking at. They had to look at everyone. Record and stats are not important. Look at Miami. They had a bad off season and I bet they are not too alarmed, yet.


----------



## truebluefan

truebluefan said:


> I didnt say anything about him starting. I was talking about his scoring whether it be off of the bench or not.
> 
> The statement "Because at the end of last season Ben Gordon was still not capable of starting an NBA game." is misleading. He was very capable of starting but with Hinich and Duhon starting, why fix what wasn't broken? If a person wins sixth man of the year, he is capable of starting.
> 
> They may not be pleased but then it depends upon what they were looking at. They had to look at everyone. Record and stats are not important. Look at Miami. They had a bad off season and I bet they are not too alarmed, yet.



Actually I am concerned about chandler more than Gordon. But then it is preseason. 

My concern is Chandlers lack of rebounding numbers at the center spot. He does a much better job at pf, imo, at least by looking at the last few exhibition games. I will get a better barometer after the season starts.


----------



## kukoc4ever

truebluefan said:


> The statement "Because at the end of last season Ben Gordon was still not capable of starting an NBA game." is misleading. He was very capable of starting but with Hinich and Duhon starting, why fix what wasn't broken? If a person wins sixth man of the year, he is capable of starting.


Given his performance in the preseason and game six of the playoffs, and given that the team initially gave Gordon the starting job this preseason and has since benched him, what are you basing this opinion on?



> They may not be pleased but then it depends upon what they were looking at. They had to look at everyone. Record and stats are not important. Look at Miami. They had a bad off season and I bet they are not too alarmed, yet.


Miami is a team of proven veterans that have shown their chops time and time again in the league. Gordon has yet to show that he can start in this league. The Bulls want him to, they wanted him to this season, but he cannot, which is why they have benched him. Its an apples to oranges comparison, Miami vs Chicago. Its proven veterans vs unproven players. This preseason was supposed to be Gordon's time to show that he could start in this league. He was not able to do it. I'm sure they will give him yet another chance since they have invested so much in him (pick, GM reputation, marketing muscle).

Meanwhile, Crawford seems to be having little trouble getting heavy minutes and starting on Larry Brown's Knicks.


----------



## kukoc4ever

truebluefan said:


> Actually I am concerned about chandler more than Gordon. But then it is preseason.
> 
> My concern is Chandlers lack of rebounding numbers at the center spot. He does a much better job at pf, imo, at least by looking at the last few exhibition games. I will get a better barometer after the season starts.


Yeah, this is a concern as well. Chandler is really the only big man we have from a vertical sense. A lot is resting on his shoulders since Paxson traded AD and Curry away.


----------



## truebluefan

kukoc4ever said:


> Given his performance in the preseason and game six of the playoffs, and given that the team initially gave Gordon the starting job this preseason and has since benched him, what are you basing this opinion on?
> 
> 
> 
> Miami is a team of proven veterans that have shown their chops time and time again in the league. Gordon has yet to show that he can start in this league. The Bulls want him to, they wanted him to this season, but he cannot, which is why they have benched him. Its an apples to oranges comparison, Miami vs Chicago. Its proven veterans vs unproven players. This preseason was supposed to be Gordon's time to show that he could start in this league. He was not able to do it. I'm sure they will give him yet another chance since they have invested so much in him (pick, GM reputation, marketing muscle).
> 
> Meanwhile, Crawford seems to be having little trouble getting heavy minutes and starting on Larry Brown's Knicks.


I am bashing the opinion because incapable is just not true imo. Skiles wanted Duhon to start. That does not mean he is incapable. McHale was 6th man in Boston. Does that mean he was incapable of starting? I can name others and no I am not saying Gordon is a McHale. I am using your use of the words 'was not capable' to show you why I disagree with that. I just took exception to your opinion. I believe he was capable last season in starting. 

Well he benched him last season and Gordon did alright for himself didnt he? 

Are you sure preseason was his time to shine? As I said earlier, we had other people to look at. Look at the minutes played by everybody. no one played over 25 minutes a game. Minutes were pretty much even. Gordon played 21. He averaged 24 last season. 

Look, his shooting pct is off. But it was early on last season! He wound up shooting 41% and 41%. He should find his touch as the season goes on. He should be fine. 

I am concerned somewhat about his shooting pct, but the sky is not falling until it actually falls.


----------



## truebluefan

> Meanwhile, Crawford seems to be having little trouble getting heavy minutes and starting on Larry Brown's Knicks.


Skiles would not have given JC 'heavy minutes' here during preason. He has ben even across the board. 

Yes I see where Brown has given JC 31 muntes a game, but then he has not looked at other players as closely as Skiles has. 

By the way...I am glad to see JC shooting 47%. I hope he keeps doing that.


----------



## Da Grinch

truebluefan said:


> Skiles would not have given JC 'heavy minutes' here during preason. He has ben even across the board.
> 
> *Yes I see where Brown has given JC 31 muntes a game, but then he has not looked at other players as closely as Skiles has. *
> By the way...I am glad to see JC shooting 47%. I hope he keeps doing that.


tbf i have a problem with the bolded statement, the knicks have had as many players in their camp as the bulls have, who is to say how hard any coach is looking at players , i would think every coach is looking at every player pretty darn hard unless they are a superstar and their role is set.

there isn't a single player on either team with that luxury.


----------



## narek

I swore I'd never post here.... but couldn't resist: http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/56804.htm




> BOSTON — Jamal Crawford sounded disappointed and angered that Larry Brown threw a curveball with his starting lineup last night, benching him at shooting guard in favor of Quentin Richardson for last night's season opener.
> 
> Crawford looked crushed and didn't seem to understand the move, and wound up with an awful six-turnover outing in last night's 114-100 overtime loss to the Celtics.
> 
> "I think I had a great camp, I adjusted well," said Crawford, who entered with 4:20 left in the the first quarter. "I'll be professional and be ready when my number is called. That's it. That's my statement. I'm done with it. I'll be professional, be ready when my number is called."


Red Auebach slams (sort of ) Phil Jackson in the story saying Phil picks his spots to coach but Larry Brown doesn't. Um, Red, Brown didn't have to take Knicks job or the Pistons job ...............


----------



## step

Its amuing that Red Auerbach is joining in that argument, bet he feels his precious record is at stake.


----------



## giusd

JC did not look good last night and IMHO he was really upset about losing his starting spot. And when he did play he just didnt look into it. And the knicks, with all those high paying players, lost to a boston team, that IMHO has no way of making the playoffs does not look good for their season. They have a very tough first two months and last night they looked like defensive just doesnt matter.

Donte West was killing them. And boston just out hustled them the whole game. The knicks should be ashamed how they played last night. LB is going to go nuts if they dont start playing some D and working as a team.

david


----------



## DaBullz

Who had more minutes: Crawford or QRich?


----------



## bullsville

DaBullz said:


> Who had more minutes: Crawford or QRich?


Great point DaBullz, Jamal had 37 minutes to Q's 22.

I guess Jamal got an 'A+' in the "Jack Rose School of Selfishness". He played the 3rd most minutes on the Knicks last night behind only Marbury and Eddy, what the hell does he want?

It is so damned refreshing to have Ben on our team instead. A lot of posters fretted over the fact that he isn't starting, but he played a team-high 40 minutes, which is really all that matters.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

giusd said:


> JC did not look good last night and IMHO he was really upset about losing his starting spot. And when he did play he just didnt look into it. And the knicks, with all those high paying players, lost to a boston team, that IMHO has no way of making the playoffs does not look good for their season. They have a very tough first two months and last night they looked like defensive just doesnt matter.
> 
> Donte West was killing them. And boston just out hustled them the whole game. The knicks should be ashamed how they played last night. LB is going to go nuts if they dont start playing some D and working as a team.
> 
> david



The knicks did play good defense(42% fg) but didnt rebound well or shoot ft's well that is what killed them even with Pierce's monster game of 24 fta :eek8 Crawford played well the first half but bad the second half. 

I think some things left out about Crawford coming off the bench was he found out from beat writers fishing for a story right before the game and he had the best camp of any knicks guard so Im sure he would be suprised that a non healthy Q got the start at sg(hadnt played since last preseason game) while Barnes started at sf . I think in the long run its a non issue because he knows he will be on the floor at the end but it doesnt mean its nota suprise especially when you find out how you did .


----------



## kukoc4ever

giusd said:


> Donte West was killing them. And boston just out hustled them the whole game. The knicks should be ashamed how they played last night. LB is going to go nuts if they dont start playing some D and working as a team.


Its going to be a learning process for a while on the Knicks as LB gets things sorted out. Kinda the same situation here in Chicago. Both the Bulls and the Knicks got off to rocky starts last night. But, we got the win. You could nievly say that is win is all that matters, but getting outrebouded and nearly creamed at home by a just removed from expansion team, well, let's just say I'm glad we eeked out a win, cause we'll need every single one of them to make the playoffs, IMO.

Even though Crawford didn't start the game, he did play the 3rd most minutes. Perhaps just a probably needed message being sent by LB. Good. Crawford seemingly responded enough for Brown to play him the 3rd most minutes.

Actually, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most minutes played last night for the Knicks were Curry, Crawford and good 'ol AD. What a warrior AD is. We sure could have used him last night. Wish he was still here.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Great point DaBullz, Jamal had 37 minutes to Q's 22.
> 
> I guess Jamal got an 'A+' in the "Jack Rose School of Selfishness". He played the 3rd most minutes on the Knicks last night behind only Marbury and Eddy, what the hell does he want?
> 
> It is so damned refreshing to have Ben on our team instead. A lot of posters fretted over the fact that he isn't starting, but he played a team-high 40 minutes, which is really all that matters.


Cant compare Crawfords to Bens situation because Ben sucked during preseason and he knew well before opening night he would be coming off the bench .Crawford played great during preseason played more minutes than anyone and then found out from beat writers who the starters were. His comments were BEFORE the game .


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> It is so damned refreshing to have Ben on our team instead. A lot of posters fretted over the fact that he isn't starting, but he played a team-high 40 minutes, which is really all that matters.


4-18 shooting last night is hardly refreshing. That's a "jack rose" fest if I've ever seen one. OTOH, it was nice to see that Gordon was at least able to stay on the court last night for that many minutes, even though he could not put the ball in the hoop. He kept shooting though.... 18 times... I'll give him that. He loves to shoot. He would not have logged anywhere close to 40 minutes, IMO, if Hinrich didn't go down.

Actually, the best Jalenesque play of the night was Tim Thomas with that step back baseline three pointer after creating a lane where he could have taken it to the hoop. Good 'ol TT. What a competitor. 

Duhon basically had to keep the ball out of Gordon's hands down the stretch.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> 4-18 shooting last night is hardly refreshing. That's a "jack rose" fest if I've ever seen one. OTOH, it was nice to see that Gordon was at least able to stay on the court last night for that many minutes, even though he could not put the ball in the hoop. He kept shooting though.... 18 times... I'll give him that. He loves to shoot. He would not have logged anywhere close to 40 minutes, IMO, if Hinrich didn't go down.
> 
> Actually, the best Jalenesque play of the night was Tim Thomas with that step back baseline three pointer after creating a lane where he could have taken it to the hoop. Good 'ol TT. What a competitor.
> 
> Duhon basically had to keep the ball out of Gordon's hands down the stretch.


Yeah, I can certainly live without 4-18, although unlike JC it was nice to see Ben continually getting to the hole. It would have been a hell of a lot nicer if he would have hit a few of them, though.

But I meant it's refreshing to have a guy who doesn't complain about not being a starter as long as he gets his minutes. We kept hearing from Jamal how Brown is such a great coach who is going to help Jamal take his game to the next level, yet it only took one regular season game for Jamal to question Brown's coaching strategy. 

I think I'm confused.

And yeah, that step-back 3 by TT was certainly Jalen-esque, as was putting up 8 shots in 16 minutes and hitting only 37.5% of them. The only positive was that he didn't complain about Skiles "disrespecting" him by bringing him off the bench.

And k4e, were you among the masses who left when the Bobcats were up by 25 in the 3rd quarter? It doesn't sound that way, but I was thinking about you last night when the Bulls made the comeback, hoping you didn't miss it.


----------



## Bolts

This from ESPN's Chris Sheridan
Link 




> The guys making the big plays in overtime were Paul Pierce, Ricky Davis and Raef LaFrentz, not Matt Barnes, Davis and Jamal Crawford.
> 
> Especially not Crawford.
> 
> The shooting guard who learned before tipoff that he had lost his starting job to Quentin Richardson found himself playing in crunch time because Richardson was too sore to be fully effective. Crawford threw away a pass and had a shot blocked during a 39-second span of overtime in which Boston's lead went from seven to 13, ending all doubt. But those poor plays were only a sampling from Crawford, whose out-of-control shot selection and slipshod decision making will have to be one of the first things Brown tries to rein in.
> 
> Crawford ended up with six turnovers, while Marbury had five and shot just 5-for-12 from the foul line. Curry also missed seven free throws, and he repeatedly failed to step outside and guard Blount as the Celtics' center kept hitting jumpers.
> 
> Crawford acknowledged that Boston had made all the hustle plays, while Marbury defended the Knicks by saying all their mistakes were correctable.


That's going to leave a mark.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> But I meant it's refreshing to have a guy who doesn't complain about not being a starter as long as he gets his minutes. We kept hearing from Jamal how Brown is such a great coach who is going to help Jamal take his game to the next level, yet it only took one regular season game for Jamal to question Brown's coaching strategy.
> 
> I think I'm confused.


Is this the questioning you are talking about? Seems like a professional comment to me. Was Jamal pouting when it was his time to play? 



> "I think I had a great camp, I adjusted well," said Crawford, who entered with 4:20 left in the first quarter. "I'll be professional and be ready when my number is called. That's it. That's my statement. I'm done with it. I'll be professional, be ready when my number is called."





bullsville said:


> And yeah, that step-back 3 by TT was certainly Jalen-esque, as was putting up 8 shots in 16 minutes and hitting only 37.5% of them. The only positive was that he didn't complain about Skiles "disrespecting" him by bringing him off the bench.


You are right, I don't think TT cares much about even playing time or starting. Jalen has a ton of pride. TT does not even have that anymore I don't think. He truly does not care, IMO. 



bullsville said:


> And k4e, were you among the masses who left when the Bobcats were up by 25 in the 3rd quarter? It doesn't sound that way, but I was thinking about you last night when the Bulls made the comeback, hoping you didn't miss it.


No way! I never leave a sporting event early. I sat through nearly every game of the Ron Mercer era from start to finish, I'm sure as hell not going to leave a game when we have Ben Gordon on the roster. 

I'll admit to letting out a boo to end the half though. The boo-birds were out, as well they should have. Man, there were a lot of long faces in the stands going into that 4th quarter. Good thing they pulled this game out.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I can certainly live without 4-18, although unlike JC it was nice to see Ben continually getting to the hole. It would have been a hell of a lot nicer if he would have hit a few of them, though.
> 
> But I meant it's refreshing to have a guy who doesn't complain about not being a starter as long as he gets his minutes. We kept hearing from Jamal how Brown is such a great coach who is going to help Jamal take his game to the next level, yet it only took one regular season game for Jamal to question Brown's coaching strategy.


Do you have one quote where Jamal complained ? Where did he question Browns strategy ? youre reaching in an attempt to try to compare two entirely different situations.


----------



## Ron Cey

Bolts said:


> This from ESPN's Chris Sheridan
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's going to leave a mark.


Ouch. 

Anyway, Crawford was complaining about not starting after a loss. So maybe its kind of understandable. Lord knows he's not the type of whining sissy that would complain about not starting after a much needed team win. Oh, wait . . . . . 

As for his minutes, that didn't seem to impress Crawford as much as it does DaBullz and K4E. Probably because he knew it was because Richardson was injured. Either that, or he's just a selfish crybaby. Take your pick.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Anyway, Crawford was complaining about not starting after a loss. So maybe its kind of understandable. Lord knows he's not the type of whining sissy that would complain about not starting after a much needed team win. Oh, wait . . . . .
> 
> As for his minutes, that didn't seem to impress Crawford as much as it does DaBullz and K4E. Probably because he knew it was because Richardson was injured. Either that, or he's just a selfish crybaby. Take your pick.



or it could be that you dont know what youre talking about ?

Crawfords comments were BEFORE the game


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Is this the questioning you are talking about? Seems like a professional comment to me. Was Jamal pouting when it was his time to play?


No, I was going by the writer's description that *"Jamal Crawford sounded disappointed and angered that Larry Brown threw a curveball with his starting lineup last night, benching him at shooting guard in favor of Quentin Richardson for last night's season opener."*

Granted, it's the NY Post, so if the writer lied, I apologize to Jamal. JC certainly said the right things in the quote, but I didn't see him say it so I can only take the writer's report as to how he sounded.



> You are right, I don't think TT cares much about even playing time or starting. Jalen has a ton of pride. TT does not even have that anymore I don't think. He truly does not care, IMO.


TT may be the prime example of the bad things that happen when you pay a guy the max based mostly on potential. It's early in the season, but so far you are right that TT doesn't seem to care very much any more.



> No way! I never leave a sporting event early. I sat through nearly every game of the Ron Mercer era from start to finish, I'm sure as hell not going to leave a game when we have Ben Gordon on the roster.
> 
> I'll admit to letting out a boo to end the half though. The boo-birds were out, as well they should have. Man, there were a lot of long faces in the stands going into that 4th quarter. Good thing they pulled this game out.


Good for you, I can't imagine ever paying that much money for tix and then leaving before the game is over.

And you shouldn't have to "admit" to booing and the end of the first half, the Bulls fully deserved it. Not because of the deficit, because Charlotte was hitting every shot they threw up, it seemed- but because the effort was non-existent.


----------



## Ron Cey

TRUTHHURTS said:


> or it could be that you dont know what youre talking about ?
> 
> Crawfords comments were BEFORE the game


Oops. I missed that.

That makes it all better then. Publicly whining about not starting going INTO a game is far better for the team than to complain afterwards.

EDIT: I too am going by the writer's description of events. I also think that description matches the terse "That's my statement. I'm done with it." part of the quote. It also matches with Crawford's deplorable behaviour after the Orlando win a couple of years ago.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> Oops. I missed that.
> 
> That makes it all better then. Publicly whining about not starting going INTO a game is far better for the team than to complain afterwards.


where did he whine ? sounds to me like he was disappointed in learning after having a great preseason he wouldnt be starting from writers poking him for some nice juicy quotes.

The writer even uses the word BENCHING when Jamal played 37 mpg just to give all you haters that tingly feeling all over.


----------



## Ron Cey

TRUTHHURTS said:


> where did he whine ? sounds to me like he was disappointed in learning after having a great preseason he wouldnt be starting from writers poking him for some nice juicy quotes.
> 
> The writer even uses the word BENCHING when Jamal played 37 mpg just to give all you haters that tingly feeling all over.


Haters. I love that. What about "jock sniffers" and "fanboys"? Those are good ones too.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> Haters. I love that. What about "jock sniffers" and "fanboys"? Those are good ones too.



I dont know it all depends on how you would classify YOURSELF .


----------



## MitchMatch

JC still has mad game. Once he learns how to play...if ever, he will tear people apart.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> Oops. I missed that.
> 
> That makes it all better then. Publicly whining about not starting going INTO a game is far better for the team than to complain afterwards.
> 
> EDIT: I too am going by the writer's description of events. I also think that description matches the terse "That's my statement. I'm done with it." part of the quote. It also matches with Crawford's deplorable behaviour after the Orlando win a couple of years ago.



and youre wrong again Crawfords comments were after the NO win because in the orlando win he outplayed Tmac with a monster statline of 27 6 and 4 . 

Its just amazing that you can always be so quick to jump to the wrong conclusion .

Im still waiting on the quote of him whining unless of course you can explain how you get whining form this statement 



> I think I had a great camp, I adjusted well," said Crawford, who entered with 4:20 left in the first quarter. "I'll be professional and be ready when my number is called. That's it. That's my statement. I'm done with it. I'll be professional, be ready when my number is called."


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> No, I was going by the writer's description that *"Jamal Crawford sounded disappointed and angered that Larry Brown threw a curveball with his starting lineup last night, benching him at shooting guard in favor of Quentin Richardson for last night's season opener."*


What's the problem with being disappointed and angry? 

I would expect him to be. He wants to be out on the court. He wants to earn that paycheck. It seems he dealt with the benching just fine. 

I still don't see what you are basing your "JC questioned LB" line on. Can you show me?

I understand a lot of people dislike a sense of entitlement, especially when it comes with a swagger, bling and a headband, but I'll take Jamal's attitude over TT and EROB any day. 

TT is an empty husk, who just so happens to be our highest paid player. Let’s hope Skiles can get though to him.


----------



## Ron Cey

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I dont know it all depends on how you would classify YOURSELF .


I'm curious, because I don't use the term "hater". But isn't it supposed to apply to people who "hate on" an athlete because of how *good* he/she is? 

Like "Kobe Bryant wouldn't be anywhere near as good if he didn't get all those calls"? 

If I say that Chris Dudley lacks coordination and can't sink a free throw to save his life, does that make me a Chris Dudley "hater" or am I stating the obvious?


----------



## Ron Cey

TRUTHHURTS said:


> and youre wrong again Crawfords comments were after the NO win because in the orlando win he outplayed Tmac with a monster statline of 27 6 and 4 .
> 
> Its just amazing that you can always be so quick to jump to the wrong conclusion .
> 
> Im still waiting on the quote of him whining unless of course you can explain how you get whining form this statement


Well, it was after the Orlando win. But it hardly matters if he complained of not starting after a win against Orlando or New Orleans. Is the point the opponent, or the comments that came afterwards?

Its like complaining about a news report saying Jayson Williams shot a guy after eating prime rib when, in fact, he had a NY Strip.


----------



## DaBullz

Ron Cey said:


> Haters. I love that. What about "jock sniffers" and "fanboys"? Those are good ones too.


Does Pax still wear a jock?


----------



## bullsville

Ron Cey said:


> Well, it was after the Orlando win. But it hardly matters if he complained of not starting after a win against Orlando or New Orleans. Is the point the opponent, or the comments that came afterwards?
> 
> Its like complaining about a news report saying Jayson Williams shot a guy after eating prime rib when, in fact, he had a NY Strip.


Jayson Williams had chicken that night, you liar.


----------



## Electric Slim

bullsville said:


> Jayson Williams had chicken that night, you liar.


Stop! I'm sick about arguiing on this subject! Besides, whatever he was eating he must have needed some Grey Poupon.


----------



## such sweet thunder

As of now, there are more posts in this thread then there are people in Crab Orchard, West Virginia [population 2760].


----------



## bullsville

Electric Slim said:


> Stop! I'm sick about arguiing on this subject! Besides, whatever he was eating he must have needed some Grey Poupon.


Where in the hell do you get this stuff?

It was in all the papers that Williams was a plain yellow mustard kind of guy. :banana: 

Jeez!


----------



## Bolts

This thread is not even close to the Chiefs planet "Bikini Thread" - Posts = *24,189* Views=*881,900 *


Linque


----------



## MikeDC

*OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*

We should probably institute a rule that no one is allowed to post in the Curry or Crawford thread who hasn't at least made the attempt to say something meaningful in an actual Bulls thread. (That was a joke  )

Certain posters whose direction I'm looking in:

Ron Cey: 10 posts since the Bulls opener. 10 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (100%)

Bullsville: 15 posts since the Bulls opener. 13 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (86%)

Kukoc4Ever: 29 posts since the Bulls opener. 18 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (62%)

DaBullz: 44 posts since the Bulls opener. 2 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (4.5%)

MikeDC: 18 posts since the Bulls opener. 1 post (this one!) in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (5.6%)

I see terms get thrown around here a lot about guys being "fans of the team" vs. "fans of the uniform", and I usually think it's pretty silly. But then at other times, I look at the numbers and it's pretty hard to dispute that some guys seem to be here to overwhelmingly talk about specific guys and everything else is secondary at best.  Of course, I don't have a problem with that, its just that the numbers seem sort of ironic given the guys I've seen make the accusation.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> We should probably institute a rule that no one is allowed to post in the Curry or Crawford thread who hasn't at least made the attempt to say something meaningful in an actual Bulls thread. (That was a joke  )
> 
> Certain posters whose direction I'm looking in:
> 
> Ron Cey: 10 posts since the Bulls opener. 10 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (100%)
> 
> Bullsville: 15 posts since the Bulls opener. 13 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (86%)
> 
> Kukoc4Ever: 29 posts since the Bulls opener. 18 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (62%)
> 
> DaBullz: 44 posts since the Bulls opener. 2 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (4.5%)
> 
> MikeDC: 18 posts since the Bulls opener. 1 post (this one!) in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (5.6%)
> 
> I see terms get thrown around here a lot about guys being "fans of the team" vs. "fans of the uniform", and I usually think it's pretty silly. But then at other times, I look at the numbers and it's pretty hard to dispute that some guys seem to be here to overwhelmingly talk about specific guys and everything else is secondary at best.  Of course, I don't have a problem with that, its just that the numbers seem sort of ironic given the guys I've seen make the accusation.



LOL. What % is the white/black cutoff?

The multi-post arguments tend to break out in this thread more than the others. For instance, this morning my Bulls fandom was being questioned and I had to defend it! 
Damn, my % just went up.


----------



## yodurk

I've stated for several years now that I believe Jamal Crawford's best role in the NBA is as a backup combo-guard (not too unlike his role for the Bulls in 02-03). As the first guard off the bench, he has the possibility of playing 25 min/game and using a mixture of his talents at both PG & SG. His defensive limits are masked because he's likely playing less minutes against starting guards, and simply because he's on the court less. And the fact that he can be flashy would add to his appeal. This all adds up to possible 6th man of the year honors.

Larry Brown is giving him a golden opportunity to thrive in this role. And now he values his personal pride as a starter, it appears, more than team success. I think eventually Jamal will accept it and do his best in this role. But I think it says alot about what motivates Jamal to play basketball. Personal accolades over winning.


----------



## bullsville

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*

Well, I wasn't online during the game, so I couldn't post in the game thread.

And although I read it from page 10 on after the game, I didn't bother commenting, because I would have been saying the same thing over and over and over.

I read "game's over" about 50 times, and I could have replied with 50 "did you watch the Bulls last year?" posts and point out how the Bulls are never out of a game, but why bother?


----------



## kukoc4ever

yodurk said:


> Larry Brown is giving him a golden opportunity to thrive in this role. And now he values his personal pride as a starter, it appears, more than team success. I think eventually Jamal will accept it and do his best in this role. But I think it says alot about what motivates Jamal to play basketball. Personal accolades over winning.


I still have not seen anything posted that says that Jamal didn't take the benching like a pro.

Surprised and angered? You want that, right? He still went out there and played the 3rd most minutes on the team in a manner that prompted Larry Brown to keep him in the game.

Where is the quote from the game yesterday that shows that Jamal didn't act like a pro?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Perhaps the questioning of fandom posts should be moved to a "Ron Cey and Bullsville's Spanish Inquisition Thread."


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> We should probably institute a rule that no one is allowed to post in the Curry or Crawford thread who hasn't at least made the attempt to say something meaningful in an actual Bulls thread. (That was a joke  )
> 
> Certain posters whose direction I'm looking in:
> 
> Ron Cey: 10 posts since the Bulls opener. 10 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (100%)
> 
> Bullsville: 15 posts since the Bulls opener. 13 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (86%)
> 
> Kukoc4Ever: 29 posts since the Bulls opener. 18 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (62%)
> 
> DaBullz: 44 posts since the Bulls opener. 2 posts in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (4.5%)
> 
> MikeDC: 18 posts since the Bulls opener. 1 post (this one!) in the Jamal and Eddy Threads (5.6%)
> 
> I see terms get thrown around here a lot about guys being "fans of the team" vs. "fans of the uniform", and I usually think it's pretty silly. But then at other times, I look at the numbers and it's pretty hard to dispute that some guys seem to be here to overwhelmingly talk about specific guys and everything else is secondary at best.  Of course, I don't have a problem with that, its just that the numbers seem sort of ironic given the guys I've seen make the accusation.


Maybe do your little percentages relative to all posts ever instead of just today. When I logged on today, these threads were at the top of the page generating discussion and I joined in. I've never once sought out or bumped one of these threads. But when they are active, I participate.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps the questioning of fandom posts should be moved to a "Ron Cey and Bullsville's Spanish Inquisition Thread."


Or maybe you could just start a "I'm rooting for the Knicks to win even though Knick wins adversely affect the Bulls" thread and see who shares in your hopes and dreams. 

When you come to a Bulls board and openly root for a team whose unconditional first round pick is owned by the Bulls, you might anticipate catching a little hell for it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Or maybe you could just start a "I'm rooting for the Knicks to win evend though Knick wins adversely affect the Bulls" thread and see who shares in your hopes and dreams.
> 
> When you come to a Bulls board and openly root for a team whose unconditional first round pick is owned by the Bulls, you might anticipate catching a little hell for it.


Hey, if you ever decide to pony up and become a supporting member, why not try one of these for your avatar? 



















Who would the third member be, besides you and bullsville?


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey, if you ever decide to pony up and become a supporting member, why not try one of these for your avatar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would the third member be, besides you and bullsville?


Whatever man.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Ron Cey said:


> Maybe do your little percentages relative to all posts ever instead of just today. When I logged on today, these threads were at the top of the page generating discussion and I joined in. I've never once sought out or bumped one of these threads. But when they are active, I participate.


And with that post, you're at 14 of 14. That's a _little_ 100 percentage.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> And with that post, you're at 14 of 14. That's a _little_ 100 percentage.


Lets make it 15 or 16 or whatever it is. I'll keep posting in this thread all day if there is something to discuss. But the number of my posts here is a small percentage of my posts over all. If you have a point other than to specifically call me out, it is a weak one. 

Frankly, I think you're just trying to pick a fight notwithstanding the presence of the smiley faces. I'm not going to accomodate that. 

Later dude.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Ron Cey said:


> Lets make it 15 or 16 or whatever it is. I'll keep posting in this thread all day if there is something to discuss. But the number of my posts here is a small percentage of my posts over all. If you have a point other than to specifically call me out, it is a weak one.
> 
> Frankly, I think you're just trying to pick a fight notwithstanding the presence of the smiley faces. I'm not going to accomodate that.
> 
> Later dude.


Still batting 1.000!

Yeah, I AM giving you a hard time. No, it's not a weak point. You're on here complaining about others' fandom. Pretty much exclusively today, but while today's posts are a minority of your total posts, they're pretty indicative of what you seem to be all about. You're telling me that's ALL you've got to bring to the table after the season opener of YOUR team?

No comment on Chris Duhon's triple double.
No comment on the big comeback.
No comment on Kirk getting hurt.
No comment on Pike shooting the lights out.

I agree those things are all of much secondary importance to Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, and how acceptable a Bulls fan you find K4E to be.

I'll quit now, it's just that _sometimes a thread comes along that seems innocent enough but then cuts through the crap _[and]_ really illuminates where posters are coming from_. But despite my long memory of such things, I think it'd be more entertaining to go back to talking about the Bulls.


----------



## Electric Slim

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> Still batting 1.000!


DC, I always thought that you were one of the more mature posters here. Why this?


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*

..


----------



## lgtwins

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> Still batting 1.000!
> 
> Yeah, I AM giving you a hard time. No, it's not a weak point. You're on here complaining about others' fandom. Pretty much exclusively today, but while today's posts are a minority of your total posts, they're pretty indicative of what you seem to be all about. You're telling me that's ALL you've got to bring to the table after the season opener of YOUR team?
> 
> No comment on Chris Duhon's triple double.
> No comment on the big comeback.
> No comment on Kirk getting hurt.
> No comment on Pike shooting the lights out.
> 
> I agree those things are all of much secondary importance to Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, and how acceptable a Bulls fan you find K4E to be.
> 
> I'll quit now, it's just that _sometimes a thread comes along that seems innocent enough but then cuts through the crap _[and]_ really illuminates where posters are coming from_. But despite my long memory of such things, I think it'd be more entertaining to go back to talking about the Bulls.


I believe once you called a poster "worthless piece of s***" for picking on another poster without contributing the discussion. 

Am I seeing the same behavior here or not?


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> Still batting 1.000!
> 
> Yeah, I AM giving you a hard time. No, it's not a weak point. You're on here complaining about others' fandom. Pretty much exclusively today, but while today's posts are a minority of your total posts, they're pretty indicative of what you seem to be all about. You're telling me that's ALL you've got to bring to the table after the season opener of YOUR team?
> 
> No comment on Chris Duhon's triple double.
> No comment on the big comeback.
> No comment on Kirk getting hurt.
> No comment on Pike shooting the lights out.
> 
> I agree those things are all of much secondary importance to Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, and how acceptable a Bulls fan you find K4E to be.
> 
> I'll quit now, it's just that _sometimes a thread comes along that seems innocent enough but then cuts through the crap _[and]_ really illuminates where posters are coming from_. But despite my long memory of such things, I think it'd be more entertaining to go back to talking about the Bulls.


I talk about other stuff in here all the time. Every day, in fact. Today I'm writing about Curry and Crawford in threads that I neither created or bumped myself. I'll post in the threads of my choosing based on what interests me at the particular time, if that's alright Mike. 

And miz, I saw your thread but I'm not going to not respond to this. Now I'll stop.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



lgtwins said:


> I believe once you called a poster "worthless piece of s***" for picking on another poster without contributing the discussion.
> 
> Am I seeing the same behavior here or not?


Only if you're saying Ron was picking on someone and contributing nothing to the discussion.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Ron Cey said:


> I talk about other stuff in here all the time. Every day, in fact.


Not today, apparently.



> Today I'm writing about Curry and Crawford in threads that I neither created or bumped myself. I'll post in the threads of my choosing based on what interests me at the particular time, if that's alright Mike.


Of course it is. You're completely free to post about whatever you like. Posting largely or exclusively about Curry and Crawford and having nothing to say about the Bulls is perfectly acceptable. I didn't mean to imply you weren't a fan, or that your failure to be interested enough to say anything to about actual Bulls games and Bulls players implied you were more about giving people a hard time than about talking basketball.

This is, after all, a message board, and it'd be silly call out someone or insult them just because they don't share your opinion about what a fan.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*



Mikedc said:


> Not today, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. You're completely free to post about whatever you like. Posting largely or exclusively about Curry and Crawford and having nothing to say about the Bulls is perfectly acceptable. I didn't mean to imply you weren't a fan, or that your failure to be interested enough to say anything to about actual Bulls games and Bulls players implied you were more about giving people a hard time than about talking basketball.
> 
> This is, after all, a message board, and it'd be silly call out someone or insult them just because they don't share your opinion about what a fan.


Edited to end it.


----------



## MikeDC

17 for 17.

That's gotta be some kind of record!


----------



## Soulful Sides

*Re: OT: The Official "Statistically - What are posters really about" Thread*

The most interesting thing about the Kinicks Celtics game last night wasn't even the former Bulls (Antonio Davis didh ave a good shot to send it into overtime), it was Pierce and West and Ricky Davis.

I do not think he might be traded this season as all tend to think. Other question is whether all former Bulls get a thread of their own. 

Antonio Davis vs Songaila anyone?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Mikedc said:


> 17 for 17.
> 
> That's gotta be some kind of record!


Wow. You really were determined to get in one last shot.


----------



## MikeDC

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Wow. You really were determined to get in one last shot.


In the words of former Vice President Spiro Agnew... nolo contendere.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Mikedc said:


> In the words of former Vice President Spiro Agnew... nolo contendere.


What's done is done. Nolo prosequi.


----------



## bullsville

MikeDC- while you were calling me out (not by name, but I know where I've posted) for posting in no other forums, you ignored the fact that I started a forum called "Duhon Joins Rare Company". The only players since 1990 to have opening night triple-doubles are Kidd, Payton, Drexler and Pippen, and now Duhon.

I started a thread trying to talk about Duhon's rare accomplishment last night, and it went so completely ignored that it got merged into another Duhon thread. 

It sounds like you are blaming people for posting mostly in the threads that have other posts. That's where I post, anyway.

What is really sad is that Curry and Crawford threads draw so much attention. Ron Cey and myself aren't talking to each other in those threads, and k4e isn't the only one posting there either.

Maybe you are right, maybe I should find a board that is more concerned with the Bulls than with Eddy and Jamal?


----------



## MikeDC

bullsville said:


> MikeDC- while you were calling me out (not by name, but I know where I've posted) for posting in no other forums, you ignored the fact that I started a forum called "Duhon Joins Rare Company".


But I didn't... I specifically acknowledged that not all of your posts were in this thread. 



> The only players since 1990 to have opening night triple-doubles are Kidd, Payton, Drexler and Pippen, and now Duhon.
> 
> I started a thread trying to talk about Duhon's rare accomplishment last night, and it went so completely ignored that it got merged into another Duhon thread.


And I thought your post on Duhon was interesting... I was going to comment on it but then it disappeared and I didn't figure out till well later where it went. :|



> It sounds like you are blaming people for posting mostly in the threads that have other posts. That's where I post, anyway.


But there are *lots* of threads that have other posts! Since this time yesterday, there are *24 other threads* on this board that have been updated. Sure, a couple of them are duplicative, and with that many to pick from at least a few will be uninteresting to any given person... but still... there's freaking 24 of them! 



> What is really sad is that Curry and Crawford threads draw so much attention. Ron Cey and myself aren't talking to each other in those threads, and k4e isn't the only one posting there either.


Of course not. But each of you have an extremely high volume of posts, and a high volume of posts in the last day or so. And despite the fact that it's freaking opening day and lots of interesting stuff happened, the overwhelming majority of those posts were in those two "sad" threads. You guys make it sound like these were the only two threads on the entire board when it's clearly not the case. Nor have you been bound, gagged, driven to a shack in the middle of Area 51 and hooked up to a computer locked onto these two threads, had a set of car batteries wired to your testicles and told if you don't post at least 10 times a morning you'll get a nasty shock.

Hell, I don't even have a problem with the threads. I don't think they're that "sad"... but if you do, are you making things better or worse by devoting most of your time to them?

THAT is my problem. If it's that sad, that disturbing, that bad... there's the choice of 24 other threads or starting your own! If you don't like the direction things are headed, change them! 

Especially if you're a guy with literally thousands of posts. 



> Maybe you are right, maybe I should find a board that is more concerned with the Bulls than with Eddy and Jamal?


I think that'll be difficult to find. A quick look at RealGM reveals a Curry thread pretty similarly sized to ours and a variety of new Crawford threads that pop up every day or so.

More importantly, going to another board isn't going to do much if you take the same bagage with you. I mean, who's inordinately concerned with Eddy and Jamal here? Nobody's forcing you to spend most of your posts in this thread. No one is commanding that this remain *THE* topic of discussion you devote most of your time too.

Fundamentally this board seems to me to be so concerned with these two threads because several of its leading posters are ignoring most every other topic. If you see that as a problem, there's a easy solution. Take some initiative! *Post in other threads!*


----------



## bullsville

Mikedc said:


> But I didn't... I specifically acknowledged that not all of your posts were in this thread.


No, you didn't, because you didn't *specifically* name me...  



> And I thought your post on Duhon was interesting... I was going to comment on it but then it disappeared and I didn't figure out till well later where it went. :|


Yeah, that's because that beeyatch moderator mizenkay merged my thread. (You know I kid, miz :makeout

But seriously, nobody cared to comment on Duhon's rare feat. They were too busy posting in the Eddy and Jamal threads, apparently. 



> But there are *lots* of threads that have other posts! Since this time yesterday, there are *24 other threads* on this board that have been updated. Sure, a couple of them are duplicative, and with that many to pick from at least a few will be uninteresting to any given person... but still... there's freaking 24 of them!


I just looked, and there are 37 threads on the front page. I have posted in 11 of them. 




> Of course not. But each of you have an extremely high volume of posts, and a high volume of posts in the last day or so. And despite the fact that it's freaking opening day and lots of interesting stuff happened, the overwhelming majority of those posts were in those two "sad" threads. You guys make it sound like these were the only two threads on the entire board when it's clearly not the case. Nor have you been bound, gagged, driven to a shack in the middle of Area 51 and hooked up to a computer locked onto these two threads, had a set of car batteries wired to your testicles and told if you don't post at least 10 times a morning you'll get a nasty shock.
> 
> Hell, I don't even have a problem with the threads. I don't think they're that "sad"... but if you do, are you making things better or worse by devoting most of your time to them?
> 
> THAT is my problem. If it's that sad, that disturbing, that bad... there's the choice of 24 other threads or starting your own! If you don't like the direction things are headed, change them!
> 
> Especially if you're a guy with literally thousands of posts.


Some good points, but again I usually post where there is a conversation to be had. I have posted in many threads, but when most of them don't get replied to I reply to the people who did reply to me.

And I started my own thread, what seemed like a good one praising Duhon for a very rare feat, but not one person responded. Miz was 100% correct to merge it with the "regular" Duhon thread, over 50 views and zero responses tells me that it was a waste of a thread to leave it there on it's own. 



> I think that'll be difficult to find. A quick look at RealGM reveals a Curry thread pretty similarly sized to ours and a variety of new Crawford threads that pop up every day or so.
> 
> More importantly, going to another board isn't going to do much if you take the same bagage with you. I mean, who's inordinately concerned with Eddy and Jamal here? Nobody's forcing you to spend most of your posts in this thread. No one is commanding that this remain *THE* topic of discussion you devote most of your time too.
> 
> Fundamentally this board seems to me to be so concerned with these two threads because several of its leading posters are ignoring most every other topic. If you see that as a problem, there's a easy solution. Take some initiative! *Post in other threads!*


The RealGM boards have a lot more posters than there are here, so the Eddy thread being the same size means that proportionally it is being discuss less (I think). 

And again, obviously a lot of people are inordinately concerned with Eddy and Jamal here, hence the size of their threads. I contribute to those threads, but as you have shown mostly that's conversing with k4e. The rest of the people make those the biggest threads on the board, I just go where the traffic is that I can converse with.

And hey, I don't have a problem discussing Eddy and Jamal right now. At this moment, I'm currently looking very good with my opinions of each player, so why wouldn't I want to discuss them?

And again, I have posted in 1/3 of the topics on the front page, I'm doing my part dammit!!!


----------



## Soulful Sides

Apparnently it did hurt him, at least a bit but it seems like he is going to be professional about it.



> Isiah Thomas, the team president, was busy at practice, speaking privately with Crawford for several minutes and later counseling Curry on his free-throw shooting.
> 
> Crawford, who was clearly stung by Brown's decision to move him to the bench, did not offer any details of his chat with Thomas. He said he had not spoken with Brown about the move, which Brown announced at Wednesday's shoot-around.
> 
> "It's an adjustment," Crawford said. "But I think in the long run it will help the team, because - like you said - we need somebody that can play both positions coming off the bench."


There was another line in this article that I guess belongs in the Eddy Curry update thread but I do not understand why we need two about two players on the same team so I will post it right here.



> Larry Brown said he had not intended to play Curry for 42 minutes, but that it was good for Curry. "I'd play him 50 minutes if I had to now," Brown said. "The more he plays, the quicker he gets in shape." Brown was surprised to find Curry on an exercise machine earlier Wednesday. "I said: 'Wait a second, you don't need that. Just get in practice and get in the game and kill yourself there,' " Brown said. "I know he cares. But do it out here, and do it when you're in the game. Maximize every minute."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/sports/basketball/04knicks.html

Not sure why, but I cannot ever see the Bulls going after a coach like Larry Brown.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Mikedc said:


> Fundamentally this board seems to me to be so concerned with these two threads because several of its leading posters are ignoring most every other topic. If you see that as a problem, there's a easy solution. Take some initiative! *Post in other threads!*


Physician, heal thyself.

Luke 4:23


----------



## MikeDC

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Physician, heal thyself.
> 
> Luke 4:23


But see, I don't mind talking about these subjects. That's why I said "If you see that as a problem" 

(What I do see as a problem, more or less, is spending all one's time here and contributing nothing else. Especially if you complain about these threads being so big, or people not being real Bulls fans or whatever while doing so. If you look, even with this post, my posts in this thread are still a not even close to a majority of my posts here in the last day or so). There's lots of other stuff to talk about!


----------



## such sweet thunder

Harrisburg, Oregon [44°16'16" North, 123°10'7" West] has a population of 2795. It's quaint little town about 15 miles from the hustle and bustle of Euguene, Oregon. 

Just in case anyone is wondering, the racial makeup is %92.99 white with %0.00 Asians. I'm mildly tempted to move there so I can fill the role of "that Asian guy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrisburg,_Oregon


----------



## bullsville

Since this is the Jamal update thread, we should probably update Jamal's stats through tonight's game?

2 games
30.5 min
31.3% FG
25.0% 3's
66.7% FT
7.5 pts
2 reb
2.5 ast
3.5 TO
0.5 stl
0.0 blk
Team stats: 0 wins, 2 losses


----------



## Bull_Market

wow, way to kick off the 06 season, jamal. interesting stats to say the least. and the most, for that matter.

but those stats don't represent jamal's game, quite frankly.

what does, is that he's 6'5'', has multiple killer crossovers, is young with plenty of potential, may or may not have dated sue bird, can throw an alley oop to himself of the backboard, is finally playing for a team without hidden agendas, says all the right things to the media about the importance of defense and team play and shot selection, his potential might take some even more time to be realized, considering he didn't pick a basketball until the eve of the 2000 nba draft, is just a wholesome cuddly wuddly pleasant human specimen, his hobbies include telling people he's "tight" with sue bird and playing doctor with eddy curry.

did i leave anything out? 

he's young and full of potential. give him 7 more years, you'll see. the jamal trade will end up being worse than even the olden polynice for scottie pippen trade. but not much worse. barely not much worse.


----------



## jimmy

this has probably already been covered, afterall, this thread is the longest thread in message board history

does crawford even start?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

I've never posted on this thread until now


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I've never posted on this thread until now


In the words of Alice Cooper: Welcome to my Nightmare


----------



## spongyfungy

jimmy said:


> this has probably already been covered, afterall, this thread is the longest thread in message board history
> 
> does crawford even start?


 Random comments thread had 8,228.

What song are you listening to had 4,922.

Crawford comes off the bench.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Ouch. Thanks for the "update," Spongy.

:laugh:


----------



## giusd

Like many of you i have watched quite a bit of JC play over the last 5 or so years and the one thing i have really noticed is JC is really a pretty sensitive person and things like the bulls trading for jay williams or now coming off the bench really brothers him. And i dont mean like mad or angry but hurts him personally and i think it is really going to hurt his game.

I also have this to say. 1 1/2 years ago i posted multipe times about how i think JC is more a SG than a PG and is really better served to come off the bench than start. The responses to this were not very friendly and i was told my multiple posters that i was an idiot. Bold prediction that is all so true now.

david


----------



## Cap

Well, I guess getting rid of JC worked out for the best, eh? I love threads like this. :laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch

to me this kind of stuff is pretty cool, numbers like this aren't likely to continue



> 30.5 min
> 31.3% FG
> 25.0% 3's
> 66.7% FT
> 7.5 pts
> 2 reb
> 2.5 ast
> 3.5 TO
> 0.5 stl
> 0.0 blk


i only hope those who are putting so much stock in these numbers now , will own up when they change , and I think everyone knows they will change quite a bit over the next 80 games. in fact i think he'll have a significantly better game this afternoon.

and about the knicks in general one look at their minutes beween the 2 games shows there is alot of change among the players , nobody's role appears to be set yet, in fact the speculation in ny papers is that brown is just playing certain players despite the fact they were outplayed in the preseason , just to ease any future disharmony about minutes, by giving players who will certainly have a diminished role big minutes or bigger minutes than most say they deserve, knowing they will get outplayed for their spots on the team.


----------



## giusd

I to agree that JC will play better as the season goes on but this afternoon he looked just awful. He still looks upset by being sent to the bench. I think it is safe to say his confidence is shot. And imho Larry Brown is not the kind of coach who puts up with that kind of silliness.

JC is already getting kicked around by the NY press and it is only going to get worse. he better grow up or his stay in NY may be shorter than he first guessed.

david


----------



## Da Grinch

giusd said:


> I to agree that JC will play better as the season goes on but this afternoon he looked just awful. He still looks upset by being sent to the bench. I think it is safe to say his confidence is shot. And imho Larry Brown is not the kind of coach who puts up with that kind of silliness.
> 
> JC is already getting kicked around by the NY press and it is only going to get worse. he better grow up or his stay in NY may be shorter than he first guessed.
> 
> david



i think you are making too much of things , JC was seemingly bothered by coming off the bench right before the 1st game when the line ups were announced, the reporters were probably the ones who broke it to him, he had a reaction which wasn't bad , but not really good, he was disappointed and said so.

the thing is though , the knicks have no choice but to play him, there is no other players at the pg but crawford and marbury ....nate is a good player but he is a 2 guard, they wont even let him bring the ball up, and penny hasn't seen the floor because he isn't any good and cant guards 1's and is barely able to defend 2's nowadays.

seeing all the JC friendly moves IT has made over the past 6 months from drafting friends from his high school, trading for curry as well as jerome james whom crawford was well familiar with because jamal plays alot of ball in seattle in the offseason with sonics who stay in town. i'd say crawford is a guy they are building around, not just a spare part. as long as he listens to brown and makes a good effort which he is doing, i dont forsee any problem.


----------



## bullet

Poor 'D' Forces Crawford To Sit 



> Jamal Crawford had another troublesome game trying to figure out where to fit in Larry Brown's universe. Crawford scored just two points on 1-for-5 from the floor in the Knicks' 83-81 loss to the Warriors. Worse, he had as many turnovers as assists, three, and had trouble defending.


----------



## giusd

"nate is a good player but he is a 2 guard" you are kidding right. He is only 5'8" and has played PG his whole life and on sunday was matched up against Baron Davis. The fact is the knicks have two PGs and two shooting guards and one is the odd man out. And right now my guess is Larry Brown has JC penciled in as the odd man out until he starts playing D, stops all those TOs, and takes better shots.

david


----------



## bullsville

They are still 0-for-Larry Brown. 

Adonal Foyle scored the go-ahead basket with 48.9 seconds left, then grabbed a crucial rebound on the other end, and the Golden State Warriors survived a frantic final minute to beat Brown's winless Knicks 86-84 on Friday night. 

"It's a tough loss," Brown said. "People start making a run at us and we feel like it's the end of the world. We just lack discipline when things get tough." 

Baron Davis stripped the ball from Jamal Crawford on the Knicks' final possession, and New York didn't even get a shot off to try to tie it. 

"The whole game was frustrating for me," Davis said. "It was an ugly game, but it was a 'W.' Guys stepped up and hit big shots. ... I tried to be a nuisance on defense. I felt like it was an opportunity to go after it (against Crawford), especially down the stretch. *I knew he wasn't passing*, so I took a gamble."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap;_ylt=AiRKm_puVYZQogEa3QGOpM68vLYF?gid=2005111109&prov=ap


----------



## Da Grinch

crawford has seemingly rebounded .

avg. 17 points on .526 fg in 32 minutes in his last 3 games


----------



## Sham

In the interests of fun, here is Crawford through 12 games:


12.7 points
2.3 rebounds
2.9 assists
2.1 turnovers
0.75 steals
0.4 blocks
1.4 fouls

40% shooting
32% three point shooting



Currently in his 13th game, with 9 minutes left in a blowout, he has 5 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 turnovers and 3 fouls, in 14 minutes.


----------



## giusd

In may ways JC stats look quite good. The thing is Larry Brown is way into JC head and it is totally messing up his game. JC needs a lot of postive re-enforcement. But with Brown you dont get much of that. He is a perfectionist and that can really get under the skin of some players and imho that is happening with JC. JC needs to think and play like he is the star. Frankly that is when hi plays best and he needs major positive feedback from the coaches and LB just doesnt do that.

It would no be impossible that JC may be moved sometime this year for something else IT wants.

david


----------



## Electric Slim

ShamBulls said:


> In the interests of fun, here is Crawford through 12 games:
> 
> 
> 12.7 points
> 2.3 rebounds
> 2.9 assists
> 2.1 turnovers
> 0.75 steals
> 0.4 blocks
> 1.4 fouls
> 
> 40% shooting
> 32% three point shooting
> 
> 
> 
> Currently in his 13th game, with 9 minutes left in a blowout, he has 5 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 turnovers and 3 fouls, in 14 minutes.


Yeah, but check out Q's stats if you do not have a weak stomach.


----------



## truebluefan

Doesn't that make NY, 4-9?


----------



## ace20004u

Crawford is utilizing a better shot selection, getting to the line, he has more ft attempts than 3pt attempts, and playing slightly better defense. I don't really care what his stats look like as doing these things will ultimately help him take his game to the next level.


----------



## Sham

ace20004u said:


> Crawford is utilizing a better shot selection, getting to the line, he has more ft attempts than 3pt attempts, and playing slightly better defense. I don't really care what his stats look like as doing these things will ultimately help him take his game to the next level.




Or, more accurately, "back to the level he used to be at".


----------



## madox

ace20004u said:


> he has more ft attempts than 3pt attempts,


That's actually pretty good for him. Last year he tried 512 three's and just 216 FT's.

Looks like QRich is filling that role now for NY. He has tried 40 three's and just 5 FT's. 

What a terrible stat.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal Crawford
eFG: 46.5


Kirk Hinrich
eFG: 45.5


Ben Gordon
eFG: 44.1


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal Crawford
> eFG: 46.5
> 
> 
> Kirk Hinrich
> eFG: 45.5
> 
> 
> Ben Gordon
> eFG: 44.1


RUH ROH!!!


----------



## Bull_Market

hey guys, first time posting on this thread.
sorry, i have yet to check all the posts. will soon.

but quickly - WHO DO YOU THINK IS BETTER HINRICH OR CRAWFORD?


(bull market shoots himself in the head)

:dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead:


----------



## truebluefan

:brokenhea


Bull_Market said:


> hey guys, first time posting on this thread.
> sorry, i have yet to check all the posts. will soon.
> 
> but quickly - WHO DO YOU THINK IS BETTER HINRICH OR CRAWFORD?
> 
> 
> (bull market shoots himself in the head)
> 
> :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead:


 :whoknows: :|  :sigh:


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Bull_Market said:


> sorry, i have yet to check all the posts. will soon.


do yourself a favor and don't bother. :biggrin:


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Jamal Crawford
> eFG: 46.5
> 
> 
> Kirk Hinrich
> eFG: 45.5
> 
> 
> Ben Gordon
> eFG: 44.1



More reason to doubt/mistrust/suspect statistics. We would not be the same or better off with JC instead of one of the two we have.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> More reason to doubt/mistrust/suspect statistics. We would not be the same or better off with JC instead of one of the two we have.


No reason we can't have all 3.

After we make our consolidation trade (i hope) there would be plenty of minutes for the remaining players.

Crawford was a much more effective shooter than Hinrich last year, and he is slightly more effective this year.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ViciousFlogging said:


> RUH ROH!!!


 :laugh:


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> No reason we can't have all 3.
> 
> After we make our consolidation trade (i hope) there would be plenty of minutes for the remaining players.
> 
> Crawford was a much more effective shooter than Hinrich last year, and he is slightly more effective this year.



Duhon Hinrich Gordon are a better fit for this team than any permutation where we remove one player and add JC in. He had 5 years here. The change of scenery has done him well. Now he and QRich and Marbury can go do their thing together.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Duhon Hinrich Gordon are a better fit for this team


I hope we bust this trio up for Paul Pierce.


----------



## GB

That might be an even better fit.

I'd wait for Wade to become a FA though. Who wants to live in Miami AND share the spotlight with Shaq?

He's leaving.


----------



## fl_flash

All's not well in Gotham for JC???? From realgm and JCBIGSIS...

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=443275

Nate starting over Jamal???? (FYI - I thought Nate would be starting for the Knicks by mid-season. Perhaps he's moved that timetable up a bit?)

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=443218

Jamal not a happy camper????


----------



## truebluefan

uh-oh! Fire IT and LB!!!! Wait a minute...wrong team.


----------



## GB

It IS a conundrum...but no more than Gordon.

JC can drop a monsoon of offense on you...but 'right-way' coaches always seem dissatisfied with that. Control freaks?

OTOH...I really expect to hear JC blame the organization for getting his NBA career off to a bad start one day.


----------



## Da Grinch

LB to me is playing the hot hand , nate has had 3 good games starting with the 76er game, i dont really agree with it ...if in fact it turns out to be the case , but i can understand it either way nate has definitely earned a big place in the rotation and against the bulls he should play more than normal.

on the game itself i expect sweets to have his way inside(just matches up really well with curry), frye to get his points outside and nate to to pester duhon into a bad game, until the 4th and then i expect nate to defend gordon , he did an excellent job on AI even drew a charge on him , something that rarely happens 

i also expect both gordon and crawford to have good games and it to go down to the wire, easily the best game of the night.


----------



## Bull_Market

is there any way to bump DOWN a thread? :biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Bull_Market said:


> is there any way to bump DOWN a thread? :biggrin:


As a matter of fact, there is.

But it doesn't seem fair, so I won't.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

Not Listening, Not Listening, La La La, I Can't Hear You. Jama...what? Not Listening!


----------



## USSKittyHawk

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As a matter of fact, there is.
> 
> But it doesn't seem fair, so I won't.


Tom you're such a good sport! :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz

OK, I'll bite.

How has Crawford done recently?


----------



## Sham

He had a good game. And what's more, it was off the bench. Few more of those and we can forget the start of the season ever happened.


----------



## The Krakken

I hate this thread.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Jamal shooting percentage on the rise hes at 43% after tonights game .

The way he played in the 4th was the way hes played off the bench when the knicks have gone to him every since the start that road trip. Not a lot of threes a ton of curl plays and attacking the rim. Along with more hustle and awareness on defense . Hes getting it just gotta be consistent.


----------



## yodurk

He's just so streaky though. Maybe he was out to prove something tonight, but I'm thinking it was just one of those nights where he was feeling it. Jamal is so bipolar sometimes...he shoots you out of games about as often as he shoots you into them. And the way he adds those unnecessary streetball moves to get a shot off, it doesn't make for efficient play. But when he's hot, he's hot. Too bad for the Bulls...it cost us a victory.


----------



## MikeDC

yodurk said:


> He's just so streaky though. Maybe he was out to prove something tonight, but I'm thinking it was just one of those nights where he was feeling it. Jamal is so bipolar sometimes...he shoots you out of games about as often as he shoots you into them. And the way he adds those unnecessary streetball moves to get a shot off, it doesn't make for efficient play. But when he's hot, he's hot. Too bad for the Bulls...it cost us a victory.


I've always thought his ultimate role was going to be as just what he did tonight. Be an absolutely killer 6th man a la Toni Kukoc or Vinnie Johnson. When he's hot he'll when games, when he's not his other skills can still be well utilized to fill in as a sixth man.


----------



## NYKBaller

it belongs in here, right? since they were kinda traded for each other


----------



## step

Nice.


----------



## The Krakken

Its funny, because I still would not trade Ben Gordon for Jamal Crawford straight up.

Period.


----------



## yodurk

Mikedc said:


> I've always thought his ultimate role was going to be as just what he did tonight. Be an absolutely killer 6th man a la Toni Kukoc or Vinnie Johnson. When he's hot he'll when games, when he's not his other skills can still be well utilized to fill in as a sixth man.


I've always said the same.

I was highest on JC during his backup combo-guard role for the Bulls back in 02-03, when he averaged about 10 & 5 assists.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

The Krakken said:


> Its funny, because I still would not trade Ben Gordon for Jamal Crawford straight up.
> 
> Period.


Of course not silly the salaries dont match :wink:


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> I've always said the same.
> 
> I was highest on JC during his backup combo-guard role for the Bulls back in 02-03, when he averaged about 10 & 5 assists.



so when he was named starter that season ...you were against it?

i think JC ideally is an offensive minded pg similar to what has been sam cassell's role throughout most of his career, 

if he can keep his %s where they are now(.433 fg , .375 3pt.) i dont see why he doesn't start for them .


----------



## MikeDC

Da Grinch said:


> so when he was named starter that season ...you were against it?
> 
> i think JC ideally is an offensive minded pg similar to what has been sam cassell's role throughout most of his career,
> 
> if he can keep his %s where they are now(.433 fg , .375 3pt.) i dont see why he doesn't start for them .


It's not so much that I think he shouldn't start based on who his teammates are, but what I think the best role for him would be.

Toni Kukoc started a lot, but he seemed best utilized on a very good team as a very good 6th man.


----------



## lgtwins

NYKBaller said:


> it belongs in here, right? since they were kinda traded for each other


No, you belong to here you should. Kinck's board. I don't particularly appreciate your nose rubbing lately.


----------



## yodurk

Mikedc said:


> It's not so much that I think he shouldn't start based on who his teammates are, but what I think the best role for him would be.
> 
> Toni Kukoc started a lot, but he seemed best utilized on a very good team as a very good 6th man.


Exactly. 

I'll also add that JC doesn't fill any one position well enough to be a starter (unless he's on a hot streak like he was at the end of 02-03). Not unlike Kukoc, really. His body type is best suited for a point guard, but his PG skills are 2nd string quality. His best skill is creating offense, but he isn't special enough with this to be a starting SG. As a 6th man though, he could be a special player. And as a side note, I would've been against Paxson signing him to a 7-year deal where he's paid $6-8M per year if he's only gonna be a 6th man.


----------



## ace20004u

I think it is interesting to note that noone has really mentioned that Jamal is playing differently. He is playing better defense, he blocked Gordon's 3, his shot selection is better (though last night wasn't his best night)...oh well..I'd trade back for him in a heartbeat myself but I guess everyone knows that. Regardless of your opinion on Jamal he absolutely killed the Bulls last night.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Should be a good starting point for a good ol fashioned contest.

Kirk Hinrich
PER: 16.4
eFG: 47.2

Jamal Crawford
PER: 15.5
eFG: 48.1

Ben Gordon
PER: 14.8
eFG: 47.2


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Should be a good starting point for a good ol fashioned contest.
> 
> Kirk Hinrich
> PER: 16.4
> eFG: 47.2
> 
> Jamal Crawford
> PER: 15.5
> eFG: 48.1
> 
> Ben Gordon
> PER: 14.8
> eFG: 47.2


Please let us not keep doing this every time one of these guys has a great game.


----------



## GB

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Crawford


I'll be busy editting this little puppy later on.


----------



## Wynn

> NEW YORK -- *For one night, Larry Brown might be glad to know his players may have ignored him.*
> 
> Jamal Crawford scored a season-high 28 points, and the New York Knicks used a huge advantage at the free-throw line and some strong fourth-quarter defense to beat the Chicago Bulls 109-101 Wednesday night.
> 
> Crawford and the other Knicks guards constantly went hard to the basket in the second half to turn around the game.
> 
> "You have to attack," Crawford said. *"Coach wants us to run our offense, but* we're out there on the court, so if we see something we have to be aggressive."


CBS.sportsline.com


----------



## Da Grinch

Mikedc said:


> It's not so much that I think he shouldn't start based on who his teammates are, but what I think the best role for him would be.
> 
> Toni Kukoc started a lot, but he seemed best utilized on a very good team as a very good 6th man.



there is a world of difference between toni and jamal as players ,(other than the obvious positional, age and skillsets) for one jamal can play defense ...he might be inconsistent at times but jamal can do it as he is showing , maybe starting needs to be the carrot to keep him playing defense, who knows but he can do it , and at 2 spots i am not saying he is a stopper because he isn't but he can defend both guard spots well enough it shouldn't be a weakness...toni could never guard either of the positions he plays on offense well enough for that unless it was just a really favorable matchup, too slow at the 3 too weak at the 4, and didn't rebound at the 4 to boot. he was better off guarding weaker offensive players and being featured on offense, because his weaknesses were almost as powerful as his strengths, which were he was too quick and adept with the ball for most 4's and too big for most 3's. With crawford it isn't the same, he is basically the size of a thin 2 or a tall pg (6'5 and 3/4th is what i believe his official height is.), in fact he is taller than the bulls resident 2 in kirk and he is quicker than duhon the starting pg.

toni was undone as a true starter by something he really couldn't control his body, with crawford i always felt it was a motivational thing, and thats something that is very fixable and i believe it is being fixed on both sides of the ball.


----------



## Da Grinch

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/58707.htm



> Since joining the Knicks one year ago, Jamal Crawford had failed to beat the Bulls in four chances. Last night, with the Knicks being outplayed for three quarters, Crawford sparked a second straight fourth-quarter Garden comeback in drilling the Bulls, 109-101.
> 
> "This one was for Eddy," said Crawford.
> 
> Crawford finished with 28 points off the bench, pulled down six rebounds and sank all 10 of his free throws. Crawford's point total was the highest for a reserve since John Starks' 34 in Atlanta in 1998.
> 
> Crawford, a lax defender, blocked a Ben Gordon 3-point attempt early in the fourth quarter that ratcheted up their momentum. Crawford hooked up with Trevor Ariza for the highlight play of the season that put the Garden into a tizzy.
> 
> "That's the best he's defended since I've been around," said Larry Brown, who heads to Motown for his Palace return tomorrow when the Knicks (5-9) face the Pistons (11-2).





> In fact, the participants of October's trade were non-factors. The Bulls' Tim Thomas is exiled and Michael Sweetney had a quiet night (10 points, four boards).
> 
> Then there was Crawford, acquired in the sign-and-trade in the summer of 2004. Crawford had rough times facing the Bulls last season, as the Knicks were swept in four games. The Bulls were amid a revival without him, the Knicks were in free fall.
> 
> In that final defeat in April at United Center, Crawford missed last-second free throws that allowed the Bulls to clinch homecourt advantage in the first round of the playoffs.
> 
> "That one I took hard," Crawford said. "I broke out in hives on the way home. It was so emotional. I wanted to win that game so bad and I missed the free throws. That one bothered me."
> 
> Trailing for most of last night's game and behind by eight after three quarters, the Knicks forced the Bulls into seven straight misses to begin the fourth, taking their first lead with 8:13 left on an Antonio Davis free throw.
> 
> Crawford admitted he pressed last season and now considers it just another contest. He scored 23 second-half points, 13 in the fourth quarter, slashing to the basket, making pull-ups and hitting all his free throws.
> 
> The Knicks shot 57 free throws, a franchise record at the Garden. Next up is Brown's former club in Detroit.
> 
> "I just want to enjoy this one," Brown said.
> 
> When Robinson forced a shot in the third, Brown yanked the rookie for Crawford.
> 
> "It's nice to rise to the occasion when coach is on you," Crawford said. "You want to make coach proud."
> 
> In one of the season's highlights, Crawford sprinted on a fastbreak, made a behind the head flip to Ariza, who rammed it down for a right-handed power dunk over Andres Nocioni with 8:52 left to tie it at 82. During the Chicago timeout, the replay was shown over and over on the scoreboard as the fans roared.
> 
> Channing Frye, whom Brown said will definitely remain in the starting lineup even when Curry returns, scored 21 points with eight rebounds. An attacking Stephon Marbury had one of his best all-around games(18 points, three steals, eight assists, 12-of-14 from the line).
> 
> Gordon, the former UConn star, replaced Crawford in Chicago and killed them from the 3-point line in the first half, draining four of six, scoring 15 first-half points.
> 
> But in the end, it was all Crawford.


----------



## settinUpShop

Da Grinch said:


> there is a world of difference between toni and jamal as players ,(other than the obvious positional, age and skillsets) for one jamal can play defense ...he might be inconsistent at times but jamal can do it as he is showing , maybe starting needs to be the carrot to keep him playing defense, who knows but he can do it , and at 2 spots i am not saying he is a stopper because he isn't but he can defend both guard spots well enough it shouldn't be a weakness...toni could never guard either of the positions he plays on offense well enough for that unless it was just a really favorable matchup, too slow at the 3 too weak at the 4, and didn't rebound at the 4 to boot. he was better off guarding weaker offensive players and being featured on offense, because his weaknesses were almost as powerful as his strengths, which were he was too quick and adept with the ball for most 4's and too big for most 3's. With crawford it isn't the same, he is basically the size of a thin 2 or a tall pg (6'5 and 3/4th is what i believe his official height is.), in fact he is taller than the bulls resident 2 in kirk and he is quicker than duhon the starting pg.
> 
> toni was undone as a true starter by something he really couldn't control his body, with crawford i always felt it was a motivational thing, and thats something that is very fixable and i believe it is being fixed on both sides of the ball.


Very good assessment. I agree completely, and its nice to see him developing under Brown. I had a feeling Brown would eventually work "the right way" out of him. His cieling is very high because of his physical gifts. Once he matures mentally to understand the nuances of the game, he'll be a force, and a consistant one.


----------



## yodurk

Wynn said:


> CBS.sportsline.com


Hey Wynn, welcome back to the board, and thanks for the quote. I think I'll use it as my new sig.


----------



## Bull_Market

...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Bull_Market said:


> hahaha - you guys are STILL talking about jamal in terms of potential? lmfao...
> 
> half of his career is already behind him. he's never played good defense. when he's 29 you'll still say, "well I like jamal because of his natural talent and what he COULD become"
> 
> *fans like you * are an owner's dream. an owner may put a poor product on the court with poor players who don't execute, but MIGHT execute. and as long as he gets the players that most resemble the And One mixtape tour, you'll be happy no matter how much your team loses.
> 
> jamal played bad defense his whole career. toni the same. yet you think there is a difference because you're occupied with what could be instead of what is. you're little boys. that's insane. if I F up at work, my boss won't excuse my behavior b/c he thinks I may some day not F up. he'll conclude that I'm not good enough.
> 
> what a joke. eFG...you gotta be kidding me. I'd like to know what lebron's eFG is. probably 65%. so that basically means that 48 is horrible. so you've basically proved nothing. you're just desperately trying to put these awefull shooting numbers in a good light to keep your childish fantasies alive.


Whoa there buddy siunce when is your opinion considered the only one that can be right.

Did you even read this thread jamal has already improved and most who has even bothered paying any attention to the knicks have already seen it. Its not hoping he will because he has and its a belief that he can continue to do so . 

Half his career is over ? How do you know he woint be playing at 38 ? Are you gonna Tonya harding him ? 

If lebron is playing at efg of 65% and he is playing at an mvp level ? then how is 48% considered bad in your book ? Is everoone who doesnt have a efg% of 65 also bad ? 

You should reread your own argument before calling someones elses opinions or behavior childish or questioning what type of fans they are .


----------



## johnston797

Toni Kukoc's BB IQ was just much, much higher than Crawford's. He also provided more winnable mismatches on O than Crawford has to date. But I can buy Craw as a 6th man. But it's on a mediocre team at this point.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Bull_Market said:


> hahaha - you guys are STILL talking about jamal in terms of potential? lmfao...
> 
> half of his career is already behind him. he's never played good defense. when he's 29 you'll still say, "well I like jamal because of his natural talent and what he COULD become"
> 
> fans like you are an owner's dream. an owner may put a poor product on the court with poor players who don't execute, but MIGHT execute. and as long as he gets the players that most resemble the And One mixtape tour, you'll be happy no matter how much your team loses.
> 
> jamal played bad defense his whole career. toni the same. yet you think there is a difference because you're occupied with what could be instead of what is. you're little boys. that's insane. if I F up at work, my boss won't excuse my behavior b/c he thinks I may some day not F up. he'll conclude that I'm not good enough.
> 
> what a joke. eFG...you gotta be kidding me. I'd like to know what lebron's eFG is. probably 65%. so that basically means that 48 is horrible. so you've basically proved nothing. you're just desperately trying to put these awefull shooting numbers in a good light to keep your childish fantasies alive.



Thanks for the input *Bull_Market.* Great post!

Here's a link to the league leaders in eFG. You'll see that Lebron's is 52.5.
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_eFG.htm
or you can look at true shooting percentage
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_TSP.htm

Both of these are much better than just looking at a FG% and saying "he's an and-1 chucker," since they take the power of the three-point shot into consideration and FTs in the case of TS%.

Also, you'll see that Crawford's eFG of 48.1 places him at 118/245, which is slightly above-median.


Also, if a player has a PER above 15 they are considered above average. 

Sorry if you don't like to look at the stats. 

Crawford seems to be improving under Brown. Even before Brown he was an above average player. Kukoc won titles in the Euroleague and was a key member of the Bulls title teams. 

We'll see where gritty players like Hinrich and Duhon take this team long term. I hope its deep into the playoffs. Something tells me we'll need Deng or Gordon to develop by leaps and bounds in order to become contenders though.


----------



## MitchMatch

JC > Ben Gordon.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Crawford seems to be improving under Brown.


*NO*, he is not. At least not the way you're insinuating.

Crawfords problem has not been coaching. It's been Crawford.

He's been asked to the basics, the fundamentals. Brown hasn't asked him to do
anything wildly fancy that separates him from the other NBA players. Just be fundamental.

It's the same thing Floyd, Cartwright, and Skiles taught him. If he's improving, it's just that now, 5 or 6 seasons in, *he's* decided to do it. 

If I'm wrong, tell me what Brown is asking of him and what he is doing in response that Paxson and Skiles failed to request of him.


----------



## step

> NO, he is not. At least not the way you're insinuating.


Indeed, he's had what one good game and that was vs the Bulls, not to mention many countless bad ones.
Hopefully he keeps up the trend though, the Knicks do need him to play decently.

Also anyone catch Ariza's dunk on Wallace? HOOJ!


----------



## Bull_Market

k4e is desperately reaching.

crawford had a few good games, and apparently that's good enough to negate a terrible career.


----------



## Sham

Good news: Jamal had a 22 point 6 assist effort tonight.

Even better news: He managed to hold Rip Hamilton to only 40 points.


----------



## bullsville

Jamal has managed to become an average player for a bottom-5 team.

Congratulations, Jamal.


----------



## Sham

bullsville said:


> Jamal has managed to become an average player for a bottom-5 team.
> 
> Congratulations, Jamal.




Are you saying he was bvelow average for us?


----------



## bullsville

ShamBulls said:


> Are you saying he was bvelow average for us?


Exactly.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> *NO*, he is not. At least not the way you're insinuating.
> 
> Crawfords problem has not been coaching. It's been Crawford.
> 
> He's been asked to the basics, the fundamentals. Brown hasn't asked him to do
> anything wildly fancy that separates him from the other NBA players. Just be fundamental.
> 
> It's the same thing Floyd, Cartwright, and Skiles taught him. If he's improving, it's just that now, 5 or 6 seasons in, *he's* decided to do it.
> 
> If I'm wrong, tell me what Brown is asking of him and what he is doing in response that Paxson and Skiles failed to request of him.


I'm not privy to the internal working of the Knicks. I don't know exactly what Brown is doing, or how he does it. If I did, I'd probably be coaching in the NBA.

Crawford was always a project. A very raw recruit to the NBA. I agree that its always been on Jamal. Its also the organizations responsibility to get the most out of the talent you acquire or inherit. 

How much of it comes from within and how much is imparted from a coach? Can't quantify that. He's playing better to start the season in NYC.

Right now his true shooting percentage is 53.9, which places this "chucker" in the top 2/5 of NBA players in overall shooting effectiveness. His PER so far this season is 15.5, indicating he's an above average NBA player so far. Both of these are better than Hinrich, Duhon or Gordon.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Knicks.htm
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_TSP.htm
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Bulls.htm

As for his D so far this year, the PGs he's matched up against have a PER of 14.1 and the SGs have a PER of 14.9 so it appears he's not getting lit up by any stretch this season.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05NYK3C.HTM

In fact, he's getting the 2nd most minutes played on a team that's rated as good a defensive team as our beloved Bulls.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/d_de.htm


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Jamal has managed to become an average player for a bottom-5 team.
> 
> Congratulations, Jamal.


AD's PER is 9.4 so far this season. He's become a below average player on a bottom five team. 

And now it turns out he misses his family. 

Man, AD deserved better for the good job he did here with the Bulls. He deserved better.


----------



## bullsville

I'm sorry, but what exactly does AD's PER have to do with Jamal? 

I thought this was the "Jamal Crawford Update" thread.


----------



## Bull_Market

the answer to your question, bullsville - is absolutely nothing. it's called reaching.

just like putting out the average of points scored by all the players you defended. a total misleading stat, considering it includes poor players. how many players score 20 ppg anyway? how silly.

how about calculate the average fg% of all the opponets jamal has ever guarded, and calculate the fg% they shot against him.

and how about waiting more than a few games into the season before you say that 5 terrible seasons are now negated.


----------



## truebluefan

I have a couple of questions. 

1. This is page 192 of a Jamal Crawford thread. How come we never had a Elton Brand, Ron Artest or even a Brad Miller thread? Ot a Yell' Marshall or even a Jalen Rose? To me, they were better players than Crawford. Jamal is good in his own way but does he warrent a 192 page thread and still growing? What gets me is most of this was when he went to be 'real organization' and the poster that started this thread, intended to remind us daily of what we let go. 

2. How would he fit on this club? Where would he be in the rotation?

3. how can a guard, being in his 6th year in the NBA and play as many minutes as Jamal has played still be considered 'raw?" He has had 5 coaches(6 counting pete Myers) I would think somewhere among those 6 coaches that someone would have gotten to his raw talent and improve him dramatically if Jamal had it in him. This is an honest question and is not intended to belittle I really want to know. Is it because of his age? He is just 24, 25. 

Also in what ways has LB improved his game. I have not been watching but he has lost his starting job, (I know that means nothing really, look at Gordon) and his minutes are cut back. His shooting is up! But the rest of his game is either the same or worse. Has his defense really improved all that much? If so, in what ways? Iam curious. If Larry Brown is improving him then, great! I am glad for him. 

Personally I can see a Eddy Curry being much larger than this one but it has a long way to go to catch up.


----------



## Sham

> 1. This is page 192 of a Jamal Crawford thread. How come we never had a Elton Brand, Ron Artest or even a Brad Miller thread? Ot a Yell' Marshall or even a Jalen Rose? To me, they were better players than Crawford. Jamal is good in his own way but does he warrent a 192 page thread and still growing? What gets me is most of this was when he went to be 'real organization' and the poster that started this thread, intended to remind us daily of what we let go.




Because this is not about Crawford, it's about Paxson. Thread will go when he does. Or so it seems.





> 2. How would he fit on this club? Where would he be in the rotation?




I feel he would have Pargo's role, with Gordon's time. Not instead of Gordon, but alongside him, in a occasionally effective but occasionally very uneffective pairing.







> 3. how can a guard, being in his 6th year in the NBA and play as many minutes as Jamal has played still be considered 'raw?" He has had 5 coaches(6 counting pete Myers) I would think somewhere among those 6 coaches that someone would have gotten to his raw talent and improve him dramatically if Jamal had it in him.



That's THE good bloody question. 192 pages in, I still don't think we know. He just is.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ShamBulls said:


> Good news: Jamal had a 22 point 6 assist effort tonight.
> 
> Even better news: He managed to hold Rip Hamilton to only 40 points.



Did you watch the games Sham because if you didnt and you only read the boxscore your making yourself look rather foolish .

He didnt start the game Qrich did and Rip did most of his damage at the start of the 1st and 3rd quarters.Crawford didnt really guard hamilton until late in the 4th quarter he was matched up on Evans and Prince most of his minutes as Brown used Ariza and Q on Hamilton the majority of minutes 


TBF- you wanna know why there is such a long Crawford thread Shams comments is your explanation


----------



## Sham

He also scored a big chunk of his points when the game was blown open. Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

GB said:


> *NO*, he is not. At least not the way you're insinuating.
> 
> Crawfords problem has not been coaching. It's been Crawford.
> 
> He's been asked to the basics, the fundamentals. Brown hasn't asked him to do
> anything wildly fancy that separates him from the other NBA players. Just be fundamental.
> 
> It's the same thing *Floyd, Cartwright*, and Skiles taught him. If he's improving, it's just that now, 5 or 6 seasons in, *he's* decided to do it.
> 
> If I'm wrong, tell me what Brown is asking of him and what he is doing in response that Paxson and Skiles failed to request of him.


Are you saying Floyd and BC are on the same level as Skiles ? as someone who sat through all of that garbage get real man. 

The difference between Brown skiles to a certain degree and the other two is that Jamal wasnt asked to and expected to "save" the franchise. Maybe if we keep Artest and Brand then Jamal can just fit into a role and not be pushed into savior mode along with Tyson and Eddy .

Whats the first thing Skiles did when he took over ? remove the "savior" tags from Tyson and eddy and say they will play a role that will be bigger than the other players but not the one of "savior". 

Brown is Ny has asked jamal to just play his role and then allow the game to come to him there is no other team that hes been on in his career that didnt need Jamal as a volume shooter taking a ton of shots.


----------



## The Krakken

MitchMatch said:


> JC > Ben Gordon.


You are dreaming.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ShamBulls said:


> He also scored a big chunk of his points when the game was blown open. Swings and roundabouts.


So are you saying scoring points in an attempted comeback dont count ? the knicks had the lead cut down to 6 and then missed two ft's with a minute left .They were down like 19 at one point in the 4th.Jamal has 10 and 3 in the first half and finished with 20 and 6......r..e..a..c..h..i..n..g


----------



## Sham

> So are you saying scoring points in an attempted comeback dont count ?



No, I'm saying it's all about context. Which, after all, is what you just preached to me.


I get the feeling this might not end for a while.


*buys popcorn*


----------



## The Krakken

I think both sides are reaching. He's not nearly as good as his supporters claim, nor is he nearly as bad as his detractors claim. He is what he is.....an average NBA guard, with loads of talent, but like Tim Thomas....it likely will go largely unrealized.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ShamBulls said:


> No, I'm saying it's all about context. Which, after all, is what you just preached to me.
> 
> 
> I get the feeling this might not end for a while.
> 
> 
> *buys popcorn*





> He managed to hold Rip Hamilton to only 40 points.


Isnt this your comment ? :laugh: 

Its not about context to me its about the true or false . Some would actually believe that nonsense you posted to be true as not everyone saw the game.I mean what is this board coming to when someone would post a lie in a thread just to get a response. 

krakken- its not even about sides if you noticed there are quite a few posters who can post a comment in this thread good or bad and it wont get debated at all because its a fair analysis that can be debated but you have quite a few who dont care about anything but pushing their need to be right and holding on to semantics.


----------



## Sham

> Its not about context to me its about the true or false . Some would actually believe that nonsense you posted to be true as not everyone saw the game.I mean what is this board coming to when someone would post a lie in a thread just to get a response.



It's not a lie. Them's the facts. But fine, we'll play it your way.


Crawford held Prince to only 19/10 and Evans to 7 points in 12 minutes.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ShamBulls said:


> It's not a lie. Them's the facts. But fine, we'll play it your way.
> 
> 
> Crawford held Prince to only 19/10 and Evans to 7 points in 12 minutes.


and Crawford only played 33 minutes 

rip 41 minutes 
Prince 41 minutes 

prince 6pts in second half 
evans 0 pts in the second half 

game tied at the halftime 

as I said before r.e.a.c.h.i.n.g


----------



## Sham

And as I am saying, p.o.i.n.t.l.e.s.s.

Your above post would infer Crawford only played the second half. Which, as you know, he didn't. But whatever! Who cares! Really!

I think you've deliberately completely missed the point of my first post. And I don't want to play this rather dull game any more.


----------



## bullsville

Jamal has played the 2nd most minutes on the Knicks, by a fairly wide margin. 

So, it seems to make sense that he deserves the 2nd most amount of credit for the Knicks being tied with Portland for the 5th-worst record in the NBA.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> Jamal has played the 2nd most minutes on the Knicks, by a fairly wide margin.
> 
> So, it seems to make sense that he deserves the 2nd most amount of credit for the Knicks being tied with Portland for the 5th-worst record in the NBA.


No, that doesn't follow at all.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ShamBulls said:


> And as I am saying, p.o.i.n.t.l.e.s.s.
> 
> Your above post would infer Crawford only played the second half. Which, as you know, he didn't. But whatever! Who cares! Really!
> 
> I think you've deliberately completely missed the point of my first post. And I don't want to play this rather dull game any more.


How do you infer someone only played a half of a 48 minute game by saying he played 33 minutes ? :laugh: 

Of course you didnt care or your wouldnt have made such a ridicuolous comment and then get mad that it was refuted. :wink: 

If it was a joke say it was joke but cmon here Rip had more points than the entire knicks starting 5 combined last night.


----------



## Sham

> How do you infer someone only played a half of a 48 minute game by saying he played 33 minutes ?



The point being, you chose to list how much they scored in the second half only. As if that was the only time Crawford was guarding them.





> If it was a joke say it was joke but cmon here Rip had more points than the entire knicks starting 5 combined last night.



Now, see, if I was bullsville, I'd chime in here and say "then why can't Jamal get in it?". But I'm not, so I won't.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not privy to the internal working of the Knicks. I don't know exactly what Brown is doing, or how he does it. If I did, I'd probably be coaching in the NBA.
> 
> Crawford was always a project. A very raw recruit to the NBA. I agree that its always been on Jamal. Its also the organizations responsibility to get the most out of the talent you acquire or inherit.
> 
> How much of it comes from within and how much is imparted from a coach? Can't quantify that.


Fancy way of saying "Gee, youo're right GB".


----------



## bullsville

ShamBulls said:


> Now, see, if I was bullsville, I'd chime in here and say "then why can't Jamal get in it?". But I'm not, so I won't.


No, actually IMHO it doesn't matter who *starts*, only who plays the most minutes and who *finishes*.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

ShamBulls said:


> The point being, you chose to list how much they scored in the second half only. As if that was the only time Crawford was guarding them.


Actually I think I made it clear from the start that Crawford didnt start 

But Prince and Rip did !! 

Evans didnt score in the second half 

The knicks were playing great ball in the first half and was leading until Rip hit a shot at the buzzer to tie it before halftime.

Its amazing because your missing the point.Crawford didnt start and didnt play nearly as many minutes but you posted that he couldnt hold rip to less than 40 ?You then moved onto the another STARTER and a backup who hit a three and got a couple of broken play baskets .The knicks had total control of the game in the first half.Ionly showed second half stats because thats where the game was lost.By the time Crawford checked in during the third the pistons had momentum ,Prince had scored all but 2 of his 19 and Rip had put in another 6-8 pts. 

I actually recorded the game since it was on HD and the Bulls were on the alternate channel earlier and Crawford didnt guard Rip but for a few possesions throughout the course of the game 
and when I questioned it you moved on to Prince and Evans. 

I questioned how you came to the conclusion that he only held Rip to 40 when anyone not going off the boxscore would know that 

A Crawford didnt start the game 
B when he did come in he wasnt matched up on Rip during his scoring binges 
C. Rip was destroying Qrich 

So its silly to me how all these other players are dragged into it for any other reason but to take focus off the fact that you were wrong . 



> Now, see, if I was bullsville, I'd chime in here and say "then why can't Jamal get in it?". But I'm not, so I won't.


Its funny because I think its obvious that if Crawford was starting and not finishing it would be said that "its not who starts but who finishes". 

But Im glad to see you speak for Bullsville and that he feels its more important to start than to play the second most minutes and finish games.


:laugh: and see now I must edit my post because Bullsville posted while I was typing my response proving its a reason why you cant speak for someone else on these boards.

Whats funny Im not even saying Jamal was playing outstanding defense just that he wasnt the reason Rip went off for 40 because he wasnt matched up with him for any extended length of time .


----------



## bullsville

TRUTHHURTS said:


> But Im glad to see you speak for Bullsville and that he feels its more important to start than to play the second most minutes and finish games.
> 
> 
> :laugh: and see now I must edit my post because Bullsville posted while I was typing my response proving its a reason why you cant speak for someone else on these boards.


See, that's why you should never assume that an assumption is accurate...


----------



## Sham

bullsville said:


> No, actually IMHO it doesn't matter who *starts*, only who plays the most minutes and who *finishes*.




No one asked you. :naughty:






> You then moved onto the another STARTER and a backup who hit a three and got a couple of broken play baskets




You said he guarded Prince and Evans. You brought them up, not me.








> I questioned how you came to the conclusion that he only held Rip to 40




I would have thought that by now you may have deduced that my statement was a conscious parody of the thread 192 pages in. But you've really picked it up and run with this. I am impressed at your staying power.


----------



## The Krakken

bullsville said:


> Jamal has played the 2nd most minutes on the Knicks, by a fairly wide margin.
> 
> So, it seems to make sense that he deserves the 2nd most amount of credit for the Knicks being tied with Portland for the 5th-worst record in the NBA.


:laugh:

I got to admit. THAT made me laugh out loud.


----------



## Da Grinch

some things on the piston-knicks game and some things on his career.

JC didn't guard rip all that much for 2 reasons he didn't start and he doesn't do a good job on him anyway, anyone who has watched crawford on the bulls knows that, larry brown surely knows that since he was the pistons coach the last couple of years.

the pistons set some of the best picks in basketball when trying to get rip off(ben wallace is a big reason for this) crawford has trouble when avg. pick setters set picks on him , the pistons exploit this pretty well and have for a while now, and rip basically torched Qrich in a bunch of different ways, Q is still not healthy and even when he healthy he is an average defender.

basically crawford was who he was in that game , a good scorer and ballhandler, average defender , not a bad defender , but he definitely wasn't a difference maker on that side of the ball, he even got a few steals showing there was trying to be active out there.

crawford does try more on defense more consistently(and i dont think people much doubted his talent to play defense as much as his effort) and he has lessened his bad habits , 

he has actually improved every season, this season too , its not exactly at the rate most would like but improvement is improvement , he has improved his scoring every year up until this one (only derek harper and kevin machale have improved from the start of their careers for more years consectutively), and this season he is scoring at a rate of .463 per min. which is slightly up from last season so if he were playing as much he would be scoring more , he is certainly shooting a higher % inside and outside of the arc. .454 on 2 pointers .386 on 3's compared to last year's .431 on 2's and .361 on 3's.

and he is drawing more fouls to boot , he is simply more effective this year thus far in those respects and overall.

also in case anyone wondered he has been playing far too many minutes the last couple of years , the only reason he has played so much was because he had to the last couple years his backup were either hurt,sucked or just not there ...for the last 2 months of the the 2003-04 season his primary backup was janero pargo(kirk's too btw) and before it was pargo it was brunson because gill was hurt, and for last 2 months of last season it was jermaine jackson, both penny and houston were hurt.

he probably should have been playing about the amount of minutes he is currently playing which is just over 30, maybe up to 35 but if he had decent backups i doubt he would have avg. 38.4 minutes last year.

the truth is he was raw and in some respects he still is but he is a good player and the knicks are rounding into a decent team (the larry brown meltdown thread has melted down abit since their 0-5 start , they have been 5-5 since then, the bulls have been 6-4 ...which would drop to 5-5 if they lose to the pistons tonight, but i think the bulls should be able to beat them at home ) but crawford is still growing as a player more imo because there is simply alot to grow from, there is plenty of stuff i feel he will improve on. 

some here seem to think he's done ...time will tell.


----------



## GB

I'll admit it...theres something enjoyable about this silly arguing about Jamal Crawford. If it were not for him, it would be about someone else. :shrug:

I'm actually halfway happy (the other half fearful) to see whats going on in New York. IMHO, the New York rivalry makes being a Bulls fan enjoyable...especially as I have friends that live in NY.

I think that if 5 seasons ago, someone had said that Rip Hamilton, Billups, a skinny forward from U of K, Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace would become one of the leagues best teams, we'd have viewed it a bit incredously. Basketball talents all...but not the stuff of a champion. Where is the stud? Who brings the attitude that Bird, and MJ, and even Shaq typically brought?

NY has some serious, though flawed, basketball talent too. But I think that if Brown can separate the wheat from the chaff, minimize the weaknesses, and mold the strengths to make the sum more than the total of the parts...then Isaiah will have done as well as Dumars.

Jamal absolutely has a chance to be a star...still. Not a superstar...but to fit in there with the Bowens and Billups and the Rips of the NBA. But it's preposturous to assign the credit to Isaiah and Brown and New York, and blame Paxson and Krause and Skiles and Cartwright and Floyd. Everything he does right in NY...theres a newspaper article quoted on this board somewhere where SCarF (S kiles, Ca rtwrigh, F loyd) was begging him to do it. If he hadn't been taught, or if he had had inferior training, then he'd be having an adjustment phase in New York, not THE WORLDS GREATEST PER. K4's own stats acquit the Bulls organization. Jamal just decided to get with the program, and I won't discount the thought that being benched by THE WORLDS GREATEST COACH would have that effect on a person.

So what am i saying? I think there are good things coming for NY. I think Crawford and Eddy will star for them. I think Frye and Ariza will too. Good for them. 

I don't think Paxson deserves the blame for them being gone. Reinsdorf does. We all knew it would happen when Pax took over because they did not play to his philosophy. One way or another, they were never going to be "his guys" the way Hinrich and Deng are. 

So if they blow up in NY, then lets blame Reinsdorf for changing the vision, and not hiring someone who would continue it. Me? I think Paxson has done enough in the time period since he's taken over to make the Bulls a real team, that he deserves shielding from any criticism until things finally shake themselves out. 

But then we would not have much to talk about right?


----------



## Bull_Market

> I think that if 5 seasons ago, someone had said that Rip Hamilton, Billups, a skinny forward from U of K, Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace would become one of the leagues best teams, we'd have viewed it a bit incredously. Basketball talents all



I agree. marbury, crawford, richardson, fry, curry will dominate the east in 5 years and win at least one championship. I should also mention that I agreed with my friend who claimed I'm not stupid.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> So if they blow up in NY, then lets blame Reinsdorf for changing the vision, and not hiring someone who would continue it. Me? I think Paxson has done enough in the time period since he's taken over to make the Bulls a real team, that he deserves shielding from any criticism until things finally shake themselves out.


I disagree. Paxson should have known he was working for Uncle Jerry and managed the team effectively. Losing a productive player like Crawford for also-rans like Othella and Pike is inexcusable. He should not have waited until the last minute and made a bad trade. He should have realized that Jerry would not let him resign Crawford, if that really was the case, and made a deal to help the team. Same with the Curry situation. Wait, dither, dawdle and then make a deal you are not happy with, which Paxson clearly was not. Same with the grand Cap Space plan. Does not look like there is a lot of talent on the market. 

Paxson's main accomplishment is improving the attitude of the team. For many people, this matters almost more than anything it seems. On the ride home from the game tonight, one of the callers to the local post game show summed it up by saying... "boy, that Hinrich really gives his all out there all the time. we need more players like that. its impressive to watch." Me, I though Hinrich played like CRAP tonight and its frustrating to see him play so well on Tuesday and then have games where he plays like crap. That's why he's not a star yet. Consistency. Its sad that there are people in the crowd thinking Hinrich's performance tonight was acceptable. Anyway, my point is that attitude is not enough. While there is a part of me that likes knowing that the players are all good people and like to dive for loose balls, I also realize that Rasheed Wallace is the type of player that makes a difference in the NBA. Jib ain't enough. In the oftentimes mail-it-in regular season of the NBA, if you have a team with a reasonable amount of talent and give 110% every single night you will post an OK record and make the playoffs. But, after that, you are just the Memphis Grizzles.... which is better than being an awful team I guess, but it also eliminates you from chances to get a Lebron or Duncan in the draft, which is exactly the type of player our franchise needs.

I hope we can become a team like the Pistons, they are a joy to watch, but consistently making transactions where we give up better players than we take back is not the road to the championship, IMO. Building up plans of Cap Space only to say “aw shucks, there are not any good players” is unacceptable, especially when a similar plan was attempted five years ago with little success… and at least then we were gunning for players like TMAC and Duncan. I think our team would be better right now with Donyell Marshall and Jamal Crawford on the team. The Pistons bring very good players like Arroyo, McDyess and Delfino off the bench…. It works for them. There is no reason the Bulls can’t have very talented players coming off the bench and make it work. Hemorrhaging talent for little in return and using minutes as an excuse is unacceptable as well, IMO. At the very least, having a large number of good players increases your chances of being able to make a deal for a Garnett or a Pierce when the opportunity arises.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. Paxson should have known he was working for Uncle Jerry and managed the team effectively.


He did manage the team effectively. Thats why we're winning. No, we haven't gone from rebuilding to contending yet...but we're getting close. 



> Losing a productive player like Crawford for also-rans like Othella and Pike is inexcusable.


On the whole, Jamal would not have made a big difference in where the team is now...just like he isn't making a big difference in the teams fortunes in NY. In the future, perhaps. He's got good stats now maybe...but so did Ron Mercer. 



> He should not have waited until the last minute and made a bad trade. He should have realized that Jerry would not let him resign Crawford, if that really was the case, and made a deal to help the team. Same with the Curry situation. Wait, dither, dawdle and then make a deal you are not happy with, which Paxson clearly was not. Same with the grand Cap Space plan. Does not look like there is a lot of talent on the market.


Paxson has made some mistakes. So has Isaiah Thomas. So did Krause. So did the Spurs GM. We, as sports fans cannot expect perfection. The team is in a good spot now...and you cannot criticize the "grand Cap Space plan" until it officially goes bust. It has not. Not yet.



> Paxson's main accomplishment is improving the attitude of the team.


I'd almost rank that fourth or fifth or worse behind Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Skiles, Duhon (in no particular order). You sure the change in attitude isn't due more to the coaches and players, and not the man in the suit? And what attitude are we talking about? There are multiple ones here. We lost the losing mentality. We put on a team first mentality. We put on a hardworker mentality. We have a professionalism mentality. We're a defensive minded. 



> For many people, this matters almost more than anything it seems. On the ride home from the game tonight, one of the callers to the local post game show summed it up by saying... "boy, that Hinrich really gives his all out there all the time. we need more players like that. its impressive to watch." Me, I though Hinrich played like CRAP tonight and its frustrating to see him play so well on Tuesday and then have games where he plays like crap. That's why he's not a star yet. Consistency.


I'm really trying to keep this on the level, but you do realize that a statement that Hinrich is not a star because of consistency really indicts Jamal? Because, stats in a vacuum aside, Jamal isn't considered by much of anyone to be a basketball player of Hinrichs level. Not yet.  Maybe it's just Kirks "endless motor"---but you never see Jamal get the kind of love from players, coaches, GM's or the media the way Kirk does. There is a very good reason for that. 



> Its sad that there are people in the crowd thinking Hinrich's performance tonight was acceptable. Anyway, my point is that attitude is not enough. While there is a part of me that likes knowing that the players are all good people and like to dive for loose balls, I also realize that Rasheed Wallace is the type of player that makes a difference in the NBA. Jib ain't enough. In the oftentimes mail-it-in regular season of the NBA, if you have a team with a reasonable amount of talent and give 110% every single night you will post an OK record and make the playoffs. But, after that, you are just the Memphis Grizzles.... which is better than being an awful team I guess, but it also eliminates you from chances to get a Lebron or Duncan in the draft, which is exactly the type of player our franchise needs.
> 
> I hope we can become a team like the Pistons, they are a joy to watch, but consistently making transactions where we give up better players than we take back is not the road to the championship, IMO. Building up plans of Cap Space only to say “aw shucks, there are not any good players” is unacceptable, especially when a similar plan was attempted five years ago with little success… and at least then we were gunning for players like TMAC and Duncan. I think our team would be better right now with Donyell Marshall and Jamal Crawford on the team. The Pistons bring very good players like Arroyo, McDyess and Delfino off the bench…. It works for them. There is no reason the Bulls can’t have very talented players coming off the bench and make it work. Hemorrhaging talent for little in return and using minutes as an excuse is unacceptable as well, IMO. At the very least, having a large number of good players increases your chances of being able to make a deal for a Garnett or a Pierce when the opportunity arises.


K4---we'd be a better team _maybe_, but to what end? We still wouldn't be getting that LeBron or Duncan you're talking about--we'd be the same or slightly better.

And Detroit did not have a Duncan or LeBron. You can win without a talent like that. We've got studs like Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich...two mid to high first rounders next draft and plenty of cash.

You *cannot* dial this in as a failed rebuilding plan yet. You simply cannot. It makes no sense.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> K4---we'd be a better team _maybe_, but to what end? We still wouldn't be getting that LeBron or Duncan you're talking about--we'd be the same or slightly better.


Like I said, it gives us assets to put together in a trade for a PP or KG if the oppertunity presented itself. If we still had Craw and Yell on the roster, the prospect of putting together a PP trade or recovering our depth after losing a Hinrich or Gordon gets that much easier.

You really think that adding a Donyell Marshall only *maybe* makes the Bulls a better team?



> And Detroit did not have a Duncan or LeBron. You can win without a talent like that. We've got studs like Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich...two mid to high first rounders next draft and plenty of cash.


... which is why I say I hope we can become the Pistons. Is modeling yourself after the Pistons though a plan of attack that has a high probability of success though? There are a ton of teams that have a collection of average to somewhat above average NBA talent. How many of them will become the Pistons? And the killer for the Bulls becoming the Pistons is that Detroit needed Rasheed Wallace, who is a player that Pax or Skiles would not be able to handle, IMO. 



> You *cannot* dial this in as a failed rebuilding plan yet. You simply cannot. It makes no sense.


Nor can you dial it in as a success. As of now, Paxson has a losing record in the regular season and playoffs.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> He did manage the team effectively. Thats why we're winning. No, we haven't gone from rebuilding to contending yet...but we're getting close.


We are not close to contending for the NBA title. Or, perhaps we have a different definition of "close."




> On the whole, Jamal would not have made a big difference in where the team is now...just like he isn't making a big difference in the teams fortunes in NY. In the future, perhaps. He's got good stats now maybe...but so did Ron Mercer.


Mercer was OK. No star-level player like the Bulls were portraying him, but OK. 


Crawford can help a team. Were you watching the game Wednesday?





> I'd almost rank that fourth or fifth or worse behind Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Skiles, Duhon (in no particular order). You sure the change in attitude isn't due more to the coaches and players, and not the man in the suit? And what attitude are we talking about? There are multiple ones here. We lost the losing mentality. We put on a team first mentality. We put on a hardworker mentality. We have a professionalism mentality. We're a defensive minded.


If we're defensive minded, we better start improving soon. We are very average so far on defense.

Going for the sure thing, productive right away, jibby college crew with limited upside and bringing in a guy like Skiles is all part of changing the attitude of the team. Pax is responsible for all of these moves.




> I'm really trying to keep this on the level, but you do realize that a statement that Hinrich is not a star because of consistency really indicts Jamal? Because, stats in a vacuum aside, Jamal isn't considered by much of anyone to be a basketball player of Hinrichs level. Not yet. Maybe it's just Kirks "endless motor"---but you never see Jamal get the kind of love from players, coaches, GM's or the media the way Kirk does. There is a very good reason for that.


Who is saying that Crawford is a star? Not I. He's an above average NBA player that could certainly help. He exhibits the same frustrating inconsistency that all of our guards exhibit.

"endless motor" does not show up much in the stats, unfortunately. It should help on D you would think, although our team is very average on D now that our bigs are gone, endless motor or no endless motor.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Like I said, it gives us assets to put together in a trade for a PP or KG if the oppertunity presented itself. If we still had Craw and Yell on the roster, the prospect of putting together a PP trade or recovering our depth after losing a Hinrich or Gordon gets that much easier.
> 
> You really think that adding a Donyell Marshall only *maybe* makes the Bulls a better team?


Yes, a few wins better. But we would not be contenders...just one of those 'good' but un-noticable teams you mentioned that the 'great ones' knock around effortlessly. 




> ... which is why I say I hope we can become the Pistons. Is modeling yourself after the Pistons though a plan of attack that has a high probability of success though? There are a ton of teams that have a collection of average to somewhat above average NBA talent. How many of them will become the Pistons?


As many as have a team with 

A. An endless motor like the Bulls do (tonight excepted  )
B. A coach with a keen strategic mind like the Bulls do
C. A team that plays defense like the Bulls do.

In other words not many. You have to admit, Paxson is setting the table very nicely for the coming future...



> And the killer for the Bulls becoming the Pistons is that Detroit needed Rasheed Wallace, who is a player that Pax or Skiles would not be able to handle, IMO.


Thats a pretty screwy statement. Wallace isn't even considered a problematic basketball player. 



> Nor can you dial it in as a success. As of now, Paxson has a losing record in the regular season and playoffs.


No, you dial it in a rebuilding plan thats showing tangible successes. Remember...despite Paxsons record, this organization is miles and miles ahead of the one he took over.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> We are not close to contending for the NBA title. Or, perhaps we have a different definition of "close."


1 or 2 players. Kobe. Duncan. 




> Mercer was OK. No star-level player like the Bulls were portraying him, but OK.
> 
> 
> Crawford can help a team. Were you watching the game Wednesday?


Maddening inconsistency. Imagine if he'd do it all the time.



> If we're defensive minded, we better start improving soon. We are very average so far on defense.


Not everything shows up on the stat sheet, kinda like the 'endless motor' quip you give below. But here: Look at the record this year, despite losing a focal piece of the offense like Curry. Thats from staying in front of their men and cutting off the penetration. No stats to measure that.



> Going for the sure thing, productive right away, jibby college crew with limited upside and bringing in a guy like Skiles is all part of changing the attitude of the team. Pax is responsible for all of these moves.


Hinrich, Deng and Gordon are the players you're speaking of? 




> Who is saying that Crawford is a star? Not I. He's an above average NBA player that could certainly help. He exhibits the same frustrating inconsistency that all of our guards exhibit.
> 
> "endless motor" does not show up much in the stats, unfortunately. It should help on D you would think, although our team is very average on D now that our bigs are gone, endless motor or no endless motor.


He's an average NBA player, who has yet to bring his average up to the above average average.

:lol:


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Yes, a few wins better. But we would not be contenders...just one of those 'good' but un-noticable teams you mentioned that the 'great ones' knock around effortlessly.


Exactly, but the more tradable assets on hand, the better suited we are to make a major deal. Crawford and Marshall may get you something in a package. Pike and Othella? Nah. At the very least, they are productive players to have around to take over the minutes after a star aquisition.






> As many as have a team with
> 
> A. An endless motor like the Bulls do (tonight excepted  )
> B. A coach with a keen strategic mind like the Bulls do
> C. A team that plays defense like the Bulls do.


We saw what the endless motor gets us in the playoffs last year. In the playoffs, every team is playing 110% for the most part, to the Bulls main advantage in the sleepy NBA regular season is lost. Skiles is an asset an many ways... but its a concern that he seemingly can't get along with certain types of players. 



> In other words not many. You have to admit, Paxson is setting the table very nicely for the coming future...


Nah. 



> Thats a pretty screwy statement. Wallace isn't even considered a problematic basketball player.


He was until he came to the Pistons. 



> No, you dial it in a rebuilding plan thats showing tangible successes. Remember...despite Paxsons record, this organization is miles and miles ahead of the one he took over.


Funny, Paxson felt enough about the team he took over to guarantee playoffs.

Its the only time he's been confident enough to guarantee playoffs publicly.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Hinrich, Deng and Gordon are the players you're speaking of?


Deng is the exception.

Deng is also the player that fell into Paxson's lap.

When Paxson had the choice between Gordon and Deng, he chose Gordon.


----------



## Sham

> Deng is also the player that fell into Paxson's lap.


Heh....


Whilst there's no point debating the semantics with you about this, because you won't back down, may I point out that he only "fel into his lap" because Paxson shoved his lap under him by trading Jackson Vroman and future considerations for him?


I mean, you know that already, yet it is important. It's not the kind of thing we should choose to overlook.


----------



## bullsville

> Deng is also the player that fell into Paxson's lap.





ShamBulls said:


> Heh....
> 
> 
> Whilst there's no point debating the semantics with you about this, because you won't back down, may I point out that he only "fel into his lap" because Paxson shoved his lap under him by trading Jackson Vroman and future considerations for him?
> 
> 
> I mean, you know that already, yet it is important. It's not the kind of thing we should choose to overlook.


Yeah, imagine if Deng hadn't "fallen" into Paxson's lap... he would have been stuck with Igudola instead. Of course, Iggy was considered by some to be the superior player until the last week or so.

Not that Pax deserves any credit for anything anyway, the Bulls are still 23 games under .500 since he became GM. We still haven't won a single playoff series on his watch. So what if we have 2 first-round picks and $20 million in cap space next summer, there are no good free agents available and the draft is probably the worst in the history of the modern world.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Exactly, but the more tradable assets on hand, the better suited we are to make a major deal. Crawford and Marshall may get you something in a package. Pike and Othella? Nah. At the very least, they are productive players to have around to take over the minutes after a star aquisition.


Ah shoot K4...I like to think the Bulls are not lacking in tradeable assets at all. The team is actually pretty deep...and none of the players, with perhaps the exception of Deng can be considered unmovable. It all really just depends on what you're trying to trade for. Your argument there is a bit nebulous. You conveniently leave off mention of the two draft picks. I'd bet that NY pick is a lot more valuable to the GM's of the NBA than JC would be. 



> We saw what the endless motor gets us in the playoffs last year.


The endless motor dinged Dengs wrist and did in Curry's heart?



> In the playoffs, every team is playing 110% for the most part, to the Bulls main advantage in the sleepy NBA regular season is lost.


So...all the other teams will be able to turn it up a notch...but the Bulls won't? C'Mon....



> Skiles is an asset an many ways...but its a concern that he seemingly can't get along with certain types of players.


Players who won't give 100% nor buy into his program? Here is a question to measure that: Should Phoenix have moved both Kidd and Marbury? After all, there was no guarantee that they'd get Nash. 

Why shouldn't Pax do the same thing?

Following your reasoning, they should have recycled GM's, coaches and owners until things were right for the player. I mean, if you can't give up on a Jamal, you sure can't give up on a Marbury or  a Kidd.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Ah shoot K4...I like to think the Bulls are not lacking in tradeable assets at all. The team is actually pretty deep...and none of the players, with perhaps the exception of Deng can be considered unmovable. It all really just depends on what you're trying to trade for. Your argument there is a bit nebulous. You conveniently leave off mention of the two draft picks. I'd bet that NY pick is a lot more valuable to the GM's of the NBA than JC would be.


My argument is clear. The more assets the better. We’d be better suited to put together a package that a team looking to rid themselves of a star would find attractive, and have more pieces left over after said trade to really contend.

Curry was not even mentioned.... which is why we're not talking about draft picks.




> The endless motor dinged Dengs wrist and did in Curry's heart?


We're better off without Curry, right?




> So...all the other teams will be able to turn it up a notch...but the Bulls won't? C'Mon....


Not if we're playing @ maximum effort in the regular season. Maximum effort is maximum effort.




> Players who won't give 100% nor buy into his program? Here is a question to measure that: Should Phoenix have moved both Kidd and Marbury? After all, there was no guarantee that they'd get Nash.
> 
> Why shouldn't Pax do the same thing?
> 
> Following your reasoning, they should have recycled GM's, coaches and owners until things were right for the player. I mean, if you can't give up on a Jamal, you sure can't give up on a Marbury or  a Kidd.


If Paxson managed to draft a Marion and Amare and land the league MVP, then I'll get a Paxson tattoo on my shoulder. I would love to see him take a bold risk on an Amare-type in the draft, since those are the types of players that can really turn a team around. Its a risk though.

Phoenix, which is a pretty good NBA organization, didn't bend over backwards to keep Skiles when the **** went down there, if I remember correctly. It seems Paxson gives Skiles total support, which is what he needs. Many GMs would be a little unhappy to be paying a healthy, ready to play Tim Thomas to sit around and chill.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> My argument is clear. The more assets the better. We’d be better suited to put together a package that a team looking to rid themselves of a star would find attractive, and have more pieces left over after said trade to really contend.
> 
> Curry was not even mentioned.... which is why we're not talking about draft picks.


Let's table it until Pax does his thing and/or a big trade passes us by and then argue it. I think we have plenty...but no way to measure it.



> We're better off without Curry, right?


We didn't have Sweetney and Songaila. 




> If Paxson managed to draft a Marion and Amare and land the league MVP, then I'll get a Paxson tattoo on my shoulder. I would love to see him take a bold risk on an Amare-type in the draft, since those are the types of players that can really turn a team around. Its a risk though.
> 
> Phoenix, which is a pretty good NBA organization, didn't bend over backwards to keep Skiles when the **** went down there, if I remember correctly. It seems Paxson gives Skiles total support, which is what he needs. Many GMs would be a little unhappy to be paying a healthy, ready to play Tim Thomas to sit around and chill.


The *KING* of non-answers. Wow.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Let's table it until Pax does his thing and/or a big trade passes us by and then argue it. I think we have plenty...but no way to measure it.


Who is saying we don't have enough tradable assets to make a deal? The more we have, the better, yes?






> The *KING* of non-answers. Wow.


I think the Suns would be a very good team with Amare, Marion and Kidd.

Nash's importance was inappropriately magnified by "new guy" effect, IMO.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Who is saying we don't have enough tradable assets to make a deal? The more we have, the better, yes?


No. You only need enough to make the trade you need to make. The rest are for the coach to play, and talent on the end of the bench for him to develop.





> I think the Suns would be a very good team with Amare, Marion and Kidd.
> 
> Nash's importance was inappropriately magnified by "new guy" effect, IMO.


Should the team have risked moving players of Kidd and Marbury's stature given the unsure nature of future FA?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> No. You only need enough to make the trade you need to make. The rest are for the coach to play, and talent on the end of the bench for him to develop.


You will have a better team after the consolidation deal though, the more assets you have waiting in reserve. I'm stunned that you are arguing this.





> Should the team have risked moving players of Kidd and Marbury's stature given the unsure nature of future FA?


I don't know all the inner workings of the moves the Suns made, but I'd rather have a Kidd in hand than a chance at Nash.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> You will have a better team after the consolidation deal though, the more assets you have waiting in reserve. I'm stunned that you are arguing this.


Nah. It's a wash. You can make the trade or you cannot. We can. 



> I don't know all the inner workings of the moves the Suns made, but I'd rather have a Kidd in hand than a chance at Nash.


But it shows all GM's that you can stand for principles and still come out the winner. And thats why Paxson deserves more time to recover from moving Jamal and Eddy. He can still come out the winner in this. Why in the world would we judge him now?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Nah. It's a wash. You can make the trade or you cannot. We can.


Its ludicrous to ignore that state of the team after said trade, yes?




> Why in the world would we judge him now?


Because he's collecting paychecks for a 3rd season now?



> But it shows all GM's that you can stand for principles and still come out the winner.


Anything can happen. The Suns were great last season b/c of taking a risk on a HS player like Amare with their lotto pick. Kidd or Nash, both great players, would have fit in fine at the PG.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Because he's collecting paychecks for a 3rd season now?


But he's still rebuilding.

And making progress at that.


----------



## bullsville

Why not judge Paxson now, that's what boards like this are for.

Judging him on what he has done so far, where the team was when he took over and where it is now, he gets an 'A' in my book. I think you would be hard-pressed to find more than one NBA writer or analyst or executive who would give Pax anything under a 'B' for his work so far.

Wins, great cap situation, lots of young talent, the Bulls have it all right now. So if we judge him now, that's what you have to see.


----------



## GB

bullsville said:


> Why not judge Paxson now, that's what boards like this are for.
> 
> Judging him on what he has done so far, where the team was when he took over and where it is now, he gets an 'A' in my book. I think you would be hard-pressed to find more than one NBA writer or analyst or executive who would give Pax anything under a 'B' for his work so far.
> 
> Wins, great cap situation, lots of young talent, the Bulls have it all right now. So if we judge him now, that's what you have to see.


Devils advocate:

Possibly could have gotten more for Crawford
Could have gotten more earlier for Curry
Isaiah gets Antonio to play, Pax sends TT home
Failed to move aggressively enough to Dwayne Wade
Lots of very good NBA players traded while he was on watch---> did not get any of it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Why not judge Paxson now, that's what boards like this are for.
> 
> Judging him on what he has done so far, where the team was when he took over and where it is now, he gets an 'A' in my book. I think you would be hard-pressed to find more than one NBA writer or analyst or executive who would give Pax anything under a 'B' for his work so far.
> 
> Wins, great cap situation, lots of young talent, the Bulls have it all right now. So if we judge him now, that's what you have to see.


Meaningful wins?

Cap Space for who?

We do have a nice young core, but most feel that we need more talent in order to compete for real.

'B' sounds around right. Average. I've never been a big fan of 'Bs' though.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> I've never been a big fan of 'Bs' though.


Justs 'C's?

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Justs 'C's?
> 
> :laugh:



LOL.


----------



## Sham

> The Knicks got a scare with 5:24 left in the third quarter, when West drove for a dunk. Jamal Crawford was trailing the play and collided under the basket with Marbury, who was coming over to help. Both players went down, and Crawford was helped from the court. He received 11 stitches to close a cut on his chin and didn't return until 44.1 seconds were left in the fourth quarter.



11 stitches? That's a big old cut. That'll sting in the morning.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Impressive that JAMAL returned to the contest.

HOAC?


----------



## Sham

Eh?


----------



## Bull_Market

> Impressive that JAMAL returned to the contest.
> 
> HOAC?



well, if you wish to desperately fetch hard for anything impressive about his performance tonight, then yes, that was the one and only thing.

*H*eart *O*f *A* *C*ougar?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Great game for Crawford tonight, in his home town of Seattle. He's killing demons left and right. Knicks win in Seattle.

31 points
8-13 FG
4-4 3s
11-12 FTs
4 rebounds
4 assists 
1 TO

He scored all of these points in the 2nd half. Difference maker.


----------



## Da Grinch

interesting tidbit. 

jamal crawford is 57-70 from the free throw line (.814)

meaning he has more makes and attempts than any bull.

guess he isn't afraid of contact after all.


----------



## step

> He scored all of these points in the 2nd half. Difference maker.


He sure is a difference maker, especially with his 2 pt performance the game before...


----------



## Sham

step said:


> He sure is a difference maker, especially with his 2 pt performance the game before...




Jamal was knocked out of that game midway through the third quarter after a knock on the chin which required 11 stitches. He returned only for the final 44 seconds.


----------



## RoRo

kukoc4ever said:


> Great game for Crawford tonight, in his home town of Seattle. He's killing demons left and right. Knicks win in Seattle.
> 
> 31 points
> 8-13 FG
> 4-4 3s
> 11-12 FTs
> 4 rebounds
> 4 assists
> 1 TO
> 
> He scored all of these points in the 2nd half. Difference maker.


crawford was tentative in the first half, but i guess all the knicks were. crawford has a nice 2 man game going with channing frye. he knows how to drive and dish to set the big guy up for an open jumper. 

this also the second game i've seen from jamal where he passed up his favorite pull up jumper in order to drive the lane and get to the foul line. ridnour fouled him once on a 3-pt attempt and also on a driving shot for a 3pt play. sonics tried ray allen on him but he was able to get a floater in and then jumped into a leaning allen to draw a foul on a jumpshot (like that annoying move tim duncan always does. you know when he jumps under someones moving arms, cheesy but i guess it is a foul :/).

anyways good game jamal.


----------



## step

> Jamal was knocked out of that game midway through the third quarter after a knock on the chin which required 11 stitches. He returned only for the final 44 seconds.


Unlucky, but still doesn't dismiss his poor performance in that one. He's so inconsistent i feel like choking him at times, but hopefully he'll improve.


----------



## ScottMay

step said:


> He's so inconsistent i feel like choking him at times, but hopefully he'll improve.


Is there a single current Bull that this statement couldn't be applied to, other than maybe Deng?


----------



## ace20004u

Great game by JC! He single handedly won that game for the Knicks. I keep telling you guys we shouldn't have traded him, by the all star break he is going to be really playing well just as I predicted.

Step, should we also give Kirk Hinrich hell for leaving with a concussion? I mean, I know he tried and everything but he DID leave the game with an injury and didn't perform so....


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Nice game for jamal Im suprised no one has mentioned this 

for the season 

44% fg 

43% 3fg

also for the first time his career more ft's attempted than thress 

:eek8:


----------



## rlucas4257

45000 hits on this thread. JC and no, that isnt Jamal Crawford.


----------



## fl_flash

Watched the game last night. I stayed up late wrapping christmas gifts so I figured I'd check the game out. Crawford flat-out won that game for the Knicks. It was a tale of two halves. Non-existant in the first half and then a terror in the second. I kept waiting for him to keep taking shots and start missing them, but he just kept on hitting them. I'll give him credit too, he didn't just settle for jumpers. His eyes just lit up when he had Ridnour on him and he scored at will over poor ole Luke. He played a good game and led the kicks to a nice win.... damnit!


----------



## truth

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Nice game for jamal Im suprised no one has mentioned this
> 
> for the season
> 
> 44% fg
> 
> 43% 3fg
> 
> also for the first time his career more ft's attempted than thress
> 
> :eek8:


It appears Coach Brown has exorcized most of his demons...It used to be his wild shot selction,but now its his occasional wild passing that remains


----------



## kukoc4ever

I agree with Ace.

Although I would not flat out say we should not have traded him, since anyone on the team should be available for the right deal.

Trading him for Pike, The Little Oh and some Cap Space, well.... yah.


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> Great game by JC! He single handedly won that game for the Knicks. I keep telling you guys we shouldn't have traded him


Very impressive.

But he wasn't going to do it here. He didn't respect the coaching staff, and he didn't respect the players Paxson brought in.

He's a reluctant reserve in NY...he would have been a rebellious one here.


----------



## mizenkay

ace20004u said:


> Great game by JC! He single handedly won that game for the Knicks. I keep telling you guys we shouldn't have traded him, by the all star break he is going to be really playing well just as I predicted.
> 
> *Step, should we also give Kirk Hinrich hell for leaving with a concussion? I mean, I know he tried and everything but he DID leave the game with an injury and didn't perform so....*



yeah, yeah i said i'd never post in this thread again...but what the **** is this?

if jamal had been knocked out cold by dirty dirk he wouldn't have returned either dude.

and i am happy jamal played well in front of the hometown fans. seriously good for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Very impressive.
> 
> But he wasn't going to do it here. He didn't respect the coaching staff, and he didn't respect the players Paxson brought in.
> 
> He's a reluctant reserve in NY...*he would have been a rebellious one here.*


Pure speculation.

He wasn't going to do it here because the organization was not interested in retaining him. Their call.

We're clearly in a talent acquisition mode right now, not a contending mode, so dumping guys that can drop 30 points on a team in a half seems pretty stupid.

And, since we are looking to make a consolidation trade, the more assets we have the better.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Pure speculation.


Pure, _educated_, speculation. :yes: 



> He wasn't going to do it here because the organization was not interested in retaining him. Their call.


Good one too. Who needs trouble from a _reserve_ about not starting? Especially when you have a sixth man of the year candidate who plays his position. One thats got a more mature attitude about his role too.



> We're clearly in a talent acquisition mode right now, not a contending mode, so dumping guys that can drop 30 points on a team in a half seems pretty stupid.


Plenty of guys in the NBA could drop thirty in a half. Can they do it regularly? Could Jamal? Were there special circumstances surrounding this game?

Simply saying he dropped 30 in a half is disingenious. 



> And, since we are looking to make a consolidation trade, the more assets we have the better.


Pure speculation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I've never seen evidence of Jamal being rebellious.


----------



## kukoc4ever

> Pure speculation.


The more assets we have the better. That's not speculation. How can you disagree with this?

Especially when dealing with making a consolidation trade... and dealing with the aftermath.


----------



## GB

Interesting.

Perhaps it is too strong of a word, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time Jamal is playing right way basketball the way the coaching staff has asked him to.

Again, it's a strong word, but what else can you call a run-amok guard who doesn't stick with the program?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> The more assets we have the better. That's not speculation. How can you disagree with this?
> 
> Especially when dealing with making a consolidation trade... and dealing with the aftermath.


That we'll make a trade is. 

I rather think that Skiles defensive schemes will result in some dead legs several weeks hence. Plenty of guys will get good opportunities to become part of the rotation.


----------



## ScottMay

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've never seen evidence of Jamal being rebellious.


There's the oft-cited example of how the Bulls won a game vs. New Orleans following a lineup change where Rose and Crawford came off the bench, played very productively, and then complained about not starting afterwards.

Personally, I *want* every player on the team to think he can start and to play and practice with the belief that he should be a starter, and I don't equate that belief with being an indication the player isn't willing to accept a role.

"It's not who starts, it's who finishes" is pure bromide -- 99% of a time, the player who starts a game is better than the guy who doesn't, and in most cases, teams have their starters on the court when the game is in the balance.


----------



## GB

ScottMay said:


> Personally, I *want* every player on the team to think he can start and to play and practice with the belief that he should be a starter, and I don't equate that belief with being an indication the player isn't willing to accept a role.


This is off-topic for the thread, but:

Bull.

65% of the players in the NBA are reserves, and are contracted to fill a role on a team. They know it, and come into practice and concentrate on doing what the coach asks them to do for the team. A guy who is asked to give six fouls, set hard picks, and rebound is going to get booted _furthur_ down the bench if he comes in trying to prove he's starting material as opposed to a role player.

The problem for young players is that they still don't know the NBA and just how well their particular talent-set translates to the NBA. Many coaches see reserves, they look in the mirror and see a starter. Jamal is just now getting to the point in his career where he can see himself as the coaches see him.

I think if he were still a Bull we would be arguing about who should start among he, Duhon and Hinrich. Thats what makes the argument about him being here so funny...it wouldn't even end the argument.


----------



## ScottMay

GB said:


> This is off-topic for the thread, but:
> 
> Bull.
> 
> 65% of the players in the NBA are reserves, and are contracted to fill a role on a team. They know it, and come into practice and concentrate on doing what the coach asks them to do for the team. A guy who is asked to give six fouls, set hard picks, and rebound is going to get booted _furthur_ down the bench if he comes in trying to prove he's starting material as opposed to a role player.
> 
> The problem for young players is that they still don't know the NBA and just how well their particular talent-set translates to the NBA. Many coaches see reserves, they look in the mirror and see a starter. Jamal is just now getting to the point in his career where he can see himself as the coaches see him.
> 
> I think if he were still a Bull we would be arguing about who should start among he, Duhon and Hinrich. Thats what makes the argument about him being here so funny...it wouldn't even end the argument.


I don't know of many recent lottery picks who fit your Piatkowski/Malik Allen description of what a bench player is. Sure, there are plenty of deep-bench guys who are fortunate to have jobs and who know full well they'll never crack the starting lineup.

Fairly recent lottery picks don't really fit that description, particularly when they're on a young team with no stars, lots of minutes up for grabs, and not a huge talent disparity between most of the players.

If you were expecting Crawford to humbly toe the line and adopt a 12th man sort of attitude, it's no wonder you don't like the guy.


----------



## GB

ScottMay said:


> I don't know of many recent lottery picks who fit your Piatkowski/Malik Allen description of what a bench player is. Sure, there are plenty of deep-bench guys who are fortunate to have jobs and who know full well they'll never crack the starting lineup.
> 
> Fairly recent lottery picks don't really fit that description, particularly when they're on a young team with no stars, lots of minutes up for grabs, and not a huge talent disparity between most of the players.
> 
> If you were expecting Crawford to humbly toe the line and adopt a 12th man sort of attitude, it's no wonder you don't like the guy.


No, Fairly recent lottery picks don't really fit that description, and I made an allowance for them. OTOH, the way to get your burn back is with your play on the court, not your words in the locker-room.

Jamal, and this, again, was not said in reference to him, had a entitlement mentality. He didn't feel at all that he needed to do the 'little things' or outplay the folks in front of him. But now, four coaches later, he finally gets it. Good for the guy. I wish him the best.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Crawford is getting 30 minutes a night. 2nd highest on the Knicks. 

Its takes young, less disciplined players a while to mature sometimes. 

Sadly, Paxson gave up on Jamal too soon. And we have NOTHING to show for it.

Its shocking the 19 year old Jamal didn't pick up great NBA habits playing alongside Mercer and being coached by Tim Floyd.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Its takes young, less disciplined players a while to mature sometimes.
> 
> Sadly, Paxson gave up on Jamal too soon. And we have NOTHING to show for it.


I think he made an educated decision. Remember, he'd watched the team from the sidelines for a couple of seasons and was in the locker-room too. Just because a player gets good after you move him doesn't mean you made a bad trade. 

Was getting rid of Artest a bad move? 

What about Phoenix getting rid of Kidd? Or Charlotte cutting loose with Baron Davis? Sometimes you come out on top...it just takes a while to see it.




> Its shocking the 19 year old Jamal didn't pick up great NBA habits playing alongside Mercer and being coached by Tim Floyd.


Shocking that he didn't outplay him and steal his burn.

Where is Mercer anyway?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Shocking that he didn't outplay him and steal his burn.
> 
> Where is Mercer anyway?


Uh, do you remember Crawford in his rookie year? He was not physically ready to play NBA ball. He had to leave college early due to getting food and shelter out of district.

Mercer? You got me. What a stiff.



GB said:


> I think he made an educated decision. Remember, he'd watched the team from the sidelines for a couple of seasons and was in the locker-room too.


Ah yes... and based on his findings... he guaranteed playoffs. Good judgment.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Uh, do you remember Crawford in his rookie year? He was not physically ready to play NBA ball.


Khalid El-Amin was?

:laugh: 





> Ah yes... and based on his findings... he guaranteed playoffs. Good judgment.


Rookie GM.

Question: What role would Jamal play if he was still here? Imagine we still drafted Gorden. Better question (because Skiles is a contrarian): What role would SKILES ask JC to play if he were still here?


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Khalid El-Amin was?
> 
> :laugh:


Yes, he was. He had an adult body. He was also several years older.




> Rookie GM.
> 
> Question: What role would Jamal play if he was still here? Imagine we still drafted Gorden.



23 minutes a night off the bench. The less productive Gordon gets 20 a night until he improves his overall game, but still allowing him to develop and help us win games with his scoring in crunch time... which we're still waiting on this year. We play more 3 guard rotations and play less of the no-talent, crap signing Songalia. Hinrich and Duhon play 30 minutes a night.

But, there was no reason to draft Gordon since Crawford is a better player to this point.

Once again though, the key is consolidation trade. C O N S O L I D A T I O N trade. 

Avoiding playing time conflicts is no reason to dump talented, productive players for scrap.

Having 4 talented, starter level guards on the roster is a good problem to have, especially when you need to make a trade.


----------



## DaBullz

All of a sudden, this discussion got interesting.

If the bulls had re-signed Crawford, what would have happened in the draft?

Bulls would have still taken Deng and Gordon. Assuming they drafted Duhon also....

Du would have played in Europe.

Bulls 3 guard rotation would have been Hinrich, Gordon, Crawford, with all three playing at the same time a lot (3 guard offense).

Gordon would still have been 6th man, with Hinrich and Crawford starting.

Instead of having 2 starting guards with about 6 assists (each) and a combined 20 PPG, we'd have had 2 starting guards with 6 assists (each) and a combined 33 PPG.

Other possibilities... Bulls don't make the trade for the Deng pick and just pick him with the #3 pick instead. We'd have had a 1st round pick this past draft and who knows who we'd have taken. Gordon would have averaged 25 PPG as a rookie for a bad team or 15+ PPG for a team like Indy.


----------



## GB

DaBullz said:


> All of a sudden, this discussion got interesting.
> 
> If the bulls had re-signed Crawford, what would have happened in the draft?
> 
> Bulls would have still taken Deng and Gordon. Assuming they drafted Duhon also....
> 
> Du would have played in Europe.


Or he would have been Tim Thomas'ed when we discovered how well Du could play the point.

I agree...Gordon would still have been taken. He simply projected better than anyone we had...even KH.

Speaking of which...Gordon's comparison still has a good chance to come true, but Hinrichs is somewhat funny , while Dengs looks to come true,  and Jamals is a little odd.


----------



## bullsville

One good game, and all of a sudden Jamal is "a better player than Gordon to this point"?

I don't think many people would agree with that one.

Not to mention that Jamal is 3 years older than Ben with 4 more years of NBA experience...


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> One good game, and all of a sudden Jamal is "a better player than Gordon to this point"?
> 
> I don't think many people would agree with that one.
> 
> Not to mention that Jamal is 3 years older than Ben with 4 more years of NBA experience...


Does not really matter if "most people" would agree or not.

There is no good reason he should not be on the Bulls, either as a future key contributor, or to be used in a consolidation trade to land an all-star level player.

Instead, we have below-average players like Pike and the Little Oh.

And he's played more than one good game this year.... don't you remember last week's Bulls game?


----------



## Sham

> a better player than Gordon to this point




Perhaps he meant "at the". :whoknows:


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> the Little Oh.


He prefers "Chunky Oh", thank you very much.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Does not really matter if "most people" would agree or not.
> 
> There is no good reason he should not be on the Bulls, either as a future key contributor, or to be used in a consolidation trade to land an all-star level player.
> 
> Instead, we have below-average players like Pike and the Little Oh.
> 
> And he's played more than one good game this year.... don't you remember last week's Bulls game?


You're right, it only matters that NBA General Managers agree.

And evidently, none of them outside of Isiah "I'll overpay anyone" Thomas thought that Jamal was worth giving up "below-average players" for the honor of giving Jamal a 7 year, $56 million deal. 

But what do they know?


----------



## bullsville

We gave Jamal away for "garbage", I can't believe some "good" GM like Buford or Dumars or West wasn't all over him last summer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Boy, oh boy.

This thread, and the Eddy thread, are definitely taking on that

























































































vibe again. Maybe time to give these threads a rest again, while the major players come up with some new material?


----------



## bullsville

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Boy, oh boy.
> 
> This thread, and the Eddy thread, are definitely taking on that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vibe again. Maybe time to give these threads a rest again, while the major players come up with some new material?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TomBoerwinkle#1 again.


----------



## Da Grinch

kukoc4ever said:


> Crawford is getting 30 minutes a night. 2nd highest on the Knicks.
> 
> Its takes young, less disciplined players a while to mature sometimes.
> 
> Sadly, Paxson gave up on Jamal too soon. *And we have NOTHING to show for it*.
> 
> Its shocking the 19 year old Jamal didn't pick up great NBA habits playing alongside Mercer and being coached by Tim Floyd.


wrong we have a polish rifle ...supposedly crawford was addition by subtraction , so it was a win .

lets see how many who spouted that a year ago are thinking it in the next game when the pike man is out there because kirk is hurt.

i'm thinking , it wont be so many.


----------



## bullsville

Da Grinch said:


> wrong we have a polish rifle ...supposedly crawford was addition by subtraction , so it was a win .
> 
> lets see how many who spouted that a year ago are thinking it in the next game when the pike man is out there because kirk is hurt.
> 
> i'm thinking , it wont be so many.


Jannero. Pargo.

23 points and 5 assists in 23 minutes.

The difference between JP and Jamal- Jamal whined about not starting a game the Bulls WON, while Pargo is the ultimate role player, ready whenever he is called upon.

I'll take Pargo at less than $1 million over JC at $7 million all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.


----------



## Da Grinch

bullsville said:


> Jannero. Pargo.
> 
> 23 points and 5 assists in 23 minutes.
> 
> The difference between JP and Jamal- Jamal whined about not starting a game the Bulls WON, while Pargo is the ultimate role player, ready whenever he is called upon.
> 
> I'll take Pargo at less than $1 million over JC at $7 million all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.


take him, and enjoy him the nba isn't wal-mart you dont win with bargains you win with talent,I wouldn't take him over crawford in a million years if pargo was that good even in a semi consistent level he would play more, the fact that he is an 4 year vet and never avg. more than 15 minutes really says all there about his game.

he is good in spurts, but he'll most likely never be more than what he is, and that is a guy who was not worth as of last summer a million a year.


----------



## bullsville

Da Grinch said:


> take him, and enjoy him the nba isn't wal-mart you dont win with bargains you win with talent,I wouldn't take him over crawford in a million years if pargo was that good even in a semi consistent level he would play more, the fact that he is an 4 year vet and never avg. more than 15 minutes really says all there about his game.
> 
> *he is good in spurts*, but he'll most likely never be more than what he is, and that is a guy who was not worth as of last summer a million a year.


Damn, that sounds just like Jamal, he is also good in spurts.

And in the NBA, you win with talent, sure. As long as you don't *overpay* for that talent. Ask the Spurs and the Pistons, or go to hoopshype.com and look at their salary structure. 

There is a salary cap in the NBA. Some teams understand that, others (THE KNICKS) spend *more than double the salary cap* and still can't manage to make the playoffs.

And BTW, the Bulls won tonight because of a "bargain" player. Pargo led the team in points and assists, and IMHO there is no way we win tonight without him.

Bulls 9-8
Knicks 6-11

Since the Bulls payroll is about 1/2 what the Knicks pay out, I'd say we're doing OK with our "bargain" players. And about 25% of our payroll this year is being wasted on a guy who isn't even with the team and who has contributed zero to any wins.

For the money Jamal makes, I have no doubt that Paxson will acquire a much better player. 

If you truly believe that Jamal is on his way to stardom, I have a very limited edition autographed and jersey JC rookie card (#'d of 100) that's for sale, but I don't think anyone is interested in spending $20 for it any more. It seems like an incredible investment for anyone who thinks Jamal is a future All-Star, but I'll bet the $20 that nobody is interested in it.


----------



## Bull_Market

a horrible game for jamal crawford tonight. 
just when it seems that he might be a good player for the first time now in his 6th year in the nba, the inconsistency kicks in again. 

jamal's playmaking has consistently regressed in the past 2 years. he does not create shots for others like he used to. in 03/04 he averaged 5 assists despite playing alongside kirk who played the point and despite playing on the team with the worst collective fg%. last year his average went down to 4, and this year 3. that's a curve alright.

his shooting average is now down to .428 - something to brag about if your average has been below .400 over 5 years. some people think you should hold on to a player who is that bad for 5 years because of what he MIGHT become, even if your team hurts b/c of that for 5 years.

tonight, jamal had a similar game as he did yesterday as he was a "difference maker" again. this time, he helped his team lose. he shot a typically jamal 2-11 for 11 points. Although he comitted 3 turnovers, at least he balanced that out with only 1 assist. and you cannot be hard on someone for producing low numbers just because they played few minutes. well, then I guess jamal's 40 minutes of action makes this performance look great.


----------



## Sham

The real problem with Jamal's performance is that he went 2-2 from the field and 3-3 fromt he line in his first 7 minutes of action.

The final 33 went a bit wrong.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Bull_Market said:


> a horrible game for jamal crawford tonight.
> just when it seems that he might be a good player for the first time now in his 6th year in the nba, the inconsistency kicks in again.
> 
> jamal's playmaking has consistently regressed in the past 2 years. he does not create shots for others like he used to. in 03/04 he averaged 5 assists despite playing alongside kirk who played the point and despite playing on the team with the worst collective fg%. last year his average went down to 4, and this year 3. that's a curve alright.
> 
> his shooting average is now down to .428 - something to brag about if your average has been below .400 over 5 years. some people think you should hold on to a player who is that bad for 5 years because of what he MIGHT become, even if your team hurts b/c of that for 5 years.
> 
> tonight, jamal had a similar game as he did yesterday as he was a "difference maker" again. this time, he helped his team lose. he shot a typically jamal 2-11 for 11 points. Although he comitted 3 turnovers, at least he balanced that out with only 1 a ssist. and you cannot be hard on someone for producing low numbers just because they played few minutes. well, then I guess jamal's 40 minutes of action makes this performance look great.



Actually he didnt play a horrible game he just didnt shoot the ball well but he played great defense and the knicks actually controlled the game for a little over 3 quarters .

He had at least 5 passes to Curry that he didnt convert but were fouled on .You cant really generate asists unless someone else is making the shots though and the knciks as a team were cold though . 

Could it be the second night of a back to back on the West coast for a east coast team ? who knows !!

It seems as though with some of you its always going to be something . The difference in Crawfords game that people complimented was not that he made more shots but the type of shots and overall maturity of his game . YES he shot 2-10 but he didnt chuck up ten shots he just had an offnight but he also drove to the basket and shot 7ft's so in other words he still played just as hard and as smart but as he has most of they season but his shot just didnt fall .

His mental approach to the game is what is becoming consistent and that is where he needed the most improvement.He no longer is stringing together 3/4 bad shooting games in a row because of this and by years end his numbers will even out to be around 44%.


----------



## RoRo

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Actually he didnt play a horrible game he just didnt shoot the ball well but he played great defense and the knicks actually controlled the game for a little over 3 quarters .
> 
> He had at least 5 passes to Curry that he didnt convert but were fouled on .You cant really generate asists unless someone else is making the shots though and the knciks as a team were cold though .
> 
> Could it be the second night of a back to back on the West coast for a east coast team ? who knows !!
> 
> It seems as though with some of you its always going to be something . The difference in Crawfords game that people complimented was not that he made more shots but the type of shots and overall maturity of his game . YES he shot 2-10 but he didnt chuck up ten shots he just had an offnight but he also drove to the basket and shot 7ft's so in other words he still played just as hard and as smart but as he has most of they season but his shot just didnt fall .
> 
> His mental approach to the game is what is becoming consistent and that is where he needed the most improvement.He no longer is stringing together 3/4 bad shooting games in a row because of this and by years end his numbers will even out to be around 44%.


i agree with pretty much everything you said. also should add that marbury dominated the ball at the ending. it was an exciting back and forth game for sure.


----------



## BenDengGo

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Boy, oh boy.
> 
> This thread, and the Eddy thread, are definitely taking on that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vibe again. Maybe time to give these threads a rest again, while the major players come up with some new material?



top ten poster in this thread...

X. User Name ...........Posts
01. kukoc4ever.........581
02. GB.....................363
03. bullsville.............178
04. Wynn.................98
05. Da Grinch............95
06. TRUTHHURTS.......88
*07. TomBoerwinkle#1..81*
08. Ron Cey..............75
09. DaBullz................74
10. ace20004u..........73


----------



## BenDengGo

top ten poster in eddy curry update thread....

01. bullsville..............54
02. kukoc4ever..........44
03. Ron Cey..............31
04. johnston797.........24
05. Da Grinch.............24
06. Mikedc.................22
07. ace20004u...........21
08. ScottMay............19
09. truebluefan..........19
*10. TomBoerwinkle#1...17*


----------



## Da Grinch

bullsville said:


> Damn, that sounds just like Jamal, he is also good in spurts.
> 
> And in the NBA, you win with talent, sure. As long as you don't *overpay* for that talent. Ask the Spurs and the Pistons, or go to hoopshype.com and look at their salary structure.
> 
> There is a salary cap in the NBA. Some teams understand that, others (THE KNICKS) spend *more than double the salary cap* and still can't manage to make the playoffs.
> 
> And BTW, the Bulls won tonight because of a "bargain" player. Pargo led the team in points and assists, and IMHO there is no way we win tonight without him.
> 
> Bulls 9-8
> Knicks 6-11
> 
> Since the Bulls payroll is about 1/2 what the Knicks pay out, I'd say we're doing OK with our "bargain" players. And about 25% of our payroll this year is being wasted on a guy who isn't even with the team and who has contributed zero to any wins.
> 
> For the money Jamal makes, I have no doubt that Paxson will acquire a much better player.
> 
> If you truly believe that Jamal is on his way to stardom, I have a very limited edition autographed and jersey JC rookie card (#'d of 100) that's for sale, but I don't think anyone is interested in spending $20 for it any more. It seems like an incredible investment for anyone who thinks Jamal is a future All-Star, but I'll bet the $20 that nobody is interested in it.


if you want to stretch the meaning it can apply to just about every young non star in the league , but if you want to compare jamal and janero ok.

jamal good player a legit good player , meaning he would play for any team in the league barring an extreme circumstance and start for many of them ....i cant think of a team you could say pargo would definitely be in the rotation , and that includes the hawks and under no circumstance could you say he would be a starter with anykind of certainty ...there is a definite division of talent and ability .

the only "bargain guys " are the ones who are getting below their worth are on their rookie deals ...and i really dont see any (possibly duhon ) everyone else was recently a free agent and got what they are worth i dont see any guys who signed with the bulls who are even close to being a guy who would warrant more than the minimum who was signed this summer or last summer (once again with the exception of duhon and of course tyson), and if i go back to the threads on duhon's percieved worth over this summer i'm sure there was a large contingent of which you might have been a part of who didn't even want duhon resigned if he dipped into the MLE, which he ultimately did) everyone is on their rookie deal that is really a "bargain" , once they are able to actually put their talents on the market i am somewhat eager to see how many "bargains " the bulls still have.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

BenDengGo said:


> top ten poster in this thread...
> 
> X. User Name ...........Posts
> 01. kukoc4ever.........581
> 02. GB.....................363
> 03. bullsville.............178
> 04. Wynn.................98
> 05. Da Grinch............95
> 06. TRUTHHURTS.......88
> *07. TomBoerwinkle#1..81*
> 08. Ron Cey..............75
> 09. DaBullz................74
> 10. ace20004u..........73


I know I follow these threads closely and post. You will note that there is a Top 3 and then a significant dropoff.

A pretty decent percentage of my posts on this thread relate to moderating, in one way or another, or at least trying to tone down the zeal. (post 82...If I didn't point it out, someone else would have. Its an ignoble tradition).


----------



## GB

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You will note that there is a Top 3 and then a significant dropoff.


Shoot...thats not fair. I just started posting again after taking a couple of months off. What are the numbers for three weeks back or so? 

Ugh. On the other hand, don't.

I'm done with this thread until I fall out of the top three. Nope. I'm done with it forever.

On pain of death...I'll never post in this thread again. And I won't bring up Crawford in any other thread unless its a current Bulls vs. Knicks game thread, nor will I ever bite on trollish statistical data again.

:no: 

If I were a fish, I'd have been caught, filleted, and eaten by now.


----------



## truebluefan

I am going to quit posing it in this thread too. The ups and downs of JC is not my concern. Current bulls players are. The ups and downs of the players we have. 

JC is gone. When he has a good game and someone says "look what Paxson let go" does not concern me and at the same time when he has a bad game, does not prove the opposite. He is gone. So be it.


----------



## step

> JC is gone. When he has a good game and someone says "look what Paxson let go" does not concern me and at the same time when he has a bad game, does not prove the opposite. He is gone. So be it.


Indeed... even i'm starting to get annoyed at it, and I've only been on this forum for a couple of months. Hopefully this attitude can catch on... as i'm over reading the same **** with a different smell each time.


----------



## bullsville

I'm with GB and tbf. Count me out.

Really, my sig says all I need to know about the Bulls trading Jamal (and Eddy, for that matter).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

GB said:


> Shoot...thats not fair. I just started posting again after taking a couple of months off. What are the numbers for three weeks back or so?
> 
> Ugh. On the other hand, don't.
> 
> I'm done with this thread until I fall out of the top three. Nope. I'm done with it forever.
> 
> On pain of death...I'll never post in this thread again. And I won't bring up Crawford in any other thread unless its a current Bulls vs. Knicks game thread, nor will I ever bite on trollish statistical data again.
> 
> :no:
> 
> If I were a fish, I'd have been caught, filleted, and eaten by now.


Here is the post count list for the thread as of October 27, when Miz last posted it:



> kukoc4ever 540
> GB 336
> bullsville 154
> Wynn 97
> Da Grinch 80
> TomBoerwinkle#1 72
> DaBullz 70
> ace20004u 69
> TRUTHHURTS 66
> Ron Cey 61
> johnston797 60
> Mr. T 60
> yodurk 57
> dkg1 52
> truebluefan 49
> ScottMay 47
> ViciousFlogging 45
> fleetwood macbull 41
> lgtwins 39
> ChiBulls2315 39
> The 6ft Hurdle 37
> giusd 36
> badfish 33
> mizenkay 32
> superdave 29
> remlover 27
> bullet 26
> PennyHardaway 26
> spongyfungy 25
> truth 22
> BealeFarange 22
> Electric Slim 21
> fl_flash 20
> transplant 17
> madox 15
> ShamBulls 15
> Marcus13 13
> SPMJ 12
> bbertha37 12
> Mikedc 12
> Shabadoo 10
> MichaelOFAZ 9
> Dan Rosenbaum 8
> The Truth 7
> NYKBaller 7
> such sweet thunder 6
> sloth 6
> Darius Miles Davis 6
> jnrjr79 6
> Good Hope 6
> Future 6
> PC Load Letter 5
> JRose5 5
> rlucas4257 5
> L.O.B 5
> Johnny Mac 5
> Sir Patchwork 5
> sp00k 5
> Machinehead 5
> The Krakken 4
> adam 4
> The ROY 4
> Jim Ian 4
> HAWK23 4
> deranged40 4
> VincentVega 3
> Benny the Bull 3
> Chicago N VA 3
> MemphisX 3
> son of oakley 3
> lorgg 3
> futuristxen 3
> Xantos 2
> Hustle 2
> CredeCrew24 2
> Happyface 2
> Kismet 2
> 7thwatch 2
> nanokooshball 2
> Showtyme 2
> Qwst25 2
> Chicago_Cow 2
> Kramer 2
> MitchMatch 2
> SilvoDante 1
> DaFuture 1
> kamego 1
> lou4gehrig 1
> DontBeCows 1
> chefboyarg 1
> Chi_Lunatic 1
> evalam23 1
> Rhyder 1
> Pioneer10 1
> jokeaward 1
> TheLegend 1
> thebullybully 1
> uracornball 1
> HINrichPolice 1
> Vintage 1
> Greg Ostertag! 1
> HKF 1
> MVPKirk 1
> RoRo 1
> ogbullzfan 1
> Killuminati 1
> Cager 1
> PobreDiablo 1
> YearofDaBulls 1
> Bolts 1
> notbeat 1
> HookEmHorns 1
> Bulls4Life 1
> Blueoak 1
> garnett 1
> thebizkit69u 1
> Sigifrith 1
> Pinball 1


So is it official? We have 2 of the three most frequent posters on the thread committed to letting it drop out of site. Lets let it go!


----------



## DaBullz

GB said:


> Shoot...thats not fair. I just started posting again after taking a couple of months off. What are the numbers for three weeks back or so?
> 
> Ugh. On the other hand, don't.
> 
> I'm done with this thread until I fall out of the top three. Nope. I'm done with it forever.
> 
> On pain of death...I'll never post in this thread again. And I won't bring up Crawford in any other thread unless its a current Bulls vs. Knicks game thread, nor will I ever bite on trollish statistical data again.
> 
> :no:
> 
> If I were a fish, I'd have been caught, filleted, and eaten by now.


:rofl:


----------



## DaBullz

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I know I follow these threads closely and post. You will note that there is a Top 3 and then a significant dropoff.
> 
> A pretty decent percentage of my posts on this thread relate to moderating, in one way or another, or at least trying to tone down the zeal. (post 82...If I didn't point it out, someone else would have. Its an ignoble tradition).


Indeed.

In spite of what the thread may stand for (in some peoples' minds), if you read and post to the forum enough, there's bound to be something interesting in this thread to respond to from time to time.

82 posts is nothing compared to the near 26,000 you have.

I like the concept of "if you don't like the thread, don't post in it" and "you don't have to open it in the first place."

BTW, I notice in your standings from October I had 70, and today I have 74... 

no, now 75 

Yikes!


----------



## ace20004u

Crawford has improved. No, he isn't going to score 30 on 8-13 shooting every night but his whole approach to the game has changed, his shot selection has improved, his defense has improved, his awareness is better. I said going into last season that Crawford needed to add a little muscle and then he would be more comfortable driving inside, he didn't add much but he IS driving more and as a result has more ft attempts than any Bull this season. That says a whole lot right there IMO. Sure he was 2-10 the other night but it was a back to back situation an knowing he was cold he only took 10 shots and they weren't all 3's either.

Some people act like it is sacriledge to point out something we percieve as a Paxson mistake. Well, I have news for you guys, Paxson is human and he DOES make mistakes. This is turning out to be one of them just as I have speculated all along. We didn't get anything back for Jamal other than Harrington and Pike who won't even be on the roster next year when Jamal is hitting his stride. Some say Jamal is overpaid but I just don't get that, his contract is very reasonable for an up and coming guard, I have no idea what the "overpay" crowd is thinking, this is the NBA not Mcdonalds.

If you disagree that the Bulls should have kept Crawford you are entitled to your opinion, just like I am entitled to my opinion that he should have been retained. I personally do not understand the mentality that we should always look forward and not evaluate any moves that were made historically. That makes no sense to me it is like some of you think that the orginization is simply above reproach. 

In any case, if you don't want to hear about Crawford and you don't like this thread there is a very simple and easy solution...don't look at the thread and don't post! problem solved..sheesh.


----------



## Bull_Market

his passing has regressed

btw - here's an item that might interest some of the posters with a high count on this thread:


----------



## kukoc4ever

The thing about the Knicks so far is that they just are not very deep.

Marbury, Crawford, Curry and Frye are playing pretty well.

The rest of the team, except for Lee in limited minutes, is playing like crap.

AD and Rose, the supposed great Knicks veterans... are struggling. Robinson is rotten. Q sucks so far.


----------



## Sigifrith

:27.9 NY - J. Crawford misses shot
:32.7 NY - Personal foul on J. Crawford
:36.9 NY - J. Crawford misses a 22-foot three-pointer from the left corner

Just couldn't help myself. Enjoy.


----------



## Sham

Sigifrith said:


> :27.9 NY - J. Crawford misses shot
> :32.7 NY - Personal foul on J. Crawford
> :36.9 NY - J. Crawford misses a 22-foot three-pointer from the left corner
> 
> Just couldn't help myself. Enjoy.




You probably didn't pick the best day to pick on Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal is much worse than Ben Gordon.

Gordon was 6th man of the year.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Jamal had 4 turnovers tonight.


----------



## Wynn

Been almost two weeks..... was afraid we'd lost it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> Been almost two weeks..... was afraid we'd lost it.


Jamal had 4 turnovers tonight.


----------



## NYKBaller

Jamal was a MAN tonight. Got fouled hard two times and no call so he got right back in the lane and scored, showed some toughness tonight.


----------



## Wynn

Post #3002
Page #201


----------



## Sham

truebluefan said:


> I am going to quit posing it in this thread



:angel:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

NYKBaller said:


> Jamal was a MAN tonight. Got fouled hard two times and no call so he got right back in the lane and scored, showed some toughness tonight.


He played some great ball against the Cavs. Really showing some maturity.


----------



## Ron Cey

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He played some great ball against the Cavs. Really showing some maturity.


He's looked better and better as the season has gone on. It looks like he's starting to figure it out. Maturity is a good word for it. He's starting to play under control, and it suits him well.


----------



## ace20004u

Wynn said:


> Post #3002
> Page #201



Hey WYnn, didn't you post in another thread that Crawford was gonna come back and make the Knicks lose? Boy was that one off huh? :biggrin:


----------



## giusd

Yes and we all know how much POTENTIAL JC has and how he will be an allstar. I mean he is so young and so much POTENTIAL. Any three year ago anyone and i MEAN ANYONE who suggested that jc was 2 guard better suited to come of the bench was SHOUTED DOWN and off this chat room. Oh, he just need a real coach and a REAL TEAM because of the the POTENTAIL he has.

PLEASE YOU ARE KILLING ME. JC is a career bench player period. this is what his 6th year in the NBA and he still a fing bench player with a career FG% less than 40%. But he does have great POTENTIAL. He has won the NBA "Mr. POTENTIAL AWARD' four years in a row.

He has to be one of the most disappointing, over rated players in the NBA, period.

But he did have one great game. Funny how he is what the 4th guard on a the 4th worst team in the nba and IT has been trying to trade him all year. BUT SOME TEAM WILL CLEARLY WANT HIS POTENTIAL.

STOP killing me!

david


----------



## ace20004u

giusd said:


> Yes and we all know how much POTENTIAL JC has and how he will be an allstar. I mean he is so young and so much POTENTIAL. Any three year ago anyone and i MEAN ANYONE who suggested that jc was 2 guard better suited to come of the bench was SHOUTED DOWN and off this chat room. Oh, he just need a real coach and a REAL TEAM because of the the POTENTAIL he has.
> 
> PLEASE YOU ARE KILLING ME. JC is a career bench player period. this is what his 6th year in the NBA and he still a fing bench player with a career FG% less than 40%. But he does have great POTENTIAL. He has won the NBA "Mr. POTENTIAL AWARD' four years in a row.
> 
> He has to be one of the most disappointing, over rated players in the NBA, period.
> 
> But he did have one great game. Funny how he is what the 4th guard on a the 4th worst team in the nba and IT has been trying to trade him all year. BUT SOME TEAM WILL CLEARLY WANT HIS POTENTIAL.
> 
> STOP killing me!
> 
> david


He's had a lot of great games, trust me I actually watch them. Jamal's best position is as a starting pg not coming off of the bench. Brown doesn't have that luxury with Marbury on the team.


----------



## Wynn

ace20004u said:


> Hey WYnn, didn't you post in another thread that Crawford was gonna come back and make the Knicks lose? Boy was that one off huh? :biggrin:


Give him time. He's still getting his feet under him....


----------



## DaBullz

Wynn said:


> Give him time. He's still getting his feet under him....


Hmmm... a little blood on the horns.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> Give him time. He's still getting his feet under him....


Oh, so you meant after last night, his first game back, the game where the Knicks beat the Cavs on the road and Jamal was the MVP.


----------



## ace20004u

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh, so you meant after last night, his first game back, the game where the Knicks beat the Cavs on the road and Jamal was the MVP.


And still dealing with a nagging ankle sprain to boot. I do think that what Wynn and several other posters are missing is that Crawford's style of play has changed to what it needs to be. I mean, Wynn are you understanding that Jamal is driving inside now, drawing contact, shooting free throws, taking better shots, playing better defense? Or are you just looking at the stats and not getting too excited, I am really curious to know.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Nobody's posted in the Crawford Update thread for a good 20 minutes, so I'm bumping it.


----------



## Wynn

ace20004u said:


> And still dealing with a nagging ankle sprain to boot. I do think that what Wynn and several other posters are missing is that Crawford's style of play has changed to what it needs to be. I mean, Wynn are you understanding that Jamal is driving inside now, drawing contact, shooting free throws, taking better shots, playing better defense? Or are you just looking at the stats and not getting too excited, I am really curious to know.


*Ace!* -- I have not seen the Knick play this year, so I have to take your word on it. If he's doing those things, then he's moving in the right direction. As we know, stats are only a reflection of reality, not reality itself. You also know that when I was watching him play every night you and I had a very different opinion of him as a player. Who's to say if we would now. I do know that I was never impressed enough with him to miss him or to wish we had him back. I much prefer all three guards we have on our club now.

It is amazing how an off the cuff jab like I made in the Curry thread has spurred so much conversation!


----------



## ace20004u

Wynn said:


> *Ace!* -- I have not seen the Knick play this year, so I have to take your word on it. If he's doing those things, then he's moving in the right direction. As we know, stats are only a reflection of reality, not reality itself. You also know that when I was watching him play every night you and I had a very different opinion of him as a player. Who's to say if we would now. I do know that I was never impressed enough with him to miss him or to wish we had him back. I much prefer all three guards we have on our club now.
> 
> It is amazing how an off the cuff jab like I made in the Curry thread has spurred so much conversation!



lol, this thread won't die anyway. Hey, I like Curry & Crawford both and consider them more "former Bulls" than Knicks...I wish they were still Bulls. I know you and I have not always agreed on Jamal but man I wish you would watch a Knicks game. Crawford is REALLY getting it now and not just "starting to get it". I know you won't take my word for it and I don't blame you but you really ought to check him out. I would be curious to hear your take after watching him in a couple of games in NY.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> *Ace!* -- I have not seen the Knick play this year, so I have to take your word on it.
> 
> It is amazing how an off the cuff jab like I made in the Curry thread has spurred so much conversation!


Not just off - the - cuff.... but apparently uninformed.

That's fine... at least you not recognizing the improvements he's made so far this season makes sense.

You missed the Bulls/Knicks game as well?


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> Not just off - the - cuff.... but apparently uninformed.
> 
> That's fine... at least you not recognizing the improvements he's made so far this season makes sense.
> 
> You missed the Bulls/Knicks game as well?


I did miss the Bull/Knick game. If I hadn't, I'm not sure it would have swayed my opinion anyway. Jamal seems to have a knack (sort of like Jalen) to come up big in games that are important to him. That's part of what I don't like about Jamal. Bring it every night!

Not so sure uninformed is fair. I had enough information last season to hand you your head on a platter in our little wager and never once accused you of being uninformed. Just because I evaluate data differently hardly means I have none. Jamal has had plenty of horrible games this season. Perhaps it's uninformed to imagine he'll improve?

As for following the Knick to become informed -- I'd rather not. I can't stand Jim Carey, yet many times friends have said "but if you see him in ....... you'll like him". Well, I've seen him in at least 5 movies and liked him in none of them. I'll go out on a limb and say I won't like him in ....... either. I'm under no obligation to watch his entire repertoire.

_Did I just talk about a Knick Knack?! Oi!_


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> I did miss the Bull/Knick game. If I hadn't, I'm not sure it would have swayed my opinion anyway.


That's a guarantee.



> Jamal seems to have a knack (sort of like Jalen) to come up big in games that are important to him. That's part of what I don't like about Jamal. * Bring it every night!*


Tell that to Kirk while you are at it. And about every other non-superstar player in the league. 



> Not so sure uninformed is fair. I had enough information last season to hand you your head on a platter in our little wager and never once accused you of being uninformed. Just because I evaluate data differently hardly means I have none.


Since you have not watched any Knicks games this season, what data are you using?

You don't seem to like statistics very much either.... so I'm curious what you are basing your opinions on for *this* season.

"Bad beats" happen all the time.  You just have to live with them.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> "Bad beats" happen all the time.  You just have to live with them.


I think of this thread every time I see you post about how happy you were with our 47 win season last year.....


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> I think of this thread every time I see you post about how happy you were with our 47 win season last year.....



LOL. I guess you want all 3 of the Knicks related threads moved or closed. (EDIT: I mean the three large knicks related threads, since there are many knicks threads on this board now)

Honestly, bumping threads to get personal shots in. Shameless. SCANDALOUS!


----------



## ScottMay

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, bumping threads to get personal shots in. Shameless. SCANDALOUS!


Hardly the right way, imo.


----------



## GB

Hey! A Knicks thread...ok, I'll play:



> It's become pretty clear that the Knicks wouldn't have traded for Crawford in August 2004 if Brown had been the coach then. Yet Brown yesterday sounded almost empathetic when asked about Crawford's play.
> 
> "You have to understand he's been asked to play an entirely different role than he's played in the past," Brown said. "I looked at his stats and he took more three-pointers by two-thirds than he did foul shots before. He had no mid-range game, he never drove it to the goal, he never had to guard the best player.
> 
> "All that has changed. It's a real learning curve."
> 
> The fact that Crawford is struggling hasn't been lost on his teammates. Even Jalen Rose, who has been with the team for only three games, has noticed, and relates it to his struggles when he was younger.


One day Brown is going to come out and say something that totally pins the blame for the struggles of his players on their start in the Bulls organization. You mark my words we'll hear it:

"I really like Curry...you just wonder what kind of player he'd be today if he had a different introduction to the league. I mean, how many players went through there and didn't meet their potential? Jamal, Eddy, the Fizer kid...it really makes you wonder..."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. I guess you want all 3 of the Knicks related threads moved or closed.


*Wynn!*'s wish is my command.


----------



## GB

> *A Player Gets It Right in a Season That's All Wrong*
> 
> After practice on Saturday, Crawford acknowledged that basketball is a business and that the Knicks have a surplus of guards.
> 
> But Crawford said he wanted to remain in New York, and he is doing all the right things to cement his future with the team. His 14-foot jumper with 2.2 seconds left in Friday's game against the Detroit Pistons sealed an unlikely 105-103 victory.
> 
> The person Crawford needs to impress the most has taken notice.
> 
> "He told me he wanted to get better when I got the job, and he wanted to be coached," Coach Larry Brown said. "It's obvious to me that he's tried to do everything I've asked."
> 
> Earlier this week, Stephon Marbury issued a plea for more freedom on offense, sparking a verbal spat through the news media between him and Brown. The coach responded by pointing out that he had already given Marbury more freedom than any guard he had ever coached.
> 
> Asked if Crawford was the epitome of a player who always tried his best, Brown said: "Yeah, he's exceptional. You know, I've been blessed coaching a lot of great kids. But he's at the top of the list."
> --
> Crawford has not complained about his role as a reserve, and Brown recently complimented him on his defensive abilities. Crawford has listened intently to everything Brown has said during practice, sometimes too literally.
> --
> "When he puts his mind to it," Brown said of Marbury, "I think he's an exceptional defender."
> 
> Brown is looking for players who will put their minds to it all the time, and he seems to believe he has found one in Crawford.


Willing to be a reserve? Check.

Willing to defend? Check.

Big guard? Check.

Possibly available? Check.

Mature? Ch...ch...Check!(?)


Maybe theres the big 2 we've been looking for. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/sports/basketball/19knicks.html


----------



## K4E

Congrats to JAMAL for winning his 3rd 6th man of the year award.

1st player ever to win the award 3 times. Wow!


----------

