# ERob Speaks Out



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*General manager John Paxson is expected to entice Charlotte with the maximum $3 million to take Robinson and the $14 million remaining on his contract off his hands.

"I had a huge fan base there, so it wouldn't be a bad thing," Robinson said. "But of course I'd rather stay here—as long as things change. [Coach Scott] Skiles made it personal with me. I should be playing basketball no matter what the relationship is. Kobe [Bryant] and Phil [Jackson] don't see eye to eye, but Phil plays Kobe. There's no reason for Skiles to do what he did."

"He knows the reason," Skiles fired back. *

Bull****...

That's all I have to say...

Skiles has had this invisible rotating doghouse since he got here.

ERob went from playing and producing to not playing at all.

Fizer didn't play for god knows how long and produces when given minutes, even CJ has done some things with the time he's been given the last couple guys.

How those guys could be stuck to IR and the bench but yet Shirley, Linton, and Dupree get to play is just ****in ridiculous.

I don't want to hear anything about oh he doesn't know the plays and blah blah, ERob played and produced for a good 2 months so if he didn't know them then and we played him, he suddenly forgot them so we stopped playing? He's never been a gymrat, but we punish him after he's produced for 2 months because of what he said?

I was up in close and personal when JC had to tell Dupree where to be 3-4 times last time the Bulls were down here, so if he doesn't know the plays, guess he shouldn't play either?

It's obvious this has become something personal, the track record with Skiles is there to suggest so, so any lip service, I'm not hearing.


----------



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

Arenas, defender of the underachievers everywhere  

When I read this very same quote this morning, I thought that Erob must really be a putz but you manage to defend Erob once again.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> Arenas, defender of the underachievers everywhere
> 
> When I read this very same quote this morning, I thought that Erob must really be a putz but you manage to defend Erob once again.


I just don't get it L.O.B...

Obviously I don't think ERob is Kobe, but it confuses how a guy can go from playing everyday and producing to not playing at all, he got 22 minutes over the last 22 games, did he kill someone and we didn't hear about it?

I don't want to hear he doesn't know the plays or he doesn't stay after to shoot extra J's, he didn't know the plays or shoot extra J's the 2 months he played AND produced.

It's bad business to pay a guy $6.2 million to ride the bench, especially when he's the best guy at a position we are extremely weak at and whether you like the guy or not, he is the best we have at the 3 and might have the best midrange game on the team.

Over $11 million dollars is tied up in 2 guys that don't even play. 1 can't play, and we won't play the other one, that's RIDICULOUS.

This goes past ERob (and this is really the reason why I tend to side with him)...

Let's look at Fizer. He didn't even play for a little while when Skiles first got here. Remember the article, "Put Me In, Coach?" He finally got some burn played well had a bad game then sat again. He then didn't play for what, a month and a half? We even sent him to IR when Jesus, I mean, Shirley was signed.

CJeff got some burn the last 2 games and he did some nice things...

On a team this bad, why are any of those guys riding the pine and guys that are obviously ****ty will do anything for a contract players getting burn?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If the plan here is grinders over talent, we're screwed for years to come and for those of you praying for a star, we don't have enough ammo to get one, and none are going to sign here out of their own free will.

BTW, L.O.B I kind of like that title, defender of the screwedovers everywhere


----------



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

Arenas,

Wouldn't it be cool years from now to run into someone from the team and ask them what really is going on behind the scenes?

Everything that I read about Erob has me thinking he's a putz, an extremely talented putz but a putz none the less. 

I just think Erob got lazy after his big pay day.If the Bulls want the youngins to be professionals, it would be wise to sit a player that is resting on his past, and his past ain't that great.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> Arenas,
> 
> Wouldn't it be cool years from now to run into someone from the team and ask them what really is going on behind the scenes?
> ...


The organization starts up top...

What we see on the floor is a mess...

That's because what's up in the front office is a mess...

All I know is guys leave here and talk about how bad it is, they go on to other teams and are successful, yet here they were trash.

The track record speaks for itself.

That's why I believe guys like Blount, ERob, Fizer, what are they saying that hasn't been said in the past?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

E-Slob probably STILL doesn't know all the plays.

I cannot believe I was even remotely excited when we brought his lazy no good *** in here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, so maybe it is personal. Does that mean it should be overlooked? If I called someone's mom a *****, should they overlook it?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I love this stuff! E-Rob crying to the media because he doesn't do what his bosses tell him to do. 

Does ANYBODY here know the whole story? I'm sure there's a very good reason why E-Rob sits. Even when he could have been used - especially in games like last night where we were so short-handed to begin with. I find it interesting that there are those here who go to such great lenghts to defend players and put the entire blame on the coaches and management. Of course, the players are completely blameless. I mean, E-Rob has gone on record as stating that he really doesn't need to work on his game. He's gone on record as saying he won't drive the lane because he's afraid of contact. It's well noted that he's the last to arrive at practice and he's the first to leave. These things are all the coaches fault. How could I have ever been so gullible as to believe that someone who is paid millions of dollars to play a game at it's highest level would ever want to get better? I mean when someone is paid that kind of money, they all take their job seriously - right? Heaven forbid that someone suggest that E-ROb is simply taking $6 million a year to do nothing. Heaven forbid that that he be told exactly what he needs to do to get on the floor and then when he doesn't do it he crys to the media. Oh, poor, poor E-Rob.

Pax, whatever you have to do. Get this waste of a human being out of Chicago. Yet another Krause mistake that MUST go. 

It ain't the coaches or the organization in this instance folks. Plain and simple - it's the player.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Lets continue the exerpt from Johnson's article a little further, shall we?

*Robinson's lack of work ethic and lack of execution of plays have been well documented.* Many of Robinson's teammates think he should be playing.

"I'm the kind of guy that the night before our first practice next year, I'll tell everybody that every spot is up for grabs," Skiles said.

"I don't come back with any preconceived notions. But if somebody has been *an absolute failure in the way they've approached the game*, they would have to take some very significant strides to ingratiate themselves to me."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...llsbits,1,747648.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

_...lack of work ethic and lack of execution of plays...an absolute failure in the way they've approached the game..._

No grey area here. Those seem to be very good reasons why he doesn't play.

And here's an even more disconcerting statement: _Many of Robinson's teammates think he should be playing._

Depending on how much credibility you assign to these remarks, it's not too difficult to see that a major problem attitudinally exists within the current Bulls roster. Taking what's been written to its logical conclusion it seems that many players feel that work habits and intellectual competency in terms of knowing your on-court responsibilities should be non-factors when it comes to playing time.

No wonder this team failed to compete this season. How can anyone defend this kind of attitude? Hard work doesn't matter. Knowing the plays doesn't matter. I've got skills, therefore I belong on the court. That's really what its all about when you boil it down. I'm sorry, but when it comes to team sports, _on any level,_ those kinds of feelings of entitlement are flat out inapproriate and inexcusable. If there is a doghouse, then anyone who thinks this way belongs chained to it if only as an interim step to being ultimately booted out the door.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Scott Skiles is the bestest coach ever.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_*"...an absolute failure to the way they've approached the game."*_


I've said this before and I will say it again:

Eddie Robinson doesn't respect HIS OWN TALENT as a basketball player, and that is decidedly HIS PROBLEM.

Eddie Robinson doesn't respect THE GAME OF BASKETBALL, and that is very much Skiles' problem.

So he doesn't play. 

As for the "many teammates" who think he should be playing? Three guesses and the first two don't count. 

Inexcusable is right. Shameful is more like it.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Lets continue the exerpt from Johnson's article a little further, shall we?
> 
> *Robinson's lack of work ethic and lack of execution of plays have been well documented.* Many of Robinson's teammates think he should be playing.
> ...


C Blizzy,

You and I have similar takes on this situation but you say it so much better.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

The way the roster is being managed is an absolute joke from top to bottom.

If you produce on the court, I really don't care if you leave without showering 3 minutes after practice is over. 

Would is be nice to have guys spend every waking hour in the gym? yeah, in a perfect world it would. But this team is awful. I'll take the best I can get. 

And ERob is WORLDS better then Lint and Dupree.
Fizer is WORLDS better then Shirley.

When your team is this bad, I just want to WIN. Putz or not, playing the NBDL all-stars over Fizer and Erob has cost us at least 5-8 games. And when your only winning 20 games, thats big...


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> The way the roster is being managed is an absolute joke from top to bottom.
> 
> If you produce on the court, I really don't care if you leave without showering 3 minutes after practice is over.
> ...


Amen brother.

Can I get a witness. As I've said, we have talent that can win... but just because they don't give Skiles a reacharound, they don't see the floor. Nice in CYO, not in the NBA.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> they would have to take some very significant strides to ingratiate themselves to me."


skiles also says once you're in the dog house you have to bend over backwards to get anywhere with him. maybe e-rob bent half way to backwards, saw that got him no where and so now he figures it has to be personal and gives up. this is where the teammates come in and say he should be playing. the stint where skiles mentioned that e-rob has a really good jumpshot, that was just a regular ol' stride. skiles was expecting a 'significant' stride. must be nice to make demands that you don't have to spell out or quantify then you can justify any benching.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> I don't want to hear anything about oh he doesn't know the plays and blah blah,
> 
> I don't want to hear he doesn't know the plays or he doesn't stay after to shoot extra J's



of course you don't want to hear it, BUT THAT'S WHY HE NEVER PLAYS. You may not agree with it, but that's the reason, in a nutshell. These threads are becoming somewhat of a broken record.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> When your team is this bad, I just want to WIN. Putz or not, playing the NBDL all-stars over Fizer and Erob has cost us at least 5-8 games. And when your only winning 20 games, thats big...


is it big? Will we make the playoffs if we win 28 games? Will we somehow NOT be losers anymore if we're 28-54 instead of 23-59 or whatever?

The motto of the Pax/Skiles regime is "instilling a winning attitude".

There are at least two ways to approach this:
a) play the most talented guys who presumably give you the best chance to win, even if they're lazy and unprepared. They should be able to win some games that NBDLers can't win simply because they're more talented.

b) play the guys that WANT to win the most, even if they're lacking in the talent department, in order to set an example of how hard one needs to play in order to win, even if the winning isn't happening right away. Hopefully this gets the more talented, less motivated players to play harder.

both approaches have flaws. Playing the talented underachievers can allow bad habits to permeate - and sometimes, talented slackers play worse than overachieving scrubs. (just look at the Jazz). And they develop a sense of entitlement, which I think crept into this team last summer.

Playing the scrubs sends the message that it's not important to win every game, since those guys have a snowball's chance against most real NBA teams. And, it's fair to ask the question, "what good is effort if it's invariably going to be futile?" It's sort of like going into a gunfight with a machete, but running as fast as you can. I'd rather sit in a foxhole with a machine gun, personally.

I think the question of which approach is more effective is entirely subjective and difficult to quantify. There's no guarantee that playing ERob would have won us more games. It's not like we were on a hot streak when he did play. It's obvious which approach Pax and Skiles have embraced. Some of us strongly disagree with that approach. I personally understand it but have severe reservations about whether it will work.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think he probably does know the plays. Hell, there's only a couple to learn once we scrapped the triangle and when to the plain vanilla stuff we've done most of the year. I think the "not knowing the plays" rap was probably justified when we were running the triangle. Erob wasn't cut out for it mentally and oh yeah, he didn't have the basketball skills for it either, so it was a fair assessment then.

But after Skiles came in, I didn't see a much evidence that things were breaking down with him in there when he did play this year. If anything he actually looked to know the "offense", such as it is, pretty well. It was the most comfortable and fluid I'd seen him look since he joined the team.

Thus, I think that's probably a bogus charge.

I think it all comes down to personality. The quote from Skiles in that article is longer than what was originally posted and more explicit.

"I'm the kind of guy that the night before our first practice next year, I'll tell everybody that every spot is up for grabs," Skiles said.

"I don't come back with any preconceived notions. But if somebody has been an absolute failure in the way they've approached the game, they would have to take some very significant strides to ingratiate themselves to me." 

This is about as direct as it can get. And honestly, I don't think it's a very good approach. I think there's some truth to the fact that that different approaches work with different people. Ultimately the only "approach to the game" that matters is how it's played when it counts. My sense is that Skiles can't accept that the approach that made him successful is not necessarily the approach that would make others successful.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> My sense is that Skiles can't accept that the approach that made him successful is not necessarily the approach that would make others successful.


this sums up my fears about his and Pax's approach. I understand the hardline stance, and frankly, I feel like some of the guys on this team need it. But I'm not sure this "our way or the highway" rhetoric will ultimately lead us in the right direction. There has to be a balance between the "no nonsense" and a sincere attempt to relate to the players, individually, and coax them to play to their ability. I'm not sure Skiles understands, or WANTS to understand, that balance.

edit: it's also this balance that I feel like someone like Paul Silas has down to a science. Though I don't blame Pax for giving Bill a shot this season, I wish we'd made a run at Silas over the summer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> The way the roster is being managed is an absolute joke from top to bottom.
> 
> If you produce on the court, I really don't care if you leave without showering 3 minutes after practice is over.


These problems would be solved by a minor league.

The Bulls are trying to do 2 things at the same time.

1.) Win
2.) Develop

If we were just focused on #1, I would agree with you. I don't care if you practice hard as long as you get the job done on the court (this includes knowing the plays and being the type of person that your teammates want to play with).

But, we are also focused on #2... and the only way we get out of this horrible death spiral of losing is #2. Having guys like EROB and CJeff around is not good for Curry, Chandler and Crawford. If the Bulls are to be good, they need to work their butts off to become better. Guys like EROB getting minutes circumvents the organizations efforts to get them to work harder and develop. 

Thus EROB sits. Thus Rose is gone.

They want a good environment to develop young players. The problem is that guys like Davis, Dupree and LJohnson may work hard.. but we'll continue to pile up the losses...which is not good for the Cs development either. But...I think it has to be better than EROB malingering his way to 30 minutes a game. 

That... and EROB is not good enough to win enough games to even be having this discussion. Rose might be able to win you 5 more games in a season... but that still makes us a crappy team.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> 
> 
> skiles also says once you're in the dog house you have to bend over backwards to get anywhere with him. maybe e-rob bent half way to backwards, saw that got him no where and so now he figures it has to be personal and gives up. this is where the teammates come in and say he should be playing. the stint where skiles mentioned that e-rob has a really good jumpshot, that was just a regular ol' stride. skiles was expecting a 'significant' stride. must be nice to make demands that you don't have to spell out or quantify then you can justify any benching.


That quote makes it sound like you have to kiss his *** in order to play.

This my way or the highway attitude is not going to work, EVER.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I just don't get it L.O.B...
> ...


these 4 lines are intriguing to me. Not only is the E-Rob fiasco ridiculous. But so is the fact that you can't figure it out!

I've got two words for you. Eddy freaking Curry. Like Bra man from the (holds up 4 fingers) fifth flo ..........uhh thats actually 3 words i know.

Eddy Curry is everything. He's the sun, moon and stars as far as the future is concerned, and they will not let him get it in his head that E-Rob's approach is OK. Eddy is not formed yet, and they cannot let E-Rob play with half-asses efforts as far as approach to the game is concerned form fear it will infect immpresionable Eddy.

On a veteran team of hard working winners, E-Rob is fine to play. He wouldn't hurt the veteran players who already have their way of doing things set in stone.............Not on the nursery school Bulls. Until he meets what Skiles wants him to meet, he won't play. I'm sure Skiles asked him to do this for him. Thats the role he wants from E-Rob and thats what he needs from him, far more than anything else.

Lets get something clear. E-Rob has never Outproduced Ronald Dupree, so unless E-Rob can give something else that Skiles needs and asks for, playing him over Dupree affects Eddy Curry's perception of reality. And that is unnaceptable.

Feel free to not understand this forever Arenas


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> Feel free to not understand this forever Arenas


Will do...

Nothing you said changed that...

ERob has never outproduced Dupree?

lol....


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Will do...
> ...


lol look at the stats and get back to me. Do your homework young man


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> lol look at the stats and get back to me. Do your homework young man


Just for you...

Eddie in February: 27.5mpg, 10.3ppg, 2.3rpg, 1.5apg, 1spg on 52.3%, 50% from 3 and 83.3% from the line.

So, Eddie Robinson, by Skiles definition, didn't fit his mold beginning March 1st against the Cavs when he logged one whole minute? What did Eddie doe between February 26th and March 1st to go from averaging 27.5mpg to 7.3mpg for the month of March? 

Was it that we had more production coming from the SF slot? Linton played (and started) most of the games in March at the SF slot. Linton's stats in March: 25.6mpg, 6.3ppg, 6.6rpg, 0.8apg, 1.31spg on 38.8%, 25% from 3 and 40% from the line. Dupree, who backed up Linton provided: 17.6mpg, 5.9ppg, 3.3rpg, 1.1apg and 0.63spg on 44.4%, 66.7% from 3 and 56.8% from the line. 

Combined (MAR) 43.2mpg, 12.2ppg, 9.9rpg, 1.9apg, 1.94spg on 41.6%, 45.8% from 3 and 48.4% from the line. 
Robinson (FEB) 27.5mpg, 10.3ppg, 2.3rpg, 1.5apg, 1spg on 52.3%, 50% from 3 and 83.3% from the line.

I'd like to think that Robinson outperformed not only Dupree but both Dupree and Linton given similar situation. The fact that they had quite a bit more minutes only supports that.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Just for you...
> ...


what the hell is this month by month Balony? Dupree and E-Rob have virtually identical main stats.

Out performed? They give you the same numbers this season. The same. Only difference is that Dupree is a good influence on Eddy, so he plays. Thats the rub. Thats the reason, and thats the troof roof. heck thats almost enough even if Doop had worse stats


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> Do your homework young man


Looks like someone forgot to do theirs...

Did the dog eat it?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> what the hell is this month by month Balony? Dupree and E-Rob have vitually identical stats.
> 
> Out performed? They give you the same numbers this season. The same. Only difference is that Dupree is a good influence on Eddy, so he plays. Thats the rub. Thats the reason, and thats the troof roof


Month by month baloney is because the balance used.

When Eddie players, either Dupree or Linton are not going to play. The best comparison is the most recent when Robinson was getting PT, which was February. Then in March, he got none because Dupree and Johnson got it all. It is a way to level the comparison.

Dupree, since coming aboard has played extended minutes in every game, where Robinson has not. Quality minutes are different and why I used the February stats for Robinson, because it is the only time he got quality minutes for an extended period of time.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Looks like someone forgot to do theirs...
> ...


ha ha. What are you talking about? contribute to the subject at hand and refute the fact that Dupree and E-Rob have the same stats or just fffffade


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Month by month baloney is because the balance used.
> ...


how subjective. Nice spin doctor. I can't argue with spin. Ya got me:sigh:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> how subjective. Nice spin doctor. I can't argue with spin. Ya got me:sigh:


Spin?

You're just seeing what you want to see to stick to your argument that has already been discredited....

Maybe you should just ffffade back to realgm...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Month by month baloney is because the balance used.
> ...


Look at E-Robs minutes to start the season. He was getting a consistant 20 or so MPG under cartwright. He was scoring around 4 or 5 pts a game during those 16 games (pre-skiles). I don't see where he's such a difference-maker here. The guy has been a marginal producer at best this season. He really has been no better than Dupree as an overall player.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Spin?
> ...


apparently you couldn't discredit it because you haven't posted an argument.

if you arenas didn't post the same crap threads day after day, this website may not have any threads and i might have to go to RealGM because this place would shut down. I'm surprised they haven't booted you as a quality control


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> how subjective. Nice spin doctor. I can't argue with spin. Ya got me:sigh:


So your telling me that player rhythm, playing time and extended minutes have nothing to do with the production or consistency of a player?

When a player plays 8 minutes, 22 minutes, 10 minutes, DNP, 1 minutes, 32 minutes, how can he produce? The only extended period of the season that Robinson got consisent, extended minutes was in February. Then he only played in 3 games in March.

Likewise, Linton and Dupree got all of the time at the 3 in March because Eddie did not get to play. That was the only point in the season when they got consistent, extended minutes. 

The remainder of the season, it was a random lineup thrown out on the floor, which you really cannot draw conclusions on, especially if you are trying to look at consistent production of an extended period of time, or maybe you can. You just cannot say "here is what they've done this season" and compare them, especially with the off-the-cuff antics by our coach du jour.

There is no spin here, at least that wasn't my intention. I strictly wanted to pull our the period where the players in question go a legit opportunity to produce, and a consistent opportunity at that.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Erob's defense is better than Linton. Erob's shot is better than Linton and Dupree combined.

Every time he shot during that west coast trip and then some, I expected all those shots to fall in. I was impressed with his late 4th quarter defense and so was Skiles. Remember that good D on Vince in the final seconds to preserve the win? 

Skiles problem with Erob's is simple:
1) He's not practicing the way Skiles wants
2) His attitude of driving to the hole bothers Skiles
3) He doesn't press himself to become the player Erob can be

Skiles is the father figure in this situation and he's expecting Erob to learn from this and change his ways. Erob is the rebellious teen that only sees it his way and wants to do his own thing. like Theo in that pilot Cosby episode.

"Dad, I'm your son, can't you accept me for who I am?"
"Theo...that is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard!" Your going to sit your butt there and study. I brought you into this world, and I can take you OUT."


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> So your telling me that player rhythm, playing time and extended minutes have nothing to do with the production or consistency of a player?
> ...


an interesting argument. At least you posted an argument

However i still maintain that E-Rob can play anyole time he wants to. All he has to do is show Eddy how to be a pro. E-rob wants to be his underacheiving self, and we can't let Eddy Curry get that MO. That overrides everything


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> Skiles is the father figure in this situation and he's expecting Erob to learn from this and change his ways. Erob is the rebellious teen that only sees it his way and wants to do his own thing. like Theo in that pilot Cosby episode.
> 
> "Dad, I'm your son, can't you accept me for who I am?"
> "Theo...that is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard!" Your going to sit your butt there and study. I brought you into this world, and I can take you OUT."


"You're gonna need a car!"
"I'll ride a motorbike."

"You haven't eaten anything."
"I'll live off bologna and cereal."

"You plan on having a girlfriend?"
"For sure."
[Theo is broke]

:yes:


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at E-Robs minutes to start the season. He was getting a consistant 20 or so MPG under cartwright. He was scoring around 4 or 5 pts a game during those 16 games (pre-skiles). I don't see where he's such a difference-maker here. The guy has been a marginal producer at best this season. He really has been no better than Dupree as an overall player.


Yes, he was. I was also going to add that particular stretch, but he wasn't getting any touches. He averaged 4.3 shots per game and he shot right at 50%, going 30 for 61. 

4.6ppg, 2.3rpg, 1.3apg is not bad on 49.2% shooting in just under 19mpg. He has shown, as indicated in February, that when he gets extended minutes, he produces. 

If he had got 10 shots per game during February, he would have been around the 8-10ppg mark. But Jalen, Jamal and Donyell were eating up the shots back then... Eddie didn't have a role. Also, if you remember back to November, Eddie was very active on the floor and in the open court... back at the beginning of the year, people were excited about him.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, he was. I was also going to add that particular stretch, but he wasn't getting any touches. He averaged 4.3 shots per game and he shot right at 50%, going 30 for 61.
> ...


what you are doing is getting caught up in the actuall numbers. My argument is that when you have another player who can post the same production like Dupree, you play Dupree, because its all about Eddy Curry and Eddy Curry being shown that the players who Max themselves are what matters, not players who Min themselves.

If E-Rob wants to play, he needs to produce A LOT LOT better than Dupree. He doesn't. all theories aside.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> an interesting argument. At least you posted an argument
> 
> However i still maintain that E-Rob can play anyole time he wants to. All he has to do is show Eddy how to be a pro. E-rob wants to be his underacheiving self, and we can't let Eddy Curry get that MO. That overrides everything


Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of Eddie Robinson. In fact, I've been one of his most vocal critics since the RealGM days. 

FJ and I went round and round on RealGM when I told him that Eddie cannot play outside of the key area because of his game in college and what he was brought up playing.

Robinson's ego and mentality was altered when he was brought to Chicago because they told him he could play shooting guard... LMAO! Anyway, he was a power forward in college and I noted that I didn't see him as a 3 either, just a sad excuse for a PF of the Darius Miles persuasion.

That said, and being a long time ago, Robinson can produce. All I wanted was for us to drive up his value by playing him. I think if he would have played out the season and put up 10-12ppg and 5rpg, he would be in Charlotte next season without us having to sweeten any deal.

My goal was to get his value up and sell. Unfortunately, I think we did the polar opposite.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> what you are doing is getting caught up in the actuall numbers. My argument is that when you have another player who can post the same production like Dupree, you play Dupree, because its all about Eddy Curry and Eddy Curry being shown that the players who Max themselves are what matters, not players who Min themselves.
> 
> If E-Rob wants to play, he needs to produce A LOT LOT better than Dupree. He doesn't. all theories aside.


But that is the thing. Play him, drive his value up, send him packing. 

Instead, the organization is dragging his name through the mud to where he cannot be dealt. Then, you have Eddie speaking through the media, which in turns throws negative press back at the organization. Sitting him on the bench for the remainder of his contract will have a bigger residual (negative) effect on Curry then playing him this year and moving him would have.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I am absolutely amazed that there are those here who think the fact that Eddie freakin' Robinson is not playing 25 mpg has the least bit to do with the Bulls fate this season.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of Eddie Robinson. In fact, I've been one of his most vocal critics since the RealGM days.
> ...


i agree that your goal is a good goal, and i agree the E-Rob can produce. Far more than he does. I wish he would just do as the coach asks. I'm sure its a reasonable parameter. And i'm sure that the parameter is for the good of the team. 

It would be beneficial for E-Rob to be on the floor producing. I guess he doesn't want to play as much as he says he wants to play. All he needs to do is meet certain standards that must be reachable. After all, other players reach them.
like i said, this is a young team of immpresionable people. If E-Rob was on a vteran team of winners, he might play more because all the Vets aren't impresssed by the E-Rob show. They would have their own formed MOs. This teams MO is developing as we speak


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I am absolutely amazed that there are those here who think the fact that Eddie freakin' Robinson is not playing 25 mpg has the least bit to do with the Bulls fate this season.


Are you implying that at me? Because I don't think he has anything to do with it... mine strictly has to do with trade valuation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> what you are doing is getting caught up in the actuall numbers. My argument is that when you have another player who can post the same production like Dupree, you play Dupree, because its all about Eddy Curry and Eddy Curry being shown that the players who Max themselves are what matters, not players who Min themselves.
> 
> If E-Rob wants to play, he needs to produce A LOT LOT better than Dupree. He doesn't. all theories aside.


RetroDreams made an excellent argument about how consistently better ERob was when given consistent playing time than Dupree/Johnson have.

He asked a key question (roughly): "What did ERob do (after playing far above his season stats and those of Dupree/Johnson) to SUDDENLY end up on the bench, DNP-CD?" He fully supported the case that ERob should have continued to play the same minutes, if not MORE, based upon both the great improvement in his own play, and his play being superior to both Dupree and Johnson <B>combined</B> (and for more minutes).

I remember posting in a game thread earlier in the season that ERob had not scored 10 points in any game all season. Yet he gets modest playing time in February and AVERAGES 10 points per game. Not only that, I'd be willing to bet February may have been the best stretch of ERob's career over that long a period. That's not "Min" himself, but looks more like "Max" himself to me.

The only lesson Skiles is teaching is "play better than expected and I'll sit you." Warp 10, straight for the sun.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> i agree that your goal is a good goal, and i agree the E-Rob can produce. Far more than he does. I wish he would just do as the coach asks. I'm sure its a reasonable parameter. And i'm sure that the parameter is for the good of the team.
> 
> ...


Agree... and this is where the situation gets sticky. I wish Skiles would come out and tell fans and the media EXACTLY why Eddie is not playing. Not just saying "preparation," because preparation can mean 1,000s of things from missing practices to missing pregame meals to showing up late.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Agree... and this is where the situation gets sticky. I wish Skiles would come out and tell fans and the media EXACTLY why Eddie is not playing. Not just saying "preparation," because preparation can mean 1,000s of things from missing practices to missing pregame meals to showing up late.


I really do wish we knew exactly what ERob is (or isn't) doing to get this treatment. But at the same time, Skiles and Pax have come under fire for telling the media too much, so Skiles is kind of screwed either way, huh?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Agree... and this is where the situation gets sticky. I wish Skiles would come out and tell fans and the media EXACTLY why Eddie is not playing. Not just saying "preparation," because preparation can mean 1,000s of things from missing practices to missing pregame meals to showing up late.


C'mon now. Why should Skiles air his dirty laundry with eRob? How will this, in any way, help the situation?

If anything eRob is the one doing most of the pissing in this contest.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> RetroDreams made an excellent argument about how consistently better ERob was when given consistent playing time than Dupree/Johnson have.
> ...


yes, it was an excellent argument. I don't agree that its consequntial in the big picture of team development. Its about the team and the way it operates.

E-Rob, like it or not, is in a position of team leadership with his salary and age. He's abdicated. So there's a void i agree. Its unfortunate. But when a guy who is in that position runs from it, and you can replace him with another guy like Dupree who produces the same numbers who also can assume positive team goals...you do it.

and you aren't being fair with your eval of the Skiles MO. He's not asking too much. If Dupree can do it, so can E-Rob. Nobody is saying Dupree is as talented. But there are the bigger issues. 
Why DID E-ROB disappear? Must be something HE did, or didn't do.

I think it has to do with something that you don't think matters. Skiles does. W'll see who ends up being right.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> C'mon now. Why should Skiles air his dirty laundry with eRob? How will this, in any way, help the situation?
> ...


To end all of the bickering and speculation. It is like the culimination of the Kobe/Phil shooting situation where Phil finally just dropped the bomb in the media and said exactly what Kobe was doing that disturbed him.

Then, if it was truly something Eddie was doing, he couldn't point any fingers. Do you find it odd that the last three or four times Eddie has been in the papers he has stressed he has no idea what he has done?

Like I said in my analysis, it happened between February 26th and March 1st, because Eddie went from averaging 27.5mpg in February to playing 1 minute in the March 1st game and only playing in three games in all of March.

Just doesn't make sense.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Agree... and this is where the situation gets sticky. I wish Skiles would come out and tell fans and the media EXACTLY why Eddie is not playing. Not just saying "preparation," because preparation can mean 1,000s of things from missing practices to missing pregame meals to showing up late.


This is something that just won't happen. It's kind of the rule that as a coach you don't go after your players in the media. Some coaches do. Remember Cartwright calling out Fizer, I believe it was last season? It's OK for the players to go after the coaches and managment tho. Something happend to end E-Robs decent run. I'm quite sure it wasn't Rasputin Skiles just randomly deciding to sit e-rob for the rest of the season. None of us knows anything beyond speculation.

E-Rob is such a touchy subject because he is the most talented "3" this team has. It seems painfully apparent that he has no interest in becomming anything more. Of course, if Pip had even been able to play 41 games this season, maybe we don't have this thread right now. That's a whole 'nother can 'o worms. 

Again, I just don't see E-Rob as being all that much of a difference maker. So why all the fuss?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> Do you find it odd that the last three or four times Eddie has been in the papers he has stressed he has no idea what he has done?


Not really. Based on ERob's nearly 3 years here, I'm pretty much convinced that he's simply dumber than an iguana. That's why I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this situation.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i would love to know all the dirty details myself. Better that we don't know perhaps.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I really do wish we knew exactly what ERob is (or isn't) doing to get this treatment. But at the same time, Skiles and Pax have come under fire for telling the media too much, so Skiles is kind of screwed either way, huh?


the not so classic catch22. and outside of a few guys on this message board, do we really think that people, fans, media, really _care_ all that much about eddie "i'm scared to drive to the hole even though i am paid MILLIONS of dollars to do just that" robinson? mmm. don't think so. catch and shoot and superstitions will get you only so far. he is as stubborn as an old mule. 

retro does make a good point about trade value and not having to giftwrap him with $3 million that could be much better spent elsewhere...however. 

fleet makes a better point (IMO) about the ethics, as in WORK ethic, involved. or in Eddie's case, decidedly NOT involved. 

arenas just has E.R.D.D. - Eddie Robinson Dysfunctional Disorder (j/k sorta)

how do you think Eddie Robinson would fare with a coach like Jerry Sloan or Hubie Brown etc. etc. 

i think he'd find himself in the exact same position he does now. 

on the bench. collecting his millions. 

I know this is a business. I just have so much more admiration for guys who respect the game and really earn their paycheck.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Are you implying that at me? Because I don't think he has anything to do with it... mine strictly has to do with trade valuation.


No, it wasn't directed specifically at you, although you _have_ been one of the more vocal posters on this issue. And yes, I read what you wrote in your last few messages in this thread about driving up E-Rob's value and then selling.

But earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) you've indicated that you feel E-Rob is a more productive SF than Lint or Dupree, and that Skiles is therefore a lesser coach for not playing E-Rob over the other two.

I think your point about driving E-Rob's value up for purposes of trading him has some merit. Ideally, the Bulls would have been able to do this. Maybe that's what they were trying to do by playing E-Rob before the trading deadline. However once that deadline passed and no deal was to be made, does it make sense to still play him?

I also think that other GM's in the league are not going to be lured into trading for a player like E-Rob based on a few months of inspired play. By now the guy has a rep as a soft, not particularly motivated player who is way overpaid. Is a few months showcasing going to erase that?

I also don't feel that a team can allow itself to be consumed by such a side issue. I'm sure Paxson and Skiles would both like E-Rob to be gone at this point, but they can't have tunnel vision in accomplishing that one task at the expense of other areas within the team. There comes a point where a player such as E-Rob becomes a write-off, and you eat the contract until they can be dealt in the last year of their contract to another team seeking cap space. Virtually every team in the league has at least one player signed to a bad contract who they would like to offload onto another team.

I also think you should allow for the fact that the Bulls have several young, impressionable players on the team who's long-term attitude and development might be adversely affected by seeing a player such as E-Rob be awarded playing time after defying the coach.

And lastly, I think you should allow for the fact that we, in all likelyhood, don't know the full E-Rob story. I have a very strong feeling that there was **** that went down between E-Rob and skiles that has not been made public.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

5 stars, mizenkay. That expressed my sentiments far better than my own errant rambling.

edit: oh wait, I can't rate you.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Then, if it was truly something Eddie was doing, he couldn't point any fingers. Do you find it odd that the last three or four times Eddie has been in the papers he has stressed he has no idea what he has done?
> ...


C'mon. What's Eddie supposed to say?

"Yep. It's all on me. I've been dogging it since day one. I gots my payday and now I'm living the good life."

Of course he's going to say he has no idea why he's sitting. He knows perfectly well why he's sitting. I have no doubt about that. What should be disturbing to you is why isn't he doing anything to change that? He's just a tremendous waste of talent at this point.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> the not so classic catch22. and outside of a few guys on this message board, do we really think that people, fans, media, really _care_ all that much about eddie "i'm scared to drive to the hole even though i am paid MILLIONS of dollars to do just that" robinson? mmm. don't think so. catch and shoot and superstitions will get you only so far. he is as stubborn as an old mule.
> ...


But that is assuming that Charlotte takes him and $3 million. Odds are, they'll have much more to chose from and Eddie won't even be on the radar. I think there are going to be too many better options out there and teams that are cash strapped giving up their picks to take a bad deal.

Is the organization content with letting Eddie down the franchise through the media the remainder of his pact? Man, I hope not.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> No, it wasn't directed specifically at you, although you _have_ been one of the more vocal posters on this issue. And yes, I read what you wrote in your last few messages in this thread about driving up E-Rob's value and then selling.
> 
> I also don't feel that a team can allow itself to be consumed by such a side issue. I'm sure Paxson and Skiles would both like E-Rob to be gone at this point, but they can't have tunnel vision in accomplishing that one task at the expense of other areas within the team. There comes a point where a player such as E-Rob becomes a write-off, and you eat the contract until they can be dealt in the last year of their contract to another team seeking cap space. Virtually every team in the league has at least one player signed to a bad contract who they would like to offload onto another team.


Great points that are most definitely noted... but I really, really hope we do not sit on him. I guess all we can do is hope we can talk Charlotte into selecting him, or another team for that matter.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> C'mon. What's Eddie supposed to say?
> 
> ...


See, this is where I just don't believe it. Everyone that I've heard quoted on Eddie (outside of those in the Bulls organization) have always spoke highly on Eddie and talked about his hard working habits. 

That was, after all, how he went from being an undrafted FA to being a contender on a playoff team when he was with the Hornets. I don't think a player just all of the sudden loses that drive and ethic. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> how do you think Eddie Robinson would fare with a coach like Jerry Sloan or Hubie Brown etc. etc.
> 
> ...


On Utah, he'd find himself in the exact same position that Yell did. Starting, or at least contributing solid backup minutes (Utah has two SFs, one playing PF).

To others who think ERob can't make a difference, I think you're mistaken. 

Forget about ERob as a Melo/LeBron difference maker. Think about the difference he does bring to the Bulls at SF, which is clearly our weakest position. He obviously has much better skills and is a better player (in spite all his negatives) than Dupree and Johnson combined.

Playing ERob at SF is part of a pattern we need to see if we're going to improve. It represents improvement at one position. We need improvement at all positions. We need to constantly improve at all posistions. A lot of tiny improvements add up to a bigger one. You have to start somewhere.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I also think you should allow for the fact that the Bulls have several young, impressionable players on the team who's long-term attitude and development might be adversely affected by seeing a player such as E-Rob be awarded playing time after defying the coach.


One more quick thing...

Do you think that these young kids side with Eddie or the organization as it stands right now? Eddie has been called the most popular Bull by teammates, so I think we know the answer to that.

What will this do in the future if the situation gets worse? Have the kids, and the rest of the team for that matter, already turned Skiles off because of this? 

This situation could be MUCH, MUCH bigger then anyone realizes.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

on any other veteran team, maybe E-Rob would be playing, and for all the reasons retro says he should. And it would be the right move. Depending on matchups. Dupree might be better in some circumstances even on the perfect team for E-Rob.
The fact remains that E-Rob isn't all that good as he is anyways.

But theres always the circumstances here with this young team that make all the difference. theres no slack for slack on this team.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Great points that are most definitely noted... but I really, really hope we do not sit on him. I guess all we can do is hope we can talk Charlotte into selecting him, or another team for that matter.


If we wanted that to happen, he should have been out on the floor...

In other discussions about ERob, I've always said if he's such a cancer and we need to get out of him play him and let him show the rest of the league he has talent, and when he was playing, he was playing well enough to garner that kind of attention.

As it is, it's the same situation with Fizer, how could you expect any GM to be enamored with a guy that's stuck on the bench on the worst team in the league?

Clearly Fizer was in the doghouse, then when he was brought out he came in and produced. I said before this is not about ERob, this is about not playing guys who can produce for inexplicable reasons and giving those minutes to guys who don't get the job done regardless of whether or not they give maximum effort.

The stats don't lie but some in this thread of chose to ignore them for the sakes of their own arguments, glad that works for you, but most of us will choose to stick to facts.

Fact is Jefferies, Fizer, and ERob should all be on the floor before Linton, Dupree , and Shirley. 

Period.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But that is assuming that Charlotte takes him and $3 million. Odds are, they'll have much more to chose from and Eddie won't even be on the radar. I think there are going to be too many better options out there and teams that are cash strapped giving up their picks to take a bad deal.
> ...


It's my hope that E-Rob is gone this summer. What I don't want, though, is for Pax to make a bad deal just to get rid of him. If push comes to shove and he can't be moved this summer and he's shown no inclanation to change his ways - stick him on the IR for the entire season and basically tell him to stay at home. Don't come to practices, don't come to the games and don't travel with the team. If and when he's ready to actually be a part of the team again, he's welcome to practice and get back into the flow of things. If not, take his 14 million to stay away.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> This situation could be MUCH, MUCH bigger then anyone realizes.


As in personal?

Yes I believe that.

I think it speaks volumes when your teammates feel you should play.

I had an incident in HS when I missed a couple practices before a big game and my teammates felt that I shouldn't play and my coach didn't play me even though I was one of the better players on the team.

If you're not giving effort and your teammates feel that they're working while you're slacking, as most of you seem to believe ERob does, your teammates aren't going to come out and say they think you should play.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> As in personal?
> ...


Thank you for sharing your HS basketball experiences.  

How your teammates view you is mutually exclusive with how your coach views you (I should hope). This ain't a popularity contest. If it was, why couldn't the team just coach itself?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing your HS basketball experiences.
> ...


You obviously haven't played basketball...

I was also on the team for a time here at UM...so excuse me for just my sorry *** HS experiences...if you'd like some John Salmons, Darius Rice, Marcus Barnes stories, maybe that would appease you... 

I won't go any further simply because from your response it shows you haven't played basketball on a real team, driveway and PS2 doesn't count...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> As it is, it's the same situation with Fizer, how could you expect any GM to be enamored with a guy that's stuck on the bench on the worst team in the league?
> 
> Clearly Fizer was in the doghouse, then when he was brought out he came in and produced. I said before this is not about ERob, this is about not playing guys who can produce for inexplicable reasons and giving those minutes to guys who don't get the job done regardless of whether or not they give maximum effort.


I applaud Fizer for having a career game against the lowly Magic last night. But by watching his huge body flop around its pretty clear he hasn't been putting in the work to keep in shape. I highly doubt Fizer has been giving a lot of effort as you say.

Painting the larger picture..... Fizer is 25 and eRob is 27 (28 next week) years old. Is it too much to ask for these professionals to do what their coaches require? Shouldn't more be expected from them because they're 1) 25 and over and 2) been in the league 4+ seasons?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't played basketball...
> ...


Yet another epic argument by Sharinas. Good job mate. You don't have an argument, you turn to personal attacks. Nice modus operandi chief.  2 stars for you.

My argument was that how a coach views an individual player is mutually exclusive of how other teammates view him. Therein, these two views can be similar but there is no outstanding correlation. 

What does Darius Rice have to say about this issue?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> What does Darius Rice have to say about this issue?


I was about to ask the same question! :grinning:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet another epic argument by Sharinas. Good job mate. You don't have an argument, you turn to personal attacks. Nice modus operandi chief.   2 stars for you.
> ...


Personal attacks?

I made a response and you come back with thank you with your boring high school experiences blah blah...

However you want to slice it, the response sounds like someone who's never played basketball on a team.

If you're dogging it like it is implied ERob does, your teammates are not going to come out and say they feel you should play.

That was my point, you missed that and instead tried to give a little dig about my HS experience.

Play on a team, then get back to me...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I applaud Fizer for having a career game against the lowly Magic last night. But by watching his huge body flop around its pretty clear he hasn't been putting in the work to keep in shape. I highly doubt Fizer has been giving a lot of effort as you say.
> ...


You ask two questions here that are pretty good ones. 

Allow me to bend the first a little: Shouldn't the coach do a good job of convincing the players to try things the coach's way? 

There's a cliche that goes something like "you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."

But then again, this Bulls team does attract flies, and rightly so. And it ain't about honey, honey.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> But then again, this Bulls team does attract flies, and rightly so. And it ain't about honey, honey.


It's lines like this that remind me why I enjoy DaBullz's posts even though I haven't agreed with him about anything in weeks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing your HS basketball experiences.
> ...


Main Entry: mu·ti·ny 
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&n-E, 'myüt-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: mutine to rebel, from Middle French (se) mutiner, from mutin mutinous, from meute revolt, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin movita, from feminine of movitus, alteration of Latin motus, past participle of movEre to move
1 obsolete : TUMULT, STRIFE
<B>2 : forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority; especially : concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer</B>
synonym see REBELLION
- mutiny intransitive verb


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Personal attacks?
> ...


I played ball in HS, but was nowhere good enough to play in college. Kudos to you if you're telling the truth about UM  I ran with the same team for the most part in college and have played in a couple adult leagues since I started working. In fact, I play ball 2-3 times a week. You happy now?

You still haven't addressed my argument. Still waiting.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

As far as the Erob situation goes I dont know why he aint playing but it aint good for business.

Any Gm and coach worth a damn wouldve started Erob and played him 45 mpg the last 2 months just increase his value and then leave him unprotected in the expansion draft .If the Bobcats select him dont we get a trade exception equal to his salary which is what ? 6.7 mil next year  .That seems to me worth the price of putting up with crap to get rid of him and be able to use him to get a nice player in return especially since there is supposedly gonna be big changes made anyway .

I think Skiles and Paxs inexperience is showing here.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I played ball in HS, but was nowhere good enough to play in college. Kudos to you if you're telling the truth about UM


I don't have to lie, but I don't have to proove myself to you either.

If you do or don't believe me, who cares? I sure as hell don't...

My point remains if you're not giving effort, your teammates know that and will not come out and say they think you should play...

I see your argument and haven't said I agree or disagree with it, ultimately, it's the coaches' call and Skiles has made his. I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing it should mean something if ERob's teammates feel he should play.

He's pretty well liked on the team, it's pretty obvious if you ever go to a game and sit close to the bench, everyone talks to him and even backed him when he got into with the fans down here. 

I think a lot of you let your personal feelings cloud reality. If you think ERob is a bum, who cares? He's still better than Linton, Dupree, and any other guy we have that should be working at Arby's at the 3 position, he plays, he produces, he should play.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> One more quick thing...
> 
> Do you think that these young kids side with Eddie or the organization as it stands right now? Eddie has been called the most popular Bull by teammates, so I think we know the answer to that.


I would hope that the guys on the team can differentiate between liking a guy and following him blindly to the possible detrement of their careers. Corey Blount was popular too, from what I've read-- doesn't mean the players tuned Pax out just because he cut their buddy.

I also think guys can like E-Rob personally and not necessarily condone how he comports himself as a professional. The opposite can be true as well.



> What will this do in the future if the situation gets worse? Have the kids, and the rest of the team for that matter, already turned Skiles off because of this?
> 
> This situation could be MUCH, MUCH bigger then anyone realizes.


I think if anything you might possibly be blowing it out of proportion. I've heard no rumblings that players have tuned Skiles out for any reason, let alone because of any perceived mistreatment of Eddie Robinson. Have you? When it comes to career advancement, these guys are out for themselves for the most part.

It's funny, though, how I read the same things-- poor communication-- about Tim Floyd and Bill Cartwright. I just can't believe that Skiles-- or Floyd and Cartwright before him-- hasn't made it perfectly clear within the team why certain guys are playing and certain guys aren't. Just because it hasn't been released for public consumption doesn't mean the communication hasn't taken place.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Any Gm and coach worth a damn wouldve started Erob and played him 45 mpg the last 2 months just increase his value and then leave him unprotected in the expansion draft ..


Agreed and that's what most of us are saying. He should be playing anyone because he's the best at his position, but if in fact he's the cancer you deem him to be let him play his value up then get him out of here. He has 2 years remaining on his deal, are you going to let him sit and rot on the bench for the next 2 seasons?

As I've said before we have $11 million tied up in 2 players that don't play, that's ridiculous. I rather have that money tied up in superstar than 2 guys who don't contribute. 1 can't, and the other we don't play.

No one has responded in regards to CJeff or Fizer...why don't they play? Why play them now and not play them before?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I would hope that the guys on the team can differentiate between liking a guy and following him blindly to the possible detrement of their careers. Corey Blount was popular too, from what I've read-- doesn't mean the players tuned Pax out just because he cut their buddy.
> 
> ...


If these guys were really buying into Skiles and his BS, you'd see a much better effort on the floor even if we still lost. Skiles got his best effort from these guys his first 8 games, then he started coaching...


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I would hope that the guys on the team can differentiate between liking a guy and following him blindly to the possible detrement of their careers. Corey Blount was popular too, from what I've read-- doesn't mean the players tuned Pax out just because he cut their buddy.
> 
> ...


Possibly... but you saying you hope that they can differentiate would nullify the point made about playing Eddie to boost trade value, no?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Possibly... but you saying you hope that they can differentiate would nullify the point made about playing Eddie to boost trade value, no?


I don't follow...


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I don't follow...


I thought it was you that brought up the point that Eddie wasn't being played because they didn't want to show his teammates that you didn't have to practice hard (or whatever) to get playing time, and that because they were young, Robinson getting time would teach them the wrong thing.

I've read some much on this today, I may finally be off my rocker.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought it was you that brought up the point that Eddie wasn't being played because they didn't want to show his teammates that you didn't have to practice hard (or whatever) to get playing time, and that because they were young, Robinson getting time would teach them the wrong thing.
> ...


I think there's a subtle distinction there. DaBullz put up the mutiny definition. Players possibly aren't mutinying because they realize that ERob's approach is detrimental and that they're better suited to at least pay lip service to the Skiles regime.

But if ERob conducts himself in a detrimental way and still plays heavy minutes, the players, young and impressionable as they may be, might think it's OK to start acting more like ERob, which would be unfortunate.

note: this is operating under the assumption that ERob really IS being some sort of cancerous influence. We don't really know that, obviously.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> note: this is operating under the assumption that ERob really IS being some sort of cancerous influence. We don't really know that, obviously.


Which goes back to the question, IF he really is a cancer, why not let him play his trade value up so you can get him out here?

As it is no team in the league is going to want a guy who's rotting away on the bench of the worst team in the league.

If he can't help us, how are they going to think he can help them?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Which goes back to the question, IF he really is a cancer, why not let him play his trade value up so you can get him out here?
> ...


because Skiles and Pax are more concerned with setting the right example than with maximizing ERob's trade value. That's the best answer I have for that one. It does seem short-sighted, I agree.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Come on everyone in the bulls system knows EROB and skiles got into to it and EROB talked some trash. It was in the press. Something like i make more than you and you ain't shilt, blab, blab, and after that he sits and he will never see the light of day period. But on the up side he does not have to worry about driving to the hoop and getting hurt. That's cool drive save erob.

david


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I think there's a subtle distinction there. DaBullz put up the mutiny definition. Players possibly aren't mutinying because they realize that ERob's approach is detrimental and that they're better suited to at least pay lip service to the Skiles regime.
> ...


I think you're making too many distinctions. For one, we don't know that the players aren't all pissed off.

But in the larger sense, I think this kind of thinking requires inconsistent logic on the part of the players. If the players are smart enough to not mutiny because they see ERob's approach is detrimental, they'll be smart enough to see if he's not living up to his potential even if he's on the court.

Honestly, if you think about it, this line of thinking requires you to not treat our players like the men they should be treated as, but instead to treat them as children who must be tricked to do the right thing.

I don't believe our players are fundamentally stupid. I also don't think treating people as if they're stupid is a good way to handle people. But that's exactly what the thought process of not playing ERob in order to "make an example of him" or to "prevent him from infecting the other players" does. It's telling the team the organization thinks they're too stupid to see things for themselves. 

To me, that's fundamentally self-defeating. If the players aren't that stupid, we'd be better off playing ERob and our players would probably be happier to see the organization put what are clearly the best players on the floor to help them. If the players really are that stupid, this plan will fail anyway because we'll never succeed with kids that are that dumb.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you're making too many distinctions. For one, we don't know that the players aren't all pissed off.
> ...


fundamentally stupid? maybe not. impressionable? very possible. but still interested in their own careers more so than ERob's battle against tyrant Skiles? also very possible.

I don't think I'm making too many distinctions at all. The equation changes if ERob is allowed to play despite a poor attitude and poor work habits. Then, it could be construed as OK to slack off. That's what Skiles is trying to avoid. Is it treating them like children? Yeah, sort of. Have they proven beyond doubt that they deserve better in their first few years? Not really. I stand by my comments.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> fundamentally stupid? maybe not. impressionable? very possible. but still interested in their own careers more so than ERob's battle against tyrant Skiles? also very possible.
> ...


Same thing that has happend with ERob, has happened with Fizer, CJeff, and to a smaller degree JC and EC, and to an even smaller degree Chandler.

The vets and KH seem to be the only ones who aren't given the directions to Skiles' invisible doghouse.

Let's not act like ERob is the sole cause of the problem with this team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Same thing that has happend with ERob, has happened with Fizer, CJeff, and to a smaller degree JC and EC, and to an even smaller degree Chandler.
> ...


OK, but that somewhat rebuts your contention that this is personal. Maybe Skiles is holding everyone to the same standard of effort, and only ERob refuses to do what is needed to get back on the court? 

My previous post was mostly just to drive home the intent of the one before it to Mikedc. As I said, I'm only speculating on ERob's case. Maybe he just looked at Skiles funny. I have no clue. and frankly I think I've run around in this circle enough times for the moment, so I'm gonna exit stage right and eat some pie.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> fundamentally stupid? maybe not. impressionable? very possible. but still interested in their own careers more so than ERob's battle against tyrant Skiles? also very possible.
> ...


i agree vflog. but honestly, how is it treating them like children? i think skiles is doing the right thing: he is treating them like adults. or at least he is trying to. 

i know most here would agree that in the real world, not the NBA live or internet version of it, people are held accountable for their work and are paid to do a job. this is no different for a professional basketball player. or at least it shouldn't be. sure there is a learning curve when a person joins a new company...but after 3 or four years you would _think_ the person would have figured out how to DO THEIR OWN JOBS, for which they are being paid millions of dollars. now whether they are "earning" their keep is a whole 'nother thing. 

and the responsibility of management is to give it's employees the right tools with which to do that job. not only to do the job but to succeed at it. to defy expectations. 
this is where Pax, at least in my mind, has not succeeeded so far. but he has said, hey *blame me*, so i think he is trying to be accountable, not just pay lip service to it as some on this board would attest. 

i remain willing to give pax and skiles, and the players too, the summer to figure out what is needed and to implement it in a timely and shall we say "winning" fashion.

enjoy the pie.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> i agree vflog. but honestly, how is it treating them like children? i think skiles is doing the right thing: he is treating them like adults. or at least he is trying to.


That's where I disagree, my way or the highway **** is reserved for children, not for grown men.

The man had problems in Phoenix, he's obviously having problems here, why?

Well there's a lot of factors, but it doesn't surprise me that guys don't play for hard for him.

If our guys were really buying into him and system and **** as the lip service we get in the papers suggests, you'd see a hell of a lot better effort from these guys even in losses.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> fundamentally stupid? maybe not. impressionable? very possible. but still interested in their own careers more so than ERob's battle against tyrant Skiles? also very possible.
> ...


They haven't proven it beyond a doubt, no, but that doesn't change the underlying principle.

How does ERob playing make it possible for a non stupid person to think it's OK to slack off. If you're smart enough to see that ERob is slacking you're also smart enough to see a couple other things.

1. ERob has immense physical gifts.
2. Because he's slacking... ERob can only be playing for one conceivable reason... he's producing more than the other guys who play at his position.
3. ERob could be better if he had a better work ethic.

So ok, given those observations, when is a player going to conclude that he can play and not work hard? Even if a player considers that he's talented enough skate by, the only way is if they don't care about getting better. And even then, they have to recognize that what they're doing puts their PT in jeopardy because the minute someone else comes along and perfoms at anything close to his level, he's on the bench.

Again, if that's going to be a guy's attitude, I don't see how cracking the whip on him is really going to change it in the long-run.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That's where I disagree, my way or the highway **** is reserved for children, not for grown men.
> ...




i understand you don't like skiles' methods. fine. that is crystal clear to me and everyone here. 

i maintain that he is trying to treat them as adults not children. haven't you ever had a tough boss? haven't you ever just had to suck it up to get the job done? 

just going to have a different point of view here. this is not a soap opera, like you kinda make it out to be. i think the reason these guys are not responding, for the most part, to this method is that they are still pretty immature adults and that is not to say they are children. no, they're kinda like teenagers - very self-involved. me, me, me. don't really know what hard work and sacrifice are really about. so it takes a tough guy to shake things up, i am all for it. 

it is skiles' version of survival of the fittest. 
the weak, and those unwilling to do the work will "perish". simple. _you_ may not like it. oh well. 

i also think that players like e-rob are out for themselves and their own agendas. if the guy really wants to show he is a team player, he shuts up, doesn't go crying to the media, and he plays for the name on the front of the jersey and not the one on the back. 

that may not be flashy enough for you or make the sports highlights. oh well. 

i don't really care if e-rob sits or stands on his head. so frankly, stats schmats. so you can disagree with me and others on this until you are blue in the face. skiles is not going anywhere anytime soon. 

it's too late for this now. but i am sure i will still feel this way in the morning, so go ahead, disagree away.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

ERob is a boob 

Of Pamela Andersen proportions 

Yo VishFlog ... hair pie !

Put me down buttclown !

And don't forget to add my evil twin FJ of Rockaway to your Pie Club

Pie is what makes the world go around


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

All the players have to do to effect a mutiny is to not go out and play hard.

Hmmmmmm....


----------

