# Skiles Chides Curry Once Again



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

"We play competitive games where there are penalties for turnovers," coach Scott Skiles said. "We have a young team that probably is going to be somewhat turnover-prone. *We also have a center who turns it over way too much, who isn't a young player anymore. He's a four-year player.* 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,5335175.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Interesting take on just how Skiles and the Bulls look at Curry. He's not a young player anymore (I'm sure he meant in terms of experience). The expectations for both Eddy and Tyson are considerably higher than ever before. While the rooks seem to be receiving consideration for their lack of experience, no such excuse exists for Curry. Is this another indication that its [edit] or get off the pot time for Eddy?


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Wow, he sure is doing a great job of boosting Curry's trade value.  

When will Skiles blame himself for being a ****in idiot?


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> "We play competitive games where there are penalties for turnovers," coach Scott Skiles said. "We have a young team that probably is going to be somewhat turnover-prone. *We also have a center who turns it over way too much, who isn't a young player anymore. He's a four-year player.*
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,5335175.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
> ...


I have said many times on this board that we should keep EC. At the same time I was hoping EC would do something now that would warrant keeping him around. Unfortunately I feel Pax will pull the plug on an EC trade before the year is out. Any good play on his part will increase, not decrease, the chances of his being gone!


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> Wow, he sure is doing a great job of boosting Curry's trade value.
> 
> When will Skiles blame himself for being a ****in idiot?


Yeah, since we both know rival GMs don't have access to Bulls stats or game tape. He's not exactly selling secrets to the commies.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

That statement means...nothing.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> Wow, he sure is doing a great job of boosting Curry's trade value.
> 
> When will Skiles blame himself for being a ****in idiot?


So Skiles is out there throwing the ball out of bounds, getting it stripped downlow while making a move? Skiles is blamed for everything. It shouldnt surprise me that he gets blamed for 25+turnover/game.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Good thing Skiles didn't coach Duncan, he would have never gotten out of Skiles doghouse.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Gee whiz, look at what a coach many folks around here wanted had to say recently...



> Van Gundy won't change
> 
> The Rockets (12-14) continue to be one of the league's major disappointments. Jeff Van Gundy's team doesn't seem to be any closer to harmony after getting beaten by the expansion Bobcats twice in a five-day span.
> 
> ...


Just thought it might be fun to give the Skiles bashing a break for a moment and see whats happening around the rest of the league.

Van Gundy won't change


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

the thing is why not give the kids some credit for improving this month. i mean we're playing more competitively and our last two losses happened because of mental errors from the team as a whole. quick shots, over dribbling, basically trying to do to much.

curry hasn't been the only one guilty of this. singling him out plain makes no sense to me. eddy isn't going turn into a savvy vet because he's just been reminded of his years in the league. if anything you'll make him paranoid and conservative.

why not tell gordan to not be so aggressive on defense, you know, so you know you can blame him later for not being intense on defense a couple losses later.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Gee whiz, look at what a coach many folks around here wanted had to say recently...
> 
> 
> ...


Oh wow look a coach can react to losing ! Who'd a thunk ?

The difference between JVG's statements and Scott's is that Scott is isolating a player as if he's the root cause of all our trouble.

Well, I guess that's sort of true, because we really can't win without him or Tyson going, but it's not really a wise idea to single out your players for everyone to see.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I feel it's a matter of time before Curry and Chandler just begin to tune Skiles out. At which point, either they will both be dealt separately or Skiles will have to leave (by quitting or being fired).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Oh wow look a coach can react to losing ! Who'd a thunk ?
> 
> ...


It's not a wise idea to single out any player for everyone to see. It's a freaking team game and routinely bashing *YOUR* guys, *YOUR TEAMMATES* almost always comes off as passing the buck and in poor form to me.

I mean, that's just part of being a teammate. And Skiles is the coach, yes, but a coach is a key member and a key leader of the team. If this were any other member of the team saying such things, there wouldn't even be a question as to the inappropriateness of such (routine) airings of grievances.

Look, lots of folks will misinterpret this as saying there's no room for criticism, but that's not true. You have to criticize when you're in a leadership position on a team, but the way you do it says a lot about what kind of leader you are, and whether you think you're really part of the team. 

Good teams, 9 times out of 10, deal with things internally. They keep it in the house and try to provide a united front to the outside world. Whether your coach or another teammate is critical within "us", in the "us against them" world, everyone should know he is one of "us". I think it's pretty clear that Skiles is not part of that team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Gee whiz, look at what a coach many folks around here wanted had to say recently...
> 
> 
> ...


there is a major difference between JVG and skiles in jeff's previous stop van gundy threw himself on the sword for a team that wasn't talented enough to reach expectations, in essense the team became about him and his failures despite the fact everyone knew at the same time the team wasn't very good and he was a very good coach , he's earned the right to speak his mind and lay blame since he has in the past proven and he is almost eager to take the blame himself for what most people didn't think was his fault.

skiles is the other way , he blames everyone else and nothing is ever his fault.

the final result , van gundy players to a man stand up for him , and would go to war for him and will defend him in the press unasked , his players enjoy playing for him and even in ewing's case coach alongside of him, I get the feeling some the bulls and his former suns players wouldn't mind if skiles fell victim to an unfortuante incident involving him , an elevator shaft and gravity.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the final result , van gundy players to a man stand up for him , and would go to war for him and will defend him in the press unasked


When asked about Van Gundy's charge that the team lacks intensity, forward Maurice Taylor woke up long enough to say: "That's his opinion."

Is this what you mean?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Seems to me Papovich has had some success and has singled out players (Nasterovic). But don't let that get in the way of everyone's Skiles hate-fest.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> 
> 
> When asked about Van Gundy's charge that the team lacks intensity, forward Maurice Taylor woke up long enough to say: "That's his opinion."
> ...


the fact that the columnist wrote " forward Maurice Taylor *woke up* long enough to say "Thats his opinion." is telling to me.

isn't it to you?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

While were basing opinions on snippit quotes, here's one from further down in the article: 



> In Jason Kidd's latest diatribe against Skiles, the New Jersey guard cryptically said to ask Curry how he feels about his coach. Mission accomplished. "I can see how some people may get rubbed the wrong way," Curry said. "But I personally like him and I think everybody on the team likes him. He definitely has a way of getting his point across. It takes some getting used to. But it's fine with me."


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> I feel it's a matter of time before Curry and Chandler just begin to tune Skiles out. At which point, either they will both be dealt separately or Skiles will have to leave (by quitting or being fired).


yep, it will happen..one way or another


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

I agree that most criticisms should be kept in-house, and not given to the media as sound bites; but what Skiles said was hardly a stab in the back. All he said was that Curry commits too many turnovers. Anyone following the Bulls knows that. In the past I have disagreed with some of what Skiles has relayed to the media, but this isn't one to get worked up about.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> I agree that most criticisms should be kept in-house, and not given to the media as sound bites; but what Skiles said was hardly a stab in the back. All he said was that Curry commits too many turnovers. Anyone following the Bulls knows that. *In the past I have disagreed with some of what Skiles has relayed to the media, but this isn't one to get worked up about.*


as have i. so i am with you on this one Q. no need to get our collective panties in a twist. the fact is, eddy turns the ball over way too much. 

and let's, just for fun, post what eddy had to say in response:

*"I have to slow it down and try to make a quality move," Curry said. "A lot of times I catch the ball and I'm too anxious. If I really see how the defense is playing me, that should cut down on my turnovers."*

yup. 

and i personally loved the fact that eddy, when told of jason kidd's petty and spoiled brat childish quote about skiles in the paper, said that personally, he liked skiles. 


:laugh:


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> and i personally loved the fact that eddy, when told of jason kidd's petty and spoiled brat childish quote about skiles in the paper, said that personally, he liked skiles.


That's because he's afraid that if he doesn't, he'll "get the belt."


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> That's because he's afraid that if he doesn't, he'll "get the belt."



"Don't make me stop this car!"


:laugh:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Skiles once again proves that he's the king of the unfortunate, but thoroughly accurate quote.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> "Don't make me stop this car!"


When Eddy turns the ball over in practice, you can overhear Pete Myers say to Eddy "Just wait til your father gets home!"


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> When Eddy turns the ball over in practice, you can overhear Pete Myers say to Eddy "Just wait til your father gets home!"


"young man, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you!"

and as eddy gamely limps away we hear in a faint, yet remorseful voice:

i will not turn the ball over.
i will not turn the ball over.
i will not turn the ball over.
i will not turn the ball over.

:grinning:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> as have i. so i am with you on this one Q. no need to get our collective panties in a twist. the fact is, eddy turns the ball over way too much.
> ...


Mizenkay, I'm not disputing you or anyone else who chooses to point out how Curry seems to say all the right things. At the same time I find his responses eerily similar to much of what came out of Crawford's mouth last year. And since his trade to NY we've seen Jamal do a complete turnabout, ripping into the Bulls on a number of occasions. In the end, I just don't believe much of what some players have to say publicly, *especially when its a contract year.*


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

*Trade EC*

Trade EC back to Terror Squad, move Tyson to the 5 as per basketball buddha Rick Majerus' advice, draft an Ike Diogu-ish player, play Hinrich and Gordon in the same backcourt critics be damned, excel and prevail.


- Pusher of Tempo


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Eddy Curry's Turnovers against New Jersey were.

2- getting stripped while going up for shot.
3- Offensive Fouls

He needs to watch the offensive fouls more so then actually losing the ball.

But what more do you want to ask from Curry. This year he has played the best offense of our bigs, and the best defense. The only thing that Chandler or Davis have done better then him this year, is rebound. Curry will be a star, and I hope the Bulls aren't going to miss out on it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> This year [Curry] has played the best offense of our bigs, <b>and the best defense. <b>


I've seen differently on my TV.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Eddy Curry's Turnovers against New Jersey were.
> 
> 2- getting stripped while going up for shot.
> ...


Lets just tackle the turnover issue for now. You pointed out that Curry got stripped going up for his shot against the Nets.

This has become a regular occurence game in and game out. He receives an entry pass in perfect position to score. Rather than protect the ball with his huge frame he turns right into his defender, literally holding the ball out in front of him waist high. Every team in the league is aware of that flaw in his mechanics and takes advantage of it.

I'm sure there isn't a Bulls fan alive who visits this board who isn't sick and tired of seeing him repeat the same mistake over and over. Its become such a common occurence that you hardly ever see the defender whistled for a foul even though they're _slapping down on the ball_, a tactic that more often than not deserves to be called a foul.

Why does he repeatedly present the ball to his defender, waist high, as he turns to take his shot? Why??? There's no reason for it. This is Basic Basketball 101. As a 4th year pro he should know better. It makes you wonder what exactly is going through his head when he makes the same mistake over and over again. In life, most people of at least average intelligence learn from their mistakes eventually. But this has been going on for as long as he's been in the league. 

It does make you wonder seriously about his capacity to make adjustments and adapt as the league throws a variety of defensive tactics at him. You know, in a playoff series, once he identifies how the opponent is going to defend him, he'd better be able to adjust quickly or his season will be over before he knows it. And isn't that what its all about anyway...not just building a team that can make the playoffs, but one that can succeed once the post season begins. Do you really want to make a long term, big dollar committment to a player who's always a step behind the rest of the league and who can't recognize strategies and make adjustments?


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re:*

Zero basketball IQ. <-- period


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> While were basing opinions on snippit quotes, here's one from further down in the article:


But why evaluate the whole picture when isolating only one part facilitates bashing Skiles? 

I also notice no one quoted the very next line of the article: 

"It's a team-wide thing. It's not just one guy. We're willing to live with 16.5. But 23, 24, 18, 19 [each game], it's very difficult to win."

In a DailyHerald article today, Skiles was also quoted as saying the following about Gordon:

"I'm very satisfied with the way Ben's played offensively, except that he turns it over way too much," coach Scott Skiles said. 

Link: http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?intID=3835199

He's not just singling out Curry. He's simply being honest.

For all the moaning around here lately about how the coach, GM, and owner are dishonest with the fans about where the team is going and what the real agenda is, its funny (if hypocrisy is funny) that people complain when the coach speaks the obvious truth.

I don't see anyone disputing the accuracy of Skiles' statements, just the fact that he made the statements. 

Gordon, Curry, Chandler, and yes, even Hinrich, have been singled out by Skiles in the media this year for perceived flaws in their game. But I guess you guys would rather the coach sugar coat and not tell it like it is.

Of course, if he did that, many of you would just compare him to Tom Dore and label him a corporate shill.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> But why evaluate the whole picture when isolating only one part facilitates bashing Skiles?
> ...


Spoken like a lead member of Steve Schanwald's Determined Detractor Emergency Response Team.

Skiles HAS to tell it like it is to be an effective coach. I just wish he'd tell less of it to the world and keep more of it in-house. I fail to see how unrelenting public criticism of his players does anyone any good.

Of course when your GM is John "Unchecked Superego" Paxson, I can see why Skiles would so relish public punishment and fail to see the need to edit himself.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> Seems to me Papovich has had some success and has singled out players (Nasterovic). But don't let that get in the way of everyone's Skiles hate-fest.


He's also singled out and nearly ripped Parker to shreds publicly. Parker is a great parallel b/c he's so young and talented as well.

If Curry was truly tough and professional, he'd be motivated by the tough talk in the media. Based on his comments (which I agree may be fake to a happy face on the whole situation), it seems like Curry actually responds well to Skiles.

In fact, Skiles' tactics may be the reason that Curry's playing better. Since Skiles took over the team, Curry has gotten in shape, rebounded better, played mcuh better defense, and started to pass out of double teams. It could just be coincidence, but it's hard to argue that (a) "Skiles is killing Curry's game" and also argue that (b) "Curry deserves praise for playing so much better" at the same time. It's one or the other - not both.

Or maybe Curry is simply getting it together in a contract year. It's just as possible, but I hope it's not the case.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see anyone disputing the accuracy of Skiles' statements, just the fact that he made the statements.
> ...


I disagree.

The media's job is to give an honest, unbiased appraisal of what is going on, IMO. So… when Dore and Kerr are acting like shills, its really lame. As a consumers of sports media, I’d like the announcers to teach me something about the game that I don’t already know… and entertain me while I’m watching it. Our trio of dorks don’t do that…. Except for maybe Kerr sometimes when he’s chewing something.

The coach’s' job, @ least the coach of the current Bulls is to 1.) develop players and 2.) win games.

Skiles quotes to the media do nothing to help. They only hurt. He should stop. Yes, everyone knows that Curry had 5 TOs. Duh. Don't worry Scott... we know... its not all your fault... but thanks for making that evident to everyone.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> 
> 
> He's also singled out and nearly ripped Parker to shreds publicly. Parker is a great parallel b/c he's so young and talented as well.
> ...



Exactly. If Curry is going to be the tough, professional player we hope to build around he should be able to handle a little public criticism. If he can't, like Jamal, than maybe he's not the kind of player we want anyway.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If Curry is going to be the tough, professional player we hope to build around he should be able to handle a little public criticism. If he can't, like Jamal, than maybe he's not the kind of player we want anyway.


A player that plays in the playoffs and wins divisions?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> A player that plays in the playoffs and wins divisions?


What?


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> The coach’s' job, @ least the coach of the current Bulls is to 1.) develop players and 2.) win games.
> 
> Skiles quotes to the media do nothing to help. They only hurt. He should stop.


What evidence do you have that this is the case? (I'm sure you have plenty, but I'm curious what specifically you think proves this.)

Skiles has been coaching this way for 12 months now, and the Bulls are finally playing well. I don't think you can say conclusively that his comments to the media "only hurt". Clearly something he's doing is helping. Calling players out makes it clear that they won't get a free pass. Whether this kind of tough love approach works long term remains to be seen. But the goal is for the players to step up and not have their names mentioned in the media. Once that happens, there's no need for the coach to make comments anymore, and the team gets better. It's worked countless times for other teams in recent years. And I think it's working for the Bulls right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> What?





> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> If he can't, like Jamal, than maybe he's not the kind of player we want anyway.





> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> A player that plays in the playoffs and wins divisions?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Jamal's won playoff games?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have that this is the case? (I'm sure you have plenty, but I'm curious what specifically you think proves this.)
> ...


I don't have *proof*... just an opinion based on what Curry seems like. Maybe some players do respond to this public berating... although I don't think many NBA guys want to hear it.

The players get paid millions no matter what. Ripping them in the press just makes them tune you out faster, IMO. Curry will get a HUGE contract no matter what. Skiles would be best served to keep him happy and productive... while positivly helping him improve his game... if he's receptive to it. 

The Bulls are on pace to win 28 games and we just lost to the Bucks and the Nets. The Magic are coming to town next. The kool-aid is getting warm and the ice cube tray was just put in the freezer.

I'd glad Curry appears to be reverting back to the semi-productive player he was at the end of 2002, before Skiles and Paxson were hired.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> Jamal's won playoff games?




I didn't say wins playoff games.

He's currently bound for the playoffs and his team is winning the division.

PaxSkiles are on pace for 28 wins... which would be a record for them with the Bulls.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> In fact, Skiles' tactics may be the reason that Curry's playing better. Since Skiles took over the team, Curry has gotten in shape, rebounded better, played mcuh better defense, and started to pass out of double teams. It could just be coincidence, but it's hard to argue that (a) "Skiles is killing Curry's game" and also argue that (b) "Curry deserves praise for playing so much better" at the same time. It's one or the other - not both.


Ah yes, the good old Skiles catch-22. Like when posters rip Paxson for the team he constructed and, simultaneously, rip Skiles because he can't take that same team to the playoffs?

What you are suggesting is that fans should appreciate how one argument plays off another and how those arguments can illustrate an obvious hypocrisy. 

A novel theory around these parts.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> He's currently bound for the playoffs and his team is winning the division.


And without Jamal the Knicks will surely be doomed... Oh wait, they're 3-0 without him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

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


Especially now that he's injured. 3-0


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> And without Jamal the Knicks will surely be doomed... Oh wait, they're 3-0 without him.


They were bound for the playoffs and winning their division with him.

PaxSkiles are still on pace for 28 wins BTW. That's not good enough for the playoffs.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> I didn't say wins playoff games.


My bad. But Jamal hasn't played in the playoffs nor won divisions yet either.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't have *proof*... just an opinion based on what Curry seems like.


Thats a solid basis for a definitive statement like "nothing to help, only hurts".

You and Eddy must be tight.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> They were bound for the playoffs and winning their division with him.


They have been better without him which means, theoretically, that he has been a negative factor for them.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Spoken like a lead member of Steve Schanwald's Determined Detractor Emergency Response Team.
> ...


"Unrelenting public criticism". "Relish public punishment". Nice.

No sense in balancing public criticism with public praise when it doesn't fit into your pigeon-hole theories.

For Skiles public criticisms of his players, which I have no problem with from any coach as long as they are accurate, he has also been publicly complimentary about:

(a) Chandler and Curry's offseason conditioning;

(b) Chandler and Curry's improved defense; and

(c) Gordon's offensive talent.

I guess the preferred theory is the Skiles just simply not provide pointed, accurate commentary about his players to the media. But like I said, then fans like you, Scott, would just call him a "yes man" or a coach who is "afraid to talk to the media" for fear of revealing the insidious plan of Paxson and Reindorff to fleece the ignorant mob that is the Bulls Nation. 

Transparent.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> But why evaluate the whole picture when isolating only one part facilitates bashing Skiles?
> ...


In fairness, Skiles' remarks about Gordon's shortcomings (pardon the pun...unintended) are noted and discussed in another thread:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132913&forumid=27

This thread is focussed on the performance of our soon-to-be restricted free agent, Eddy Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> In fairness, Skiles' remarks about Gordon's shortcomings (pardon the pun...unintended) are noted and discussed in another thread:
> ...


I wasn't referring to your initial post. I was referring to the arguments that followed stating that Curry had been singled out when, if fact, that is not entirely accurate. Gordon's turnover problem was expressly referrenced by Skiles as well. Moreover, Skiles went on to identify turnovers as a team-wide problem.

My point is, its all just the truth. Just like his praise is the truth. 

If fans don't want the truth, then they should just post "Skiles, we don't want your honest evaluation of the team and its players, just let us draw our own conclusions."

Personally, I like to get the coach's honest opinions. Both the good and the bad ones.

If Skiles went to the press as a cheerleader with a team that is 9-17, the bashers in here would just chastise him for trying to gloss over the deficiencies of the team. You know it. I know it. The Bashers know it.

I'm not sold on Skiles yet either. But I would like to see some honest, objective evaluation, not just mindless, sweeping, unmitigated criticism.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats a solid basis for a definitive statement like "nothing to help, only hurts".
> ...


I should have put an IMO.

Paxson may be the losingest GM in Bulls history.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> They have been better without him which means, theoretically, that he has been a negative factor for them.



Bottom line: They were bound for the playoffs and winning their division with him as the starting SG getting heavy minutes.

Also, Paxson has a dismal, losing record as Bulls GM. That's true as well.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your initial post. I was referring to the arguments that followed stating that Curry had been singled out when, if fact, that is not entirely accurate. Gordon's turnover problem was expressly referrenced by Skiles as well. Moreover, Skiles went on to identify turnovers as a team-wide problem.
> ...


I can't argue with anything you say. I have been to a number of Skiles' postgame press conferences. Oftentimes its the questions asked by the media that mandate a specific response. He can't resort to "no comment" each time he's asked a pointed question about a specific player. Then he'd really look like a shill for the organization.

As for those who feel that criticism should be kept in the locker room, I guess that would depend on the subject matter. On-court performances really aren't internal issues. Many other subjects are and I think the Bulls do a good job of drawing the line about what topics should and shouldn't be discussed publicly.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

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


What does any of this have to do with Skiles' observations about Curry?
:whoknows:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

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


While we are throwing out over-simplified bottom lines, here's this.

Bottom line: The Knicks have been better without Jamal.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> If Skiles went to the press as a cheerleader with a team that is 9-17, the bashers in here would just chastise him for trying to gloss over the deficiencies of the team. You know it. I know it. The Bashers know it.


You are correct. 

To paraphrase Nietzsche, "the bashing will continue until the record improves."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

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


So did Kiki when he first started tearing down Denver to rebuild it. Such it is with Paxson. Bleatings about the team's record are meaningless when the team was already horrifically bad and capped out to begin with when the GM decided to tear it apart and start over. 

The only way to measure the success of those moves is to see if the team improves as a result, which is exactly what is happening both from an "I can see that the team is improved" viewpoint as well as a quick perusal of the win/loss column.

So give it some time, eh? Its a process, and one that is obviously working even with 4 rookies in the rotation. Right, "I only look at the win column" guy?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> ...


Interesting. The record has improved.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> To paraphrase Nietzsche, "the bashing will continue until the record improves."


I always thought that was Derrida.

Live and learn.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting. The record has improved.


By "improve" I mean improve to a point where we're not on a pace to lock up the all-time worst record for seven seasons. And eight seasons. And nine seasons. And so on.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> I can't argue with anything you say. I have been to a number of Skiles' postgame press conferences. Oftentimes its the questions asked by the media that mandate a specific response. He can't resort to "no comment" each time he's asked a pointed question about a specific player. Then he'd really look like a shill for the organization.
> ...


I hope everyone who posted in this thread reads what you just wrote. Dead on stuff and I'd like to see what, if any, response you get to those comments.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> By "improve" I mean improve to a point where we're not on a pace to lock up the all-time worst record for seven seasons. And eight seasons. And nine seasons. And so on.


Any argument that evaluates the improvement this team makes (and is making) by incorporating the win/loss record of seasons past is invalid on its face.

Since we are going back in time, why not go back to 1990 and make it a 14 year analysis of the win/loss record instead of a 7 year one. That would be just as valid and sensible. Which is to say it would be completely invalid and lacking sense.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> What does any of this have to do with Skiles' observations about Curry?
> :whoknows:


I agree. I'm tired of having this crawford discussion. I'm happy he's on a winning, playoff bound team. I wonder how many bulls would like that?

I think its loosly based on some people being pro-paxskiles on every issue and other being anti-paxskiles on every issue...and it goes from there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Any argument that evaluates the improvement this team makes (and is making) by incorporating the win/loss record of seasons past is invalid on its face.
> ...


What makes the 14-year comparision invalid is that the current ownership regime inherited Michael Jordan. The events of 1998-on lead me to believe that a cage of circus monkeys could have assembled a championship team around him.

What makes the 7-year comparison valid is that the current ownership regime very carefully chose to lay waste to a championship team and take a nuclear winter approach to rebuilding. Absent the incredible good fortune of lucking into one of the greatest players ever, they have failed in everything they've done (except the most important thing, make money).

Not a complicated or illogical difference, imo.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> So did Kiki when he first started tearing down Denver to rebuild it. Such it is with Paxson. Bleatings about the team's record are meaningless when the team was already horrifically bad and capped out to begin with when the GM decided to tear it apart and start over.
> ...



1.) The team was not horrifically bad at the end of 2002. Paxson thought enough of the team to guarantee playoffs. Do you think Paxson is that poor an evaluator of talent? Do you remember no excuses?

2.) We're on pace for 28 wins. Paxson blew up a team that won 30 the year before. Maybe we'll get there this season... maybe not. Two seasons have been sacrificed to maybe, maybe, maybe get back to where we were at before. I guess this makes you happy.

3.) This team will suck worse next season if he bungles the Curry/Chandler situation as badly as he did the Rose/Marshall and Crawford situations.

I'm giving him time. As of now, he's one of the losingest GMs in Bulls history. I hope he gets his act together.

I'm sorry you don't like the annoying "wins column" guy. 

Seems like you are more of a fan of the Kool-Aid man.










BULLS RULE!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

OT:

My nomination for best infusion of new blood in a long time to a somewhat bogged down Bulls board:

Ron "The Penguin" Cey.

Cool. Crisp. Refreshing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

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


Seems to me there is a difference between arguing that "there is an improvement in the current team, and forget about the past, because it doesn't matter" and mindless "hey Kool-Aid."

Ron has been making intelligent, thoughtful arguments, and has been getting slammed because his thoughts differ from the prevailing boo-bird mentality which is the result of 6 long years of suffering. Perhaps Ron is right, and we should put the past behind us, the good years and bad, and look at this team fresh.

They sucked eggs from the beginning of the season through the end of the circus trip. Since then, they have played fairly well, beating some teams we wouldn't have expected them to beat. And they've lost to a couple of teams they should have beaten.

Perhaps signs they are indeed on the right track.

Still PLENTY of room for improvement, from all involved.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Absent the incredible good fortune of lucking into one of the greatest players ever, they have failed in everything they've done (except the most important thing, make money).
> ...



1993-1994 Chicago Bulls 55 27 .671 
Lost Eastern semi-finals in seven games

1994-1995 Chicago Bulls 47-35 .573

Doesn't look like failure to me.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> What makes the 14-year comparision invalid is that the current ownership regime inherited Michael Jordan. The events of 1998-on lead me to believe that a cage of circus monkeys could have assembled a championship team around him.
> ...


Yet John Paxon had absolutely no impact on any of those decisions or strategies. So why don't we give him a chance and evaluate him based on what HE does?

As you say, not complicated or illogical.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I'm giving him time.


All evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Seems to me there is a difference between arguing that "there is an improvement in the current team, and forget about the past, because it doesn't matter" and mindless "hey Kool-Aid."
> ...


Thanks for that. And, although I realize many can't or won't grasp this, the improvement this team makes under Paxson can't be judged this season alone. Nor could it be judged last season alone.

The team features 4 rookies prominently along with equally young, though more NBA experienced, Curry and Chandler. This will be an ongoing process and the improvement will be realized, and must be evaluated, over the course of YEARS to come. Not months, weeks, or games (and that includes both winning and losing streaks).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If Curry is going to be the tough, professional player we hope to build around he should be able to handle a little public criticism. If he can't, like Jamal, than maybe he's not the kind of player we want anyway.


not many superstars can handle public criticism, not many players can period .

its not about what a person can handle in the public eye , its about a coach who is supposed to have your back constantly twisting a knife in them , at some point its not constructive, its harping and can become mean spirited as it it can not just affect public perception but also future money making potential.

its an every week thing at this point , i read other papers from other cities , most coaches aren't like this at all, some coaches are actually publicly supportive of players and handle things away from the public eye.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 1994-1995 team was 33-32 before Jordan's return, fyi.

Those records without Jordan just make it sadder that Pippen and Jackson were so quickly and unremorsefully kicked to the curb. IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet John Paxon had absolutely no impact on any of those decisions or strategies. So why don't we give him a chance and evaluate him based on what HE does?
> ...


OK.

He took over a team that had an upward trend line.

He guaranteed playoffs.

After a short, bad start, he blew it up.

The trend line was shattered.

He traded Rose/Marshall for AD.

He traded Crawford for NOTHING (ok, marginal Cap Space).

He didn't blow the lottery picks.

He blew his first MLE signing and did OK with his second.

His team is still on track to win fewer games than the one he inherited.

The team seems a bit scrappier.

His back is against the wall in regards to Curry/Chandler. The precious Cap Space is @ risk.

This is what he's done. Let's not get the bronze statue ready just yet.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. And, although I realize many can't or won't grasp this, the improvement this team makes under Paxson can't be judged this season alone. Nor could it be judged last season


What are we supposed to judge it on?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> OK.
> ...


Lets also not get the tar and feathers ready just yet.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The 1994-1995 team was 33-32 before Jordan's return, fyi.
> ...




1. When Jordan returned he was nowhere near the brilliant player the Bulls "lucked into".

2. How did managements lucking into Jordan influence a very sucessful 93-94 campaign. If the answer is "it didn't", then how do you reconcile that with your statement that the Bulls lucked into all the success they've had?

3. Was trading Olden Polynice for likely hall of famer Scottie Pippen luck?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> What are we supposed to judge it on?


Gee, I don't know. How this completely new and revamped team and its individual players continue to improve going forward? I think that might be a good way to evaluate it. 

Much like one individual rookie, Baron Davis for example, can't be judged by his rookie campaign alone, a team full of young players (and the applied theory behind that team's creation) cannot be judged on one season alone. Particularly a season, like this one, that is marked by improvement.

If this extremely young Bulls team wins, say, 33 games and continues to play the competitive ball they are playing now, does that constitute failure or does it provide an indication that Paxson might just be onto something?

To me it is the latter. If this were a veteran team, a complete product, I would say it is the former.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your initial post. I was referring to the arguments that followed stating that Curry had been singled out when, if fact, that is not entirely accurate. Gordon's turnover problem was expressly referrenced by Skiles as well. Moreover, Skiles went on to identify turnovers as a team-wide problem.
> ...


Obviously. But I don't think you do get, or want Skiles "honest evaluation" of Eddy Curry. 

And more often than not, I think Skiles comes off as sounding like he puts himself on a different side of the Us-Them equation than he puts (at least several members of) the team he coaches.

That comes across in the tone and nature of his criticism, as well as who it's directed to, who it's not, and when it happens.



> If Skiles went to the press as a cheerleader with a team that is 9-17, the bashers in here would just chastise him for trying to gloss over the deficiencies of the team. You know it. I know it. The Bashers know it.
> 
> I'm not sold on Skiles yet either. But I would like to see some honest, objective evaluation, not just mindless, sweeping, unmitigated criticism.


Enough with the mindless, sweeping, unmitigated labeling of people.  I'm not aware of any poster here named "The Bashers". Perhaps he's that guy over in the corner all made of straw. In any case, perhaps you could take things in a more constructive direction by explaining why, despite the plethora of good things you've pointed out, you're still not sold on Skiles.

If it turns out to be relatively similar stuff to that which you're so critical of other folks bringing up (and I doubt that it will be something completely new), it would seem that the differences are simply honest differences of opinion between folks about the extent of issues everyone recognizes. And given that those are easily understood as such, it's then not hard to disagree on those extents without the mindless, sweeping, unmitigated labeling of people who have the same questions as you do, just in different intensities


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was good enough to take a team that was 33-32 (and falling fast) and go 14-3 the rest of the way, then beat a very, very strong Charlotte team in the first round, and give a very, very strong Orlando team a pretty good fight in six. This was without much in the way of training or preparation.

(And after that summer, I seem to recall the Bulls going on to win three more titles.)



> 2. How did managements lucking into Jordan influence a very sucessful 93-94 campaign. If the answer is "it didn't", then how do you reconcile that with your statement that the Bulls lucked into all the success they've had?


Bulls' management made some excellent decisions when Jordan was around (and some bad ones, too; I never thought there'd be a worse team draft than ours in 89, then 2000 came along). The 87 draft. Phil Jackson. Some of the free agents and complementary players. But wouldn't you agree that by having Jordan, most of the heavy lifting had already been accomplished? I mean, we're talking about one of the two or three best players in the history of the sport here.



> 3. Was trading Olden Polynice for likely hall of famer Scottie Pippen luck?


That deal was prearranged, fyi; Seattle drafted him on our say-so and Polynice was, for whatever reason, the guy they wanted us to pick and send back. It was obviously a great decision by Krause, and Scottie is one of my all-time favorites. However, I think that Jordan wins a ring without Scottie -- definitely not six, and definitely not in such a dominating fashion, but one day, he would have gotten it done. I can't say the same about Pippen.

Again, without the benefit of having a world-class talent like Jordan in the fold, and doing it all on their own terms, our current ownership regime has produced the worst six-year (and soon to be seven-year, and probably eight- or nine-year unless things turn around quickly) record in the history of the NBA, including expansion teams. If that's not failing, and failing spectacularly, we'll just have agree to disagree.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously. But I don't think you do get, or want Skiles "honest evaluation" of Eddy Curry.
> ...


I don't attribute false arguments to people and then dispell the argument. Thats a straw man. 

I think its pretty fair to state that there is a collection of posters in this forum that routinely bash Skiles given: (a) what I read; and (b) the fact that there is actual "club" with members whose mantra is that Skiles be fired. 

*You've voluntarily and proudly labeled yourselves.* You don't need my help in that department.

As to why I'm not sold on Skiles: Skiles, like many of the players and even Paxson, has made some great decisions/actions and some poor decisions/actions. The net result of those decisions/actions can't be determined yet. Things must be evaluated going forward, not through premature declarations of misguided "certainty".

Saying I'm not 100% sold on Skiles is not the same as saying I don't like Skiles. I do like Skiles. I am, in the balancing of all things, pleased with Skiles to date. But he has not proven to me that he is certainly the answer. Nor could he prove that in so short a time. 

So no, its not simply a matter of varying degrees of intensity. Its two completely opposing methods of evaluating the team, its coach, its GM and its players.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> OT:
> 
> My nomination for best infusion of new blood in a long time to a somewhat bogged down Bulls board:
> ...


Not to diminish Ron Cey's arrival, but oh, don't we all start out enthusiastic in our defense of the Bulls ?

At least most of us. 

Maybe because a lot of us begin as outcast isolated Bulls fans who have no one else to talk to about the Bulls. We start out viewing things as the Bulls against every other NBA team. And for various reasons some people stick to that --- Bulls vs. other team. The team always has it in them, if they just do the right things.

Most of the time this description tends to fit the Anti-Krause/Pro-Pax/Skiles guys.

Some of the guys in this group also tend to support management no matter what and supported Jerry Krause as well.

But there ain't enough kool-aid to quench everyone.

As these boards have grown, and we evolve to discuss such important topics like Jamal being 3 days late to voluntary workouts, we begin to view workings within the team itself. And so a lot of people begin to view the battles as inside the team itself and how it could improve upon itself, mostly through structural changes.

Most of the time this description tends to fit the Pro-Krause/Anti-Pax/Skiles guys.

Of course there's the folks who simply see the results and are not happy until the record improves itself. For now they fall into the Anti-Pax/Skiles category, but they also didn't like what Krause was doing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Not to diminish Ron Cey's arrival, but oh, don't we all start out enthusiastic in our defense of the Bulls ?
> 
> ...


So which one of those categories does The Penguin fall into?

The isolated "outcast" Bulls fan who is just "starting out" and shallowly compares the Bulls to only other NBA teams?

Or the "evolved" fan who, bathed in the knowledge of this board, has come to intricately evaluate the "workings within the team itself"?

Gee, let me guess.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Not to diminish Ron Cey's arrival, but oh, don't we all start out enthusiastic in our defense of the Bulls ?
> 
> ...


I have "known" The 6ft Hurdle since, jeez, I want to say 1998? when we used to post on a Bulls message board on AOL (man, those were the Dark Ages). He can attest that I could not have been more enthusiastic about the approach the Bulls were taking. I felt it was correct to not "settle for mediocrity" and "end up like the Pistons or Celtics."

I have pretty much done a 180 (or, as Eddy Curry might say, a 360). I concluded that despite all the bombast and self-congratulation about having the league's highest payroll during the Jordan years and building the Berto Center and being one of the first teams to fly charters, this is an organization run on the cheap. Like it or not, and coincidence or not, every single major personnel move they've made since 1998 has been, in essence, a salary dump. They pay as little as any team does for its GM/coach combo. 

In light of the profits the Bulls make, this is an outrage, and this is why I stopped toeing the company line. I don't think Paxson or Skiles is either particularly competent or incompetent -- but I do know neither was/is the best money could by at the time they were hired. 

Until I see sustained winning AND a willingness to financially commit to players who can or WILL (note tense -- no team can succeed with a constant cycling of players and failure to accumulate talent), I will be on Reinsdorf's case like dirt on a potato. 

But I'll also be the first person to graciously concede that I've been wrong, and there's nothing I want more (you know, in an entertainment, not real-life sense) than for the Bulls to do well.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

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


I'm sure it's just me, but this really cracked me up.

You're giving him time???? Time before you...

...start making prank phone calls to his home?

...begin throwing rotten produce at his skybox?

...shoot him down like a dog in the street?

Because you're certainly not giving him time before openly criticizing him and labeling him a bad GM.

You can judge Paxson on his W-L record (which you have) or you can withhold judgement to see whether what he's trying to do will work.

You think he's a bad GM because his team has lost more games than it has won and because you believe that the moves he's made has contributed to this losing.

Now, you may reserve the right to _change your mind_ about Paxson, but this isn't the same as giving him time.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> *I don't think Paxson or Skiles is either particularly competent or incompetent* -- but I do know neither was/is the best money could by at the time they were hired.


Yet your name conspicuously appears on both the "Fire Paxson" and "Fire Skiles" honor roll. 

I guess its all about how much they demanded in salary, rather than how good a job they do, right?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't attribute false arguments to people and then dispell the argument. Thats a straw man.
> ...


Then why, by your actions, do you seem to think "we" do?

It's certainly fair to say that there are a group of posters here who have concluded Skiles should be fired. That, however, was not what you said in your original post, in which you created a strawman caricature of such people that provides an easy to understand and easily attacked strawman by divorcing the basic view from the more complex reality you attribute to yourself and which in fact exists among those you sought to label.

You sought to qualify yourself as "not being sold on Skiles" to imply some sophistication in your view and contrast it with those who "mindlessly" hate everything about him. In practice however, while there are many critics of him here, it's pretty clear, if you look at individuals (rather than labeling them) different people will like or dislike different things about him. Setting up the strawman you set up might reflect the "mindless general sentiment", but only because it's a simple aggregation of general sentiment and reflects no individuals' considered view. It's mindless because it omits any considered opinion by definition 



> As to why I'm not sold on Skiles: Skiles, like many of the players and even Paxson, has made some great decisions/actions and some poor decisions/actions. The net result of those decisions/actions can't be determined yet. Things must be evaluated going forward, not through premature declarations of misguided "certainty".
> 
> Saying I'm not 100% sold on Skiles is not the same as saying I don't like Skiles. I do like Skiles. I am, in the balancing of all things, pleased with Skiles to date. But he has not proven to me that he is certainly the answer. Nor could he prove that in so short a time.


Let me ask again in a different way. What are some of the poor decisions/actions you believe Skiles to have made.

And don't give me the guff about certainty and evaluating going forward... I'm not asking about certainty, I'm asking about your belief. It's already rather implicit we're talking about beliefs here, rather than certainty, another point that makes your contention above rather hollow and your contention that:



> So no, its not simply a matter of varying degrees of intensity. Its two completely opposing methods of evaluating the team, its coach, its GM and its players.


... rather hard to agree with.

Or, perhaps you really are sold on Skiles and believe he has made no mistakes? Since you didn't say that, I'll assume that's not the case, and like the rest of us, you're just trying to judge the good with the bad and reach a conclusion. Same means (we're all on the outside looking in), same ends (we all want the Bulls to be good). Just that on balance you reach a different conclusion, and you are admitting your own internal calculations to get to that point and omitting anyone else's if they reach another conclusion


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's just me, but this really cracked me up.
> ...


I'm all for firing Paxson, but that's pretty funny :laugh:

I'm for firing him, by the way, because the balance of what I've seen makes me think he's not going to lead us to a championship. Is that a "preliminary" opinion? Sure. I hope he proves me wrong


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet your name conspicuously appears on both the "Fire Paxson" and "Fire Skiles" honor roll.
> ...


Is my name any more or less conspicuous than the three dozen-odd others that appear on those lists?

I'm sure that when both Skiles and Paxson were hired, they were too stunned and shocked and surprised by the fact they were actually being offered their respective jobs to be doing much in the way of making demands. Thanking their ****ing lucky stars is more like it.

That Reinsdorf would choose two guys no one else wanted and two guys who make bargain-basement salaries to fill the two most important jobs in the organization just goes to show where his attention lies. As a wildly successful businessman, he knows damn well that most of the time you get what you pay for.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> So which one of those categories does The Penguin fall into?
> ...


I didn't say anything about "shallow" comparisons or mean to imply an "evolved fan." 

In fact, I didn't use any characteristics to describe any type of fan, just described where they might be coming from, who they may be repsonding to, and statements they may make.

I'm not saying that the board rookies lack knowledge or anything, I'm just saying that's how it's been going the last few years I've been posting.



> Originally posted by *ScottMay*!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those days. Never again. 

I remember that the board would revolve around countering a troll by the ambiguous moniker of Martktbus. The dude made numerous screen names just to troll our board, but I do wonder what he thinks now or even if he posts among us.

But yeah, I've seen Scott do his 360 become an "evolved" poster. (That's a joke, Ron Cey).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Then why, by your actions, do you seem to think "we" do?
> ...


First, determining that someone should be fired is about as certain a conclusion as one can come to. So criticizing the misguided certainty you guys preach is far from guff nor is it hollow. Its simply the state of affairs created by your own posts.

Second, if my reliance on the existence of that group to generalize the opinions of its membership is misplaced then I apologize. But it begs the question - if the opinion is not common then why does that silly club exist in the first place?

Regardless, I'll try to stick to disputing individual posts rather than recognize the already existing generalities. 

Although I must admit, the vast majority of my posts already are directed at particular posters and particular arguments. If my stated impression of the general misguided tone of this message board offends, I apologize again. Yet it remains my impression.

And I didn't say I wasn't sold on Skiles to imply "sophistication". I said it because I'm not sold on him. No motive, just where I'm at.

You want me to list the things that make me "not sold" on Skiles? Christ, Mike, at some point in almost every single game he does something, or delays in doing something, that I don't agree with. I just don't let those moments dictate my overall sense of whether or not he should be retained. 

Rotations. Lineups. Quick hooks. Slow hooks. Calling timeouts. Not calling timeouts. And I suspect you are right that others who want him canned have complained about those things. But these are the things that all fans of all basketball teams criticize the coach about. Its how they let these things affect their overall impression that I disagree with. And how disapproval of one thing affects the objectivity in evaluating another.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm all for firing Paxson, but that's pretty funny :laugh:
> ...


Mike,

If you were Reinsdorf, you'd fire Paxson right now. Right? In that case, IMO it's not a "preliminary opinion." It's a reasoned conclusion. If Paxson leads the Bulls to a championship, you will be proven wrong. First time for everything. The good news is that, as an owner, no one can fire you for screwing up. It is, after all, your toy to do with as you choose.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> That Reinsdorf would choose two guys no one else wanted and two guys who make bargain-basement salaries to fill the two most important jobs in the organization just goes to show where his attention lies.


You mean like when Reinsdorf hired Jerry Krause and then Krause hired Phil Jackson? Going a new direction instead of rehashing the same old, same old isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes its the right thing to do. 

Your own organization of choice and the man you identify in your signature block has already proven this to be true.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*...AGAIN!*

This was supposed to be a thread about EC and how he's being viewed by Bulls management as he heads into restricted free agency. But somehow its been turned into another Ripfest. Honest to God, I had no idea there were so many obsessive-compulsives walking around who aren't receiving proper treatment!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> And how disapproval of one thing affects the objectivity in evaluating another.


That's a really, REALLY good way of summarizing where you're coming from.

I'm not directing this at any one person, but I do sometimes get the impression that Skiles (or Pax, but especially Skiles) can say anything...ANYTHING, and at least a handful of posters on this board will call him an idiot for it. Sometimes the reasoning is sound to me, and other times it's grasping at straws that are about five lightyears out of reach, and of course there's a spectrum in the middle.

Point being, until the win streak and overall solid month of December tempered the negativity somewhat, Skiles could have start preaching from the Gospels and someone might have construed it as a horribly ill-timed criticism of Eddy Curry and argued that point to death. It really did get THAT bad here for a while, IMO. Six years of losing can have that effect, and there are plenty of reasons to be down on almost anyone in the organization, but in my worthless opinion it was overkill and then some for a while. No blame, no pointing fingers. Just my sense of what the tone was, and still is, but to a more restrained extent.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> You mean like when Reinsdorf hired Jerry Krause and then Krause hired Phil Jackson? Going a new direction instead of rehashing the same old, same old isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes its the right thing to do.
> ...


Methinks "going in a new direction" is a hell of a lot easier when you've got old #23 safely stashed away. You can botch a three-pick first round draft (1989) with a guy like him around. Without (2000) . . . ?

Building a team from scratch is a mite different -- for that task, I get the best possible person money can buy, and after a thorough, coast-to-coast search. I'm going to look a little farther and wider than my radio broadcast booth or Indiana where a coach has been in league-imposed exile, what with other teams not wanting to have a quitter on its payroll and all.

Sorry for the hijack, Kismet, but as Kramer says in the "Intervention" episode of Seinfeld, "All of these issues are interrelated."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Mike,
> ...


Exactly. Conclusions. And premature ones at that (which is also a conclusion :grinning: ).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I take responsibility for that. I'll be more careful in the future.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the board rookies lack knowledge or anything, I'm just saying that's how it's been going the last few years I've been posting.


We don't lack knowledge, just insight. I mean, without this place, where else could that insight come from?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's just me, but this really cracked me up.
> ...


This is funny. 

I can see some positive things for the first time since Paxson took over. 

Prior to the last month, I've been very critical of Paxson... and justifiably so IMO. 

I've said this before... but I'm waiting to see how the rest of the season plays out and how he handles the Curry/Chandler situation. If things continue to improve and he handles that situation OK then I'll remove myself from the club.

The moves prior to this season justified his firing, IMO.

I would rather have a real-life NBA GM than one that is learning on the job. 

But... Paxson is cheaper than most I assume. And casual fans like him.

EDIT: As a Bulls fan, I don't really have much of an option other than to give him time.

I think we'd be better off with another GM. Even with Curry/Chandler, I think we're quickly becoming painted into a corner. It frustrates me.

I'm still not sold on what Paxson is trying to do... or really exactly what it means. Yeah, yeah... play the right way. That means getting rid of Jalen Rose right away I guess.

But... winning is what we're after. Rose was a key guy on a NBA Finals team and in college. That was years ago.... but that seems more like diminishing skills than playing the "right way." A lot of the "right way" crew was doing back flips when Crawford was shipped out of town. But... he's on a playoff bound team as well. The natural augment is to say that players like Rose and Crawford don't make a difference... and that their superb teammates are carrying dead weight.... but I think most reasonable people would agree that this is not the case.

I don't really know what the "right way" is... other than Paxson wants "his" guys.... a natural inclination of any manager. In the end... I think that's what he really wants. We'll see.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Sorry for the hijack, Kismet, but as Kramer says in the "Intervention" episode of Seinfeld, "All of these issues are interrelated."


That could be the understatement of the century, depending on your perspective, I guess.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> Building a team from scratch is a mite different -- for that task, I get the best possible person money can buy, and after a thorough, coast-to-coast search. I'm going to look a little further and wider than my radio broadcast booth, or over to Indiana where a coach has been in league-imposed exile, what with other teams not wanting to have a quitter on its payroll.


 

Funny stuff.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> We don't lack knowledge, just insight. I mean, without this place, where else could that insight come from?


Yeah cause I completely lack perspective and actually think it matters as to what online message board clubs people are joining.

All I made was an observation for Bulls message boards that with time, some posters have different conceptions of who the "enemies" are and frame their responses accordingly. When someone might've started out, it's likely those other teams and posters who support those other teams. But then for some the enemies might've changed and the enemy became within the team itself, the organization and posters who seem to support a status quo when we are losing at a 90s Rams-like rate.

Of course the observation is biased, and I would like to think my point of view is much better, but I do know that people see it another way and it makes sense for them the way things make sense for me.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Yeah cause I completely lack perspective and actually think it matters as to what online message board clubs people are joining.
> 
> ...


Awaiting translation.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously. But I don't think you do get, or want Skiles "honest evaluation" of Eddy Curry.
> ...


Perhaps you'd like to jump in and evaluate Popovich's handling of Parker, Ginobli or say Nestoveric. I recall there being some things said when Rose disappeared to the doghouse years ago as well.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to jump in and evaluate Popovich's handling of Parker, Ginobli or say Nestoveric. I recall there being some things said when Rose disappeared to the doghouse years ago as well.


Fire G-Pop!!!!! :curse:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> Skiles HAS to tell it like it is to be an effective coach. I just wish he'd tell less of it to the world and keep more of it in-house. I fail to see how unrelenting public criticism of his players does anyone any good.


First off kudos for a latter post referencing Ray Nitschke where you seem to admit you're pretty much going to bash Skiles until you're completely satisfied. At least its honest.

But Kismet makes a good point which goes right to your quote above. The type of stuff we're talking about here is simply brought on by media questioning. If the media asked why does Eddy turn the ball over so much, what should Skiles say? What would you say? And keep in mind, you have been one to criticize the corporate shill aspect so he DOES have to give an answer to a fairly inane question.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> OT:
> 
> My nomination for best infusion of new blood in a long time to a somewhat bogged down Bulls board:
> ...


I'll second that. 

May his perspective withstand the onslaught of criticism he'll receive in the months ahead.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> First off kudos for a latter post referencing Ray Nitschke where you seem to admit you're pretty much going to bash Skiles until you're completely satisfied. At least its honest.
> ...


How about, "Eddy Curry's going to be a star in this league. It's my job to make sure that happens sooner rather than later."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> How about, "Eddy Curry's going to be a star in this league. It's my job to make sure that happens sooner rather than later."


You'd say that in response to a question about his problems turning the ball over? Really?

People would think Skiles is a retard if he answered every question with a non-sequitur about how everyone on the roster is a future star. As it is, people think he's honest to a fault and lacking in tact. I'd take the latter if I had to choose.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> You'd say that in response to a question about his problems turning the ball over? Really?
> ...


That's exactly what I'd say.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I'd say.


Even though it obviously doesn't answer, or even address, the question asked?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Even though it obviously doesn't answer, or even address, the question asked?


Because I know Curry would read it in the papers.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Enough with the mindless, sweeping, unmitigated labeling of people.  I'm not aware of any poster here named "The Bashers". Perhaps he's that guy over in the corner all made of straw. In any case, perhaps you could take things in a more constructive direction by explaining why, despite the plethora of good things you've pointed out, you're still not sold on Skiles.


Surely you jest? I don't see you critquing the Skiles bashers - oops there goes that labeling thing. You're pretty quick to jump on those who simply feel Skiles deserves a fair shake here so why don't you just admit it? Since when is it NOT CONSTRUCTIVE to BE POSITIVE? Thats a joke, right? So Cey should take this in a positive direction by making you feel better about your negativity about Skiles by pointing out some negative stuff himself? Whatever. Ok, go ahead and start ripping on me like you usually do... Weren't you the one who started the thread wondering why people were leaving the board because of you?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> You'd say that in response to a question about his problems turning the ball over? Really?
> ...


How about....

"This is an aspect of Eddy's game that we're constantly looking to improve upon. He's made strides this season from a conditioning standpoint and his passing has improved in recent weeks as well... I hope that an improvement in turnovers is to follow. We're currently doing all we can."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Because I know Curry would read it in the papers.


Coddling. Good idea. Oh, and lying and evading the question. Other good ideas.

I'm glad to see you are so blunt about what you'd do, even at the risk of looking foolish.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*how long*

How long is a "fair shake?"

How long is "more time?"

Is 28 wins any good? Only when compared to 23 I guess... but its still brutal.

We're dumping players for Cap Space... but its all going to evaporate if we resign the towers. If we don't resign the towers... who are we going to replace them with? It looks like we won't have a draft pick next season.

After this year it will be 2 years under Paxson. 

I think Kismet said to give Pax 3 seasons.

Next season is it.

They need to be a playoff contender or he needs to go.

How long do you give one of the, if not the, losingest GMs in Bulls history a paycheck?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> How about....
> ...


Pax and Skiles have both given words of encouragement similar to this since Eddy came to camp in shape. Do you really expect Skiles to parrot the same line every single time he's asked a question about a player's poor play or weaknesses? I don't think any coach actually does that. Many, if not most, are less blunt than Skiles, but I don't think very many gush about how great a player's going to be when they're asked why he committed 6 turnovers that night. That's just loony.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Pax and Skiles have both given words of encouragement similar to this since Eddy came to camp in shape. Do you really expect Skiles to parrot the same line every single time he's asked a question about a player's poor play or weaknesses? I don't think any coach actually does that. Many, if not most, are less blunt than Skiles, but I don't think very many gush about how great a player's going to be when they're asked why he committed 6 turnovers that night. That's just loony.


I think you mix the positive with the negative.

It sure as hell beats "jump."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Because I know Curry would read it in the papers.


Good. As if Eddy's motivation to improve isn't already questionable enough. He's had some of his best stretches of ball the last couple years after having a fire lit under him by some frank crticism from Skiles or Paxson. Remember the summer of 03 when he was reading glowing articles about how he'd be a breakout player? Oh yeah! He came into camp out of shape and completely unready to compete. Let's try that strategy again.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I also don't like the 4-year player thing.

The only reason this has any impact is the CBA.

Nocioni is not a "rookie."

Hinrich and Gordon are *expected* to be more developed from the get-go due to their college experience.

If Curry went to college for 3 years and then came out.... he'd be a "rookie" now. 

His contract is coming up... yeah... but a high school player is not the same thing as a 3 year college player or a 25 year old international player. Come on.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you mix the positive with the negative.
> ...


Please. There have to be a handful of articles from each Chicago paper where Pax and/or Skiles credit Curry for coming into camp in shape. And several more from the recent stretch of wins where they say he's doing a good job. 

And anyway, he does rebound much better when he jumps. Most people do. Blunt, but honest, and even a little funny. And nothing that an interested observer didn't know already.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Good. As if Eddy's motivation to improve isn't already questionable enough. He's had some of his best stretches of ball the last couple years after having a fire lit under him by some frank crticism from Skiles or Paxson. Remember the summer of 03 when he was reading glowing articles about how he'd be a breakout player? Oh yeah! He came into camp out of shape and completely unready to compete. Let's try that strategy again.


His best stretch was 2002 under Cartwright.

What makes you think what he reads in the papers has *any* positive effect on him.

My guess… he’ll just tune out the little bald man and wait for his massive payday at the end of the season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> And anyway, he does rebound much better when he jumps. Most people do. Blunt, but honest, and even a little funny. And nothing that an interested observer didn't know already.


And like I've said before... its not wrong... and it is funny.... but its not the thing to say. What good does it do?

Lights a fire?

Doubtful.

Curry is in shape now because its his contract year. Paxson and Skiles have little to do with it, IMO.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> It sure as hell beats "jump."


Q: What does Eddy Curry need to do to improve his rebounding?

Skiles: Jump.

I'm sorry, but you guys miss the simple brilliance of this response. Personally, I believe it's the greatest one word answer in the history of sports. At the time Skiles said it, his answer was 100% accurate. Scathing, without overkill. I swear, it brought tears to my eyes.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> His best stretch was 2002 under Cartwright.
> ...


When the games didn't matter he played well on offense. Not defense, or rebounding, or even passing. His best stretch of two-way basketball was this month, IMO. And we won more games in this month, with the team that you're always so quick to point out that Pax gutted, than with the 02-03 team you pine for.

I've noticed, and I think others would agree, that Eddy has played with more passion and emotion after taking a bit of a browbeating in the papers than he had been before it happened. It doesn't last, though.

he might tune Skiles out. But if he hasn't already, given Skiles's refusal to coddle him, that's a good sign. I think Eddy's enjoyed this taste of winning they just had, and it seems like he's buying into Skiles's message. He's only a restricted FA this year. The bulls can bring him back no matter how much he'd like to leave, if they so choose. It wouldn't be wise for him to tune Skiles out just yet.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> You want me to list the things that make me "not sold" on Skiles? Christ, Mike, at some point in almost every single game he does something, or delays in doing something, that I don't agree with. I just don't let those moments dictate my overall sense of whether or not he should be retained.
> 
> Rotations. Lineups. Quick hooks. Slow hooks. Calling timeouts. Not calling timeouts. And I suspect you are right that others who want him canned have complained about those things. But these are the things that all fans of all basketball teams criticize the coach about. Its how they let these things affect their overall impression that I disagree with. And how disapproval of one thing affects the objectivity in evaluating another.


I've said the same things before and that was when Phil Jackson was coach. We're always going to disagree with things despite the characterization that all we do is drink Kool-aid and sing kumbaya pre-game. 

And by the way, you needn't be apologizing for your approach to posting. The rules and guidelines are what they are and none of us need somebody who opposes are viewpoint telling us how we can and can't formulate our own responses.

RIDICULOUS.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And like I've said before... its not wrong... and it is funny.... but its not the thing to say. What good does it do?
> ...


Maybe Curry reads that quote...and....starts JUMPING for rebounds more. Could happen.

And maybe he'll go out there determined to show that he can rebound. Even if it's just to spite his coach or prove him wrong, that can be good, at least short-term. I think I've seen him do this in the past. Maybe it's just me.

the last line is speculation on your part, just like the above is speculation on mine. Pax asked him to come into camp at 285 and he did. I'll take it. The Bulls want him to play well enough to earn a fat contract as much as he does IMO. Pax is on record just the other day about how rare a skilled big man is, after all.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> His best stretch was 2002 under Cartwright.
> ...


Curry's should listen closely to what "the little bald man" is telling him, rather than what his agent, family and hangers-on are telling him. The people who sign the NBA checks think a lot more like Skiles than they think like Curry's posse.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> How about, "Eddy Curry's going to be a star in this league. It's my job to make sure that happens sooner rather than later."


Boy theres a kool-aid quote if I ever saw one! Sorry, couldn't resist. So are you suggesting Skiles hasn't praised Eddy before? And when KC Johnson says thats great Scott, now tell us why this future superstar turns the ball over so much?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> How about....
> ...


And then he'd get crucified here for the last part. What did he mean? Was he suggesting the coaching staff is doing all they can but Curry's a fat lazy slob who isn't cooperating? Ha.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> And then he'd get crucified here for the last part. What did he mean? Was he suggesting the coaching staff is doing all they can but Curry's a fat lazy slob who isn't cooperating? Ha.


Well... I would not crucify him because its my quote. 

I think that's a less abrasive way to get the same message across.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

So to recap, Skiles is the only guy in the NBA who will single out his players to the media. That doesn't happen around the rest of the NBA where notable mega-elite superstars such as Shaq, Kobe and AI might disagree.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> So to recap, Skiles is the only guy in the NBA who will single out his players to the media. That doesn't happen around the rest of the NBA where notable mega-elite superstars such as Shaq, Kobe and AI might disagree.


The goal of those teams is to win NBA Titles... NOW.

The Bulls goals are different. The #1 priority of this team right now should be to maximize the values of Curry and Chandler, IMO.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> The goal of those teams is to win NBA Titles... NOW.


But the argument was and has been that only Skiles will chide his players in the media. Its not true. I'm sure if I was willing to research the leagues bottom feeders, I'll find quotes fairly similar to the type Skiles makes. I'm sure if you want to read the beat writers for any team that isn't on a roll you'll probably find similar stuff.

Do you really think Eddy believes Skiles is telling us something we don't already know? Don't you think Eddy knows we ALL want him to become a superstar too? Don't you think Eddy knows that Skiles and Paxson success hinges on his?

I'll admit to being a little dumbfounded at Skiles response to Stoudamire, but I still appreciate his candor.

Now heres a question for the "folks who don't care much for Skiles". Why do you suppose Mr. Candor says he'll go to war with Jason Kidd? Why do you suppose he still praises him --- even after Kidd comes out ripping this week? Theres no talk of Kidd being a coach killer. Just praise for a guy who makes his team better. Is it just possible that Skiles really just tells it like it is or at least how he believes it is? 

Or was he just sucking up to Kidd so as not to incite him prior to the big game Tuesday? :laugh:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to jump in and evaluate Popovich's handling of Parker, Ginobli or say Nestoveric. I recall there being some things said when Rose disappeared to the doghouse years ago as well.


I don't particularly agree with it, since you asked. I'd wager that things could be handled a little better than by publically belittling guys, but that's just my approach to things. Success might be deoderant, but that doesn't mean I have to find them without fault, does it?



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> So to recap, Skiles is the only guy in the NBA who will single out his players to the media. That doesn't happen around the rest of the NBA where notable mega-elite superstars such as Shaq, Kobe and AI might disagree.


I don't believe I ever said that at least. I just don't think it's a very productive activty, especially when carried to the level Skiles carries it to.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> Surely you jest? I don't see you critquing the Skiles bashers - oops there goes that labeling thing.


Err, that was my whole point. I'm responding to what an individual has to say about basketball. You're in a snit about well... something... I don't know what. I guess you just don't like me. That's fine. Feel free to ignore me as you easily could have done without jumping into a discussion Ron and I were doing just fine at carrying on ourselves.



> You're pretty quick to jump on those who simply feel Skiles deserves a fair shake here so why don't you just admit it?


Not at all, I'm simply disagreeing with another poster and trying to further the conversation. I objected to his blanket labeling, belittlement, and dismissal of differing opinions, not his right to have a different opinion himself or to argue or express that opinion.



> Since when is it NOT CONSTRUCTIVE to BE POSITIVE?


Again, if you read what I actually wrote instead of getting yourself into such a lather, you'll see that I never said that. I said it wasn't constructive to label and dismiss differing opinions as mindless etc. 

They're to be argued about, sure. That's what this place is for. And that in itself is a constructive and positive thing. And sure it's constructive to have a positive outlook. I don't believe I've seriously argued otherwise, and there are plenty of guys here who've had generally positive outlooks... Ron, Transplant, FL_Flash, Kismet, Rhyder, TBF, kneepad, Chi_Bulls (just to name a couple right off the top of my head, it's certainly not an exclusive list!) who I've had great (at least to me) debates with and who've make great points and argue the generally positive outlook very well.

More obviously, guys like that are great fun to argue with because they don't take all these shortcuts of whining about "the other side" as a group, and they are capable of disagreeing and letting it go without making things personal.

You, on the other hand, appear to be doing both of those things. I don't have any problem with you, nor have I belittled you or your point of view as mindless or simplistic. I've simply objected to not receiving similar consideration. While I don't agree with someone like Ron or Transplant, I think it's pretty cool we can carry on a civil discussion. 



> Thats a joke, right? So Cey should take this in a positive direction by making you feel better about your negativity about Skiles by pointing out some negative stuff himself? Whatever.


I don't believe I ever asked him to do that. *HE* said he wasn't sold on Skiles, so I asked him what his concerns were. It doesn't make me feel any better or worse that he agrees with me... I mean Ron's a cool guy, but I don't like him *THAT* much 



> Ok, go ahead and start ripping on me like you usually do... Weren't you the one who started the thread wondering why people were leaving the board because of you?


OK, next time I'll blow you a kiss for appearing out of nowhere to drop such a silly, rude and uncalled for response in the midst of a discussion I was having with someone else. And like you did in that thread you misunderstand above (which I thought was pretty lame but decided to not dignify with a response). 

In both of those cases, you popped up out of nowhere and gave me a blast of ****. Get a freaking grip. If you've got some kind of problem with me, feel free to take it up via PM. If you think I'm attacking you personally, feel free to complain about me to the staff. 

Otherwise, relax and have fun. I enjoy talking to people who I can disagree with without the mean-spirited, worthless politician style monologues about how the other side is meaningless and egomaniacal. That doesn't seem so unreasonable to me... I don't see why it's a view that's generating so much hostility from you. For my part I certainly have no problem with you, other than this recurring silliness. 

It's certainly not that you're "positive" on the Bulls, given that I have a great time talking about the Bulls with plenty of other folks here who are "positive", and would find this a really boring place if everyone agreed with me.



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> I've said the same things before and that was when Phil Jackson was coach. We're always going to disagree with things despite the characterization that all we do is drink Kool-aid and sing kumbaya pre-game.


Which is simply what I asked about. Specific areas of disagreement. I don't believe Kool-aid or Kumbaya came up from me. 

Which is pretty much the whole point. I was trying to talk about specific things regarding the basketball team. You're talking about characterization of other folks as "Kool-aid" drinkers and "Kumbaya" singers. I think that kind of posting... spending time characterizing (negatively) other folks instead of talking about basketball is lame. 

It's really a very simple thing to distinguish between people and their opinions. I think you'd have a pretty hard time finding quotes from me belittling anyone I've disagreed with about basketball or lumping them into some simplistic group to be generalized, *******ized, belittled, and dismissed. Even if I disagree with those guys, they're generally pretty sharp guys who make good points IMO. 

On the other hand, people who are one trick ponies and do little talking with people and lots of talking past people and toward simplistic characterizations... I'd rather you guys put me on your ignore list.



> And by the way, you needn't be apologizing for your approach to posting. The rules and guidelines are what they are and none of us need somebody who opposes are viewpoint telling us how we can and can't formulate our own responses.
> 
> RIDICULOUS.


True, but you can also go about talking to other people, even those with whom you strongly disagree, without acting like a turd. Well, most of us can, anyway.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> Regardless, I'll try to stick to disputing individual posts rather than recognize the already existing generalities.


Of course generalities exist, my objection just comes because it's unfair to any given person to apply the generality to him 

 <---- This represents *everyone's* face in general, but it's not a portrait of *anyone's* face.



> Although I must admit, the vast majority of my posts already are directed at particular posters and particular arguments.


And it's been a pleasure to argue with you, I just disagreed with that particular approach.  I agree with most everyone else that we're happy to have you posting here. Like I said the other day, I think, your posting is top notch in my book. But that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you 



> You want me to list the things that make me "not sold" on Skiles? Christ, Mike, at some point in almost every single game he does something, or delays in doing something, that I don't agree with. I just don't let those moments dictate my overall sense of whether or not he should be retained.
> 
> Rotations. Lineups. Quick hooks. Slow hooks. Calling timeouts. Not calling timeouts. And I suspect you are right that others who want him canned have complained about those things. But these are the things that all fans of all basketball teams criticize the coach about. Its how they let these things affect their overall impression that I disagree with. And how disapproval of one thing affects the objectivity in evaluating another.


Fair enough... I guess I see more things to complain about than just those kinds of tactical things, but I agree that this is something everyone complains about (and a lot of the criticisms about tactical stuff are pointless, I agree there too). But at some point we also start to see trends and attitudes that animate individual actions as we have a larger sample. Generally speaking, I don't think I have a bigger problem with Skiles tactical decisions than I would with plenty of other coaches. I'm less sold on his overall strategy (as I think I see it) for how to play basketball and his personnel management skills. But that's probably for a different thread... this one is basically gone to the dogs


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> wah, wah, wah


You're right. I find you bombastic and better suited to my ignore list.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right. I find you bombastic and better suited to my ignore list.


So much for reasoned discussion. While you're ignoring me, why don't you go **** yourself.

If I'm going to be bombastic I might as well get my money's worth. :|


----------

