# Pike, Chandler, Curry Benched



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked veteran players if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did.

Skiles then announced Chris Duhon, Luol Deng and Antonio Davis are in against Utah. *Eric Piatkowski, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry are out*.

Kirk Hinrich will shift to shooting guard and Andres Nocioni will guard Carlos Boozer at power forward as the Bulls try to avoid a 10th straight loss, which would be the worst start in franchise history.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,6052595.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

All I can say is, "Who are the three Bulls players most recently named by the press as principal targets in trade talks?"

Piatkowski...Denver.
Chandler...Denver.
Curry...New York and more recently Phoenix.

Is this nothing more than a coincidence?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Yeah, I just noticed that. Hopefully Paxson is looking to strengthen the interior defense by dealing "Popcorn machine" and "Marshmellow Man"


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

All this means is the Bulls are about to get rocked tomorrow night. Deng vs. AK-47? Nocioni vs. Boozer? Duhon vs. Arroyo? Sound the trumpets. It's going to be a stampede.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Benched Piatkowski? Wow, we are in big trouble now.:banghead: :jawdrop: :uhoh:    :dead:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> All this means is the Bulls are about to get rocked tomorrow night. Deng vs. AK-47? Nocioni vs. Boozer? Duhon vs. Arroyo? Sound the trumpets. It's going to be a stampede.


Pshhh. The real mismatch tomorrow night is Jerry Sloan vs. Scott Skiles.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> All this means is the Bulls are about to get rocked tomorrow night. Deng vs. AK-47? Nocioni vs. Boozer? Duhon vs. Arroyo? Sound the trumpets. It's going to be a stampede.


I don't think Nocioni would do a better job against Kirilenko, Chandler on Boozer, or even Hinrich on Arroyo. 

The main problem is that Kirilenko will totally be shutting down our leading scorer, Luol Deng. Raja Bell is no defensive trifle by any means, but I think if Kirk doesn't step up on scoring (and his start at the SG position makes scoring his main role), then we'll not only lose but get blown out.

Otherwise, I predict we lose to the Jazz by 12. The interesting thing about the lineup that Skiles is putting in, is that they might have some serious chemistry. Chemistry makes players step it up, big time.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> The main problem is that Kirilenko will totally be shutting down our leading scorer, Luol Deng.


I wouldn't be so sure. Sometimes its easy to assume that, but Deng had his worst offensive game this year against Carmelo Anthony, when we went 3-13 from the field and scored only 7 points. Melo is not a great defender. Deng had his best game of the season against Ron Artest, when he had 25 points on 10-15 from the field. 

We'll see what happens though. Jazz are a great team, and it'll be hard to win but I think there is going to be trade in the next few days which may atleast temporarily take the spotlight off their record.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Pike is getting benched!

Isn't it a little too early to blow the season for the number one draft pick?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

It's always Curry's and Chandler's fault. Funny there was no need for lineup changes when KH was stinking it up.


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> It's always Curry's and Chandler's fault. Funny there was no need for lineup changes when KH was stinking it up.


Hinrich has played better since the beginning of the year (except for the fouls) while Curry and Chandler have continued to stink it up.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich has played better since the beginning of the year (except for the fouls) while Curry and Chandler have continued to stink it up.


I have to disagree. Kirk has been just as inconsistent as the big men. He's disappeared some games, really been there in others.

Curry, on the other hand, has scored effectively when he gets 10 or more touches. His rebounding numbers per minute are also up tremendously from last year. A lot of those rebounds have been offensive rebounds, too. And in the last three games, he's had two assists each night, not bad at all.

Tyson's been probably more disappointing. Although he had two really great games, he hasn't been blocking shots (his only real skill on defense). For all of his offensive training this summer, it hasn't really shown up yet. He's been crashing boards hard, but he's looking more and more like just a big man who can rebound and play a little defense; without expanding his game, I'd say that we'd be better off with a more typical NBA power forward.

But Kirk's not lighting it up like crazy. And although his game and skill set don't really match up in the comparison, KH is a lot like Andre Miller. You put him on another team and he's still a top 15 point guard, but nothing super spectacular. I envision him as a slightly better shooting version of Tony Parker, who is a damn good point, but not in the league of Marbury, Kidd, Baron Davis, Nash, Arenas, etc.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

hmmm. Three guys rumored in trade talks get benched. Stay tuned for more. Has to be something to it.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

TBF is on to it here. Why would three players involved in trade talks suddenly be sitting down. One last thing. While i wish and hope hinrich plays better his game is far better than curry's and chanlder who look totally lost most of the time.

Chanlder still has very weak lateral movement and small stone hands that just kills him on offensive. And curry is Mr. TO this year and the whole NBA knows that all you have to do is double team him and he loses it.

david


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

Anybody else bothred by the fact that Nocioni is still in the starting lineup? Does Skiles realize what kind of negative effect he's been having on the games? If he doesn't think Tyson deserves to start, how about starting Othella instead of Nocioni? Doesn't that seem to make much more sense against Boozer? Why has everything in this post been a question so far?

I am glad Skiles is _finally_ starting Deng, but it's like it had to be shoved down his throat. I mean, what did he realize last game that he didn't realize five games ago that made him change his mind all of a sudden? It doesn't make sense at all.

I do think this is one lineup that you can afford to start Duhon and Hinrich against, because Giricek doesn't really scare me and it's not like either of them would be able to guard Arroyo defensively anyway.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Anybody else bothred by the fact that Nocioni is still in the starting lineup? Does Skiles realize what kind of negative effect he's been having on the games? If he doesn't think Tyson deserves to start, how about starting Othella instead of Nocioni? Doesn't that seem to make much more sense against Boozer? Why has everything in this post been a question so far?
> 
> I am glad Skiles is _finally_ starting Deng, but it's like it had to be shoved down his throat. I mean, what did he realize last game that he didn't realize five games ago that made him change his mind all of a sudden? It doesn't make sense at all.
> ...


PC, from what I'm seeing, Andres is starting (and I do mean starting) to locate his offensive comfort zones. Over his last five games he's shot a halfway decent 43%. It might even be a bit higher except for the fact that he and a few others always seem to find themselves in situations where they need to launch a few more 3 pointers to get the Bulls back in the game. If we were closer or if we'd won a few games by now the number of "catch-up" shots would probably be fewer.

He's still inconsistent offensively. But we have to remember he's an NBA rookie. He's playing ball in stadiums he's seeing for the very first time as are our other rooks. But one area where he's been very consistent is at the defensive end of the floor. A team that's currently ranked 28th defensively can't afford to sit one of its better defenders.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> PC, from what I'm seeing, Andres is starting (and I do mean starting) to locate his offensive comfort zones. Over his last five games he's shot a halfway decent 43%. It might even be a bit higher except for the fact that he and a few others always seem to find themselves in situations where they need to launch a few more 3 pointers to get the Bulls back in the game. If we were closer or if we'd won a few games by now the number of "catch-up" shots would probably be fewer.
> ...


That doesn't change the fact that he takes way too many shots he shouldn't. Not only are those misses, but he likes to hold the ball too long, which takes us out of our offense. 

I realize he's a rookie, but that doesn't really mean anything when talking about whether to start him or not. It's just one reason he's playing the way he is. Also, how do you think that good defense of his is going to hold up against Carlos Boozer (I'm not being sarcastic, just curious)? I can see him getting two quick fouls within 3 minutes and, even if he doesn't, he's not going to be able to hold him down one bit. Not that Tyson would have, either, but at least he can give him length and disrupt his shot in that manner. I just don't understand it in this case, that's all.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Anybody else bothred by the fact that Nocioni is still in the starting lineup? Does Skiles realize what kind of negative effect he's been having on the games? If he doesn't think Tyson deserves to start, how about starting Othella instead of Nocioni? Doesn't that seem to make much more sense against Boozer? Why has everything in this post been a question so far?


If anyone besides the Polish Rifle should have been removed from the starting lineup, it's Nocioni. He has had some brutal games, been out of control quite often. I understand morons like Red Kerr and Tom Doers fascination with the guy, but you would hope that Skiles would be able to see how much he hurts us at times. 

I only watched the 2nd half of the Suns game, but it seemed that whenever we took Curry out and put old-*** AD in, Phoenix really hurt us. Looking back through the game thread, many people were begging Skiles to put Curry back in a few times during the first half.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bside24.html

lacy's spin on the situation...



> Andres Nocioni and Eric Piatkowski also could be demoted as Antonio Davis, Luol Deng, Othella Harrington and Chris Duhon are in line for starting assignments.
> 
> Now the team's concern has to be guarding against dissension. It's the type of adversity losing almost always breeds.
> 
> ...



is it possible to do a _"mugatu"_ number on eddy and hypnotize him into having a killer instinct? yeah, i know...



:no:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What are they supposed to say?

If Curry and Chandler said "**** you, quick making me a scapegoat, I'm better than these guys!" they'd be in a world of PR hurt.

I mean, what more can they say that "hey, I don't like it, but if it helps the team win, great".

Both teams played hard, my man... both teams played hard.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> I do think this is one lineup that you can afford to start Duhon and Hinrich against, because Giricek doesn't really scare me and it's not like either of them would be able to guard Arroyo defensively anyway.


I was just going to post this exact thing too.

Unfortunately, we have to match up to our opponents when playing against playoff caliber teams. While I'm sad we have to do it, I don't mind shuffling the starting lineup and player rotations to give us the best chance to win.

Maybe coming off the bench will light a fire under Chandler and Curry (one can only hope).

I wanted to see
PG Hinrich
SG Gordon
SF Deng
PF AD
C Curry

Curry plays better offensively when Tyson is not on the court, so mixing the kids up with our vets more would make a lot more sense (at least to me).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> Maybe coming off the bench will light a fire under Chandler and Curry (one can only hope).


When you look at these guys, do they look like guys who "just aren't trying hard enough" and need a fire lit under them?

Because that's not what I see. I see guys who are playing hard, and even pressing to make plays too much, just not guys playing smart.

My sense is that Skiles sees "just not trying hard enough" though.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> When you look at these guys, do they look like guys who "just aren't trying hard enough" and need a fire lit under them?
> ...


This goes back to the playing hard vs. playing tough argument posted a couple of days ago.

I don't think either player is slacking off. The entire team is "thinking" way to much and not going out there and just flat out playing. How many double clutch shots has Nocioni taken since he started out poorly from the perimeter. How long does Curry hold on to the ball after receiving a great pass with an open lane to the rim. Do any of our vets go out there and not know what they are supposed to do? Go up and dunk the ball. If you're fouled, you're fouled. He looks like he is out there not trying to screw up as much as possible instead of just throwing it down. That killer instinct most NBA players possess.

This is why I say that both Curry and Chandler are playing like rookies. They haven't "broken out" yet because they are thinking way too much. I want to see Curry out there dunking like he did on Shaq against LA last year. I want to see Tyson screaming when he pulls a great board down, not just on an alley-oop dunk.

I think both still have a good chance of being very successful players in the league. No, I don't think Skiles is the one breaking them either. A lot of losing, and a lot of coaching of fundamentals (which they need) has made them tentative. I wouldn't mind Curry acting in the Fizer role (when he has good position) unless he's double teamed, and he has been passing out of double teams this year, which was non-existant last year.

They both seem to know what to do out there, they're just afraid to let it come naturally.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW, I posted days ago that the Bulls needed to try a different lineup to shake things up. It's not a stupid strategy at this point - what are we going to do, lose again?

What's interesting is that some people have called for Duhon to start. Well, he's going to, right alongside his former Duke teammate. There's some logic to this.

When Cartwright did this same thing last year at about the same time, Crawford and Rose felt like they were being scapegoated. I understand it, and I wonder if Curry and Chandler might feel the same way now. Sure they're not saying it, but they also have a coach who's so authoritarian, they might just be too intimidated to speak up.

The brutal truth is that Hinrich has struggled in 7 of our games. He barely got in 13 minutes last game due to foul trouble. Nocioni doesn't deserve entitlement minutes, either.

What I'm getting at is that if you're going to shake things up, you have to have some idea of what the shakeup is supposed to accomplish. Benching Hinrich for one game wouldn't be a horrible thing; he's played hard (but not so effectively) in a lot of losses, and I think a night off might relieve some pressure on him. He also might get some insight from watching the game being played instead of being in the middle of the action.

The good news is that Hinrich is getting the start at SG. If he plays the position like he played PG two nights ago, we'll be REAL happy with him as SG.

The bad news is that the season was a wash from the first few minutes of game clock in the first game. Given such little hope, the game minutes really should be used to improve on our investments.

Yes, investments. We invested a #3 in Gordon and a #7 in Deng. 

Have a plan about what the future of the team is, and make those investments pay off.

Mikedc has made the point at least twice that Curry or Chandler could probably be effective players if they had veterans at the other 4 positions. I think this to be sooooo true. It's why J. O'Neal blossomed, and why Amare developed so quick.

I'll take it one further, though. Forget about Chandler and Curry for the short term. What DC says applies to them applies to Gordon and Deng.

Maybe the following lineup should be played for the next 5 games:

Gordon
Piatkowski
AD
Deng
Harrington

IT'S NOT A FAVORITISM THING REGARDING HINRICH! He's a known quantity by now. We've seen him at his best and his worst. 

It's about seeing if our freaking #3 pick (with 4 years of college and all the maturity and coaching that comes along with it) might actually be as special as you'd expect of a #3 pick.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

"In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked veteran players if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did."

It sounds like it was the players decision as opposed to Skiles' or Paxson's. So I'm not sure that this signals an impending trade. Or K.C. could be wrong. That struck me as a really strange thing for a coach to do, to ask the players who should start. I guess I just lost a little more respect for Skiles.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Only the Bulls...

They have a possible rookie of the year, they're the worst team in the league and it takes the coach 9 games to start said rookie.

When they do start the rookie they make sweeping changes to the starting line-up. Instead of just saying "Deng is playing better than Nocioni," they change almost everything.

The Bulls actually start a guy like Chris Duhon while benching Gordon, Chandler and Curry.

The Bulls have the best young PG in the league and now he's gonna play SG.

They have a guy like Pike whose only job should be to play about 15 minutes off the bench. While he's in the game they should have set plays designed to give him the ball for an open 3. Instead they are erratic with playing time, don't draw up any plays for him and allow Nocioni to launch about 7 bad shots per game.

Antonio Davis is old and can't shoot. 

Skiles plays all 12 guys. WTF?!

After 6 years of lottery picks we have zero all-stars. 

Memo to Skiles: Most teams have 5 starters who play a mjority of the minutes. They use about 4 bench guys to rest the starters. The bench guys are usually scrappy hustle guys like Nocioni, (who is about like Edwardo Najera), Duhon and shooters like Pike.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

The SunTimes indicates this could be the starting lineup tonight:

Duhon
Hinrich
Deng
Harrington
Davis

"Andres Nocioni and Eric Piatkowski also could be demoted as Antonio Davis, Luol Deng, Othella Harrington and Chris Duhon are in line for starting assignments."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bside24.html 

EDIT: I don't know how to get the link to work, so if someone know how to fix it I would appreciate it. 

The whole thing is just depressing to listen to. Who would have thought it? A second-round rookie, a NYK castoff, and Davis who is IMO the worst player in the league.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Only the Bulls...
> 
> They have a possible rookie of the year, they're the worst team in the league and it takes the coach 9 games to start said rookie.
> ...


Excellent post. Outstanding.


----------



## ogbullzfan (Mar 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Only the Bulls...
> 
> They have a possible rookie of the year, they're the worst team in the league and it takes the coach 9 games to start said rookie.
> ...


I totally agree. He makes such drastic changes. I learned in elementary school that you always need a control variable to test an experiment. Skiles is out of control with his rotations.

On another note...some of the board questions Nocioni starting. I know he has an awful shot selection but he does get to the basket which aside from Deng, no one else even attempts to do. I think he will get in early foul trouble against Boozer. 

AD is still a fundamentally sound player even though his body cannot hang with his IQ. He's still willing to bang down low which will hopefully open the opportunities for Curry and/or Chandler.

My ideal lineup;

Hinrich
Deng
Nocioni
AD
Curry

I know I have two changes in the lineup with Deng and AD but I thing Deng should have been ther all along.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

I have no problem with the benchings. It's time to shake things up. As DaBullz noted - what's the worst that could happen? We lose? 

But I do disagree with the notion that this signals an impending trade. I think Paxson will give it a little more time before he pulls the trigger on anything. In any case, I can't imagine Curry and Chandler being traded to the same team, or even at the same time. Therefore, I don't believe this benching is anything more than a simple benching.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> It's always Curry's and Chandler's fault. Funny there was no need for lineup changes when KH was stinking it up.


Opening the season with 33 points is hardly stinking it up.

I challenge you to post Kirk's game-by-game statlines this season and make the same comment. Besides, a couple rough shooting nights does not mean he has been worthless. He contributes in plenty of other ways. If I'm not mistaken, he's carrying an assist-to-turnover ratio of 3:1. For a team that's struggled with turnovers, that's huge.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> "In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked veteran players if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did."
> 
> It sounds like it was the players decision as opposed to Skiles' or Paxson's. So I'm not sure that this signals an impending trade. Or K.C. could be wrong. That struck me as a really strange thing for a coach to do, to ask the players who should start. I guess I just lost a little more respect for Skiles.


I don't have any problem with Skiles consulting with his players. In fact, it's a tried and true management tactic to obtain commitment and accountability for changes.

I'll admit that it sounds like an "un-Skileslike" thing to do, but maybe it's evidence that he's beginning to learn that there's more to coaching than designing clever plays on the clipboard.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Only the Bulls...
> 
> They have a possible rookie of the year, they're the worst team in the league and it takes the coach 9 games to start said rookie.


First off, 9 games ain't that long to become a believer in a 7th overall selection. Besides, Deng as an "energy" guy off the bench was nice to have. Unfortunately, the starters weren't getting the job done.



> When they do start the rookie they make sweeping changes to the starting line-up. Instead of just saying "Deng is playing better than Nocioni," they change almost everything.


IMO, Nocioni has been one of the 5 most productive Bulls this season and probably the most aggessive.  You'd like to find ways of having him and Deng on the court together.



> The Bulls actually start a guy like Chris Duhon while benching Gordon, Chandler and Curry.
> 
> The Bulls have the best young PG in the league and now he's gonna play SG.


I don't have a problem benching Curry or Chandler. Neither has played all that well or that smart. 

I completely agree with Duhon being a questionable move, and while I don't mind Hinrich occasionally playing the 2, I don't like him starting there.



> Skiles plays all 12 guys. WTF?!
> 
> After 6 years of lottery picks we have zero all-stars.


I'm sure that he wishes he didn't have to do this. He didn't do it when he had some success in Phoenix, so it's not his MO. Maybe if we had 2 or 3 all stars, Skilkes wouldn't need to go that far down the bench desperately seeking answers.



> Memo to Skiles: Most teams have 5 starters who play a mjority of the minutes. They use about 4 bench guys to rest the starters. The bench guys are usually scrappy hustle guys like Nocioni, (who is about like Edwardo Najera), Duhon and shooters like Pike.


Memo to nobody in particular: The Bulls lead the league in having the smallest quality difference between their best player and their worst player. Pargo is probably the weakest player on the active roster, but he scored 32 points and dished off 9 assists in an NBA game last season. They've yet to win a game this season and I can't blame Skiles for wanting to give Pargo a shot in games when the team needs some quick points.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> FWIW, I posted days ago that the Bulls needed to try a different lineup to shake things up. It's not a stupid strategy at this point - what are we going to do, lose again?
> 
> What's interesting is that some people have called for Duhon to start. Well, he's going to, right alongside his former Duke teammate. There's some logic to this.
> ...



Good post and I agree with all of it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure that he wishes he didn't have to do this. He didn't do it when he had some success in Phoenix, so it's not his MO. Maybe if we had 2 or 3 all stars, Skilkes wouldn't need to go that far down the bench desperately seeking answers.
> ...


This is a very good point that I really never thought of. It's incredibly difficult to find a consistent rotation, and one that everyone is happy with no less, when there is such little difference between your best player and worst player. A big problem with this team is that nobody is playing themselves into a starting role, with the exception of Deng who did just that.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Lizzy, we play 12 players because most of them are new to the team. WE have no diea what most of them can do night in and night out. The team with a lower rotatioin of 9 or 10 players know the group they have year after year. We do not. 

Will we play 12 players all year? Looks that way.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I agree with the idea of kirk at the 2 because he is our best scorer and shooter, and he needs to get more scoring oppurtunites for us to win , also he is being overburdened trying to get inferior players good shots , that they cant hit enough to win anyway.

The duo of gordon and hinrich i dont think can work now, gentle ben hasn't been making any real impact yet.

duhon still isn't a good shooter but he is hitting more shots than he was in the 1st few games so i guess something is better than nothing. I would like to see what Fwill can do , he is a bigger pg and a good defender, when his head is in it, i think kirk and and would work out the best, and he should by now be in shape its been almost 2 months since training camp started .


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked *veteran players* if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder who these "veteran players" were. Did Skiles ask Chandler and Curry for their opinion? They are four year players afterall. How about Hinrich? He isn't a rookie anymore.

I presume Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Duhon, Reiner and Smith didn't get to vote. Based on their reactions afterwards, I doubt Chandler and Curry got to express their views either:

"I was shocked," Curry said.

"Yeah, it does upset me," Chandler said. "I don't think any player wants to come off the bench. I definitely don't, especially at this time of my career."

If Chandler (4th yr) and Curry (4th yr) didn't cast a vote, then by rights, Hinrich (2nd yr), Pargo (3rd yr) and Williams (3rd yr) shouldn't have cast votes either.

That leaves Davis, Griffin, Harrington and Piatkowski as members of Skiles' Council of the Wise. Also, the article doesn't say anything about the assistant coaches being allowed to chime in.

I find the whole thing utterly hilarious. If this was truly a "team meeting" with all the players in attendance, I wonder how Chandler and Curry felt when the vets recommended lineup changes. Minimally, Skiles has taken a big step towards fracturing whatever unity these players were developing. I just don't see the point of asking players for their opinion on lineup changes.

I'll be honest with you. IMO this was all proforma. Skiles had every intention of changing the lineup. All he was doing was looking for reinforcement and support. You want reinforcement and support? That's what you have assistants for. To take decision making to the player level, in my mind, was an attempt to segregate Chandler and Curry from the group in a way that they'd receive little if any support when they would inevitably complain about their demotions. With the vets already on record as recommending change, and the rookies in no position anyway to comment on how the team is run, Skiles has put Chandler and Curry on an island by themselves.

If I'm TC and EC, I can see the handwriting on the wall: my coach has no use for me, but instead of dealing with me one on one, he manipulated the process to turn my own teammates against me.

Nothing good will come from this I'm afraid. The fact that lineup changes are in order makes sense. But asking players to take sides makes no sense at all.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am not so sure about that Kismet. I see your point, but at the same time, developement is over with. You go with players you think that will help you win. Obviously, 0-9 with the current starters is not getting the job done. Could be writing on the wall, yes, but also, it could be Skiles finally trying to win games and not give entitlement minutes. 

When Chandler and Curry were drafted, we all wanted a Amare. Both guys at this time are not half the player Amare is. Maybe both of them put together are, but if we say that then we are playing one player short when we play the Suns. Already at a dissadvantage! 

AD came of of the bench the first 9 games. That does not mean the writing was on the wall, even though the Bulls would love to move his contract. He did what was best for the team. 

And as for Chandler and Curry, 3 years plus 9 games is enough! If they want to start again, let them earn it. 

All of this being said, I do look for at least one of them to be traded by deadline.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked *veteran players* if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, I wonder who these "veteran players" were. Did Skiles ask Chandler and Curry for their opinion? They are four year players afterall. How about Hinrich? He isn't a rookie anymore.
> ...


um, no disrespect, but were you there?

i think we all can read a lot into this but nobody can really know. i didn't have the sense he was forcing anyone to "take sides".

what if he asked them if they thought a change was needed. 

and they (and i can only assume it was all the vet players, sans rookies) said _yes_. 

THEN he shocked them by revealing the line-up. i'd bet curry and chandler were thinkin', well maybe he'll start deng...WHAT??!?!? 

i mean _who really knows how it went down_. we only know what is reported. 

council of the wise. ok, that made me chuckle a little.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> um, no disrespect, but were you there?
> ...


You took the words right from my mouth. Don't believe something just because it's in print, and worse yet, don't make presumptions based on what your read. We see this all the time on so called "trade rumors" that never materialize.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> um, no disrespect, but were you there?


Well, I did preface my remarks by using phrases like "I wonder" and "IMO". That should be a pretty big tipoff that I'm engaging in speculation. 

As a youth coach I was always opposed to situations in which players voted for their own teammates...either as tournament all-stars or as team captains. I know, I know, it happens all the time. But in each case I've always seen hard or hurt feelings arise from it to varying degrees. Most people become very uncomfortable when their own peers are asked to pass judgement on them. Players can accept the decisions of their coaches much easier than from their own peers. I just don't think it was necessary to allow this to become a public issue. If Skiles wants certain players' opinions...fine and dandy, that's certainly his perogative. But to allow it to become an issue for public consumption only serves to cause embarrassment.

I may be all wrong about this, but I always believed that head coaches should function in part under the credo of "The buck stops here." In this case Skiles has allowed a public perception to evolve that says, "The buck stops here...and here...and here...etc." That's not real leadership, *IMO*.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked *veteran players* if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, I wonder who these "veteran players" were. Did Skiles ask Chandler and Curry for their opinion? They are four year players afterall. How about Hinrich? He isn't a rookie anymore.
> ...


.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kismet, 

fair enough, indeed you did "wonder". and you "presumed"...we all do it. no worries.

*In a team meeting before practice at America West Arena, coach Scott Skiles asked veteran players if they agreed a starting lineup change was needed. They did.*

this is what was made public. 

the rest, is speculation.

*Skiles didn't put much stock into the philosophical reasons for the changes, merely saying he hoped the new lineup would commit fewer fouls and turnovers. Those two problem areas have plagued the Bulls all season.

"We're not playing like an 0-9 team," Skiles said. " And yet, that's what we are. So we have to address what we're doing wrong. … We don't consider this a panic move."*

...we shall see.



> I may be all wrong about this, but I always believed that head coaches should function in part under the credo of "The buck stops here." In this case Skiles has allowed a public perception to evolve that says, "The buck stops here...and here...and here...etc." That's not real leadership, *IMO*.


100% agree.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

It's good you're deciding to play players who do well for once and bench the players who play poorly.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> As a youth coach I was always opposed to situations in which players voted for their own teammates...either as tournament all-stars or as team captains. I know, I know, it happens all the time. But in each case I've always seen hard or hurt feelings arise from it to varying degrees. Most people become very uncomfortable when their own peers are asked to pass judgement on them. Players can accept the decisions of their coaches much easier than from their own peers.


This is probably true in youth leagues, but to use the tired old line, "the NBA is a player's league...*as long as they don't fight with the fans". Did Rose and Crawford accept Cartwright's demotion of them gracefully just because he was the coach? Not at all. At this point, a lot of players think they know more than the coach. And considering the way Skiles has lollygagged lately both as far as strategy and dealing with the media, I think this attempt to get feedback from the players probably makes the move MORE palatable to the demotees, not less. not that there is really anything that could be said or done that will make it easy for Curry and Chandler to accept.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> This is probably true in youth leagues, but to use the tired old line, "the NBA is a player's league...*as long as they don't fight with the fans". Did Rose and Crawford accept Cartwright's demotion of them gracefully just because he was the coach? Not at all. At this point, a lot of players think they know more than the coach. And considering the way Skiles has lollygagged lately both as far as strategy and dealing with the media, I think this attempt to get feedback from the players probably makes the move MORE palatable to the demotees, not less. not that there is really anything that could be said or done that will make it easy for Curry and Chandler to accept.


That is so true. The players think they know more than the coach. They get tons more money so why should they listen?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This is what I was trying to get at yesterday when I asked whether people thought Curry and Chandler could succeed in this environment.

Most of the answers I got were stuff about what kind of players we'd need to put around them, but that's only part of it. Perhaps the bigger part is how we see these guys on the team, how they're used, and how they're treated.

While this particular instance focuses on Skiles, a big part of my problem going back to this summer was that Curry and Chandler have always seemed to be half in and half out of Paxson's canoe. Despite having them around for two seasons, I don't get the sense that Paxson feels ownership of them the way he does with his guys, and that's influenced everything from Skiles down. We see these guys' talent, but it's been made incumbant upon them to get with the program, and the program, I think, hasn't made much of an attempt to get with them.

In an ideal world it shouldn't have to of course, but this is the real world. And this kind of split (and the general pandemonium we've seen so far this year) was very forseeable. One really had to be hoping for a miracle if they expected long-held attitudes and sub-conscious personality traits to change overnight and for everyone to resist temptation (to blame, most notably) in the face of big-time losing.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think the current Bulls can work. Chandler and Curry, whether they go on to success somewhere else or not, appear to me to have been irreconcilably divided from management. They're not "his guys", they're the only two such guys left and that perception has been allowed to grow into reality. Something should have been done sooner than this (either to truly take ownership or to cut bait), but that's the way it is.

While I blame Paxson in large part of letting it come to this, the reality is that even if he was fired tomorrow the Bulls would still be out of time to deal with Chandler and Curry, because any new GM would have to evaluate them, decide whether or not to keep them, decide whether they can be "his guys", and then move forward. Given that the rest of the team has gone in a different direction itself, that seems to lead us nowhere. Plus, given the contractual issues (their impending free agency), the real risk that Curry blows up after he gets a contract (and I mean his waste, not his stats), and real risk Chandler breaks down (his back), it'd be real hard to commit to one of these guys.

Perhaps we could keep one of them, but I'm not even sure we could do that. I guess it depends on what we could get for the other, and what kind of role we could see him having on the team. I'm not super optimistic, I guess.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> This is what I was trying to get at yesterday when I asked whether people thought Curry and Chandler could succeed in this environment.
> 
> Most of the answers I got were stuff about what kind of players we'd need to put around them, but that's only part of it. Perhaps the bigger part is how we see these guys on the team, how they're used, and how they're treated.
> ...


Would a new GM, really need time to evaluate Eddy and Tyson? They have had over three full years with no competition. Especially this year. the position was theirs to lose. Looks like they both lost the positions. 

IT came into NY and basically cleaned house. He would have traded even more players had the other teams said yes. He had a good idea of what players could do and not do. Or a good idea of what he wanted. 

I think the league has a good idea on what both Eddy and Tyson can and cannot do by now. A new GM would come in here with a mind set. He should be given the freedom to do what he wishes.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> That is so true. The players think they know more than the coach. They get tons more money so why should they listen?


The short answer is that, if they want to play, they should listen. It's often been said that, in the NBA, the only leverage a coach has is playing time. Skiles is using that leverage.

The Bulls don't have anyone nearly as good as Jason Kidd who can get the coach fired. In fact, by all accounts, Skiles and Paxson are very much in this thing together.

I think Paxson is a very stubborn guy. He may ultimately get fired for it (and Skiles with him), but it looks to me that Paxson's going to play out his "the right kind of players playing the right way" thing as long as he lasts.

For the record, I like Paxson's stubbornness.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> This is what I was trying to get at yesterday when I asked whether people thought Curry and Chandler could succeed in this environment.
> 
> Most of the answers I got were stuff about what kind of players we'd need to put around them, but that's only part of it. Perhaps the bigger part is how we see these guys on the team, how they're used, and how they're treated.
> ...


Interesting and thoughtful perspective, as usual.

Agree that Curry and Chandler are not "Paxson's guys," but if you don't believe that Paxson was praying fervently for one or both to have a breakout year, I think you're way off base. If either, or ideally both, could become the NBA studs we expected, Paxson's job becomes SOOOOO much easier.

Paxson wants Curry and Chandler to be great and so does Skiles. It's completely in their best interest for these guys to be great. They've been given playing time and they're not great. They're not very good.

It's a problem, but not one that Paxson or Skiles created. Right now, they've just got to win a damned game.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I went into far more detail in the "Curry/Chandler Expectations" post a few days back and, frankly, I'm not going to rehash it. Suffice it to say that Chandler should play off the bench (which REINFORCES his spark/fire/personality) and Curry should start. 


Hinrich
Gordon
Deng
AD
Curry

Chandler, Nocioni, Duhon, Harrington are top 4 reserves.

And, as mentioned, play these guys BIG minutes. That's how every other team does it. Only these nine guys should get any substantial play...there is rhythm and momentum in basketball, Skiles. USE IT.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

In what alternate dimension is benching guys equivolent to saying, "it's your fault"? It's not, it's saying "you're not the best player at your position on the team".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Would a new GM, really need time to evaluate Eddy and Tyson? They have had over three full years with no competition. Especially this year. the position was theirs to lose. Looks like they both lost the positions.
> ...


I guess I wasn't too clear on that. I think what I should have said is that a new GM would have to make a similar decision on those guys, whether it takes time or not. Given their impending free agency, there really isn't much time- he'd probably decide their not his guys and cut his losses because the alternative, at this point, is so monstrously risk-laden. What GM would want to take a chance on another guy's mistake when it'll set you back $50-60M this summer?

That is, suppose we fired Paxson right now. Even if we did, a new GM would probably have a much easier and safer trip ahead by cutting bait on Curry and maybe Chandler.


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

Transplant- 

No, I don't think Paxson was hoping these guys would fail, far from it. But I think he's somewhat expected them to fail and moved the team in a direction that didn't center around them, because part of him recognized they were unsafe bets. However, I think moving in that direction, ironically, made it more likely they'd fail and to some extent has set back the new direction. 

It just seems to me that at some level we needed to make a decision and move forward wholeheartedly under one plan rather than keeping the door open and letting our opportunities dwindle. As you (obviosly  ) know, I've not been a big Paxson fan, but I want to be proven wrong. And the way I see it, at least if he goes whole hog in one direction or the other then he'll be giving himself the best possible chance of being successful. Better to execute your plan and be right or wrong about it than mince around and get nothing done.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Scott Skiles gets way too much heat on this board because you all had way way way too high expectations.

The Bulls were bound to be one of the worst 7 teams this season and you were claiming you could make the playoffs.

There is way too much wrong with the Bulls and Skiles and Paxson look like they are just taking the first few steps to clean up.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Amareca</b>!
> Scott Skiles gets way too much heat on this board because you all had way way way too high expectations.
> 
> The Bulls were bound to be one of the worst 7 teams this season and you were claiming you could make the playoffs.
> ...


that may be true. But your team went from a bad team to a nice team in one summer. That is what we want. Nothing wrong with that. 

Yes, steps are being made to clean up the mess. But after 6 plus years it gets tiresome. We have a expansion team that has won twice. We have zero wins. Sory if we come off hard on our team and organization.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> that may be true. But your team went from a bad team to a nice team in one summer. That is what we want. Nothing wrong with that.
> ...


Well my team had a whole *LOT* more talent to begin with. They had enough that they shouldn't have been that bad even with losing Amare for 28 games and chaning the coach.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Kismet nailed it.

You don't take a vote unless you're looking for some validation of what you want to do. The vote was CONTRIVED to create that validation.

You can build support for an idea like this without having a vote. It sure looks easy to me:

Skiles to Curry and Chandler, "We've been losing and I want to shake up the lineup for ONE game. I want to try small-ball for one game. I want to throw a new look at the opponents because they'll not have seen this lineup on the game tapes."

It seems to me that Skiles has already lost the interest of the players that really count. 

The most hilarious part of this is Skiles' quote. Yes, Scott, your team really is playing like an 0-9 team. Denial doesn't change reality, and accepting reality is certainly the first step in dealing with the problems.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Transplant-
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thought. I know that your preferred course of action (correct me if I'm wrong) was for Pax to decide sooner rather than now or later to cash Curry and/or Chandler in for some pieces while they still had palpable value as developing talents. You've posted that before and it seems pretty prophetic where we stand today.

But are you also saying here that, since Pax decided NOT to deal them earlier, that we should hitch our fortunes to them entirely? I'm not sure I follow as to why this should have been an all-or-nothing venture. Why was it a mistake and a recipe for failure to attempt to create a team that didn't rely entirely on these two, if it is acknoweldged that they were risky bets? Personally I'm feeling more comfortable knowing that we have Deng and a rapidly improving Gordon along with Kirk to fall back on since the towers don't seem up to the task of becoming difference makers. How does this team's makeup as presently constituted set them up for failure any more than a team that featured them no matter how badly they played and the team stunk?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> You don't take a vote unless you're looking for some validation of what you want to do. The vote was CONTRIVED to create that validation.
> 
> ...


The assertion that the vote was contrived is speculation on your part. We don't know what happened behind closed doors. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't see enough evidence to make that claim unequivocally.

I find myself in agreement with Skiles less and less lately, but I still feel sorry for the guy. If he had made this change WITHOUT consulting the players, the criticism would have been deafening: "Skiles is acting unilaterally and scapegoating the young guys. Skiles is on a power trip to massage his own ego. Skiles has a love affair with grinders." But, instead, we get case-specific criticism for the fact that he apparently did consult the team fist, or at least the veterans. "He would have done it anyway and this is just a scheme to validate the move...Skiles has obviously lost the team." The guy is going to be taken to task, no matter what he does. Soon he'll be blamed for snow in Chicago. And don't label me an apologist. I have one foot in the door of the Fire Skiles club given the way he's conducted himself so far this season, all things considered. I just think the board's tone as of late is such that Skiles will somehow be to blame for any negative news. As much blame as he may deserve, I don't subscribe to that approach.

I don't think there's anything Skiles could have said to Curry and Chandler that would have made them feel better about being benched.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Amareca</b>!
> 
> 
> Well my team had a whole *LOT* more talent to begin with. They had enough that they shouldn't have been that bad even with losing Amare for 28 games and chaning the coach.


That's the point. Why did your team have a whole lot more talent?

Well, because they drafted Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson. Why doesn't the Bulls draft guys like this? *They do*, but then they just trade them away for potentional.

What else? Well, your team had cap space and was able to add a couple of good, and one great, pieces to the team. Why don't the Bulls do this? They don't have cap space. Because management sucks.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

What nobody failed to mention is this: Why didn't Skiles ask the veteran players if they thought they needed a coaching change?:grinning: 

Well truthfully, in a conference in which 38 wins might get you in the playoffs, the Bulls *should* have been competing for a playoff spot. However, when you have a GM that actually takes an inexperienced team and makes it less experience, that is a big part of the problem.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> It's always Curry's and Chandler's fault. Funny there was no need for lineup changes when KH was stinking it up.


That was a slump...with EC and TC it's life...


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

''I don't think any player wants to come off the bench,'' Chandler said. ''I definitely don't want to come off the bench. Not now. Not this time in my career. But I just have to continue to go out there and ... uh ... I don't know.'' 

This quote is priceless!!


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> ''I don't think any player wants to come off the bench,'' Chandler said. ''I definitely don't want to come off the bench. Not now. Not this time in my career. But I just have to continue to go out there and ... uh ... I don't know.''
> 
> This quote is priceless!!


You've got to be kidding me. Link please, that is just hilarious.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. Link please, that is just hilarious.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bside24.html

Bottom half of page.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thought I know that your preferred course of action (correct me if I'm wrong) was for Pax to decide sooner rather than now or later to cash Curry and/or Chandler in for some pieces while they still had palpable value as developing talents. You've posted that before and it seems pretty prophetic where we stand today.
> ...


Because in my mind it's not a matter of whether it "should" be an all-or-nothing venture, it's a matter of whether it "is" an all or nothing venture. If you know what I mean



> Why was it a mistake and a recipe for failure to attempt to create a team that didn't rely entirely on these two, if it is acknoweldged that they were risky bets? Personally I'm feeling more comfortable knowing that we have Deng and a rapidly improving Gordon along with Kirk to fall back on since the towers don't seem up to the task of becoming difference makers. How does this team's makeup as presently constituted set them up for failure any more than a team that featured them no matter how badly they played and the team stunk?


Well of course in some measure it makes sense to hedge, but to answer your question, if we'd "bought in" to Curry and Chandler by putting more veteran players around them (and by vets I mean guys entering or in their prime- a la Jamal Crawford, Antawn Jamison, Antoine Walker etc, just to give a couple of examples), then Curry and Chandler would have quite a bit easier time of things. Similarly, if we'd moved Curry and/or Chandler earlier, the kids we'd be going with would have a lot easier time of things.

In short, put them in a situation that takes the pressure off, not puts the pressure on. As we've talked about elsewhere, it seems to me that if anything these kids are ****ing up because they're pressing and thinking too much. Part of that is a natural response (but a poor one for a basketball player) to pressure, part of it is due to poor preperation (they haven't put in the time to make the fundamentals second nature - to build muscle memory in some cases), but another big part of it is due to being 22, not having very good basketball instincts, and expected to be the stars and veteran presence on a team.

That is, I don't think it's an issue of "featuring them no matter how bad they suck", but in some respect putting them in a workable framework. There are limits to just how many raw/poor hoops IQ players you can play. We're way over the limit. Like in WarGames, the only way to win that game is "not to play".

Beyond that, I do think that a team that "featured them no matter what" might in some ways be preferable because it minimizes the chance we get frustrated and dump them. Now there's the incentive to say "ok, let's just get rid of these guys and move on, we've got Deng and Gordon and Kirk". If we had a couple of older guys, or even one (instead of, say, Gordon), even if we started out struggling there'd be a bit more incentive to try and ride out the problems. Of course, maybe these guys just suck and you can't ride out the problems, but it seems likely now that we've never given them a fighting chance. Maybe that's just a subtler version of the scapegoat argument, but without buying into all of it, I think there's some truth to it. This team had built-in hooks to prop these guys up on.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bside24.html
> ...


Wow. I think it's rather obvious that Chandler doesn't know what he needs to do. But the fact that he confirmed it for us makes it so much more funny.


----------



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

I thought starting was not that important to Skiles.

OK, by benching people you just established that there is importance in it and you just exacerbate the situation.

Cartwright said the same thing too.

The two are just almost mirror images of each other.

- "It doesn't matter who starts"

- "We need to try harder"

- Starting undesserving over-the-hill veterans who shoot too much (Gill and Pike)

Eerily similar ?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Curry and Chandler's indignation about the benching is symptomatic of the Bulls mismanagement of these two players. The Bulls publicly banked their franchise on these two highschoolers -- is it any wonder they feel entitled?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> Curry and Chandler's indignation about the benching is symptomatic of the Bulls mismanagement of these two players. The Bulls publicly banked their franchise on these two highschoolers -- is it any wonder they feel entitled?


Krause did, and too a certain extent Paxson as well. I think the fact they got entitlement minutes earlier in their careers didn't help them at all.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I would much rather watch this years pax/skiles bulls team then last year. Last year this time i saw what IMHO was one of the worst bulls teams EVER. Lazy, selfish, ect. The difference between last years team and this years is this years team will be much better at the end of the year and will hustle, play D, and put the team ahead of personal goals.

Anyone who has watched this team this year must see the potentail this team has. Deng, hinrich, gordon, and Noci make a great core of future players. If the C's get it together and we ever get a shotting guard look out.

Personally, i would rather watch team bball and huslting defensive than some show boat dribbling between his legs throwing up bs shots. That is just me but i like watching this team and look foward to their improvement. Last year i just turned the TV off.

david


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> 
> Personally, i would rather watch team bball and huslting defensive than some show boat dribbling between his legs throwing up bs shots.




Ummm.....we're the worst defensive team in the league right now. Giving up more ppg then anybody else. So much for 'hustling' and 'defense' :laugh:

btw, JC last year shot a better fg% then basically 85% of this team is doing right now. And if u ignore the bigs, he shot a better then EVERYBODY but Deng. So even with all his so called "BS shots", JC shot a better percentage then every perimeter player on this team. 

Bottomline is that u just hate JC and could care less abt how much the current team stinks as long as he isn't a part of it. Sadly, we're worse w/o him in every possible way.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

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


Actually, that's not true. PPG allowed is totally bogus, it's reliant on how many possessions a team gets a game -- different teams use different amounts of shot-clock on average, turn over the ball more often, etc.. Right now, the Bulls are 4th in the league in possessions per game.

Looking at their defense per possession, they are below average but certainly not at the bottom. And they were right around this mark last season with Jamal too.

http://www.coverwire.com/basketball/poss_stats.htm?o=3


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Poeple on this board need to get over this JC stuff. He is gone. And frankly i would rather watcht the bulls than the knicks. The knicks are everything i disliked about the bulls last year. Lazy, play awful D, SOFT, all show and no hustle.

david


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> The knicks are everything i disliked about the bulls last year. Lazy, play awful D, SOFT, all show and no hustle.


Only difference being they ACTUALLY WIN. We couldn't, and STILL can't. U obviously on the other hand don't sound like a fan whose fond of WINNING.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true. PPG allowed is totally bogus, it's reliant on how many possessions a team gets a game -- different teams use different amounts of shot-clock on average, turn over the ball more often, etc.. Right now, the Bulls are 4th in the league in possessions per game.
> ...


http://basketballreference.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?lg=n&yr=2003

last year the bulls were 29th in off. eff. and 17 in defense ...so i gues last year's slackers were actually better ...but who cares about facts when you can have blantant hatred.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The Bulls beat Utah looks like Scott made the right move. Chandler and Currry played well. The difference betweeen this game and a couple of our losses, we got to the line and made them, 35-40 from the line.

This is actually the first game I've missed, maybe I'm bad luck.


----------

