# JC Benched Again



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Personally i am sick of watching JC get benched. So what was the reason last night. When i watched last night, with my bottle of Aberlour (Tom how did you get the picture of my fav one), it was his total lack of defense. S. Jackson was just eating him up. Jackson scored 11 first quarter points on 5 of 6 shotting and JC was just no where to be seen. He just looked uninterested and not enjoying the game at all.

As i have posted before there is a line between riding someone and that player turning you off. And IMO JC is very close to that. He will be a restricted free agent this summer and last night it just looked like he can't wait for the season to be over so he can try to get out of chicago. I fear he may get his wish sooner than that. I think paxson will deal him for a more conventional SG to match with hinrich or SF and paxton will get a SG in the draft.

david


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I have to agree and Skiles is turning me off very quickly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I kind of agree too.

You know, if we're going to lose to freaking Atlanta and we want to send a message, send it by putting those kids out there and making THEM lose to Atlanta.

Watching a washed up Pippen and Gill lose to them doesn't tell me much of anything.

And while I sympathize with the reasons for the benchings, and the reasons for stuff like benching ERob for two games after a generally pretty productive stretch of games, I'd like to see somewhat of a regular rotation that I thought had our most talented players in it in what I think is their best roles. 

Without seeing that, it's hard to gauge where everyone is, except that they aren't very good. When I look at what ends up out there on the court, I have no idea what the hell is going on. I'd like to see a 5 game stretch where we committed to playing most everyone in a regular fashion and see what happens:

1- Hinrich 34 / Pip 14
2- Crawford 34 / Gill 14
3- ERob 28 / Dupree 12 / Pippen or Gill 8
4- Davis 24 / JYD 24
5- Curry 28 / Blount 12 / Davis 8

We don't have anything better to do, so I'd like to see how that operation runs. Personally, I don't think it's going to be a lot better than the CF we're running now, but at least it'd be the onus on Curry and Crawford to win or lose the game on the floor.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

When all else fails the biggest stick a coach has when it comes to motivating players is minutes.

Skiles has employed that technique to Crawford on a number of occasions without results. Last night, as you said, giusd, it was about defense...again. Jackson was a player who barely found himself a gig last fall, and he ends up torching Crawford as though it was JC who was playing on a ten day contract.

Forget anything you hear from Crawford. This has become a test of wills between player and coach. Well, Crawford's going to lose that battle in more ways than one. He's lost playing time already and that doesn't seem to bother him. Well soon enough he may find out that no one's going to pay significant dollars to an uncoachable player.

You hear Crawford profess all this love and respect for his new coach. It's all a charade. He thinks he's altering the public perception people have of him as a confrontational, "my way or the highway" player when, in fact, his actions betray him as every bit as obstinate and selfish as ever.

It's becoming obvious that the Bulls are looking for the first reasonable opportunity to unload him. Taking on Shandon Anderson's contract would not be considered reasonable. But fans shouldn't expect to get much more than what Thomas offered up in trade recently. For all his BS, when push came to shove, Thomas equated Crawford's market value to Frank Williams, the 25th pick in the '02 draft. Anyone who thinks we'll get much more than that between now and 2/19 is in for some disappointment. Between now and the trade deadline Pax is going to have to decide whether to accept a mediocre trade proposal or ride out the season and cut his losses when Crawford becomes a RFA.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

C Blizzy you are exactly right and for what it is worth I say let him go for whatever you can get(although not for that Knick deal) at the trading deadline and move on. I for one do not want see that kid in a Bulls uniform any longer than I have to. I have had enough of him.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

C Blizzy,

I quit reading after the 1st paragraph because your fundamental point didn't matter if it were JC, Gill, Pippen or some Joe from the stands. 

We were losing no matter who we put on the floor last night. That said, why would you was development time on individuals that are coming up for contracts (that being Crawford, Curry and whomever else is considered a long term piece) for someone who I consider a one and done individual like Pippen, Gill and Blount.

I would rather get absolutely ROLLED by the Hawks with the kids on the floor so we can make honest evaluations of them compared to only losing by 10 with Blount, Pippen sans game and Gill on the floor.

People complain all the time about Crawford, Curry and the other kids but the fact of the matter is we'll never know how good they are until they are in a different uni. 

Look where it got us with Brand, Artest and Miller. But hey, Gill scored 17 points or whatever, right! YEAH!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Retro we already know what we have is Jamal and Eddy and let me tell you it ain't good. They may move on to another team and the light clicks on for both of them but it won't happen here. The sooner they are gone the better for me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> It's becoming obvious that the Bulls are looking for the first reasonable opportunity to unload him. Taking on Shandon Anderson's contract would not be considered reasonable. But fans shouldn't expect to get much more than what Thomas offered up in trade recently. For all his BS, when push came to shove, Thomas equated Crawford's market value to Frank Williams, the 25th pick in the '02 draft. Anyone who thinks we'll get much more than that between now and 2/19 is in for some disappointment. Between now and the trade deadline Pax is going to have to decide whether to accept a mediocre trade proposal or ride out the season and cut his losses when Crawford becomes a RFA.


I was just considering that possibility. Perhaps I'm living in fantasy-land, but I don't want to dump the guy if we don't get much of anything in return. But perhaps I completely overestimate his trade value.

Same with Curry. I'd admit that I've pretty much given up on him being anything for us, but the question is whether we can get anything of benefit for him.

We'll certainly get nothing when everyone knows we're shopping him. Look at Crawford last year- supposedly he and the #7 (and filler) was going to get us either Rashard Lewis and a couple lower picks or Antoine Walker. I don't see us getting either of those type of deals now. But at last year's trade deadline, we were getting offers of second round picks.

Of course, the real problem there is that with Crawford we won't be able to trade him this summer :|


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Mike,
Skiles gave you what you're asking for. He trotted the same starting lineup out there for something like 14 straight games. He tried to establish a rotation. He gave everyone an opportunity to produce. And after all that he even put Curry back into the starting lineup to see if that would motivate him.

It appears that he's tried every motivational ploy he can think of. And now you're suggesting that he establish another rotation and stick with it through thick and thin? You want him to drop accountability as a criteria for playing time just for the sake of rotation consistency? To me that's tantamount to letting the inmates run the asylum.

If you allow the slackers to get their minutes whether or not they perform, how do you think the real effort guys will feel? How does a coach draw any kind of effort from anyone under those circumstances? 

We don't see what goes on with this team anywhere else but on the court during games. We have no idea what kinds of attitudes each player brings to practice, or how they conduct themselves during the day. Does Curry take care of himself while he's on the road or is he up all night playing Playstation and stuffing Twinkies down his throat? We don't know enough about the dynamics of each player to draw any conclusions beyond whether they're productive during a game or not. Simply put, we're passing judgement on Skiles without knowing all the facts. And that's patently unfair.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

It's called embarrasment factor. 

Look to Kobe if you want to know how motivating it is.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

It may be too late, but I think if you want to trade JC the first thing you have to do is state publicly that you will match any offer for him as an RFA.

Then teams can't just wait and sign him in the offseason. Make it clear you won't just let him walk, even if you probably would.

If Pax has been shopping him as much as the rumours suggest it may be hard to make that sound believable.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> It's called embarrasment factor.
> 
> Look to Kobe if you want to know how motivating it is.


You're my man, Retro! I luv ya (don't take that the wrong way!).

What's more embarrassing, getting beat by 30 while you're on the floor or sitting on the bench while your scrubs fight their way back into games? I dare say the corporate sponsers, the guys who pay fairly big bucks to have their commercials run during games wouldn't be too thrilled with blowout after blowout since NOBODY would continue to watch those kinds of games. 

And what about the paying customers who come faithfully to the UC? Given one or the other as their only two choices, what do you think they'd prefer: a 30 point blowout so guys like Curry and Crawford might learn a lesson, or a game that's at least competitive where you know that the guys on the court you're paying to watch play are trying their best to win?

Its a tough situation. But in pro sports where EVERYTHING costs money coaches are responsible for more than providing players with an education.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Jc was guarding Stephen Jackson. Stephen Jackson first off is more of a small forward than a guard. Secondly Jackson is about 2-3 inches taller than Crawford and about 40lbs bigger. Also much stronger. Jamal did the best he could with the assignment but when Jackson gets hot he gets REAL hot. It's not like Jamal wasn't giving an effort but Jamal can't stop Stephen Jackson in the post! Come on! Now we're gonna rag on Jamal because he can't defend a guy that is much bigger and stronger than him? Kendall Gill didn't do much better than Jamal either. 

As far as Skiles pulling the starters, I can understand him wanting to mix things up and turn it into more of a scrum, but there comes a point where you have to put your starters back in and get some offensive production. Hinrich managed to see the floor again even though he was having a horrible game. But you can justify keeping Jamal, our leading scorer, on the bench when the team desperatly needs offense? Doesn't make any sense to me. I think there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye. It seems that Skiles agenda is motivated by factors we can only speculate on. But what he did last night certainly didn't give the team the best chance to win IMO.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> C Blizzy,
> 
> I quit reading after the 1st paragraph because your fundamental point didn't matter if it were JC, Gill, Pippen or some Joe from the stands.
> ...


Plays the players who perform. Crawford shouldn't play until he can help the "team" on D. What about the integrity of the team/game..coach wants to win and can't with half-assed D.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> Plays the players who perform. Crawford shouldn't play until he can help the "team" on D. What about the integrity of the team/game..coach wants to win and can't with half-assed D.


It would take Blount, Pippen and Gill playing 100% perfect, turnover free basketball to win a game on any night. They just don't have the talent level.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

At least we know that Kendall Gill kid is a keeper. Hopefully Pax will lock him up long term. I want to see how his career progresses. 

I also think we're doing a poor job of developing Rick Brunson. I just don't understand Skiles' reluctance to play this kid? He's the anti-Jamal Crawford. You'll never see Rick come down and shoot a circus shot. Never see Rick cross someone over. He's all about the fundementals. Hell, Rick is a poor man's Scott Skiles.

More minutes for Rick Brunson, says I. He should be our starting 2.:yes: 

And where is the Rick Brunson fan club? I should be a member.

**** Chris Jefferies.:upset:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

"I thought we were flat most of the first half until we went to some of the second-unit guys,'' Chicago coach Scott Skiles said. "It was a shocking contrast to how the initial group was playing.''

Eddie Robinson: 17 points, 3 reb, 2 steals and a block.

Kendall Gill: 17 points, 1 reb, 4 asst, 1 steal.

Ronald Dupree: 7 points, 4 reb, 1 asst in 19 min.

Some guys just want it more, I guess.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

How long before Skiles goes with a Hinrich/Gill/Dupree/JYD/Davis starting lineup to try and inspire the team to bring more effort.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> "I thought we were flat most of the first half until we went to some of the second-unit guys,'' Chicago coach Scott Skiles said. "It was a shocking contrast to how the initial group was playing.''
> 
> Eddie Robinson: 17 points, 3 reb, 2 steals and a block.
> ...


He probably rode those guys a little too hard in the second half though. He should have brought Jamal back in with Kirk to give us some freshness with the offense. Seems like we ran out of gas at the end.

Another coaching mistake in my book.
As a coach you need to play the guys that deserve to be out there, but you also always have to keep in mind what gives you the best chance to win. And sometimes I don't think Skiles puts the best guys out there for us to succeed in certain situations.

It's not just a matter of playing Jamal or Eddy either. Watching the Knicks game, where Skiles stuck with the smaller Dupree when KVH caught fire when it would have been wiser to go with JYD at that point or even Eddie Robinson, a guy with length to both KVH's shot, similiar to how Crawford was able to cool Houston in the 3rd quarter just by being a taller defender than who we had on him when he was on fire.

I compare it to Phil Jackson who seems to have an innate sense of when to put a guy in and when to take him out...I don't think SKiles has that sense. He's a little slow in making adjustments still. Hopefully he can get better at it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> How long before Skiles goes with a Hinrich/Gill/Dupree/JYD/Davis starting lineup to try and inspire the team to bring more effort.


We already know that that doesn't inspire anyone on the team. Curry and Crawford are who you're benching. And they've both been benched so many times it's not going to have much of an effect with them.

I'd rather just see Curry get thrown out there for the whole game. That will get him into shape fast.

Why not make our young guys accountable for the losses in a more real way?

I know Jamal and Eddy both hate to lose, but when you bench them and still lose, that allows them to think that it's your fault as the coach for not playing them and giving the team a chance to win. Whereas if you play them the whole game and let them get skunked by Atlanta, then the loss carries much more weight. And it's for all to see.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

I could care less if Jamal sit his *** on the bench for the rest of the season for that matter.

And when he is traded finally, I will say "Good Riddance". 

This is how much i am frustrated by his sorry act for the last 4 years.

I don't know someday I would say this, but I couldn't wait till Paxon blow up this team and start from scratch.

It's that hopeless with this current team. Period.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Some of you folks must not be watching the same Bulls games as I am or it's just that you have such a blind association with Jamal as to not see his rather blatant faults.

I pegged it last night in the game thread. I _knew_ that jamal and eddy were done for the night early in the third. They were both awful. Eddy for his completely lackluster effort (agan) and Jamal for his less-than-stellar defense and his ever-getting-more-ridiculous ball handling. This is the NBA folks and Jamals pretty dribble routines will wear thin on a professional coach very quickly. Save all the pretty streetball moves for the street and simply take care of the ball. I was floored when he made his move to the lane last night and completely left the ball behind. He dribbled off his feet at least twice (they didn't result in turnovers but it shows a lack of focus).

I wouldn't have put Jamal back on the floor in the fouth either. Now read this clearly... He didn't _deserve_ to be out there. As a coach, you can't have a player out there in crunch time who you can't depend on. Sure, Jamal can make some incredible shots, but he's more likely to break the flow of the offense and jack up a three with 18 seconds left on the clock because he's trying to get it all back in one shot. You want guys on the floor that are gonna take care of the ball and make good decisions because every possession counts. Jamal just doesn't do that.

So, those of you that bemoan the fact that Rick Brunson and JYD are on the floor in the fourth rather than Curry and Crawford should realize that while Brunson and Williams may not win the game for you, they are less likely to lose the game than Curry and Crawford are.

Jamal Crawford needs to get with the NBA program. He's had 3 and one-half years to do so and he still doesn't get it. Whine and rail at Skiles all you'd like. Until you come to the realization that Jamal hasn't figured out that there is a right way to play the game and a wrong way play and that Jamal is playing the wrong way, you'll never be happy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash and C Blizz, 

I recognize all that stuff but still disagree. We've benched those guys a zillion times already. And yeah, we did try a consistent lineup (although it's not the one I would have chosen), but even then there were repeated benchings of these jags when they played like crap. My theory... and it's really a theory of desperation because we've tried everything else.... is to put them out there even when they're getting destroyed. And in fact, force them to confront just how ****ty they've been playing.

To some extent, if they're on the bench, they don't have to confront it. Yeah, it's embarrassing, but there are other things that would be more embarrassing.... like Jamal having Stephen Jackson go off for 50 on him and force him into 10 turnovers and 10% shooting.

Look, these guys value stats. They value face. And getting personally embarrassed and shown up in ways that are not only obvious to anyone watching but to anyone who sees the box score... that's going to sting. And there's going to be absolutely no one but the player to blame. Hell, play Jamal 48 minutes. Before you do it though, point out to Jamal that in the post game press conference you're going to say you wanted to see how Jamal would handle playing all 48 and going toe to toe with a physical, tested guy like Stephen Jackson.

Same with Curry. Put him out there no matter how badly he embarrasses himself. Tell him up front he's not coming out no matter how badly he screws up, or how badly he wants to, flops around, and begs to come out.

And keep doing it. For a week, a month, whatever it takes. If it takes a month of losing games by 30 points, then do it. Do it until they start to figure out for themselves what to do. Nothing teaches like necessity.

Either that, or it will destroy them completely... but so what... I'd take that chance.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> fl_flash and C Blizz,
> 
> I recognize all that stuff but still disagree. We've benched those guys a zillion times already. And yeah, we did try a consistent lineup (although it's not the one I would have chosen), but even then there were repeated benchings of these jags when they played like crap. My theory... and it's really a theory of desperation because we've tried everything else.... is to put them out there even when they're getting destroyed. And in fact, force them to confront just how ****ty they've been playing.
> ...


I agree. This is really the only thing we haven't tried. And it's definitely in line with increasing the responsibility on the players.

And what do we have to lose? We're going to lose the games anyways. And if they do somehow muster up some pride. then we've accomplished something.

the current approach has been tried and has been proven to fail.

wow. benching jamal and eddy. that's never been tried before.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!Between now and the trade deadline Pax is going to have to decide whether to accept a mediocre trade proposal or ride out the season and cut his losses when Crawford becomes a RFA.


Pax should trade Craw for the best offer at the deadline if Pax has no plans to resign Craw.

Some team like the Knicks or the Mavs could very easily throw a long-term MLE contract at Craw to roll the dice. We know Isaih likes him. 

If Pax ain't gonna pay, he's gotta trade him.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Yea, make em run...if they get it together and win then thats a good thing, if they lose, it'll be because they did a load of things wrong...if they're in longer, Skiles will have more to criticize. Plus Curry will get in better shape.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> fl_flash and C Blizz,
> 
> I recognize all that stuff but still disagree. We've benched those guys a zillion times already. And yeah, we did try a consistent lineup (although it's not the one I would have chosen), but even then there were repeated benchings of these jags when they played like crap. My theory... and it's really a theory of desperation because we've tried everything else.... is to put them out there even when they're getting destroyed. And in fact, force them to confront just how ****ty they've been playing.
> ...


Weren't the 30 point losses early in the season enough to have Crawford "lose face"? Why would that effect him now? He's had three different coaches all trying to get thru to him how to play the game correctly. He's been on the floor during 30 point losses. He's been on the bench during 4th quarters. At what point in time must a coach stop searching for motivational tools and simply lay the issues at the players feet and say "deal with this Jamal. I'm done playing games with you."

He's gotten run. He got his precious starting spot. What, exactly, has he done with it? I'm sorry but what you're suggesting is rewarding the player with playing time and hoping that by getting embarrassed night in and night out that somehow they'll take it on themselves to get better. Couldn't an adverse effect of that being the player simply losing desire to play?

This ones a no-brainer. Play the game the right way and you've got a better chance to win. If you don't play the right way, have a seat. Skiles has seemed to have been eminently clear on this point. Look at E-rob. Come to practice. Practice hard and work extra and - viola!. Playing time. And he played well. Same with Crawford. Play under control. Stay within the offense. Take good shots and play hard on defense and you'll stay on the floor. He does that in spurts and then he reverts back to one-on-one baskteball and poor shooting.

It's up to Jamal. He's been told numerous times what he needs to do and yet he still doesn't do it. It's always the coaches fault. Just wait, all the Jamal fans say. Just wait until he gets to another team. Watch him blow up. I'm waiting for the day when I can ask - So, when is Jamal going to blow up? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Jamal's been thru three coaches. He seems pretty good at fooling folks.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Weren't the 30 point losses early in the season enough to have Crawford "lose face"? Why would that effect him now?


Yeah remember....he was getting benched in those games too. Lost his starting job even for awhile.

The approach just doesn't do anything. I know it sounds nice to get all angry and mad and talk about how the players need to be benched, yada yada...but how can it be anything but clear that that approach hasn't done jack daniels.

Either play them or trade them. That's the only options left.


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Retro we already know what we have is Jamal and Eddy and let me tell you it ain't good. They may move on to another team and the light clicks on for both of them but it won't happen here. The sooner they are gone the better for me.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I have to agree with Mikedc here .It seems we keep saying that the fate of this team lies with the 3c's but the franchise really doesnt seem that dedicated to this premise .


How many games was it before we went away from Crawford to start the season? 6 ?

I hear talk of Curry needs to earn his playing time .Shouldnt this have been the case BEFORE we traded an all star to open up minutes for him ?

The Bulls have yet to stick to anything past one season .Have yet to have the same opening day lineup two years in a row.

Its time for the Bulls management and coach to get on the ball and the sooner they get these kids to realize that there is no one else.You put them out there and let them take there lumps 

Curry= best center we have 
Chandler=best pf we have 
Crawford=best guard we have 

We have to stop with the silly attempts to teach lessons and give them the reality check which is the real nba.You give them there chance to get stats on a 20 win team and then you put together clipps of players who have done nothing but put up stats on losing teams.And you ask them to make there choice.

At some point it goes beyond players gm's and coaches and moves toward organizations.The Bulls lost on purpose for years and now wanna compain when you cant shake the losing mentallity from our young players after 42 games


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> I'm sorry but what you're suggesting is rewarding the player with playing time and hoping that by getting embarrassed night in and night out that somehow they'll take it on themselves to get better. Couldn't an adverse effect of that being the player simply losing desire to play?


Yes, it could. But I'm pretty much at my wit's end... everything else has been tried. I wouldn't call it a "reward" so much, however, if they're getting embarrassed night in and night out. That's the whole point. They'll continue to be embarrassed until they start playing right. When they start playing right, they'll win. Or they'll never start playing right and they'll quit. They'll either learn or die.



> This ones a no-brainer. Play the game the right way and you've got a better chance to win. If you don't play the right way, have a seat. Skiles has seemed to have been eminently clear on this point. Look at E-rob. Come to practice. Practice hard and work extra and - viola!. Playing time. And he played well. Same with Crawford. Play under control. Stay within the offense. Take good shots and play hard on defense and you'll stay on the floor. He does that in spurts and then he reverts back to one-on-one baskteball and poor shooting.


But has that worked? No. Unfortunately not. I didn't oppose that policy, but it's pretty clear that it didn't work. Instead we're facing a seemingly endless series of on games and off games.

So what are our alternatives now? We keep doing the same thing? Well, that doesn't seem to be working. We don't play him at all? Do you honestly think that will make him _learn_? I don't... I think it'll shut his mind off and give him the excuse that "it's coach's fault for not playing me". you're completely right... "it's always the coaches fault". That's not just in the fans minds, that's in Jamal's mind. I think he thinks that if he's out there, he can always come back. 

So if that's the case, benching him is going to reinforce his dumbass pre-existing notions. In the absense of conclusive evidence to the contrary, he'll (at least internally) not shoulder responsibility for the losses and put them on everyone else.

If he's on the court, however, he doesn't get get that crutch. He can't say "we would have won if I had played more" or any bull**** like that. All he can say is that he played the entire game, played his game, and lost.

The only place I see to go from there is to either change his game or quit.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Skiles, send him to us!!!


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> Skiles, send him to us!!!


No. Please don't do that. If that happen, I'd have no choice but to become a Knicks fan. And that is completely against my better judgement. I have a bumper sticker that says, "I LOVE NY ... it's just the Knicks that I hate"


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah remember....he was getting benched in those games too. Lost his starting job even for awhile.
> ...


Jamal Crawford has 142 more minutes played than any other player on the Bulls. (Kirk Hinrich). That's the equivalent of about three full games. You guys have got to stop with this stuff. Play Jamal. Jamal isn't getting a fair shake. Waaah waaah waaah.

When Jamal plays the game the right way - guess what? He stays in the game. WOW what a concept! It's been pointed out ad-nauseum that when Jamal has a good to great game, this team wins. Well DUH! Don't you think that there's a correlation there? When Jamal plays well, the Bulls are in a better position to win because when he's playing well he's playing the game teh way it's supposed to be played. Within the offense. Sharing the ball and hustling on defense. The problem is he doesn't do this on anything close to a consistant basis.

You complain about Jamal being benched but he plays more than anyone. Maybe the fact that he does play more than anyone and yet he still can't string together good consistant games is good cause to start limiting his minutes until he gets his act together.

No amount of motivation tactics will work on this kid. No amount of of undeserved minutes. Nothing. It's up to Crawford as to what he wants to make of himself. What is so frustrating from where I sit is that he's got soooooo much talent and all he's got to do is take to heart what he's been told for the last three and a half years and play smart basketball. It's his choice. I don't question his heart or his desire. He plays hard when he's out there and I honestly think he thinks he's doing what's best for the team. He's got to realize that more often than not, his judgement is wrong.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford has 142 more minutes played than any other player on the Bulls. (Kirk Hinrich). That's the equivalent of about three full games.


What does that have to do with whether or not he's been benched?

Surely you're not disputing the fact that he's already been benched before several times under Cartwright and multiple times under Skiles?

Do you think it's helped his game any?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with whether or not he's been benched?
> ...


So has playing more minutes than anyone else helped his game any? QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE GUY. Ask yourself, why have three different coaches consistantly benched the same player? Oh, that's right. The three coaches in question are incompetent. Three men with far more basketball acumen and knowledge than anyone here.

Why is it so difficult to simply expect good, sound basketball from a player? Have things gotten so permissive in this world that you look at the flash and dazzle and completely ignore the substance? Look at every single good team in this league. They all play extremely sound, fundamental basketball. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I want. Is that really that unrealistic or a request? I guess I'm getting too old myself. All I want out of this team is hard work and consistant effort. Nowadays that appears to mean very little. Just give me a good crossover and an occasional good game and I'll be happy. Excellence is overrated. Are we really that desperate that mediocrity looks so good?

Personally, I'd rather watch a team full of Hinrichs', Dupres', Williams (JYD), and (gasp!) Brunsons'. At least they try.

It's late. Have a nice life Bulls board.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> So has playing more minutes than anyone else helped his game any? QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE GUY. Ask yourself, why have three different coaches consistantly benched the same player? Oh, that's right. The three coaches in question are incompetent. Three men with far more basketball acumen and knowledge than anyone here.
> ...


You're misunderstanding what is being said here. What is being said is that it's time to stop letting these kids shirk responsibilty by getting hid on the bench to watch the team lose. We're saying put the kids out on the floor and let them accept full responsiblity for the loss.

Let Jamal go out there and shoot 2-36 some night, and have his man, no doubt some NBDL scrub, light him up for 55.

That is a message that Jamal can't ignore.

Whereas when you sit him and Eddy down on the bench and the team loses, you know deep down they are thinking, if they had been allowed to play the outcome might have been diffrent.

We've got to knock down that last bit of ego to start rebuilding them. Right now that's all that's left there, and benching is not going to get through to them.

You don't think Jamal has been benched? And you know why he's played more total minutes than anyone else? Because most of the team has been injured or playing elsewhere for much of the year.

Jamal has been benched as early as the entire second half against Atlanta only 2 weeks into the season. Then he lost his starting job against New Orleans. Was playing down with minutes in the 20's. Several benchings. Cartwright got fired.

More benchings from Skiles.

You really think benching means anything to Jamal anymore? You've got to think of a new approach. Because it's not working anymore. It won't work anymore. You can only hit a dog so many times before they stop feeling it.

This isn't anything about making excuses for these guys. It's about demanding full accountability.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to simply expect good, sound basketball from a player? Have things gotten so permissive in this world that you look at the flash and dazzle and completely ignore the substance? Look at every single good team in this league. They all play extremely sound, fundamental basketball. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I want. Is that really that unrealistic or a request? I guess I'm getting too old myself. All I want out of this team is hard work and consistant effort. Nowadays that appears to mean very little. Just give me a good crossover and an occasional good game and I'll be happy. Excellence is overrated. Are we really that desperate that mediocrity looks so good?
> ...


I think you left out where jamals been playing sg for 7 weeks .Young teams needs stability to develop and this kids role has changed more times than any other player I can remember on a team this bad .

The Bulls have told him hest he starting pg then gone out and drafted another pg .

Told him that wins will dictate what type of deal they would offer him next summer .Then gone out a traded 2 of their top 3 players and fired the coach all within 4 weeks of the season starting .

Have him switch to sg and then need him to average 28 ppg for us to HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN .Im sure at this point hes just about had it with the is franchise and wouldnt believe a word anyone associated with it says .Hes waiting to be paroled .

Crawford and Fizer have been post dynasty Bulls longer than anyone else on the roster theyve see nwhat consistency gets you (Brand) and what hard nose effort gets you (Artest and Miller).

Its time for us to stop kidding ourselves about this franchise because Crawford,Fizer,Curry,Chandler didnt bring losing to this franchise,Reinsdorf and Krause did willingly.This **** starts at the top weve had the players everyone craves these young guys to be AND WE SAID THEY WERENT GOOD ENOUGH FOR US.Its time for us to live with the monster weve created and reaped what weve sown .


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you left out where jamals been playing sg for 7 weeks .Young teams needs stability to develop and this kids role has changed more times than any other player I can remember on a team this bad .
> ...


Yep. Truth hurts.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

When did the Bulls play their best post dynasty basketball?


Oh yeah, end of last season. JC full time at the point pretty much. Consistent rotation. Same starters basically every night. And you can argue that those games were meaningless if you like but many of the teams we played and beat were fighting for playoff position. I'm amazed that the Bulls are expected to win with young developing players who aren't there yet and vet role players. Thats not enough to get it done in this league. Pax should have signed D. Armstrong and James Posey during the offseason. 

It's easy to get down on the Bulls young players. After all, we're just fans, we just read the articles and spend all day talking basketball. These kids go out there and play every night (when the coach lets them) and they have the lumps to show for it. At this point I am pretty sure Curry & Crawford are as ready to be traded as many of you are ready to trade them. Just don't be surprised when they go somewhere else and erupt. And thats exactly what will happen.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> At this point I am pretty sure Curry & Crawford are as ready to be traded as many of you are ready to trade them. Just don't be surprised when they go somewhere else and erupt. And thats exactly what will happen.


Well, I can say as confident as you are that we will never see a day Jamal or Curry erupt as you put it. 

I can understand your loyal feeling toward and good will for your favoite player, but I seriously doubt that they can show anything new, let alone better, than what I have already seen for the last couple of years.

You can certainly hope good thing will eventually happen to them. As for me, they both completely exhaust my welcome and I for one totaly give up on them. As of now, I couldn't care less whatever happen to them.

Though, even after 6 years of misery I still care for Bulls. That's why I want to trade them both for anyone. Anyone but Jamal and Curry. Seriously.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Well, I can say as confident as you are that we will never see a day Jamal or Curry erupt as you put it.
> 
> ...


Thats fine. But when they are traded to a real team and all of the sudden start to show what they are capable of, hopefully THEN you will take a look at the orginization as a whole instead of two struggling developing players.

I think a big part of this is that people such as yourself have unrealistic agendas concerning Crawford and Curry. And thats totally understandable. After all, they were both picked by GM's league wide to be "most improved players". All the hype was that the Bulls would make the playoffs. Hell, I even bought into that hype myself. But, the reality is that all of the three C's are only young developing players surrounded by vet role players. These guys aren't going to win in that situation. Jamal isn't Kobe and Curry isn't Shaq. The bad thing is when I see posts like yours making the assertion that they will never get better. These kids were DRAFTED as 3-5 year projects. They WILL get better. Hell they might even be further along than they are now if they weren't playing in the purgatory that is Chicago Bulls basketball post dynasty. In any case, your certainly entitled to your opinion and I think we all want what is best for the Bulls, we simply have a different idea of what that is.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats fine. But when they are traded to a real team and all of the sudden start to show what they are capable of, hopefully THEN you will take a look at the orginization as a whole instead of two struggling developing players.
> ...


No, I don't have any agenda concerning jamal or Eddy. It just that their performance sucks big time and I just want my team move toward different direction rather sooner.

And for all your prediction that they will erupt as soon as they land on other team, well I have to say I seriously doubt that. They both are as good as they will ever get as of now. Mark my word.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> No, I don't have any agenda concerning jamal or Eddy. It just that their performance sucks big time and I just want my team move toward different direction rather sooner.
> 
> And for all your prediction that they will erupt as soon as they land on other team, well I have to say I seriously doubt that. They both are as good as they will ever get as of now. Mark my word.


I think there is NO WAY that they are "as good as they ever will get" and I think thats you being very shortsighted due to your frustration at losing. Which I can understand.

Tell me this though, say Curry and/or Crawford are traded to another team and they do blow up. Will you THEN begin looking at the orginization in a different light? 

I'm only asking because I heard practically verbatim the same thing your saying about these kids now that I heard about Miller, Artest, and Brand a couple of years back.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think there is NO WAY that they are "as good as they ever will get" and I think thats you being very shortsighted due to your frustration at losing. Which I can understand.
> ...


Ace, I agree with you! (How 'bout that?). I think it's shortsighted to say that Curry and Crawford won't get any better. As far as I'm concerned, Crawford already gives the effort and has all the tools, he just needs to start to take to heart what his coaches are telling him and stick to the offense and hustle on defense. I don't think they are necessarily looking for Jamal to become first team all-defense, just to give a good hard effort every minute on the floor. Jamal's close. I want to see him if that light ever goes on in his head. He could be really good. Maybe not perinnial all-star material but an extremely solid guard. As he is right now, he's just too inconsistant.

I think the organization has something to do with their problems. It's hard being around such a losing atmosphere without it effecting you. I think Skiles and Pax are trying to change that dynamic. I also think that the organization is not the sole problem here. The players have some responsibility for this mess also.

I've written it before and I'll write it again. I'll be more than happy to eat crow if Jamal and Eddy blow up. I'll be even happier if they're still wearing a Bulls uniform. I want this team to win. Soon damnit!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, I agree with you! (How 'bout that?). I think it's shortsighted to say that Curry and Crawford won't get any better. As far as I'm concerned, Crawford already gives the effort and has all the tools, he just needs to start to take to heart what his coaches are telling him and stick to the offense and hustle on defense. I don't think they are necessarily looking for Jamal to become first team all-defense, just to give a good hard effort every minute on the floor. Jamal's close. I want to see him if that light ever goes on in his head. He could be really good. Maybe not perinnial all-star material but an extremely solid guard. As he is right now, he's just too inconsistant.
> ...


I agree with your agreeing with me  . I also agree with your assertion that the players bear some of the burden. I will add though that that is ALL of the players. Not just one or two. Everyone from Blount to Williams. The bad thing with getting into the habit of losing is that it is cyclical. The only way to break the cycle is to win and players that always lose typically can't buck that trend on their own UNLESS they improve, which the Bulls young players are trying to do. I'd prefer that we make some moves to bring in some better vets at this point.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm only asking because I heard practically verbatim the same thing your saying about these kids now that I heard about Miller, Artest, and Brand a couple of years back.


Did you? Were people wondering if Brand was uncoachable? Were people wondering if he'd ever string consistency together? Were people wondering if Artest would ever exhibit the effort and desire? Were people wondering why a huge guy like Miller couldn't get a rebound, and didn't even seem interested in it? No, those guys were, to some extent, proven players. They just didn't look like they were going to be enough to win. (Everything would have been different if we had snagged McGrady.)

I know what you're going to say next...those guys were older, more developed players. Maybe so, but these guys made the decision to become NBA professionals and there are responsibilities that come along with that. Dedication, willingness to learn, effort. It's not clear Eddy does any of those things willingly or successfully. I do think Jamal CARES, but as someone else already said, I'm not sure he realizes that his coaches and elders might know more than he does as to how the game needs to be played. Tyson's unreadiness seems to be physical, not mental, and I still have hope that he can be a cornerstone.

We traded Brand, Artest and Miller away NOT because they weren't showing to be solid NBA players, but because we didn't think they were a championship nucleus (heck, at the time they were the nucleus of a 15 win team - that's not too much of a reach). Krause thought a duo of super-athletic 7-footers, a NCAA superstar and an immensely talented combo guard could possibly be that nucleus, along with the "steady hand" of a guy like Jalen . Only now are we (minus DaBullz who sadly knew all along) realizing that the core of this team just might be rotten.

(I know that there are a lot of other factors such as Bill's incompetence and Jalen's inability to be the "glue guy", and the fact that we simply didn't allow the previous core to learn how to win _as a group_ (which was a huge error) but I think my post is a central issue to the whole debacle)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you? Were people wondering if Brand was uncoachable? Were people wondering if he'd ever string consistency together? Were people wondering if Artest would ever exhibit the effort and desire? Were people wondering why a huge guy like Miller couldn't get a rebound, and didn't even seem interested in it? No, those guys were, to some extent, proven players. They just didn't look like they were going to be enough to win. (Everything would have been different if we had snagged McGrady.)
> ...


No, what I heard at the time was that "Brand wouldn't get any better and he wasn't the sort of player who could carry a team and his defense would never improve." "Artest, was a nutcase and even though he played good defense he caused the teams offense to get screwed up when he handled the ball and he would NEVER become a good shooter." And lastly, with Miller, I heard "Miller is a fine hard nosed lunchpail sort of player but he doesn't play good defense and he only scores in junk minutes making his stats inflated. I heard that he was a "scrub" and should be traded immediately." These are all the sentiments for moving these players. But the MAIN reason fans wanted these players moved was because the Bulls simply weren't winning games! I agree that the young kids share the responsibility. But by all accounts the orginization has NOT done a stellar job developing them. And the Bulls DID draft them, so they bear that responsibility as well.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

*You play to win the game!!!*

I have read the various posts about Crawford, Curry etc. with those in favour of it and those not in favour of it and so on and so forth.

The fact is that Skiles wants to win games. That's why he'll bench Curry and Carwford and whomever else when they aren't doing whatever they are supposed to because he wants to win, that's the aim of the game. That is something that shouldn't be sacrificed in order to give player that are in their third and fourth years "time to develop".

If Curry and Crawford are traded, then fine. There is no guarantee that they will "blow up" or that they will fizzle. You cannot guarantee that. The same thing was said when Darius Miles was traded to Cleveland for Andre Miller and people are still waiting for that to happen.

Like I said, you play to win the game! If Curry and Crawford are struggling yet they still get PT, what message are you sending to the rest of the team? You can't put that over winning, and what Skiles wants to do.

This is a man's league; Curry and Crawford knew that and felt that they were ready for the challenge. Them getting better is not whether or not Skiles benches them or not; it's up to them to want to get better and improve. And so far, they haven't shown it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> No, what I heard at the time was that "Brand wouldn't get any better and he wasn't the sort of player who could carry a team and his defense would never improve." "Artest, was a nutcase and even though he played good defense he caused the teams offense to get screwed up when he handled the ball and he would NEVER become a good shooter." And lastly, with Miller, I heard "Miller is a fine hard nosed lunchpail sort of player but he doesn't play good defense and he only scores in junk minutes making his stats inflated. I heard that he was a "scrub" and should be traded immediately." These are all the sentiments for moving these players. But the MAIN reason fans wanted these players moved was because the Bulls simply weren't winning games! I agree that the young kids share the responsibility. But by all accounts the orginization has NOT done a stellar job developing them. And the Bulls DID draft them, so they bear that responsibility as well.


so you didn't hear the same things "verbatim".  There is a fundamental difference there. Most recognized those guys as solid players who weren't good enough to win as they were comprised and ultimately weren't good enough to be a championship nucleus. The question about these guys is whether they even have the desire or perseverence to improve and learn how to win. There's a lot more to it than that, but I think there is a palpable difference there.

I wrote a longer post that got eaten and I'm at work and don't have time to do it again. Maybe later on I'll make some points.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: You play to win the game!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>dsouljah9</b>!
> I have read the various posts about Crawford, Curry etc. with those in favour of it and those not in favour of it and so on and so forth.
> 
> The fact is that Skiles wants to win games. That's why he'll bench Curry and Carwford and whomever else when they aren't donig whatever they are supposed to because he wants to win, that's the aim of the game. That is something that shouldn't be sacrificed in order to give player that are in their third and fourth years "time to develop".
> ...


4 star post!! :grinning:  

you play to WIN the game, !! our team dosent, they need to do it.. but they arent. and they arent going to get paid if they arent... and knowbodys going to be happy if that happens.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> so you didn't hear the same things "verbatim".  There is a fundamental difference there. Most recognized those guys as solid players who weren't good enough to win as they were comprised and ultimately weren't good enough to be a championship nucleus. The question about these guys is whether they even have the desire or perseverence to improve and learn how to win. There's a lot more to it than that, but I think there is a palpable difference there.
> ...


When I say verbatim, this is what I am referring too. And yes I did hear the same things said about Brand, Artest, and Miller PRACTICALLY verbatim.

It just that their performance sucks big time and I just want my team move toward different direction rather sooner.

And for all your prediction that they will erupt as soon as they land on other team, well I have to say I seriously doubt that. They both are as good as they will ever get as of now. Mark my word.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> When I say verbatim, this is what I am referring too. And yes I did hear the same things said about Brand, Artest, and Miller PRACTICALLY verbatim.
> ...


All right, I know where you're coming from. I still see a distinction here, though, but I'm at risk of belaboring the discussion so I'll just let it go.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2004)

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



what do you mean eaten, you post got eaten? what the heck? :uhoh: :grinning:


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

bump...seems appropriate after the Dallas game.

Jamal Crawford had 15 points and seven assists but didn't play the entire fourth quarter for the second straight game.  

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsgamer,1,812038.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

This is getting ridiculous.

The bulls are not winning. They are not going to the playoffs. Why not play Crawford to boost up his trade values? 

I hate to say this but talent-wise this team has gotten a lot worse under Paxson and Skiles.

It looks like that Crawford will not be resigned. So just let him put up some numbers to increase his trade value and send him away by the trading-deadline. Maybe we can get people to take one of those contracts (AD, ERob, JYD) off our hands.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Skiles is being true to his word and that's the best any player can ever hope to get from his coach.

From Day One, Skiles has harped on the importance of making a maximum effort while you're on the floor. In fact, he's made effort a fundamental criteria for earning playing time.

Last night Jamal was having a fairly strong game offensively. He knocked down a few jumpers and took the ball to the hole as well. From what I could see he only took one bad shot that caused Skiles to visibly shake his head on camera.

Defense was once again Crawford's downfall. There were two examples that demonstrated to me that Crawford was once again treating defense as an evil necessity. And both examples clearly exhibited a lack of effort from Jamal. 

Initially Hinrich was assigned to guard Nash. Dallas plays a ton of screen/roll on the perimeter. And the Maverick players set solid screens as well. On many occasions Nash drove Hinrich into perimeter screens. And in every single instance Kirk managed to literally fight over every one of those screens and stay with Nash. In fact, I'll bet if someone were to ask him, Nash might admit that Hinrich is one of the toughest defenders he's faced all season.

At some point Hirich got a few minutes rest and Crawford took over defending Nash. The same screen/roll plays were called. And though JC stepped over the screens as well he trailed Nash so badly that Crawford actually found himself guarding no one, time after time. If you compare the effort of KH and JC on these screen/rolls its no contest. Anyone with a pair of eyes could see that Kirk was determined not to let Nash get away while Crawford was not.

On another occasion Dallas was on a break initiated by Nowitzki. Nowitzki passed to a teammate who was running the middle lane and he then got a return pass for an off balanced layup which saw him end up on his back under his basket after having been shoved from behind..by Crawford. Before Nowitzki completed the three point play from the free throw line WGN replayed the sequence which clearly showed Crawford JOGGING behind Nowitzki and then shoving him in the back when with a little bit of hustle he could have easily gotten into the passing lane and prevented the return pass to Nowitzki. Someone try to convince me that even with the ball in his hands while making a pass on the run Nowitzki can outrun Crawford down the court. Outrun? No. Outhustle? Yes.

Ok, sure, Dallas has superior talent compared to Chicago. But make no mistake. Every one of them hustles like hell as well. When you combine a high skill level with solid effort you've got yourself a winning formula.

One final thought. To a very large degree I think Crawford has been victimized by playing alongside Kirk Hinrich this season. Actually I think the more appropriate word might be "exposed." Hinrich demonstrates so much grit and determination, especially on defense, that he makes Crawford's half-heared efforts look even worse than they are by comparision. 

So what its boiled down to is this: Either you make a maximum effort on the court at all times, or you sit. That seems to be the clear message Skiles has sent to Crawford all along. Unfortunately, though I'm sure Jamal understands this, he's chosen to defy his coach's mandate, even though it costs him playing time over and over again.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Defense was once again Crawford's downfall. There were two examples that demonstrated to me that Crawford was once again treating defense as an evil necessity. *And both examples clearly exhibited a lack of effort from Jamal.*
> 
> Initially Hinrich was assigned to guard Nash. Dallas plays a ton of screen/roll on the perimeter. And the Maverick players set solid screens as well. On many occasions Nash drove Hinrich into perimeter screens. And in every single instance Kirk managed to literally fight over every one of those screens and stay with Nash. In fact, I'll bet if someone were to ask him, Nash might admit that Hinrich is one of the toughest defenders he's faced all season.
> ...


Why is "getting over screens" always labeled a matter of effort? For me personally when I am playing hard, I have a harder time getting over screens. By this measure, Jay Williams must have been one of the laziest defenders ever, because he was even more horrible getting over screens than Crawford is. Hinrich is skilled at getting over screens. Part of it may be effort, but I think a lot of it is skill - perhaps a skill acquired with lots of hard work in summers and in practice - but a skill nonetheless. People do it all the time, but I don't see "getting over screens" as great evidence of in-game effort.



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> On another occasion Dallas was on a break initiated by Nowitzki. Nowitzki passed to a teammate who was running the middle lane and he then got a return pass for an off balanced layup which saw him end up on his back under his basket after having been shoved from behind..by Crawford. Before Nowitzki completed the three point play from the free throw line WGN replayed the sequence which clearly showed Crawford JOGGING behind Nowitzki and then shoving him in the back when with a little bit of hustle he could have easily gotten into the passing lane and prevented the return pass to Nowitzki. Someone try to convince me that even with the ball in his hands while making a pass on the run Nowitzki can outrun Crawford down the court. Outrun? No. Outhustle? Yes.


I didn't see this play, but it sounds like this IS a matter of effort.



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Ok, sure, Dallas has superior talent compared to Chicago. But make no mistake. *Every one of them hustles like hell as well.* When you combine a high skill level with solid effort you've got yourself a winning formula.


Interesting. When I hear most people talk about Dallas, I hear them say that they only give effort on one side of the floor.



> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> One final thought. To a very large degree I think Crawford has been victimized by playing alongside Kirk Hinrich this season. Actually I think the more appropriate word might be "exposed." Hinrich demonstrates so much grit and determination, especially on defense, that he makes Crawford's half-heared efforts look even worse than they are by comparision.
> 
> So what its boiled down to is this: Either you make a maximum effort on the court at all times, or you sit. That seems to be the clear message Skiles has sent to Crawford all along. Unfortunately, though I'm sure Jamal understands this, he's chosen to defy his coach's mandate, even though it costs him playing time over and over again.


I think a lot of what we call "lack of effort" is bad judgment and lack of skill doing the little things that don't make it on SportsCenter. And these things matter, so it makes sense when Skiles sits players with these lack of skills for long periods. Crawford does not play as hard as Hinrich, but neither do most of the other players in the NBA. But ultimately I do not think that is the reason he sits. He sits because he has not had the discipline to drill himself to death in all of the little things that make Hinrich a better basketball player than Crawford. In a way that is a matter of effort too, but not in-game effort. Summer and practice effort plus the judgment to realize that it is those things that he needs most to work on - and not some AND-1 move that wows the crowd.

Bottom line. Crawford is not that skilled of a basketball player, so he sits.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Fighting over screens, stepping over screens, anticipating screens...whatever you want to call it requires a combination of hustle, sacrifice and planning. 

Hustle because if you don't maintain proximity with the man you're guarding he'll nail an uncontested jumper over 50% of the time, especially in the NBA.

Sacrifice because more often than not you know you're going to take a hit from a much bigger player on most occasions. And not only do you have to be willing to absorb the hit, you also have to deal out some punishment of your own so the next time he screens you it might not be quite as agressively.

Planning because you have to allocate the time before each game to study your opponent's offensive sets and tendencies so that you can anticipate when and where the screens will occur and what flaws exist in their technique that you might be able to take advantage of.

Roll those three things together...hustle, sacrifice and planning...and in my book you've got the ingredients of what most people would call "effort." Contrary to some people's beliefs, _effort is not a skill_. It's nothing more than a by-product of hard work, commitment and a little bit of intelligence. You don't have to be very talented or highly skilled to work hard.

As for Jay Williams, though he has nothing to do with this discussion I will concur that his defensive effort, particularly when it came to overcoming perimeter screens, was horrible.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

C Blizzy, the hustle, sacrifice, and planning breakdown is very helpful. In addition, I think how closely he positions himself to his man is a pretty big factor. Crawford with his length has developed a habit of playing further off his man (this may also be partially due to laziness), since his length allows him to close quickly. However, I think this makes him much more suceptible to being screened. Adjusting this part of his defensive game probably would be good in the long-term, but in the short-term, I bet it would make his defense worse, since he is used to having more time to make adjustments to offensive moves.

The other reason that I think this is more of a skill (or something learned through developing good fundamentals) is that if it was largely a matter of effort, we would see Crawford being much better at getting over screens during some parts of the game when he was playing harder, such as the end of the game or parts of the game when the crowd is very active. It doesn't seem to me that his ability to get over screens gets much better during these periods when he plays harder, which suggests to me that this is more of a skill than just a matter of effort.

On the planning component, I think the big problem with Crawford is that because he has so many flaws in so many dimensions, it is probably hard for him to make use of what he learns by watching tape. Many of Crawford's worst performances are when he is consciously trying to adjust his game. (I would suspect he is the type of player with whom drilling on fundamentals over and over and over again would be really, really important.) Is he willing to put himself through such drills or watch tape? I don't know the answer to these questions.

The good thing is that with Crawford playing shooting guard, he has fewer on-the-ball screens to deal with. And he is a reasonably good on-the-ball defender when screens are not involved. Interestingly, we used to talk about how moving Crawford to SG would be a problem defensively, but, if anything, it probably has made him a more effective defender.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The bottom line is Jamal needs to get stronger to fight through screens better. Thats been a problem he has had since day 1 in the league and he is actually improving there. He needs to add strength. That's it, that is all.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the funny thing about all this finger pointing is that everyone who was a cartwright basher is praising skile for doing the same thing 

not letting players play through their mistakes and sitting them when they dont play to his standard

last year if i miss my guess wasn't JC and Ec the same to main victims of this practice?

yet cartwright is bashed for non development and skiles is praised for trying to win games (although i would ask everyone praising skiles for this to check the bulls winning % when he does such things) 

basically i feel its skiles job to win ....its painfully obvious the vets cant win us games and while the younger players are inconsistent when they are playing well the bulls win , not just because they are more talented but because when they play well the other teams have to concentrate on them allowing the vets more freedom to be productive...this however does not work the other way around as has been proven numerous times throughout the season

so i say play the kids, all of them, either they get better or more consistent or heaven forbid both ,or they suck while playing a slightly more entertaning as well as frustrating style of basketball 

its the GM's job to have the horses to win and its skiles job to see that they do

pax's moves have won by my count 1 game (when gill went balistic against the magic)

they have lost us i dont know how many its impossible to calculate

i say it now that it was mistake to trade both marshall and rose and equally so a mistake to fire cartwright and hire skiles , 

and now we have to suffer through endless fingerpointing and scapegoating as even the stregnth and conditioning people are laying blame at the players to save their own hides

although from my viewpoint it looks that no one expected curry to be around because he was working with grover at hoops i believe chandler couldn't work out much for much of the summer due to a condition he got at the end of the season and crawford pyhsically came back better than ever , he gained weight and if i remember correctly has the wind to play whole games if need be and went through stretches where he has played heavy minutes without stamina trouble and kirk's in great shape as well ,its hard to say if the berto crew had anything to do with it though

the sad part is due to the turnover and other crap this bulls team is basically stuck the way it is for the most part for at least a season

they have to resign JC at whatever the market dictates, trading him at this point is stupid, especially considering his offense is needed with the offensively challenged players aquired on dec.1st and the only players he can be traded for that who are more talented are player who have proven less and are currently less productive , the other option is to get someone more consistent but produces less which isn't what the bulls need either 

they have to keep EC and TC for the same reason low trade value TC is hurt and may have a chronic condition he will have to be healthy for an extended time for his valuee to get to where i should be and curry will continue to have low value comparitive to what he is because of inconsistent minutes, poor conditioning and imo poor coaching 

kirk is everyone's favorite but he may actually be most likely to go because he is getting such rave reviews so he may bring back alot more compared to what he produces than the previous 3 mentioned 

pip's coming back for no other reason than no one else will take him , same goes with e-rob

dupree makes too little than to bring anything other than a draft pick and the pick wouldn't be that valuable so what would be the point 

davis & jyd annoy me more by the day because they are role players and cant win games and davis in particualr is thrust into an offensive role he cannot handle anymore due to aging

fizer needs minutes but is in skiles doghouse if he doesn't produce the moment is on the floor pretty similar to curry and chandler in that respect because he will leave and not be back anytime soon and will likely be brought back for cheap or let go , i perfer the former 

blount is blount, and doing a decent job he make the min. i cant see why they wouldn't bring him back he's been a bargain

jeffries and brunson are nothing to me maybe chris can be a player but whatever he can be is easily replacable if not easily improved upon (dupree) and brunson is a fringe player even easier to replace

i would run curry into the ground to get his conditioning up and play him as much as possible and reward defensive effort with touches not minutes he needs to be on the court as much as possible right now for more reasons than his current level of play

JC and fizer too , with the hope that they can provide offense when i would just have curry playing defense due to lack of effective aggresion 

kirk is doing fine i'd let him play as much he can as well and the rest of the role players would do exactly that play roles around the young 4 removing every play designed to get davis and blount 18 ft jumpers and replacing them with plays for dupree and e-rob , everone else gets points through the offense and hustle


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I also have this to say. It is almost as if JC can not find a position. He does not have the right temperment to play PG because he is mostly a shot frist player. He also has a hard time playing and defending smaller and quicker pg.

And he does not have the off ball movement and strength to play SG. I think this is one of many reason he is having such a hard time laterly and i don't know how he is going to adjust. 

And lets not kid ourselfs, hinrich is having an awsome rookie year and is the PF of the future for this team. The kid does it all. Plays great D, shots above 40% for FT and 37% from 3. Is an outstanding rebounder for his size and a excellent floor general, except still turns it over too much. Not only all this but he just is a great team player. 

Now i agree that you can't build a great team around a PG but by the same token you can't have a great team with outstanding guard play. I just don't see how Paxson is going to hold onto JC much longer unless he learns how to play SG. And i don't think he wants to and as i have posted before his body movement is telling me he wants out. I hate to say this but he is toast and will be gone by mid febuary.

david


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> One final thought. To a very large degree I think Crawford has been victimized by playing alongside Kirk Hinrich this season. Actually I think the more appropriate word might be "exposed." Hinrich demonstrates so much grit and determination, especially on defense, that he makes Crawford's half-heared efforts look even worse than they are by comparision.


i've noticed this too. more than once.

it also seems they are having their own little 3-point contest during games. kirk hits a three and inevitably the next attempt from jamal is the same. and it is, more often than not, an ill-advised shot attempt. and skiles just shakes his head in disbelief!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> The bottom line is Jamal needs to get stronger to fight through screens better. Thats been a problem he has had since day 1 in the league and he is actually improving there. He needs to add strength. That's it, that is all.


Kirk Hinrich is 6'3", 190 lbs.
Jamal Crawford is 6'5", 190 lbs.

Stronger? That excuse doesn't hold water.

C. Blizzy makes an excellent point, and it isn't that hard to see when watching the games.

Hinrich and JYD are the two bulls who show enormous energy when they play. Hinrich is in constant motion on offense and he also sticks to his man like glue on defense. He shows effort at both ends of the floor almost all the time. He's as solid in minute 1 of games as he is in minute 48.

Jamal may not be a coach's son, and he may have only played 17 games of college ball, but he's also played more than 200 pro games and has had 3 professional coaches (and their staffs) to work with him for the better part of 4 seasons.

Hinrich consistently fights through screens. I have seen him stick to his man through two and three screens trying to pick him off on the same play.

NCB makes a good observation, too. Jamal plays off his man so far that it makes him easier to get picked off. Yeah, that is absolutely being lazy.

I cannot count the (too numerous) times I've seen Jamal lose his man and go wait for the (after basket) inbounds pass before our opponents have even finished running their play and made/missed their attempt at the basket.

I would add to C. Blizzy's observation about Kirk EXPOSING Jamal by pointing out that it is Paxson who's exposed Jamal by giving Skiles the option of Rick Brunson as a sub for Jamal in every role, including being the team's #1 scoring option.

Hats off to Paxson! We're 2-8 in our last 10 games and we've lost 6 in a row.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I would add to C. Blizzy's observation about Kirk EXPOSING Jamal by pointing out that it is Paxson who's exposed Jamal by giving Skiles the option of Rick Brunson as a sub for Jamal in every role, including being the team's #1 scoring option.


That's pretty much nonsensical.

Take away Brunson and you're just exposing Jamal in a different manner. The only thing that's exposed Jamal is that he's played like garbage.

The thing about garbage is that it doesn't matter what you do with it. Put it out in the living room and everyone can see and smell it. Hide it in the pantry and you still smell it when you walk by.

There's really no control over whether it gets "exposed" or not. Just in how it gets exposed.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

And why we are on it how many times when we are playing a zone does JC either just stand there playing no one or double team some PF with no shot and leave a pg or sg wide open who then drains a 3 on us. 

Same on man to man. How many times is JC just looking around and he loses his man who sets up just behind the 3 point line and gets a pass and drains a three. JC learned this style of D from rose. Its called lets rest on d so we can jack up some J's on offenseive because how we look matters more than winning.

david


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

"We have way too many distractions, way too much thinking," Skiles said. *"It's 'Why am I coming out of the game?* The old players ... the young players ... ' Guys just need to suit up, go out and play hard and earn their money. It's literally that simple. It doesn't need to be clouded by anything."

daily southtown


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That's pretty much nonsensical.
> ...


Jamal was the 3rd or 4th option on offense until Paxson traded the #1 and #2 (Rose/Marshall) guys away. 

If anyone thought that Jamal is meant to be our #1 option, he's proven that he's not very good at it. In that manner, he's been exposed.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal was the 3rd or 4th option on offense until Paxson traded the #1 and #2 (Rose/Marshall) guys away.
> ...


i'll agree that JC is not ready to be a #1 option ,but marshall wasn't an offensive option over him curry was and none of the 3 (yell curry or rose) were any better offensively after the 1st month than crawford so before the trade JC became the 1st option 

all of the 3 C's are still raw but it doesn't mean they will never be ready just that they aren't now


----------

