# Chad Ford: "Bulls Misused JC At The 2 Position"



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Apparently he's on ESPN Radio...

He's also said he's never seen Curry in better shape...

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=242312


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

newsflash chad ford: duuhhhhh.

The Bulls misused JC period. Wasted pick, wasted time. Even worse with Fizer.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> newsflash chad ford: duuhhhhh.
> 
> The Bulls misused JC period. Wasted pick, wasted time. Even worse with Fizer.


Agreed.

Now we can watch him blossom on someone else's team....

Isn't consistency a beautiful thing?


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I agree with Ford that Jamal's true value to an NBA team would be at PG. With Kirk set at the 1 for the next several years I don't see much of a future for Jamal in Chicago. He would be a good combo guard off the bench but I don't think he would accept that role. At this time Crawford doesn't have the body to be a 2 plus his erratic shooting, and timidity in driving the lane, is troubling for a shooting guard. 

As for a potential Knicks trade, what are the Bulls going to do with Thomas and Williams? I always thought Kurt was an underrated player but we don't need another power forward in my opinion. Williams will be stuck behind Hinrich. It's hard to believe this is the best value we could get for Jamal, but who am I to argue with the market.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If we get Thomas and Williams, Chandler could be moved to back up center or traded. This would not be too bad if we get our wing player we need first.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>charlietyra</b>!
> I agree with Ford that Jamal's true value to an NBA team would be at PG. With Kirk set at the 1 for the next several years I don't see much of a future for Jamal in Chicago. He would be a good combo guard off the bench but I don't think he would accept that role. At this time Crawford doesn't have the body to be a 2 plus his erratic shooting, and timidity in driving the lane, is troubling for a shooting guard.


I somewhat agree, but I think it's also constructive to think of what he'd be doing on the Knicks. He'd be a backup combo guard there too. Definitely not gonna start ahead of Marbury. Probably will play more at the 2, but I don't think he'd start if Houston is Healthy.

In fact, what teams would he start at the point for? I'm pretty sure he'd start for the Clips, but I don't think he'd start over Andre Miller on the Nuggs.

I could see him starting in Orlando... maybe Atlanta, but every team in the league will dance with glee at the prospect of playing a Crawford/Terry backcourt.

Utah? Utah makes some sense, but Arroyo and Lopez both looked decent for them. He'd probably play the 2 there.

Golden State may make some sense, especially if Van Excel opts out. Anyone know what he's going to do?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I somewhat agree, but I think it's also constructive to think of what he'd be doing on the Knicks. He'd be a backup combo guard there too. Definitely not gonna start ahead of Marbury. Probably will play more at the 2, but I don't think he'd start if Houston is Healthy.
> ...


I don't think the Knicks are going to happen...

He'd have to agree to that sign and trade to begin with and why he would I don't know...

Utah won't have Arroyo next season...

Yes he would start and be a big part of the Clippers...and that's where I want him to go.

Sign JC and draft Livingston that's my hope....


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

If the clippers sign Crawford then Richardson wont be kept will he?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Well, JC is still a major project at PG. Bulls tried to develop him as a G last year IMHO which needed to be done.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> If the clippers sign Crawford then Richardson wont be kept will he?


Right now Sterling and some Clippers fans are sharing the "Kobe's coming" pipe...

I passed on that pipe..

Kobe will not be a Clipper, in fact if they pull that off, I'll buy season tickets even though I live on the other side of the country...

Anyway, once Sterling realizes Kobe's not coming, they will do whatever they have to bring back Q...

JC can be brought in and that won't affect Q's status, JC would really make our team go because we need ballhandlers and Q and Mags aren't the best ballhandlers in the world.

Plus I think it works great for JC to be a 3rd option which is what he would be, a 3rd maybe even 4th option, no one could key on him, he could run our offense and when other guys are off, he can step up...

He'd be a bigtime player on the Clips IMO...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Well, JC is still a major project at PG. Bulls tried to develop him as a G last year IMHO which needed to be done.


I disagree with that...

I don't think too many people can honestly say JC's a better 2 than a 1...

This is a guy that any night can put up 20 and 10...

We tried to turn him into Rip Hamilton basically in the middle of the season...

JC is a guy that seems to rather run the offense than be the scorer.

Yes he has a history of bad shots, but 1 a lot of guys, especially young talented players have that issue, 2 he was a lot of times our only hope on offense and I'm sure he felt that burden.

If he's on a team like the Clips where he has Brand, Q and Mags as offensive options, his assists would go up, shots would go down, shooting % would go up, he needs to find a situation where he will be given the team and say hey you're our guy, run this team, and I believe he can do it, especially if you see the kid in person and see how he tells almost everyone on the floor where to be, he's really vocal in the huddles, etc.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I dont think the Knicks deal will happen but I do think he would start over Houston .His passing skills would allow Marbury to play off the ball and use screens he would be one tough cover for a pg .

As for the Nuggets I think Kiki liked the production he was getting from Leonard and if he signed jamal it would be for the versatility he would add .Dre Miller is a excellent post up guard and I could see them using that even more with jamals passing and shooting skills .

As for the clipps I think they might have to take Livingston but I wouldnt be suprised if they came hard after jamal I mean damn he averaged more assists from the sg spot then the clipps full time pg's last year. :no: It was getting so bad on that team that Brand ,Q,and maggette basically tried running the team themselves they had no confidence in any pg on that roster .

Did the Bulls misuse jamal ?In a way they did I really think they shouldve been pushing the switch in july instead of saying he was the pg and kirk was his backup exspecially since pax knew he was gonna try and dump jalen anyway .It just seems it was wasted time especially since we draft a pg top ten and dont give him one full season at the helm even though we are averaing 20 win seasons his entire time here .

I agree that jamal still has a way to go as far as seasoning from the pg spot its gonna be very interesting to see what moves teams are gonna make this summer reqarding him and the other fa's.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I don't think too many people can honestly say JC's a better 2 than a 1...


That's not the point. The question is if he is a quality starter at either postion in the league. Both at this point and in the future. I would say no to the former.

After years of debate on this topic, it will be fun to see if any GMs are willing to put their money to back JC's supporters' mouths.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Paxson will match any offer for JC in the range or near the MLE. I think it very unlikely any team will offer JC the kind of money that was offered to Jason Terry. JC is too young and inconsistent for some team to take a chance on 42 million over 5 years or so.

While i agree he has great talent his game also has a lot of shortcomings and PG is by far the most competiitive position in the NBA. When you add Ben Gordon, Harris, and Livingston to the mix i think JC will have to prove himself at the PG before he gets a big time contract. The thing is, SG is one of the weakest positions in the NBA (IMO) and i think JC would be much more competitive if he worked on that as his final position.

david


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> After years of debate on this topic, it will be fun to see if any GMs are willing to put their money to back JC's supporters' mouths.


Any reason they wouldn't?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> When you add Ben Gordon, Harris, and Livingston to the mix i think JC will have to prove himself at the PG before he gets a big time contract.


Please...

JC has to prove himself to get a big time contract when those guys haven't even been able to prove they have the goods in a NBA game yet?

If that's the case, Hinrich has something to prove too, odds are all 3 of those guys will surpass him when it comes to the top PGs of the league and as of right now he's not there yet himself...

I seriously can't wait to see the we should have kept Jamal threads in a couple months...

That will be good stuff.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please...
> ...


So how big a contract do you think that Crawford will get?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Ok so let me get this. "Hinrich has something to prove too, odds are all 3 of those guys will surpass him when it comes to the top PGs of the league and as of right now he's not there yet himself". Well hinrich is starting over JC at PG and based on what you wrote all three of those guys are going to be better than hinrich (your words), thus all three of those guys will be better than JC since hinrich starts in front of JC.

Or let me guess, JC is really better than hinrich and skiles and paxson start hinrich for some reason? They world rather loss, or it is all a big conspiracy to get JC?

Tell me would any team in the lotto trade Gordon, harris, or livingston for JC? I think it very unlikley.

david


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> So how big a contract do you think that Crawford will get?


I think 8 max....

We threw 10 mil at Arenas...

I think we'd go anywhere between 6.5-8 and the Bulls won't match...

Can't he work out for teams?

I'm pretty sure he can...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Ok so let me get this. "Hinrich has something to prove too, odds are all 3 of those guys will surpass him when it comes to the top PGs of the league and as of right now he's not there yet himself". Well hinrich is starting over JC at PG and based on what you wrote all three of those guys are going to be better than hinrich (your words), thus all three of those guys will be better than JC since hinrich starts in front of JC.
> 
> Or let me guess, JC is really better than hinrich and skiles and paxson start hinrich for some reason? They world rather loss, or it is all a big conspiracy to get JC?
> ...


JC didn't lose the starting job to Hinrich, JC and Hinrich were our best 2 guards after the trade and they both had to play...

To your last question, I didn't suggest anyone would trade them for JC...but would any of the teams trade the picks they'd use for those guys for any of the Bulls except Curry?

No.


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think 8 max....
> ...


8 mil on Crawford is 8 mil wasted..

to compare Arenas to Crawford is an example of a horrible comparison. yes, Crawford can show signs of great play, but his inconsistency doesn't warrant 8 mil IMHO. Crawford bandwagoners will disagree w/ me and it's ok. I'll admit i'm not a huge Crawford fan. I'd jus rather Paxson use his money more wisely. If a team wants Crawford for 6+ mil, i say let Crawford go and be a 'cancer' on that team.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Ya...

Look I respect your opinion, but I don't know, anyone that would call JC a cancer is just talking crap for the sake of talking crap...


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Ya...
> 
> Look I respect your opinion, but I don't know, anyone that would call JC a cancer is just talking crap for the sake of talking crap...


perhaps calling Crawford a cancer was too much on my part. but can you blame me for expressing my dislike for JC? I really don't like his game. Too many selfish plays to get himself points from what I've seen. It'd be all ok if he consistently made most of his shots.. 

anyways, IMO, I hope Crawford goes to a team where he can handle the ball all he wants, shoot as many shots as he wants, and pretty much run plays that he wants as long as the Bulls get something in return. If we're gonna kick him out onto the curb, might as well make sure we're getting something in return.

did the Bulls mistreat JC? I don't think so. I think JC just wasn't a proper fit with the Bulls. Have the Bulls mistreated players in the past? Of course.. *cough*DYNASTY*cough*... damn Krause. anyways, the marriage between the Bulls and JC has been rocky. It's time to separate and look for a better player.. or at least a player that fits well in a Bulls uni


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I think comparing compare Arenas to Crawford is a bit much. I mean Arenas is just awsome. He plays great D, controls the game from the PG position, gets a lot of FT's, and shots a high PG. In addition, it is just a tough stud.

Arenas, IMO is the best young PG in the NBA.

david


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Who compared him to Arenas?

I didn't...


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Plus I think it works great for JC to be a 3rd option which is what he would be, a 3rd maybe even 4th option, no one could key on him, he could run our offense and when other guys are off, he can step up...
> 
> He'd be a bigtime player on the Clips IMO...


Not many "bigtime" players are 4th options.

Sterling may be smoking the Kobe pipe, but you've clearly been smoking the Jamal pipe. If Jamal is going to be a "bigtime" player at PG for the Clippers, why in the world would you want them to draft Sean Livingston? In a year or two Livingston would force Jamal to slide back to the 2, basically repeating the Jamal/Bulls disaster. At that time, you can say how the Clips should trade Jamal to your new favorite team of the moment, where Jamal will inevitably blow up.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Coyat</b>!
> 
> 
> perhaps calling Crawford a cancer was too much on my part. but can you blame me for expressing my dislike for JC? I really don't like his game. Too many selfish plays to get himself points from what I've seen. It'd be all ok if he consistently made most of his shots..
> ...


Of course the Bulls mistreated him...

Was he actually beaten out of the starting job?

Should he really have had to be content with the Bulls drafting 2 PGs after he had the job?

If the plans were for him to play 2 this year, that should have been discussed this past summer.

You'd like him if he consistently made more of his shots?

Newsflash, we didn't have any consistent players hitting shots this year which is why our offense was so bad, which is why we couldn't score, and couldn't win and as a result sucked...

Hate everyone, don't just hate him for that, that's ridiculous.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Not many "bigtime" players are 4th options.
> 
> Sterling may be smoking the Kobe pipe, but you've clearly been smoking the Jamal pipe. If Jamal is going to be a "bigtime" player at PG for the Clippers, why in the world would you want them to draft Sean Livingston? In a year or two Livingston would force Jamal to slide back to the 2, basically repeating the Jamal/Bulls disaster. At that time, you can say how the Clips should trade Jamal to your new favorite team of the moment, where Jamal will inevitably blow up.


You're missing the point...

The Clippers have 3 offensive weapons in the starting lineup, you could have JC as a 3rd or 4th option, that doesn't make him less of a player...

If you've got a guy with the offensive talent that JC in a position like that it makes you a better team...

A Livingston/Crawford backcourt would probably be something to see in the future...

You guys put too much stress on this guy's a 1, or this guy's a 2...

I see 2 guys that are ballhandlers that can be given the ball on an outlet while everyone else runs the floor or either could stop it in half court and initiate the offense.

As far as your last comment about trade JC to my new favorite team or whatever it has no merit/meaning and you're just pretending to know what you're talking about.

I just responded with something about basketball, let's see if you have an equal response.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think we'd go anywhere between 6.5-8 and the Bulls won't match...


If some team offers Crawford at least a Jason Terry contract (3 years - $24M), I will admit that I may have underestimated JC's value somewhat. If he gets a contract for $60M or more, then I really missed the boat.

But if no team offers him $6.5M in the first year of a contract, will you admit that you have overestimated his value?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If some team offers Crawford at least a Jason Terry contract (3 years - $24M), I will admit that I may have underestimated JC's value somewhat. If he gets a contract for $60M or more, then I really missed the boat.
> ...


Obviously I don't know what the teams are thinking, but to see the Jazz offer Terry 8 million, what makes you think JC wouldn't get something more than just the MLE.

If I've overestimated his value, of course I will admit I was wrong.

However, right now I think the majority of people here have underestimated his value.

Let's face it, most GM's know that the Bulls are a mess, a talent like Crawford could easily be refined in the right situation, you send him to LA to play for Dunleavy, or even to Denver and under Kiki's tutelage, he'll respond.

I guarantee right now if JC is on another team in a few months we will see the I wish Jamal was back threads from the so called "haters".


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> I guarantee right now if JC is on another team in a few months we will see the I wish Jamal was back threads from the so called "haters".


Well, first we will have all the "Team A met with Crawford to discuss contract threads"

Then we will have "JC signs contract with Team B for $X M."

Then, "Does Pax match?" threads

Then we can get to the "Yea, JC is overpaid" or "JC would look good on the fantasy ex-Bulls teams"

So your tread is several chapters away. Personally, I think he will sign a MLE type contract. As I said earlier, it will be fun to watch.


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course the Bulls mistreated him...
> ...


:yes: 
there's a reason why Hinrich started at 1



> Should he really have had to be content with the Bulls drafting 2 PGs after he had the job?


I'm not going to point fingers.. but its mainly JC's fault. All he had to do was play well at a consistent rate to show the Bulls that he deserves to be the PG of the future. He didn't. Thats a fact. He blew it. Enough said.



> You'd like him if he consistently made more of his shots?


yes, i would. I'd also like him if he didnt hog the ball at times but oh well. I don;t blame him for trying to be the saviour most of the time. Bulls were bad this year and so was he. If he sticks with the team, let's all pray he's been working hard on his game.




> Hate everyone, don't just hate him for that, that's ridiculous.


ok.. hate is such a strong word.. where is the love? can't we just use a term not so strong? Like, strong dislike for JC? Also, why can't I dislike JC for not playing great? We're paying him to be good. And god help us if we pay 6+ mil for his sorry *** we better damn well see some great game. 

I understand ur a huge JC fan. But I hope you understand that JC isnt as big as you hype him up to be. Seriously.. 8mil for JC? laughable.. If anything, he downplayed his value this yr. Maybe last yr if he was a FA when he had that wonderful streak near the end of the 2003 season he'd be talked about around 8mil.. _MAYBE_



> I guarantee right now if JC is on another team in a few months we will see the I wish Jamal was back threads from the so called "haters".


I guarantee that us "haters" will be glad JC is gone and wish him the best of luck wherever he ends up.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think Jason Terry is a good guy to compare Crawford to in terms of #s and situations (being on bad teams)...

Utah offered Terry 8 million last year...

I'm not sure why people would think teams would only offer JC like 5 or 5.5, that just doesn't make any sense to me...

I think 8 is the max JC would get, and even then I think he's looking at in between 6.5-7 million.

Point is, everyone knows the Bulls have the right to match and will if the kid is a bargain, no one is going to give him Arenas money, but they're not going to make it easy for the Bulls to match the offer either.

I'm waiting for JC to publicly ask the Bulls to not resign him, that will come after he signs the offer sheet.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Coyat</b>!
> 
> :yes:
> there's a reason why Hinrich started at 1
> ...


That's just pure B.S....

Before Hinrich become the starting 1, JC was leading the team in points and assists...

Hinrich had to start because he and JC were the best 2 guards we had, plain and simple...

I don't know what season some of you watched, but this was clear, we had to have both of those guys on the floor, and because of JC's size, we were able to slide him over to the 2...

We actually were at our best in the beginning when we let both Hinrich and JC just kind of wing it when it came to running the floor and setting up the offense, then we had to say blah blah is this and blah is that and our offense sucked.



> Originally posted by <b>Coyat</b>!
> yes, i would. I'd also like him if he didnt hog the ball at times but oh well. I don;t blame him for trying to be the saviour most of the time. Bulls were bad this year and so was he. If he sticks with the team, let's all pray he's been working hard on his game.
> 
> 
> ...


I would hardly call him a ball hog, he took bad shots at times, and it was clear the burden was on him to perform for us offensively, but seriously, if he didn't do it, who else was going to??????

Ya I'm a JC fan, but I'm not clouded by reality, when he sucked I said he sucked, and I actually think playing the 2 has taken his game/confidence a step back...

<FONT COLOR=ff0000>You calling him a sorry *** and all that just washes your opinion down the toilet because it's clear you can't be objective to look at the facts and make an assesment based off that, you just want to hate the guy because you hate him and that's it...</FONT><FONT COLOR=0000ff>This kind of rhetoric is uncalled for and doesn't add to the otherwise fine discussion you guys are having. DaBullz</FONT>

You want him to show you some great games?

Did you watch any games this year?

The Knicks game on his birthday, the game up in Seattle when he and Curry were the only performers on the floor, the game early in the year against Charlotte, in fact everytime he played Charlotte he murdered them, the 50 pt game, the game against NJ when he was the only performer, I can go on and on...

Sorry he couldn't carry the team, and yes he was inconistent, but at least I can be objective about him as a player, most of you guys evaluate him as a player/person and those assesments are just off base and flat out 1000000% wrong.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> You're missing the point...
> ...


I think a Livingston/Crawford backcourt would be impressive as well. I personally don't put too much emphasis on a player being a 1 or a 2... I was simply under the impression that YOU liked Jamal as a 1 by your past comments like "I don't think too many people can honestly say JC's a better 2 than a 1...", "JC is a guy that seems to rather run the offense than be the scorer." Considering Livingston has been compared to Jason Kidd, I would assume Livingston would be the primary ballhandler running the offense. That would put Jamal more in the scorer's role, which you don't seem to think he fits best in. Let me know if I'm wrong.

I still don't see how Jamal can be a "bigtime" player as a 3rd or 4th option on a Clippers team whose best player has barely scratched the all-star game. I would normally associate "bigtime" with all-star calibur, but maybe that's not what you mean. I personally think Jamal could be a first or second option on that team, which _would_ make him a "bigtime" player. What sort of stats do you see Jamal putting up on the Clips?

For the record, I still think you're smoking the pipe and you're in for a big letdown when Jamal's nowhere near Clipperland.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> I think a Livingston/Crawford backcourt would be impressive as well. I personally don't put too much emphasis on a player being a 1 or a 2... I was simply under the impression that YOU liked Jamal as a 1 by your past comments like "I don't think too many people can honestly say JC's a better 2 than a 1...", "JC is a guy that seems to rather run the offense than be the scorer." Considering Livingston has been compared to Jason Kidd, I would assume Livingston would be the primary ballhandler running the offense. That would put Jamal more in the scorer's role, which you don't seem to think he fits best in. Let me know if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


There's no guarantee he will be a Clipper, but he's in the mix and I've read several reports that say we're interested, so this isn't just me as a Clippers fan hoping Baylor knows who the kid is...

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "bigtime" but I think JC will have an easier time scoring and getting assists plus he'll get a lot of open looks and with our weapons you couldn't just key on him like you can with the Bulls.

Let's be honest, no one was worried about Hinrich, he got tons of open looks, there was a reason for that...

Curry didn't show up until January...

We went as JC went and teams knew that...

Anyway, the reason I think JC would take a turn for the better is this...

I'm sure you don't watch Clippers basketball so I'll educate you...

Our PG's suck...

They can't feed the post, our guys Q, Mags, Brand, have no confidence in them so sometimes things get helter skelter and guys try to do things on their own a little bit...

JC would make us go offensively...

Mags could be an all-star, Q just had a breakout year, and Brand should have been an all-star last year..

The Bulls right now don't have that kind of talent...

He plays with better talent, a better coach, and finally gets on a team that makes a commitment to him being their PG, I believe given that situation he would flourish.

And yes it would be amazing to one day see JC and Livingston playing...

My ? to you now is what pipe am I smoking?


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> He plays with better talent, a better coach, and *finally gets on a team that makes a commitment to him being their PG*, I believe given that situation he would flourish.
> 
> And yes it would be amazing to one day *see JC and Livingston playing...*
> ...


Most of your points are well-taken. To answer your question though, you are smoking the "everything will be better with Jamal in Clipperland cuz the Bulls organization sucks" pipe. I say that for this simple reason. When Jamal was on the Bulls, he was "mis-treated" because we drafted JWill and Hinrich. However, you expect him to go to the Clippers and flourish if they draft the hottest PG prospect in the draft in Livingston?

You might have to decide which player you'd prefer the Clips to have, Livingston or Jamal. As enticing as it is to imagine them playing together blissfully as the Clippers run to the Finals, I can't in a MILLION years imagine Jamal signing with the Clippers if they have already drafted Sean Livingston. So, if you'd rather have Jamal in LA, you might want to hope they Clippers don't take Livingston in the draft. just my opinion...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Most of your points are well-taken. To answer your question though, you are smoking the "everything will be better with Jamal in Clipperland cuz the Bulls organization sucks" pipe.


No no...

I said I think JC will be a better player and yes it would make us a better team...

I didn't say we would win or a championship or even make the playoffs...

We desperately need a ballhandler like JC to help us offensively and like I said with the weapons we had JC gives us a guy that can get them the ball and if Q or Mags is off, he can step in and pick up a little bit more of the scoring slack, but its good to know going into the game that we won't win or lose solely on JC's point total like this past season with the Bulls.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> since hinrich starts in front of JC.


I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jamal started WITH Hinrich for most of the season? And it was my experience in watching the games that they both shared both guard dutires because they are both versatile in that regard.

I thought Hinrich-Crawford was one of the only things this franchise has gotten right so far. All we needed was another scorer at the 3 to take the pressure off of Jamal and Eddy and we would have been set.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Apparently he's on ESPN Radio...
> 
> He's also said he's never seen Curry in better shape...
> ...


The link wouldn't pull up for me, but this is exactly what I have been claiming all along. JC is not SG, he's a pure PG who can score.

He's not strong enough to defend a guy like Kobe and he tall enough to take advantage of a lot of PGs. Plus he's amazing off the dribble, when he's given the opportunity to create. Whether he'll be back or not ... only time will tell.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I somewhat agree, but I think it's also constructive to think of what he'd be doing on the Knicks. He'd be a backup combo guard there too. Definitely not gonna start ahead of Marbury. Probably will play more at the 2, but I don't think he'd start if Houston is Healthy.
> ...



Wherever he goes ...you'll be able to add his name to the long list of Bulls players who some how do so much better with other teams. And then watch the fans and Bulls coaching staff and management come up with every excuse in the book as to why he wasn't successful as a Bull. Mark my words .. JC will be an all-star one day.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

***Newsflash***

Bulls fans, Kirk Hinrich is not a better basketball player then Jamal Crawford. He IMO is not even a better PG than Crawford. He definitely does not have more value around the NBA than Crawford. Now if Hinrich was a free agent we might be talking about $5.5-$6.5 million per year.

I have to agree with Arenas, this board is going to be sick if you guys let him get away at any price below Gilbert Arenas money. I also found it funny that someone thinks that Gilbert Arenas is a good defender.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I have no problem with people having doubts about Jamals game heck I still have doubts about everyone not named MJ,Bird,Magic's games  .What bothers me is when people use the term ballhog ? Who the heck was he hogging the ball from ?Dupree ? lynton ? 

I think Bulls fans in general have developed a pattern of thinking others teams view the good and the bad in our players the same way we do .

I dont think jamal will get Arenas type dollars as that was a boatload of money but teams looking for a pg that can shoot with range and is great in pick and roll situations will take a long look .

6-7 yrs 42 million is what I think his worth is right now these are deals similar to what Maggette,Artest,Kenny thomas got and I think his ability to play both guards spots warrants this type of deal .

.


----------



## eljam (Aug 1, 2003)

I don't think we can or should pigeon hole Jamal into being a 1 or a 2. Let him and KH switch between both positions offensively.
Jamal still has to find the consistent effort, both sides of the court, every night, for him to finally reach the level that matches his potential. IMO, it's all mental. It's why Arenas earned his money. He had a chip since he was drafted lower than he thought he should have and that's what pushed him over the top. 

Jamal has a higher ceiling than Kirk. He still has some erratic moments in his game, but I think these can be ironed out in time. However, the question is how much more time will this staff give him, let alone our 'core?' 

Finally, can we afford to lose him this season? Pax has taked about get more vets and keeping a core together. But, to lose him would really put this franchise back in it's rebuilding efforts. Really, who's our backup SG? We're don't even have a lot of productive talent in our starting line up, let alone grooming back up talent. How long before Pax and Skiles blow this up like Dallas did with Kidd, Mashburn, and Jackson?

I think we'll match any offer JC receives this summer out of need (as in lack of talent on our roster) more than anything else, but lose him as an UFA in a few years.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> That's not the point. The question is if he is a quality starter at either postion in the league. Both at this point and in the future. I would say no to the former.
> ...


Johnson,

The point lost in this thread is that Chad Ford's greatest strength and weakness is that he doesn't push independent evaluations. If he comments that JC was misused he has undoubtedly heard it from a number of GM's or scouts. And of course, whether you, me or Arenas thinks he was misused is irrelavent -- its all a question of whether some GM is going to throw money at him. Based on Ford's comments it looks we should be geared up to lose Crawford without compensation.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Johnson,
> ...


I don't have that much faith in Ford. I think if he hears something from one backup asst. GM and he agrees, he is happy to spout that opinion. He makes some many different projections and predictions that no one (even Ford himself) can keep track of all of them.

It's blowing in the wind. Still very entertaining.

Again, we will know much better in just a few weeks time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My $.02 is we misused everyone at the 1,2,3,4, and 5. Thus Ford's statement about JC being misused is quite accurate.

I think we are fine with Hinrich and JC in the backcourt, or either at the 1 or even 2 (in Hinrich's case). Our offensive schemes were utterly terrible after Skiles' first game.

I like to believe that Skiles' first game is what our team is capable of, even with stiffs like JYD and AD getting a lot of playing time. I don't think it was a fluke, but rather a glimpse of our players playing and enjoying the game.

I don't have a beef with Crawford's performance, or consistency. I don't blame any of our players for being inconsistent, given the horrid coaching style of Skiles and his poor person-to-person skills.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Re-signing JC is one of the dumbest moves we can make, and Pax is smart to play it off as if he will re-sign Jamal at the right price knowing full well some team will overpay for his services.

To anyone that saw a Bulls game live and up close this season knows just how truly pathetic Jamal's defense is. He gets flat out bullied by any opposing two-guard. Trust me when I say you need to see a game up close to realize just how much of a lightweight Jamal is. You see other guys throwing their weight around the court, but Jamal looks like a flea with the way he reguarly gets tossed aside by the slightest of contact.

You invest money in guys who play both sides of the court and produce results. When you give too much money based on flashy play or "potential" you wind up with guys like Eddie Robinson collecting $7 mill a year at the end of the bench. Why invite another contract like that?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

The next 60 days or so should prove very interesting in the life of Crawford and for most bulls fans. We shall see what he is offered once and for all. 

Hinrich does have a lot to prove. And I think he will. His shooting and cutting down on T/o will have to be improved. 

Crawford had a career low on shooting. He needs to work on that. Needs to continue to try and take it to the hoop. 

Arenas type money?

Gilbert shot 43% and 38% in threes, 4.6 rebounds and 6.3 assists. 1.5 steals. 3,54 t/o and 18.3 pts a game in his last year at Goldent state. Arenas attempted 468 fts

Jamal. This last season, 39% shooting. 32% in threes. 3,5 rebounds. 5.1 assists. 1.39 steals. 2.41 t/o 17.3 pts a game. Jamal attempted 240 fts. That was 110 more than he took last year(2002-2003)

Arenas made 8.5 mill this season.


----------



## Reciprocity Failure (Jun 10, 2004)

all i can remember about JC right now is that he lost his starting PG spot twice, to 2 different rookie PGs, in 2 consecutive years. If that constitutes misuse, then so be it. Blame coaching and management for drafting said PGs w/ JC on the roster, and for playing them ahead of JC, and/or playing JC out of position to get the most out of thier players...but logic tells me that if JC were producing, rookies wouldn't have taken his spot...
then again, i could be wrong...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Reciprocity Failure</b>!
> all i can remember about JC right now is that he lost his starting PG spot twice, to 2 different rookie PGs, in 2 consecutive years. If that constitutes misuse, then so be it. Blame coaching and management for drafting said PGs w/ JC on the roster, and for playing them ahead of JC, and/or playing JC out of position to get the most out of thier players...but logic tells me that if JC were producing, rookies wouldn't have taken his spot...
> then again, i could be wrong...


Really?

Hmm...

That's odd, I thought he beat out 2 PG's of the job...

Go look at the stat sheets for 02-03, especially the end, and I don't know how clearer it can be put that JC didn't lose the job this year..

How and why would he have lost the job when he was leading the team in points and assists?

Hinrich and him both had to play after the trade because they were the best 2 guards we had.

Nice try though.


----------



## Reciprocity Failure (Jun 10, 2004)

inhabilis disputatio :yes:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Reciprocity Failure</b>!
> inhabilis disputatio :yes:


:grinning: :yes: :laugh:


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> ...I seriously can't wait to see the we should have kept Jamal threads in a couple months...


IMO, if anyone wants to know what kind of a player will Crawford turn in, he needs to follow the footstep of Jalen Rose or ERob (to certain extend).

Yes, he is a very good (with regard of his skills), but selfish player (with regard of his mental stage and toughness), and most of the time he has focused exclusively on his statistics and stay away from any physical contacts, unless he had some personal, not a team's, reason.

Opponents can "read" that very quickly and are interpreting that as a softness and his own teammates are getting discourage to play a hustle type game when Jamal is on the floor. And that is a crucial in today's NBA philosophy; just look what Pistons are doing to Lakers.

IMO, he may thinks that Bulls purpose is provide him an environment to highlight his greatness, not whatever it takes to help his team to win.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Reciprocity Failure</b>!
> inhabilis disputatio :yes:


okay, now _that's_ f'ing funny. :laugh:

as countless posts on this board have proven, JC has his supporters who think he's the Second Coming [tm], and he has his detractors who think he's not all that and a bag of chips. (in fairness, JC had his starting job given to Jay Williams in 2002, but JC didn't so much win it back as JWill played himself out of it. :whoknows: )

it's also been proven, _ad nauseum_, that those in the second group will be called *"haters"* by those in the first, and those in the first will be called *"blind"* by those in the second.

for what it's worth, i think JC is a decent combo guard who lacks the shoot-second mindset to play the point and the pure shooting ability to play the 2. he strikes me as the kind of guy who'll start for teams, but those teams will always be looking to upgrade. if he ever accepts being a sixth or seventh guy, he'll be a solid contributor.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> for what it's worth, i think JC is a decent combo guard who lacks the shoot-second mindset to play the point and the pure shooting ability to play the 2. he strikes me as the kind of guy who'll start for teams, but those teams will always be looking to upgrade. if he ever accepts being a sixth or seventh guy, he'll be a solid contributor.


Spot on. It amazes me how polarized everyone's opinion is on JC. No one seems to think he'll just be a slightly above average player. I see him pretty much the same way you do. He's a good player, but I'm not sure if he'll ever be any teams long-term answer at the 1 or 2. 

Ideally, we would sign JC to a four year deal for about the MLE, and then acquire a 2 who is a defensive, physical presence, and have Jamal coming off the bench. That's the place I see for Jamal on a contending team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!if he ever accepts being a sixth or seventh guy, he'll be a solid contributor.


Great Analysis. Key word: IF


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> for what it's worth, i think JC is a decent combo guard who lacks the shoot-second mindset to play the point


Oh Like 

Billups 
Cassell
Bibby
Marbury 
BD
Francis 
Miller 





> he strikes me as the kind of guy who'll start for teams, but those teams will always be looking to upgrade. if he ever accepts being a sixth or seventh guy, he'll be a solid contributor.


So now he should just stop striving to become a better player because youve already mapped out his future . :laugh: 

Some of you guys are hilarious just because you dont like the way a player plays the game you deem he will be unable to succeed because he doesnt doesnt play your way . :laugh:


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

I hope, I am wrong about that guy. He did cost us a seven draft pick, back in 2000. 

Unfortunately, we dramatically need to update the team’s toughness and physical presence almost in three departments from five ( C, SF, SG). 

Curry’s development is on its way, but still unknown factor ; then we probably will ended drafting Deng, who is very young and without professional experience. So, we have no other choice than get a strong/solid SG, by whatever it takes. If Jamal can be one, I have no problems paying him all money he wants. 

But I don’t think that you can change him over the night or three month of summer or five years from now. I agree with Charles Oak’s opinion that you could have it or not, but you cannot develop one.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> So now he should just stop striving to become a better player because youve already mapped out his future . :laugh:
> 
> Some of you guys are hilarious just because you dont like the way a player plays the game you deem he will be unable to succeed because he doesnt doesnt play your way . :laugh:


Woah.

What does Jamal improving and working on his game have to do with what he said? He was just giving his opinion on what kind of player he thought Jamal would become.

And unlike lots of people here, he didn't revert to hyperbole when doing it. He said he thinks Jamal is a good, but not great player. I don't see how that makes him a hater.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

hey, truth, what crawled up your *** and died? 

to reiterate, i said *"for what it's worth, i think"*.

where in there exactly did i suggest he should stop striving to be a better player? where in there exactly did i map out JC's future? where in there exactly did i say i didn't like the way he plays the game, deem he'd be unable to succeed, or that he doesn't play my way?

anyone who isn't on-board with your fawning adoration of JC as the Second Coming [tm] is automatically a hater. :no:

un-freaking-believa-Bull.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Thunderspirit and rosenthall where did I use the word hater in my posts ?

Where are these posts of adoration or me ever making a comment or even implied he was the second coming ? The stuff some of you pull out your **** is incredible. Id love to read one of these posts odds are you will never find any of the kind because its never happened . :laugh: 




> if he ever accepts being a sixth or seventh guy, he'll be a solid contributor.


:laugh:


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

To be fair, you never used the word hater. If it appeases you, I'll even go back and edit my post if you want. It just seemed like your response was just one big tangential rant that had little to do with what he actually posted. 

He gave his opinion on JC, which I'm guessing isn't exactly in tune with yours, and from that you managed to deduct these extreme generalizations that seemed to come out of thin air. 

The way I interpreted it, Thunderspirit seemed to insinuate that JC is a good player, but has flaws in his game that will ultimately keep him from excelling as either a PG or a SG. I'm not sure how you can reduce that statement to meaning that JC should stop working on his game. 

And furthermore, I'm not sure how you can take what he wrote to mean that he doesn't want JC to succeed, or that he doesn't approve of his style of play.

Maybe I'm missing something. If you would, please fill me in on your logic.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm amazed at some of the characterizations that people make about Jamal. My opinions on Jamal are well known..I'm a big fan. But I realize that he has plenty more work to do before he finally reaches his ultimate plateau. One of the things that CAN'T be said for Jamal is that he is selfish. Anyone who is saying that simply is wrong. Jamal is one of the most UNSELFISH Bulls around. I remember 2 separate interviews where they came to Jamal to ask him about his new career highs in points and assists and when they asked Jamal about this accomplishment all he did was talk about his teamates and the then resigning gm Krause and praise them. He never once said a thing about his own accomplishments. Jamal has a little flash in his game so I guess some people automatically want to assume he is selfish. This guy led the Bulls in assists for the first half of the season and finished second in assists on the year! If he was that selfish he wouldn't have so many assists. Jamal clearly was ready to play the point this season and he was doing well. But, the Bulls realized they had a legit player in Hinrich sitting on the bench too much. The only way to rectify that and get him on the floor more was to slide JC to the 2. Jc wasn't really ready for that, he wasn't strong enough or prepared but did ok. Once he adds some more strength he should do even better. Still, he has been misused because he is better at the point. Sure, he IS a combo guard, but I think he has better pg instincts than sg instincts.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

It is just a tough situation. JC is better suited at PG. We are playing him at SG because Kirk ending up proving he was the better PG. JC with his size has the flexibility to play SG as well so we decided to give him a shot there. He did a very admirable job. Should he continue to play there at SG? I personally don't think so. Not fair to Jamal and not fair to the team because that will always be a weakness because he is not a great SG.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> One of the things that CAN'T be said for Jamal is that he is selfish. Anyone who is saying that simply is wrong. Jamal is one of the most UNSELFISH Bulls around.


Over the last 2 years, Erob has been wide open on the fastbreak MANY times when Jamal was leading the break. Would Jamal passed to Erob for a wide open dunk? No. Jamal would keep the ball and take on at least one defender in the process. Sometimes he'd make it, many times he'd miss it. Once Rick Brunson signed with us last year, Erob miraculously started to become more productive. When asked by reporters why his game had turned around, he said someone's finally passing him the ball.

If Jamal's not selfish, then it's very poor decision-making. Either way, it's a problem. For the record, I want Jamal to stay, so I'm not a JC-Hater.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I don't think Jamal is selfish, but he does have a tendency to dominate the ball on offense sometimes, which is why I think he sometimes gets labeled that way. That and his penchant for sometimes throwing up ill-advised shots.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Over the last 2 years, Erob has been wide open on the fastbreak MANY times when Jamal was leading the break. Would Jamal passed to Erob for a wide open dunk? No. Jamal would keep the ball and take on at least one defender in the process. Sometimes he'd make it, many times he'd miss it. Once Rick Brunson signed with us last year, Erob miraculously started to become more productive. When asked by reporters why his game had turned around, he said someone's finally passing him the ball.
> 
> If Jamal's not selfish, then it's very poor decision-making. Either way, it's a problem. For the record, I want Jamal to stay, so I'm not a JC-Hater.


the same question can be asked of Jay, rose or kirk for that matter , i dont remember e-rob getting the ball all that often on a fast break from any of them ....he has highlight dunk ability but over the last few years how many times has he really been fed the ball for it . 

maybe robinson has trouble we aren't seeing and to heap down the blame on JC when he has started at pg less than both kirk and jay over the last 2 years is more than alil' unfair.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> It is just a tough situation. JC is better suited at PG. We are playing him at SG because Kirk ending up proving he was the better PG.


This is just flat out not true, and everyone on this board that says this is incorrect.

JC was not sitting on the bench while Kirk was playing...

Kirk's role became the role as PG after the Rose trade and we had to play Hinrich and JC because they were all we had...

At the time JC was leading the team in points and assists, and his play wasn't anything that would lead to a benching or "losing his job".

In fact at the early point of the season Hinrich was doing nothing but fouling and turning the ball over..

Ya promote him to starting PG for the hell of it.

It was done because of the trade.

The end.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

People quickly forget how bad the Bulls were when JC played PG for the team. All his teammates had terrible shooting percentages and the team got blown out of a good % of their games.

This isn't to say that Jamal can't be an effective PG, because he has shown he can be in the right system. I keep pointing to the first game under Skiles, before he could install his system. Or the preseason game where the Bulls won easily and Jamal had close to 20 free throws.

When the Bulls run, Jamal is a very exciting player. He does go to the hoop and he does feed his teammates for dunks - especially Curry.

As a SG in a set offense, his strengths are minimized and he doesn't look very good. It doesn't take that much brains to see he has a game that can be highly effective. It also doesn't take that much to force him out of his game (i.e. the coach) made the whole team worse.

As happygrinch said in a recent post, you should go with the hand you're dealt. The Bulls may well have a much stronger hand than the record shows, but you can't pound square pegs into round holes, if you get my drift.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> the same question can be asked of Jay, rose or kirk for that matter , i dont remember e-rob getting the ball all that often on a fast break from any of them ....he has highlight dunk ability but over the last few years how many times has he really been fed the ball for it .
> 
> maybe robinson has trouble we aren't seeing and to heap down the blame on JC when he has started at pg less than both kirk and jay over the last 2 years is more than alil' unfair.


Robinson didn't quote Jamal by name, but he was clearly referring to him and yes, Jwill at the time. I specifically remember multiple times when Erob wouldn't get the ball even though he was wide open filling the lane. Most of those times Jamal was the ballhandler.

On a totally different note, I'm sick of Hinrich being wide open and then passing to Gill or Dupree for a shot. That bothers me as much as Jamal NOT passing bothers me. They're both idiots.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't want to start who is the better PF JC or KH, boring and been done and beaten to death. But let there be little doubt that as long as Skiles is the coach hinrich will be starting at PG. If Kobe signed with us next year, and he won't, hinrich will be starting. This is not a diss on JC it is the way it is. Now many may think this unfair and more to do with skiles than JC and KH and that is debateble and we can decuss this.

But KH did not get benched what like a ten games last year by BC and skiles. My point is simple, KH is the starting PG for the bulls. 

david


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> People quickly forget how bad the Bulls were when JC played PG for the team. All his teammates had terrible shooting percentages and the team got blown out of a good % of their games.


That happened the entier season.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Kirk got starts at PG before the trade. Even coming off the bench he was playing better at PG. He did struggle at first after coming back from being sick but once he was over that he began playing much better.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That happened the entier season.


I agree, but not as badly as when JC was THE PG, and Hinrich wasn't available due to his virus.

I'd also point out that a guy who can score 50 points (and 40 a couple of times) is pretty special. Maybe some people doubt him because there's other lesser talents that have put up 50 before, but I have a strong feeling that Jamal can put up many 50 point games before he's through. Unlike those others.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, but not as badly as when JC was THE PG, and Hinrich wasn't available due to his virus.
> ...


JC's no fluke...

I mean I'll never forget that New Orleans game as long as I live, actually he always destroyed them, but he was determined to win that game for us by himself...

We win that game by 15 if Hinrich isn't jipped out of the game with bad foul calls...

There was also the game up in Seattle, the game against NJ when he was the only one to show up, I mean we know this kid has talent, I think some people here let their own personal feelings cloud reality..

He can play...

And now I have to dig up Kirk's stats at the beginning of the season...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Robinson didn't quote Jamal by name, but he was clearly referring to him and yes, Jwill at the time. I specifically remember multiple times when Erob wouldn't get the ball even though he was wide open filling the lane. Most of those times Jamal was the ballhandler.
> 
> On a totally different note, I'm sick of Hinrich being wide open and then passing to Gill or Dupree for a shot. That bothers me as much as Jamal NOT passing bothers me. They're both idiots.


kirk didn't find erob for those passes either , , the fact that he looks for gill and dupree an inordinate amout of times in half court and full court situations 

on fast breaks i blame e-rob actually for all of his speed he seems to be a late starter on breaks and coming up at the last second , you have to force the defense into something, making a decision ...that is the point of running hard not just to get your points which seems to be his method, a guy like brunson has to wait for help, jay and jamal dont , if you aren't there with them they are capable of taking the shot on their own or finding someone else who runs breaks like you are supposed to.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Now to prove myself right...

Up until Skiles became coach...

These were Hinrich stats in 14 games...

6.7 points per game

3.6 assists per gam

3.4 turnovers per game

3.1 fouls per game

Now my question again is, other than the trade happening, why and how did Hinrich "win" the starting PG job??


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Hinrich was given the starting point guard job because the coaching staff liked the way he played the position better, regardless of stats.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Hinrich was given the starting point guard job because the coaching staff liked the way he played the position better, regardless of stats.


It wasn't "given" to him until the trade happened, Hinrich only started 5 of those 14 games, and there were a couple games where neither JC or Hinrich started...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Hinrich was given the starting point guard job because the coaching staff liked the way he played the position better, regardless of stats.


since when does pete myers makes decisions for scott skiles ....they may have liked it more but a bigger denominator was JC had to move over to the 2 spot to make up for rose , gill surely wasn't going to do it.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> since when does pete myers makes decisions for scott skiles ....they may have liked it more but a bigger denominator was JC had to move over to the 2 spot to make up for rose , gill surely wasn't going to do it.


Which has been my point from jump...

Thanks Grinch.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> since when does pete myers makes decisions for scott skiles ....they may have liked it more but a bigger denominator was JC had to move over to the 2 spot to make up for rose , gill surely wasn't going to do it.


Grr. The coaching staff including the staff and the coach, of course.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Grr. The coaching staff including the staff and the coach, of course.


was skiles really in any more of a position to make a decision on that than you or I on his 1st day on the job?

the situation more than anything else was that the bulls saw kirk as better than gill, not kirk as better than JC ...and then decided to compare JC and gill

a team thats starts gill and kirk who combined last year for 20 points fights for the worst record ever, we are talking a 10 win season here


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> was skiles really in any more of a position to make a decision on that than you or I on his 1st day on the job?
> ...


would it be such a terrible thing if the staff saw Kirk as better suited to play PG and Jamal as more suited to SG? 

or maybe they all worship Satan too?
(see other thread about Howard)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> would it be such a terrible thing if the staff saw Kirk as better suited to play PG and Jamal as more suited to SG?
> ...


if thats what they believe ...i'm going to say i believe they are wrong ...and I doubt there are satan worshippers on the bulls coaching staff...but that paxson ...i got my eye on him.:wiz:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> if thats what they believe ...i'm going to say i believe they are wrong ...and I doubt there are satan worshippers on the bulls coaching staff...but that paxson ...i got my eye on him.:wiz:


LOL

good times on the bulls board today, huh?!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I am down with it Kramer if you know what I mean!


----------

