# Let's talk about Kirk, one final time



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

HE IS NOT MISSING JUMPSHOTS BECAUSE HE IS PLAYING SHOOTING GUARD. HE IS MISSING JUMPSHOTS BECAUSE HE IS IN A SHOOTING SLUMP. 

There are reasons for this. There aren't excuses, just reasons. What they are, we can only speculate. And we very often do. But we don't know. So let's stop insisting that we know, and accept it for what it is = bloody annoying. 

Kirk could play center, 6th man, 15th man, or in that halftime halfcourt shot game thing that some teams do, and still be clanking in-rhythm 25 footers. The reason? Cos it's a slump. 

Kirk does this. He always has. The jumpshot goes walkabout. Yes, I too think that his legs look to have gone a bit. But ultimately, if we say this, we're still speculating. And that speculation leads to blame. And then it tends to snowball and get irrational. And that's naughty. 

If he's going to get out of this slump, as indeed he will, then he'll have to keep taking Kirk Hinrich shots. That means 17 foot wing jumpers around screens, the backboardless layups, the in-rhythm-threes-with-no-one-in-offensive-rebounding-position (have never liked these, but they're a part of his game), and anything from spacing that he creates for himself/on the break. 

What, we want him to go out there and not shoot at all? Do we not understand how negatively that would impact Ben Gordon? Don't you think he gets enough defensive pressure down the stretch as it is? 

It would be nice if we had a 4th guard that we could regularly turn to. But we don't. Thabo should be it, but he keeps buggering things up. Griffin is still Griffin. Barrett is still Barrett. And without to rub my own nuts...ok, sod it, what the hell....I really, really did tell you so. 

Since we don't have this player, Duhon and Kirk are going to have to keep taking their shots. At least Kirk is doing this for the most part. Duhon's confidence looks to be so out of whack right now that he doesn't even know which shots he's supposed to be taking. That's a far bigger problem. 

But anyway, back to the point - Kirk has to keep shooting, in practice and in games. He needs his jumpshot back, we need his jumpshot back, I need his jumpshot back, you need his jumpshot back, he/she/it needs his jumpshot back. To do that, it's got to keep going up. 

Kirk's jumper has always been streaky. This is just its most pronounced slump for a while. History suggests it will come back. So I suggest we hold off the trade ideas and wait until it does.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Spot on.

We simply don't have anyone else to play a lot of minutes at G, and it'd surely be better if he's allowed to shoot himself out of this slump and be able to contribute at the offensive end.

I suggest he figure out how to get to the line early in the game so he can shoot a couple of uncontested shots that have a good chance to go in. Helps bulid the confidence.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Sham said:


> HE IS NOT MISSING JUMPSHOTS BECAUSE HE IS PLAYING SHOOTING GUARD. HE IS MISSING JUMPSHOTS BECAUSE HE IS IN A SHOOTING SLUMP.


Good post. How are you typing in all caps? 

Anyway, I don't think anyone on this board has used that reasoning to explain why Kirk is in a slump. I think it's purely a realgm meme.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What I want to know is what the title of the thread is going to be after next game? (or next time sham wants to talk about kirk)
:biggrin:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Spot on.
> 
> We simply don't have anyone else to play a lot of minutes at G, and it'd surely be better if he's allowed to shoot himself out of this slump and be able to contribute at the offensive end.
> 
> I suggest he figure out how to get to the line early in the game so he can shoot a couple of uncontested shots that have a good chance to go in. Helps bulid the confidence.


Look, rookies require working in. Is Thabo really so useless that he deserves no floor time? I've seen him make some good plays and play some good defense out there.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

When Ben was in a slump he didn't get a chance. Bench Kirk


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Good post. How are you typing in all caps?


I think the non-shouty thing only works in thread titles. Have never really experimented.




DaBullz said:


> What I want to know is what the title of the thread is going to be after next game? (or next time sham wants to talk about kirk)
> :biggrin:


I won't talk about Kirk at length again until it turns around. There's no real need. There's not much else to say. Things just ain't really working right now. His confidence does not appear to have waned, as it has with Chris, and I think that this is key to his future success.

I am just often surprised at how some people can so quickly forget what went on 6 weeks ago. You know, when Kirk was curing lepers, Ben couldn't dribble, Deng was busy disappointing us all, and Khryapa actually did stuff.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

bre9 said:


> When Ben was in a slump he didn't get a chance.


Funny you should say that. When Ben was in a slump, he was benched.....giving him infinitely MORE "chances". He got to dominate the ball. He got to dictate our entire offensive game when he was in. He wasn't used as an off the ball decoy any more - the game was built around him. He got more shots, he got more makes, he got more confidence, and now he's far better for it.

If you see tat as Ben not getting a chance, then......oh.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Look, rookies require working in. Is Thabo really so useless that he deserves no floor time? I've seen him make some good plays and play some good defense out there.


Seems to me he started both games Kirk was out and didn't do very well at all.

Skiles could probably force feed him significantly more minutes, and no doubt he'd get better faster. The risk is we'd put more games (WINS) in jeopardy.

At least, that's my take.

Plus, Duhon actually had a more than decent start to the season and probably earned a bunch of PT. That's not the case right now, though, so... Who knows?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Seems to me he started both games Kirk was out and didn't do very well at all.
> 
> Skiles could probably force feed him significantly more minutes, and no doubt he'd get better faster. The risk is we'd put more games (WINS) in jeopardy.
> 
> ...


There's a cavern of difference between starting and DNP's. Thabo is probably the guy on our roster with the best hope of locking up McGrady. I think it's unfortunate he didn't get a shot for even a few minutes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sham said:


> I think the non-shouty thing only works in thread titles. Have never really experimented.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who's Khryapa? Does he even suit up for us?

Kirk's a ~40% career shooter. There's no reason to expect him to all-of-a-sudden turn into something a lot better. He had a torrid start, for sure. But the long NBA season is sure to make things even out - people find their proper level, statistically. 

He's never been that consistent an offensive player, either. He's put up 25 point games, but not two in a row (ok, I'm exaggerating, maybe he's done 2 in a row).

At one point, he was shooting over 50% -- not very realistic. Right now in recent games he's shooting like 10% -- not very realistic either.

He has nothing else to do but do better. Can't get a whole lot worse.

Maybe you make the case that Kirk should come off the bench for a few games to get the Gordon treatment. Let HIM dominate the ball and take a lot of shots. And against teams' 2nd units so there's a little less pressure.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Skiles has to try something different and that SHOULD be benching Kirk. He'll get to play PG once Duhon checks off and since that's his natural position he might actually do something on the offensive end(he'll also be fresher). As of right now he's basically Chris Duhon...at his worst. We are starting 2 Chris Duhons. This will be one LOOONG regular season if Deng/Gordon and an inconsistent Noce are the team's only offensive hope. Kirk better get it going or else the only logical thing to do will be to trade him for something up front.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

Sham said:


> Funny you should say that. When Ben was in a slump, he was benched.....giving him infinitely MORE "chances". He got to dominate the ball. He got to dictate our entire offensive game when he was in. He wasn't used as an off the ball decoy any more - the game was built around him. He got more shots, he got more makes, he got more confidence, and now he's far better for it.
> 
> If you see tat as Ben not getting a chance, then......oh.


Yeah in the reason why is because kirk wasn't in when he was in to mess it up for him. Notice kirk was playing better when Ben was in the backcourt with him. He was making Ben look bad by not passing it to him when he came around the curls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> There's a cavern of difference between starting and DNP's. Thabo is probably the guy on our roster with the best hope of locking up McGrady. I think it's unfortunate he didn't get a shot for even a few minutes.


I'd be thrilled if Skiles would play Gordon 40 minutes, Hinrich 40 minutes, and split the rest between Thabo and Duhon. I also wouldn't mind seeing Thabo get more time at SF to backup Deng.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe you make the case that Kirk should come off the bench for a few games to get the Gordon treatment. Let HIM dominate the ball and take a lot of shots. And against teams' 2nd units so there's a little less pressure..


Nah. I'd concur with everybody else and have Duhon sit for Ben. With some scoring assitance in the backcourt, Kirk might actually get an open look that isn't a pull up on the break. And then, you never know, he might make them.

Who knows, it might also help Duhon. It's probably hard to play when you know you're coming out at the 7 minutes remaining mark unless your backcourt mate has foul trouble.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Kirk is a hell of a player who is playing like he's there right now.

What is equally worrisome and is more the untold story is just how ineffective he has been defensively . He is getting penetrated more than a bunch of skanks on a road trip with Wilt Chamberlain in his prime


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Sham said:


> Funny you should say that. When Ben was in a slump, he was benched.....giving him infinitely MORE "chances". He got to dominate the ball. He got to dictate our entire offensive game when he was in. He wasn't used as an off the ball decoy any more - the game was built around him. He got more shots, he got more makes, he got more confidence, and now he's far better for it.
> 
> If you see tat as Ben not getting a chance, then......oh.


I think the intention to get him going was secondary.

He was benched primarily because he was playing badly. I also think the coaching staff was attempting to get Ben to accept a 6th man role. We've heard Paxson essentially call him that in radio interviews. And up to that point, Ben had been a streaky 3-point shooter who turned the ball over frequently and played average D. So perhaps the organization was correct. They didn't view him as a starter but knew that he saw himself as one. Hence the quick hook after 6 games and a 3-3 record.

I disagree with the notion that Ben was somehow rewarded or treated with kid gloves when he was sent to the bench. He got more chances, sure, but he was also cornered into being a 6th man.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Sham said:


> Nah. I'd concur with everybody else and have Duhon sit for Ben. With some scoring assitance in the backcourt, Kirk might actually get an open look that isn't a pull up on the break. And then, you never know, he might make them.
> 
> Who knows, it might also help Duhon. It's probably hard to play when you know you're coming out at the 7 minutes remaining mark unless your backcourt mate has foul trouble.


I don't think Kirk and Ben play well together. The chemistry between the two is uneasy because both want to be lead guard. So they end up taking turns on each offensive possession.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How about I hijack this thread.

Not enough about Deng.

Another really fine performance tonight. The kid is here and now.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> How about I hijack this thread.
> 
> Not enough about Deng.
> 
> ...


Deng = Hansel 

He's so hot right now


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Actually I am becoming increasingly comfortable with Ben as lead handler in bringing the ball up and an ability for him to get the team into the offense more quickly 

Now if we could only acclerate Thabo's development

Yeah I know .

Patience


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I don't think Kirk and Ben play well together. The chemistry between the two is uneasy because both want to be lead guard. So they end up taking turns on each offensive possession.


It's not like Kirk and Chris are any different. When they're playing together, they alternate on bringing the ball up and "setting it up", so to speak, depending on who's nearest to the rebounder. Duhon just doesn't look to shoot, because he can't.

Kirk and Ben can both be effective off the ball. As a pairing, Kirk has always dominated the ball because he's always been better at it. But Ben's gotten so much better at it this year that right now we could run the PG - Gordonand SG - Hinrich lineup, and benefit from it greatly.

Of course, it makes for a terrible bench. But that'll have to suffice for now.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Sham said:


> It's not like Kirk and Chris are any different. When they're playing together, they alternate on bringing the ball up and "setting it up", so to speak, depending on who's nearest to the rebounder. Duhon just doesn't look to shoot, because he can't.
> 
> Kirk and Ben can both be effective off the ball. As a pairing, Kirk has always dominated the ball because he's always been better at it. But Ben's gotten so much better at it this year that right now we could run the PG - Gordonand SG - Hinrich lineup, and benefit from it greatly.
> 
> Of course, it makes for a terrible bench. But that'll have to suffice for now.


I think there's a substantial difference whenever Duhon is in the game (compared to a Gordon/Hinrich backcourt). There's a lot more ball movement. Both Ben and Kirk feel comfortable asking Duhon to give them the ball so that they can run a play on their own. 

We have 2 Chauncey Billups-es, and we need a Richard Hamilton.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The time has come for Skiles to forget about bringing Ben off the bench and Ben winning the 6th man award.​ 
IMO, the whole advantage of Ben off the bench is he doesn't necessarily feel like he's got to get his teammates involved. They've already been playing (had their chance) and by the time he's coming in, he's pretty much needed to start jacking it up. As Ben continues to grow he'll be better at creating easy opportunites for the other four players just as MJ did.​ 
What Skiles needs to do is put Gordon and Hinrich out there 40 minutes a night as DaBullz suggests. If they have foul trouble or need an extended blow, fine. Barring that, ride them. Move Nocioni to the bench and let him come in firing just as Ben would against the second team. Give Sweetney a chance to replace Noce in the starting lineup.​ 
Ben had a rocky start and Kirk's having a rocky go right now. Those without an agenda know they are both solid players and we'll need everything they've got to secure a top seed.​ 
Planting Duhon on the bench will make things easier for Hinrich as the defense will focus on Gordon. If you were in a shooting slump, would you really want to spend that much time on the floor with Duhon and BIG Ben? Lets try to get Hinrich some backcourt help and see if his offense comes easier. ​


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I am starting to think Hinrich may be the guy we include in a trade. The positives he was bringing to the court before are not there. Not giving up on him, but looking at how we played without him and how we have played since his return I am thinking he is expendable. I would be willing to trade him and something else for Maggette. Or do a package for a big.

We will have to give up one of the small forwards to make a deal work for a big. It looks like we need to offer Noc, Hinrich, Brown, and the pick (which may not even end up top 10) for one of the decent bigs and see if there is interest. Hate to give up Noc, but you are not going to get a decent big for an abundance of our bench scrubs. Gordon moves into the starting line up, the new big replaces Noc. For that package we need a very good player (O'Neal or MAYBE Gasol, don't think that package is enough to get Garnett). 

My prediction is nothing will be done.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mr. T - Nice to see you, and I agree in general. Kirk's in a slump... it happens every year and it's not the end of the world.

But I'm not sure we've got the right horses to implement your cure. Sweetney always teases in limited time, but whenever he's out there for long, like last night, the warts become apparent. God he's slow.

And Noc, at the beginning of the year, was apparently not happy about the prospect of coming off the bench. His confidence doesn't appear to be riding high at the moment either, and I gotta wonder if benching him would hurt that too.

Duhon... then there's Duhon... he is passing up shots he can make. 

It's actually quite a problem for Skiles to untangle. I agree that starting Kirk and Ben would probably open some things up for Kirk. But I think putting Sweetney in there will be a net negative. He's too slow to keep up with the way the Bulls play - offensively or defensively - and everyone else will suffer for it.

I think I'd go with Malik if we're going to make a change at Noc's position. He's a bit longer and (a very little) bit quicker, and his jumper could at least complement Ben a little bit.

I guess it's worth a shot.

That leaves our bench something like Duhon/Thabo/Noc/PJ plus one of Deng/Gordon/Kirk staying in the game.

That's not a lot of offense, as has been both hotly debated and obfuscated with arguing here in the last few days. 

Especially with Noc and Duhon teetering on the brink of unhappiness.

I think Skiles doesn't like those prospects, which is one reason he's got Ben coming off the bench.

*It's probably often thought he does it because he thinks Lil Ben's not the mentally toughest guy around, but perhaps he's doing it because he actually is the mentally toughest guy around. *

That is, Skiles can afford to play Ben in ways that would shake other players, because it doesn't shake Ben. And playing Ben the way you ideally would... that would require us to put a couple of guys with already shaky confidence into a worse position.


I dunno... just thinking out loud here.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> I think I'd go with Malik if we're going to make a change at Noc's position. He's a bit longer and (a very little) bit quicker, and his jumper could at least complement Ben a little bit.
> 
> I guess it's worth a shot.


Whether we like it or not, and I say this with just a hint of vomit, Malik Allen is probably our second most reliable bench scorer right now. We never know what we're getting from Sweetney, Thomas or Sefolosha. We _do_ know what we're getting from Griffin and PJ - clankfests. Malik Allen only really has one NBA calire skill, and that's the jumpshot off the pick and pop. It works, though.

I'm not saying that Gordon/Hinrich/Deng/Allen/Wallace wouldn't work. It might. I actually like that role for Nocioni. It helps to mask his deficiencies. It's just.....well, we're still left with the very real possibility of turning to PJ Brown for points off th ebench at times.

Eek. :uhoh:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think Skiles doesn't like those prospects, which is one reason he's got Ben coming off the bench.
> 
> *It's probably often thought he does it because he thinks Lil Ben's not the mentally toughest guy around, but perhaps he's doing it because he actually is the mentally toughest guy around. *
> 
> ...


Interesting take, and very likely true. Ben turns the negative of benching into a positive. Not many players can do that. It's a luxury for a coach to have when dealing with young players still trying to find their confidence to compete at the highest level.

I'm all for letting our five best players start the game...but we have to respect Skiles for thinking about how to best use his 12 man roster.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I am starting to think Hinrich may be the guy we include in a trade. The positives he was bringing to the court before are not there. Not giving up on him, but looking at how we played without him and how we have played since his return I am thinking he is expendable. I would be willing to trade him and something else for Maggette. Or do a package for a big.
> 
> We will have to give up one of the small forwards to make a deal work for a big. It looks like we need to offer Noc, Hinrich, Brown, and the pick (which may not even end up top 10) for one of the decent bigs and see if there is interest. Hate to give up Noc, but you are not going to get a decent big for an abundance of our bench scrubs. Gordon moves into the starting line up, the new big replaces Noc. For that package we need a very good player (O'Neal or MAYBE Gasol, don't think that package is enough to get Garnett).
> 
> My prediction is nothing will be done.


I don't think it's a matter of giving up on him. I mean, the positives he'll bring will come back. He's just been playing poorly lately. And some of his positives are now not as important because our other players have gotten better.

That being said, I'd certainly be willing to trade him. Buy low and sell high, and his value is probably as high as it'll get. Most folks won't care about a little mini-slump, and the combination of his Team USA appearance, the Bulls history of stating him as a team centrepiece, and his general quality play during our resurgance probably leaves his value slightly above where he is as an individual player.

In short, the right time to consider moving him.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Kirk is a hell of a player who is playing like he's there right now.
> 
> What is equally worrisome and is more the untold story is just how ineffective he has been defensively . He is getting penetrated more than a bunch of skanks on a road trip with Wilt Chamberlain in his prime



Exactly. Kirk has not played defense well at all. When Blake of the Bucks can torch you then you are not playimng defense. I don't know what the problem is but Kirk's total game has been sub par this year. Even when he was shooting well and Ben was starting slow he didn't shoot enough. Kirk has also played stupid basketball. I can't imagine the cause is playing in the summer because his mental approach sucks. Perhaps it is because he is engaged. In any case, it is important to realize that it is not just his shooting slump that is the problem. He has played poorly overall ( compared to what we have come to expect and what he is getting paid now)

Bottom line is there is plenty of time for Kirk to get his head straight but we are not going to be competitive with the good teams if he continues to suck


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Sham said:


> Whether we like it or not, and I say this with just a hint of vomit, Malik Allen is probably our second most reliable bench scorer right now. We never know what we're getting from Sweetney, Thomas or Sefolosha. We _do_ know what we're getting from Griffin and PJ - clankfests. Malik Allen only really has one NBA calire skill, and that's the jumpshot off the pick and pop. It works, though.
> 
> I'm not saying that Gordon/Hinrich/Deng/Allen/Wallace wouldn't work. It might. I actually like that role for Nocioni. It helps to mask his deficiencies. It's just.....well, we're still left with the very real possibility of turning to PJ Brown for points off th ebench at times.
> 
> Eek. :uhoh:



You know, in the hour or so since we've discussed this, I've convinced myself that starting Malik Allen is the way to go. So Mike, I'd now like to steal your idea and claim it as my own if I may.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Sham said:


> You know, in the hour or so since we've discussed this, I've convinced myself that starting Malik Allen is the way to go. So Mike, I'd now like to steal your idea and claim it as my own if I may.


As a casual observer, I would like to point out that Mike stole it from Sausage, if I'm not mistaken.

Sausage?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Nice thread, folks.

Kirk's shooting slump is frustrating, but I still reckon he'll get out of it before too too long. At the moment, I'm still not sure I'd make any drastic changes, or any changes at all, for a few reasons:

I really do think Kirk is going to get out of the funk that he's currently in.

Even though it can't be used as an excuse, we're playing through a pretty brutal part of our schedule, after feasting on the league's cream puffs for about 3 weeks, so it's natural that our perceived level of play wouldn't be as high as it has been prior to this portion of our schedule, and that any current problems guys on our team have been having would be exacerbated by depressed success of our team.

And I also wonder, what if coming off the bench _really is_ the best thing for Ben? I'm not sure if it's the case, but psychologically, Ben Gordon has always struck me as a somewhat funky dude, and kind of hard to predict. And since he's been playing at the highest, and most consistent level of his career since coming off the bench this season, I half think that it'd be a good idea to not disturb the best thing we have going right now and just ride out the storm.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

It is an annoying trend in Chicago to hate ones own players. We are turning into New York. 

Rex Grossman and Kirk Hinrich are going to form some sort of codependency group soon.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Nice thread, folks.
> 
> Kirk's shooting slump is frustrating, but I still reckon he'll get out of it before too too long. At the moment, I'm still not sure I'd make any drastic changes, or any changes at all, for a few reasons:
> 
> ...



People said similar things about Ford and Chevy, vs. Honda and Toyota.

I'm not saying.....I'm just saying.:biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW, I thought Hinrich had one of his better games last night, even though his shooting was subpar.

The ball movement was terrific, and I don't remember a single play where he overdribbled or any of the other things gripe about his play.

At the defensive end, it seemed like he was playing "rover" - not really guarding any one guy, but being used to double team TMac when he would get past his man (which was any time he wanted). 

The bulls did try to use him to cover TMac one-on-one late in the game and that didn't work. No sin in that - few can guard TMac.

Noc's problems, and this is a very recent thing, have been his inability to stay in the game due to fouls. He had two in Q1 and had to sit. Skiles needed him so badly out there that he was back at the start of Q2. He still got 34 minutes and finished with 5 PF; he played with 5 for a while. 

Being undersized at PF has hurt him, especially the past few games. Last night, Houston went at him with Juwann Howard play after play, exploiting this mismatch.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If Ben shot as poorly as kirk has in the last what? 15 games? he wouldn't even see the floor...

BENCH that damn kid...seriously


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW, I thought Hinrich had one of his better games last night, even though his shooting was subpar.
> 
> The ball movement was terrific, and I don't remember a single play where he overdribbled or any of the other things gripe about his play.
> 
> ...


That was my take on Kirk's game last night as well. He played extremely well defensively, was good on the offensive end, but couldn't buy a shot. He looks a little hesitant which could be an indicator of some lost confidence. Even against TMac, he forced him to take tough shots. Unfortunately, TMac had his stroke back by then and made every one. I don't fault Kirk for that, and immediately wanted Deng back on him after the second one.

One thing as to why both teams were shooting so poorly from the outside was energy used by both playing good defense and playing against good defense. About halfway thru the third quarter, the Bulls started getting slow on their rotations, and the middle was wide open after a couple of swing passes. Yet no one on Houston took advantage of this and instead chose to shoot from the outside. The Bulls were guilty of this during a lot of the game too. Deng and Noc both took so many ill-advised perimeter shots early in the shot clock with a hand in their face, and only ended up making one that I remembered. Deng turned that around in the second half and ended putting up decent numbers overall.

Duhon looked like a deer lost in the headlights on offense. He didn't recognize open looks, and forced so many passes to not gain much of an advantage (i.e. high risk, low reward). This was the worst game I have seen him play this season. Defensively, he looked fine.

Noc has been horribly guilty of some stupid turnovers in the last five games. It looks like he is trying to force the ball up the court with a pass ala Ben Wallace, unfortunately he is not very good at this. It's a good idea to look, but his recognition just doesn't seem to be there yet. He needs to slow down on both ends of the floor. I think he's trying to do too much, and outside of the Detroit game, has been detrimental out there as of late.

If there is any time to change the lineup, I think now may be it with Duhon and Noc's poor play.

Hinrich
Gordon
Deng
Allen
Wallace

6th Nocioni
7th Griffin
8th Duhon
9th Thomas/Sweetney/Thabo

I know many of you don't like Griffin, but I think he's strung together a bunch of nice games for his role. I'd increase his minutes and take away some of Duhons until he gets some of that confidence back.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Sham's sentiments are right on.

Frankly, as a fan, I can't stand to listen to other fans pile on disrespect and worse when one of their team's players has a bad game or two. The only justification I can see is that they may want to see a player they like better get more playing time. 

In this case there is considerable caterwauling about why Ben Gordon is not starting, even though he has been leading the team in scoring lately and has been getting plenty of minutes. My read on this is that some of our more immature posters actually place value in the opening introductions prior to each game -- a feature of the show I usually skip. It's worth remembering that one of the greatest NBA players of all time, John Havechek, spent most of his career coming into the game off the bench.

For some reason Kirk Hinrich hasn't been playing well for the last month or so. Maybe he's hurt. Maybe he's relaxing a bit after landing the contract of a lifetime. Maybe he's just tired. I don't know, but everything we've seen of him so far suggests that he is a talented young guard, a very hard worker and a team player dedicated to making the Bulls a winning team. 

So get off the guy's case already.


----------



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

McBulls said:


> Sham's sentiments are right on.
> 
> Frankly, as a fan, I can't stand to listen to other fans pile on disrespect and worse when one of their team's players has a bad game or two. The only justification I can see is that they may want to see a player they like better get more playing time.
> 
> ...


I don't remember anyone besides the usual suspects defending Tyson like this. Wow.

Just sayin'.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> I don't remember anyone besides the usual suspects defending Tyson like this. Wow.
> 
> Just sayin'.


If I could have said that Chandler


> is a talented young center, a very hard worker and a team player dedicated to making the Bulls a winning team.


, I would have.

But I kept hoping Chandler would show enthusiasm for his job until the day he left. 

Actually, all any fan of a team sport can ask of their team's players is that they stay in good condition, try hard every game and play unselfishly. There are many players who have trouble meeting these expectations, but Kirk Hinrich isn't one of them. In fact, most of the current Bulls are worthy of similar support. Some of the players who recently departed the team are another matter.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Sham's sentiments are right on.
> 
> So get off the guy's case already.



Why are we not able to critcally analyze a white players game ??? It doesn't mean we want Kirk to fail or that we don't love him as a Bull. However he has played sub-par most of the season. However in the last month he has been total crap. His defense hasn't been what we have come to expect almost all season. Kirk gets off comparably easy with most of the other Bulls. Let's face reality. Kirk must get his game back or we will have to wait another year to get into the second round.


----------



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

> is a talented young center, a very hard worker and a team player dedicated to making the Bulls a winning team.





McBulls said:


> If I could have said that Chandler , I would have.
> 
> But I kept hoping Chandler would show enthusiasm for his job until the day he left.
> 
> Actually, all any fan of a team sport can ask of their team's players is that they stay in good condition, try hard every game and play unselfishly. There are many players who have trouble meeting these expectations, but Kirk Hinrich isn't one of them. In fact, most of the current Bulls are worthy of similar support. Some of the players who recently departed the team are another matter.


Hard-working, talented, team-player.

Some of the most relative and subjective terms in the dictionary, which is why it rings hollow. I go by what these players actually do. You could say this about almost anyone with enough quotes and a bit of spinwork. 

Maybe he wasn't the most talented or the hardest worker, but I don't see how he wasn't dedicated to helping us win. He was a great cheerleader whenever he was on the bench. He was even so unseflish that he always looked to pass the ball!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Cager said:


> Why are we not able to critcally analyze a white players game ??? It doesn't mean we want Kirk to fail or that we don't love him as a Bull. However he has played sub-par most of the season. However in the last month he has been total crap. His defense hasn't been what we have come to expect almost all season.


That IS critically analyzing Kirk's game. Who's saying that you can't do this? Because it looks like you just did. Who the hell cares about Hinrich's race?





> Let's face reality. Kirk must get his game back or we will have to wait another year to get into the second round.


Well.....yes, who's denied this?

Kirk is a valuable piece to our puzzle who isn't playing very well. We know this, and I think we all agree on that. To be sure, I do, which is why I posted this thread.

We need him to play to his best, or near it, for us to win. He's not, so we aren't. This is the entire point right hurr. It's not that he's a bad player. He's a good player playing pretty badly. It'll come around, because he's a good player. The point is to denounce the notion which is doing the rounds that Kirk is somehow a bad player and this is just that fact coming to fruition. That's a rubbish notion. And that's why this thread exists.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Hard-working, talented, team-player.
> 
> Some of the most relative and subjective terms in the dictionary, which is why it rings hollow. I go by what these players actually do. You could say this about almost anyone with enough quotes and a bit of spinwork.
> 
> Maybe he wasn't the most talented or the hardest worker, but I don't see how he wasn't dedicated to helping us win. He was a great cheerleader whenever he was on the bench. He was even so unseflish that he always looked to pass the ball!


Lemme guess, you were a Jalen Rose fan when he was a Bull. No? Why not?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Cager said:


> Why are we not able to critcally analyze a white players game?


As a Caucasian father of a Hispanic, Chinese and African American family, I object to any racist comments and criticisms that are not directed at Inuits in their native language.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> As a Caucasian father of a Hispanic, Chinese and African American family


Wow, you've been busy.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

If this is going to be the last time we talk about Kirk, I would like to throw the words "rugged" and "pell-mell" out there..


Seriously though, I agree with the original sentiment. A slump is a slump. Everyone has them.
I think Skiles showed some stones giving it to Hinrich for the jumper in crunch time last night, not that I agree with it.
Still, I think he's a very valuable piece to the team.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

McBulls said:


> but everything we've seen of him so far suggests that he is a talented young guard, a very hard worker and a team player dedicated to making the Bulls a winning team.
> 
> So get off the guy's case already.


That's all fine and dandy but means little if he continues to play the way he has been for more than a month now. The bottomline is PRODUCTION - something Kirk's done little of since the start of December. Even his defense has fallen off. 

btw, Kirk fans don't have to be so sensitive. He's being rightfully called upon for stinking it up. That doesn't mean we want him to fail.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

yeah it's a slump, but it's disturbing when he says stuff like 'i have to shake it off and try to fix it.' he really can't manufacture shots in the paint. really can't draw fouls and get to the free throw line. can't post up smaller guards, etc. 

when he has this mentality (to me) it means he's going to take even more jump shots the next game. with noc/deng/gordan we would seem to have enough guys to pick up the slack until kirk gets back on track, but he still has that mentality that he HAS to be the main guy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Two games ago, it seemed like Skiles put Kirk in the game when it'd have been ideal to just let him shoot and shoot. A chance to work on his shot in game situation against live competition. Kirk didn't take a shot. That was kinda confusing.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

To take this thread only in a slightly different tangent...

We might want to talk about Duhon one final time, too.

Seems like he's had a similar season to Hinrich. He started out red hot shooting and his shooting has become horrible.

If we can actually find a cure for whatever's up with Hinrich, we may want to bottle it and give a dose of it to Du. As with Hinrich, the team can only benefit if Du's game improves, too.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Good Hope said:


> As a casual observer, I would like to point out that Mike stole it from Sausage, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Sausage?


Toot Toot!

Maybe Kirk just needs some quality azz


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

OK this is a stretch right now but assuming Thabo breaks out within a year or two based on snippets of his athleticism that we have seen and his length etc ... and with the way that Ben Gordon is showing improvement as a handling guard that can bring it up and initiate offense more quickly (btw has anyone else been noticing the two man give n go or dump and kick of Big and Lil Ben with Big Ben showing off his passing ability from the paint )

Is it plausible or implausible that Kirk could be the ideal 3rd guard from the bench behind Ben and Thabo ? 

McBulls ...in particular , seeing as though you have defended Kirk so ( rightfully ) and drew up the Havilcek point ( McHale comes to mind too ) what are your thoughts ?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> To take this thread only in a slightly different tangent...
> 
> We might want to talk about Duhon one final time, too.
> 
> ...


I think the real question with Duhon is whether Adam Fluck ( silent L ) should be still allowed to call Du Mr Big Shot 

Maybe Mr Long Shot is more appropriate ( as in the odds in his ability to make a shot right now )


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> OK this is a stretch right now but assuming Thabo breaks out within a year or two based on snippets of his athleticism that we have seen and his length etc ... and with the way that Ben Gordon is showing improvement as a handling guard that can bring it up and initiate offense more quickly (btw has anyone else been noticing the two man give n go or dump and kick of Big and Lil Ben with Big Ben showing off his passing ability from the paint )
> 
> Is it plausible or implausible that Kirk could be the ideal 3rd guard from the bench behind Ben and Thabo ?
> 
> McBulls ...in particular , seeing as though you have defended Kirk so ( rightfully ) and drew up the Havilcek point ( McHale comes to mind too ) what are your thoughts ?


I don't have any problem bringing Hinrich off the bench if that's what your're asking. However, the team might. Most opponents start their best offensive players. If you can stop them in the first quarter, or frustrate them into making fouls, the game is usually yours. 

Phil Jackson started Harper on the 2nd 3peat team. There were better offensive players on the bench, but he was capable of shutting down an opposing scorer and sparing MJ and Pippen fouls in doing it.

Reaching back further in time, one could wonder why the low scoring KC Jones was a starter on the championship Celtics. But he was a defensive assassin, whose assignment was to disrupt and destroy opponent's offensive schemes.

I see a little of KC Jones and Derick Harper in Kirk Hinrich, while I see a little of Sam Jones and MJ in Ben Gordon. A great scorer needs to hide a bit in the first quarter and avoid foul trouble. A great defender asserts himself at that time. Of course both need to show up in the fourth quarter, depending on the score at that time. 

The Bulls stopped the Rockets at the beginning of the first quarter on Monday and still lost the game, but in general it's a good way to start the game. Amazingly, the Rockets had more energy than the more rested Bulls in the second, third and fourth quarters. I don't things would have gone better if Gordon had started with Duhon, Sefolosha or Griffin. 

So, I guess I would start Hinrich even if I had to tell him to shoot the ball less often when he got on a cold streak. I'd start Gordon if he could keep himself out of foul trouble and bring his 'A' game on defense in the first quarter. Otherwise Duhon is a fine player to set the tone and distribute the ball in the opening minutes of the game.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I don't have any problem bringing Hinrich off the bench if that's what your're asking. However, the team might. Most opponents start their best offensive players. If you can stop them in the first quarter, or frustrate them into making fouls, the game is usually yours.
> 
> Phil Jackson started Harper on the 2nd 3peat team. There were better offensive players on the bench, but he was capable of shutting down an opposing scorer and sparing MJ and Pippen fouls in doing it.
> 
> ...


Great post with excellent rationale 

I like Kirk but I am not giving him ( or anyone ) a free pass

He has always been consistently good defensively except he's been MIA this season in patches and his offensive game , as we have all identified , can come and go

If the consistency of Deng and Gordon can be maintained and they continue to evolve , and , if we can get a decent consistent 3rd scorer on the front line to complement Ben Wallace , then Kirk as a 3rd/4th option offensively , but to lead the team defensively with Ben Wallace is fine by me 

I guess what I was alluding to in my in initial post is that I see some true talent in Thabo as a genuine two way player , and I will stop short of calling him the next Scottie Pippen ..but there is more than a passing resemblance ( IMO ) 

I do believe Ben Gordon has made strides defensively , he will never be all NBA D or even 2nd or 3rd team , but he is more sound than he was in his first season ..I even think he had improved last year , but where he probably did have some more work to do was in handling/creating for others and assuming some lead guard duty -where he has pleasantly surprised me this year 

I guess in an ideal world I would have liked to have had Drew Gooden on board to sit alongside Ben Wallace and Luol Deng and have them supported by Nocioni, Thomas and Allen and then the backcourt with Ben, Thabo, Kirk and Chris

Add a top 10 draft pick to this bunch for some more size

Skiles has made adjustments when they need to be made , and I'm sure its a case that right now that there aren't a bunch of options...but bottom line is Kirk and Chris is not a viable long term backcourt for obvious reasons


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk Hinrich has to meet the bench.

He is not in a slump. He's in a shooting slump, but defense and wanting to pass the ball to Ben Gordon don't go in a slump. He is just a ****ty player for most of this year, and he should be called out on his crappy play. He isn't good, he is both an offensive and defense liability right now.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Kirk Hinrich has to meet the bench.


And who, pray tell, would you play beside Gordon?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

McBulls said:


> And who, pray tell, would you play beside Gordon?


Chris Duhon, he had a good vibe with Gordon so far.

Maybe Kirk just plays better off the bench. Maybe he needs the pressure off, so he can just come out gunning. Maybe he needs to go up against the 2nd units. It just looks like starting isn't the right role for him. 

The guy is averaging 7 points on 19% shooting this month.

His December was worse than Gordon's first 6 games.

The guy doesn't deserve to start, put him on the bench, see if that jumpstarts him.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Kirk Hinrich has to meet the bench.
> 
> He is not in a slump. He's in a shooting slump, but defense and wanting to pass the ball to Ben Gordon don't go in a slump. He is just a ****ty player for most of this year, and he should be called out on his crappy play. He isn't good, he is both an offensive and defense liability right now.



if anyone needs an introduction to the pine, it's chris duhon, sloth.

IMO, skiles should start

hinrich
gordon
deng
nocioni
wallace


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> if anyone needs an introduction to the pine, it's chris duhon, sloth.
> 
> IMO, skiles should start
> 
> ...


Ideally that would be the lineup. But Hinrich just needs to a trip to the bench. There is a sense of entitlement that he has, it needs to be gotten rid of, and maybe that will motivate him.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Chris Duhon, he had a good vibe with Gordon so far.
> 
> Maybe Kirk just plays better off the bench. Maybe he needs the pressure off, so he can just come out gunning. Maybe he needs to go up against the 2nd units. It just looks like starting isn't the right role for him.
> 
> ...


Don't you think starting two guards who are no more than 6 feet tall is a little risky on the defensive side?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> if anyone needs an introduction to the pine, it's chris duhon, sloth.
> 
> IMO, skiles should start
> 
> ...


I agree with you, but against Houston, that combo did play for a bit and looked good for a minute or two, then not so good.

Maybe they need more time on the court together. Dunno, haven't looked at 82games.com to see if they play together a whole lot as-is. I don't see any reason why the first four can't manage near 40 minutes a game tho.

The only negative with that lineup is your offense off the bench consists of Duhon? Allen and Sweetney.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Don't you think starting two guards who are no more than 6 feet tall is a little risky on the defensive side?


It also defeats much of the purpose of starting Gordon in the first place, too.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> if anyone needs an introduction to the pine, it's chris duhon, sloth.
> 
> *IMO, skiles should start
> *
> ...


That's what I saw when I read that. Ha, that cracks me up...


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Kirk Hinrich has to meet the bench.
> 
> He is not in a slump. He's in a shooting slump, but defense and wanting to pass the ball to Ben Gordon don't go in a slump. He is just a ****ty player for most of this year, and he should be called out on his crappy play. He isn't good, he is both an offensive and defense liability right now.


Great point. We have seen Kirk be an excellent defensive player so long that too many people think it is fact. This year Kirk has generally NOT been a good defensive player. His whole game is off. Kirk deserved and has received the benefit of doubt from Skiles this year. However Kirk now needs to be handled based on how he is playing right now. Somehow Skiles has got to find a way to get Kirk's head nack where it should be. It is not just a shooting slump. Kirk has not been doing the things he needed to lead his team all year. Early on when he had his shot he should have taken more shots because his team needed him to.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Cager said:


> Great point. We have seen Kirk be an excellent defensive player so long that too many people think it is fact. This year Kirk has generally NOT been a good defensive player. His whole game is off. Kirk deserved and has received the benefit of doubt from Skiles this year. However Kirk now needs to be handled based on how he is playing right now. Somehow Skiles has got to find a way to get Kirk's head nack where it should be. It is not just a shooting slump. Kirk has not been doing the things he needed to lead his team all year. Early on when he had his shot he should have taken more shots because his team needed him to.


I agree that Kirk's defense has not been as good this year as in the past. 

However, the Bulls have the fourth best defense in the league (based on opponent efficiency), so somebody must be doing something right. That would include Kirk, since he has played a lot of minutes.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The new Ask Sam is up, and at least a third of the questions are all about Kirk from:



> *Where did all these Hinrich haters come from? Hasn't anyone else noticed that he guards guys 4 inches taller and spreads the floor? I love Du, but if someone has to go from the back court, I think it's him unless you can get a post scorer and a big guard for Gordon and spare parts*. -- Jim, La Grange
> 
> Just what I was wondering. I guess when you stand back, assuming you don't need glasses, the talent is awfully similar among the core players and the things Gordon and Deng do are less subtle. If the Bulls were to make Hinrich available, they'd have no shortage of interest. If he could get you Garnett, sure, but I doubt that. And much less would be a mistake.


to this:



> *OK, here it is ... this one has to make sense and has to work. Should wake up the square-shouldered McHale to give KG up for Nocioni, PJ Brown, overrated Kirk Hinrich, and a 1st round pick in '08. Kirk is no point guard. He is brutal on fast break, he has no penetrating ability and mopes around too much. Let's do this trade now!* -- M. Khan, Morton Grove
> 
> More Hinrich bashing? If Minnesota wanted to do that deal, I wouldn't object, though if Kirk is that bad, why would they want him? It's really not much of a deal for Minnesota, which would need bigs of some sort to give up Garnett. Who, as I said, probably will remain there.


Ask Sam


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its pretty sad if the guy you are building the franchise around, a damn solid SF/PF and a lotto pick would not be enough to land an aging superstar on a team going nowhere.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty sad if the guy you are building the franchise around, a damn solid SF/PF and a lotto pick would not be enough to land an aging superstar on a team going nowhere.


It's been pointed out to you time and time again that "build around" was never a real quote.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's been pointed out to you time and time again that "build around" was never a real quote.


link?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

"We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team," Paxson says.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bulls/2006-03-27-hinrich_x.htm

I've seen the Penguin point this out to you on a number of occasions.

I suppose one could view it as splitting hairs, but I don't think the quote implies that Kirk is going to be the man (long-term) on the team. It was merely acknowledging that at that time he was the best player and Pax wanted to find other good players he was compatible with. Makes sense to me.

"Build with" means that Kirk is a key component of the time. A member of "the core" if you will.

"Build around" means that Kirk is our KG, Kobe, etc. That, to me, is not what was intended.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

"We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team," Paxson says.

I disagree this quote means that he's merely part of "the core"

This quote means that they are making personel decisions based around the skillset of Kirk Hinrich, and expecting him to run the team.

To me, that means "build around" Kirk Hinrich.

I would not expect to hear Paxson make that quote about Ben Gordon for instance, even though he's part of the core 4 as well.




jnrjr79 said:


> "Build with" means that Kirk is a key component of the time. A member of "the core" if you will.
> 
> "Build around" means that Kirk is our KG, Kobe, etc. That, to me, is not what was intended.


"We're going to build with Kobe, find players that fit how he runs the team,"


"We're going to build with Steve Nash, find players that fit how he runs the team,"


To me, build with, followed by the "find players that fit" statement means the same as "build around."


----------



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

Man, just when we thought the point guard debate ended, J-Will had to ride his motorcycle.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> "We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team," Paxson says.
> 
> I disagree this quote means that he's merely part of "the core"
> 
> ...


All in all, I agree. I don't think that Bulls' management intent has been to build "around" Hinrich, as in, "he's our superstar" and we'll build around him. Rather, I think they've said that Kirk is a cornerstone...a given good player of the type we like. Others are more movable assets. This doesn't mean Kirk's untradable, only that, coming into the season, trading Kirk wasn't part of the thinking.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> "We're going to build with Kirk, find players that fit how he runs the team," Paxson says.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bulls/2006-03-27-hinrich_x.htm
> 
> ...


"Fit how he runs a team" seems a lot like "around" in the context it was said - as in finding players with complementary skills around someone at the centrepiece


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Legs looked fine today, did they not?


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

Kirk played good tonight but we still losing


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sham said:


> Legs looked fine today, did they not?


Can we now have a "Let's talk about Kirk, next to the last time?" thread? Seems appropriate.
:biggrin:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

dabullz

:lol:

ok, i'll talk about kirk just a little more.

season high scoring. looks like the stroke is back. yet all for naught.

oh well. i bet he'd rather have the win.




:cowboy:

oh, and duhon continuing to make me want to stick a sharp BURNING object in my eye. just dreadful.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> dabullz
> 
> :lol:
> 
> ...


Quite funny!

:lol::lol:


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Can we now have a "Let's talk about Kirk, next to the last time?" thread? Seems appropriate.
> :biggrin:





Me on page one said:


> I won't talk about Kirk at length again until it turns around.


It's not my fault tha it came this darn quick.

:yay:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I changed my signature in Miz' honor.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> oh, and duhon continuing to make me want to stick a sharp BURNING object in my eye. just dreadful.


And here I was worried that the Pargo club will fade away, everyone can just jump ship!


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Can we now have a "Let's talk about Kirk, next to the last time?" thread? Seems appropriate.
> :biggrin:


Yeah, the title was a bit, um, ambitious. I mean, we don't seem to be done talking about Jalen Rose for Pete's sake.

Now, a "Let's talk about Guy Rodgers, one final time" thread might work, but other than that, this crowd just don't give up easy.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Yeah, the title was a bit, um, ambitious. I mean, we don't seem to be done talking about Jalen Rose for Pete's sake.


I'm not going to say that from now on no one is allowed to discuss Kirk. I'm not omnipotent like that, although not through lack of trying. It's just Kirk discussions always got so damn.......samey. :whoknows:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> It's just Kirk discussions always got so damn.......samey.


That didn't and still doesn't seem to be a problem with the 3 C's.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ohhhh it is a problem. But some people just can't help themselves.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Sham said:


> I'm not going to say that from now on no one is allowed to discuss Kirk. I'm not omnipotent like that, although not through lack of trying. It's just Kirk discussions always got so damn.......samey. :whoknows:


Samey? Even at my advanced age, posters here keep adding to my vocabulary.

Seriously, I hear ya. Hinrich is not only the "face of the franchise," but the poster boy (or "dart board boy") for the "loyal opposition" on this board.

Hinrich's problem is that he's only good. I'm now convinced that he'll never be great. Since he may never be great, he needs to be consistent. He hasn't been. Until someone else is placed in the front window, he'll remain a target for the critics.

FWIW, I thought it was significant that Skiles took dead aim at Hinrich's recent lackluster play. I still think that, of the current Bulls' players, Hinrich is the one that reminds Coach Skiles the most of Player Skiles. Skiles aiming a couple swift kicks at Kirk's backside is a sign of growth from Skiles.

As for Hinrich, he'll continue to be a good player over any 15 game stretch you choose. He'll be great over some 5 game stretches and suck for 5 game stretches, but if you widen the view, he'll be good.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Samey? Even at my advanced age, posters here keep adding to my vocabulary.


What's it like to have seen George Mikan play? Was he really skilled?
:biggrin:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well, the problem is, Kirk hasn't been a starting quality NBA player at all this year except for a little stretch at the beginning. But dominating when the rest of the league is in a feel out mode doesn't make you a good player. Kirk has played like a role player that should come off the bench this year.

Quite frankly, if Kirk Hinrich can't properly condition himself, can't handle coming off the bench if best for the team (it will, Gordon is better, and Thabo is probably going to be too), and if he is too mentally weak to handle a hard Skiles practice, he isn't a piece we should build around, because him starting...or him coming off the bench and pouting probably won't be best for the team.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Hinrich's problem is that he's only good. I'm now convinced that he'll never be great. Since he may never be great, he needs to be consistent. He hasn't been. Until someone else is placed in the front window, he'll remain a target for the critics.
> 
> FWIW, I thought it was significant that Skiles took dead aim at Hinrich's recent lackluster play. I still think that, of the current Bulls' players, Hinrich is the one that reminds Coach Skiles the most of Player Skiles. Skiles aiming a couple swift kicks at Kirk's backside is a sign of growth from Skiles.
> 
> As for Hinrich, he'll continue to be a good player over any 15 game stretch you choose. He'll be great over some 5 game stretches and suck for 5 game stretches, but if you widen the view, he'll be good.


posts like these are why i return to haunt this place......




> Quite frankly, if Kirk Hinrich can't properly condition himself, can't handle coming off the bench if best for the team (it will, Gordon is better, and Thabo is probably going to be too), and if he is too mentally weak to handle a hard Skiles practice, he isn't a piece we should *build around*, because him starting...or him coming off the bench and pouting probably won't be best for the team


.

did i misunderstand the discussion re: "building with" vs. "building around"?

posts like these are just funny:lol: :yay:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> posts like these are why i return to haunt this place......
> 
> 
> .
> ...


I said piece...as a part of what your building around....Hinrich shouldn't be part of that....and should be traded for Wilcox and Sene.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Speaking of Sene, sloth, how's his DPOY campaign going?


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Well, the problem is, Kirk hasn't been a starting quality NBA player at all this year except for a little stretch at the beginning. But dominating when the rest of the league is in a feel out mode doesn't make you a good player. Kirk has played like a role player that should come off the bench this year.
> 
> Quite frankly, if Kirk Hinrich can't properly condition himself, can't handle coming off the bench if best for the team (it will, Gordon is better, and Thabo is probably going to be too), and if he is too mentally weak to handle a hard Skiles practice, he isn't a piece we should build around, because him starting...or him coming off the bench and pouting probably won't be best for the team.


I seriously don't know where you get your information from, its highly baffling to my mind. You constantly say this person is conditioned or not coniditioned or that one player is more determined then the other, then you go around saying that on player doesn't have this or that. Do you inside stories about players that we don't know about? Are you secertly are trainer for the Bulls that is bitter about not getting paid enough??

You have to stop looking at physical appereance for what you consider conditioned. Sure, Gordon is a physical specimen that you have high regards for. But just because his bulky doesn't mean he is more conditioned then Hinrich. Conditioned means fit to play basketball, not how many weights you can lift or how fast you can run or jump. Look at Iverson, look at Boykins(he is strong is hell!), look at Hamilton, he is thin is my fingernails but his probably one of the best conditioned players in the league, also look how Okafor actually had to LOSE weight and muscle to gain some agility and speed. Weight, muscle and all that is great, but it doesn't nesscarily dictate whether someone is well conditioned or not. 

Im tired of hearing you harping on about how Hinrich isn't conidtioned enough to play over Gordon, because Gordon can fit into a shirt tighter then Hinrich. If your going to make an arguement, make an arguement with more substance. Hinrich is simply not playing well, period. He has obviously lost his confidence, and if that is not clear by Skiles calling him out in public i don't know what is. It has nothing to do with his coniditioning.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Sham said:


> Speaking of Sene, sloth, how's his DPOY campaign going?


About as good as Hollis Price's All-Star campaign. Sorry, had to do it.....


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sham said:


> Speaking of Sene, sloth, how's his DPOY campaign going?


Sonics are idiots, the organization is crap.

Anyhow, we should look into signing Julius Hodge for our big guard. The guy is averaging 9.44 blocks per game down in the D-League.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

kulaz3000 said:


> I seriously don't know where you get your information from, its highly baffling to my mind. You constantly say this person is conditioned or not coniditioned or that one player is more determined then the other, then you go around saying that on player doesn't have this or that. Do you inside stories about players that we don't know about? Are you secertly are trainer for the Bulls that is bitter about not getting paid enough??
> 
> You have to stop looking at physical appereance for what you consider conditioned. Sure, Gordon is a physical specimen that you have high regards for. But just because his bulky doesn't mean he is more conditioned then Hinrich. Conditioned means fit to play basketball, not how many weights you can lift or how fast you can run or jump. Look at Iverson, look at Boykins(he is strong is hell!), look at Hamilton, he is thin is my fingernails but his probably one of the best conditioned players in the league, also look how Okafor actually had to LOSE weight and muscle to gain some agility and speed. Weight, muscle and all that is great, but it doesn't nesscarily dictate whether someone is well conditioned or not.
> 
> Im tired of hearing you harping on about how Hinrich isn't conidtioned enough to play over Gordon, because Gordon can fit into a shirt tighter then Hinrich. If your going to make an arguement, make an arguement with more substance. Hinrich is simply not playing well, period. He has obviously lost his confidence, and if that is not clear by Skiles calling him out in public i don't know what is. It has nothing to do with his coniditioning.


Oh, I was under the assumption that Kirk had lost his legs...and was tired. But apparently the excuses for Hinrich only drive on a one way road.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Sonics are idiots, the organization is crap.
> 
> Anyhow, we should look into signing Julius Hodge for our big guard. The guy is averaging 9.44 blocks per game down in the D-League.



Well, 0.6. Same sort of thing.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sham said:


> Well, 0.6. Same sort of thing.


Come on, Hodge is way better than Hinrich!

12.1 PPG
4.2 RPG
9.4 APG
4.0 SPG
9.4 BPG

6'7"

through 10 games.

http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/julius_hodge/index.html?nav=page

Come to think about it, Hodge just might be the GOAT.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Come on, Hodge is way better than Hinrich!
> 
> 12.1 PPG
> 4.2 RPG
> ...


Take a look at the game log.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

The Truth said:


> Take a look at the game log.


Don't bother trying to explain anything to Sloth. What person in their right mind would think anyone could average 9 blocks a game, and still be in the D league without thinking twice if there was a mistake or not.

His definitly the GOAT.

Lets trade Hinrich for Hodge, im all of it!! YAY!

Apparently the statistic keepers have only D-league qualifications in maths also.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its pretty sad if the guy you are building the franchise around, a damn solid SF/PF and a lotto pick would not be enough to land an aging superstar on a team going nowhere.


every player in the league is aging. You are aging. Me too!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

On another note....Kirk Hinrich sucks.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

His field goal percentage is down to 42.5%....how low will it go?


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Why the hell do we have Hinrich bringing the ball up in the 4th quarter when we have had a 5 minute drought of absolutely nada. We are a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH x 100000000 better team with gordon bringing it up in this game situations. I am sick of seeing Hinrich over-dribble and produce NOTHING.


GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

we need to talk.
hinrich.
not the final time

moderate on!


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

The fact that he once again shot poorly based on his previous three years in the league is something we should all 
have come to expect to happen a good amount of the time. He's a streaky shooter. 

The thing that is truly troubling is the fact that neither he nor Duhon was able to get the team into any kind of flow in the execution of the offense the whole 2nd half, its becoming a pattern, and to paraphrase what Skiles said after the Sacto collapse in the home opener, to see these same things happening over and over when we supposedly have young players coming into their own, is very, very distressing.


----------

