# Skiles not impressed with Tyrus? Easily Paxson's Pick.



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Here are the 3 Skiles quotes about Tyrus I've seen so far.

1. [when asked about Tyrus' shooting in a workout] It was OK (in a negative way)
2. He's out of shape.
3. [when asked about Tyrus' summer league game] It was OK (in a negative way)

I remember that Aldridge was Skiles' guy. I don't think Tyrus is going to get a whole lot of burn. I haven't heard too much encouragement out of Skiles about Tyrus, and Tyrus isn't the player Skiles wanted, and if he continues to bring the energy and intensity he brought today, he's going to be racking up DNP-Coaches Decisions in bushels. I have a feeling we're going to get an epic Skiles/Tyrus clash this season! Bring it on!


----------



## FireCartwrightNow (Oct 30, 2003)

As a Bulls fan why the hell would you want a clash? :curse: I don't think Tyrus will be that good, but it's water under the bridge now and I can only hop for the best.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Kinda hard to complain about T's strength and stamina when Aldridge has admitted his SG is stronger than him..
Besides, does Aldridge fit the Bulls athletic mould? 
His potential scoring ability does, but at the time of the draft the Bulls couldnt have been sure of getting Wallace..


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

sloth is clearly a bandwagon jumper thats for sure....

first he wanted morrison....he'll be a star....scored 3/14 yesterday...oh he sucks

paxson drafts tyrus....he's going to be a beast....has a rusty start at a freakin SL game....oh he sucks

eddy curry sucks.....oh he's the best center bulls ever had....

just stop it.

nobody will jump the shark on it.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

sloth said:


> Here are the 3 Skiles quotes about Tyrus I've seen so far.
> 
> 1. [when asked about Tyrus' shooting in a workout] It was OK (in a negative way)
> 2. He's out of shape.
> ...


I just don't see how you can assume so much from such a limited response. Quite frankly i didn't even know that Aldridge was Skiles guy, i wonder where you got that inside information? If you don't mind sharing?

The point of the matter is, it was just one game. There have months till training camp, and once training camp is under way he'll have more of an understanding of how to play within a system instead of going up and down the court without having system other than putting the ball in the hole. Plus having better players around him will make it easier for him to suceed also, because all the attention won't be on him.

From all the information i've read about him being a hard worker and a determined individual i don't see why he would clash heads with Skiles, he always awards players who atleast puts total effort into the game, and he gives people a chance. So aslong as all the writing about Thomas being a hard worker i don't see them clashing heads.. its the likes of JR Smith who Skiles will definitly clash with.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

sloth said:


> Here are the 3 Skiles quotes about Tyrus I've seen so far.
> 
> 1. [when asked about Tyrus' shooting in a workout] It was OK (in a negative way)
> 2. He's out of shape.
> ...


Huh. That MUST mean Skiles didn't want Thomas then. Because clearly, its conclusive from your post. 

Let me tell you another similar story. Bill Parcells said similar things last year about Demarcus Ware. He was out of shape. He was "ok." He had one pass rushing move, etc.

Yet, anyone with a clue, knew Ware was Parcells' pick.

Yet, Parcells continually said some things that suggested otherwise (well, at least you would interpet that way).

This means nothing. You are reaching here, grasping for straws. We get it. Thomas wasn't your guy. You wanted someone else. But guess what? Thomas is a Bull. Do you trust your "scouting abilities" over Paxson, an actual GM?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Chances are, TT will only be OK at best for some time. 

Let's hope he gets up to speed as quickly as he did in the NCAA.

And, Skiles may be on board with the pick, but more times than not a coach wants to win, not sign up for a 2-3 year development plan.

Can we fly PJ Brown out to Orlando and take TT out on a picnic or something?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Actually the day of the draft I heard Ian Thomsen (CNNSI's guy) on the John Thompson show here in DC and he suggested exactly the same thing. He said Skiles wasn't impressed with TT's two partial workouts with the Bulls, and concerned that, even if he really did have minor ailments at the time (upset stomach, pulled groin, whatever it was), this was a big moment for TT and he should have been able to go hard anyway. His basic comment, as (I'm assuming) paraphrased by Thomsen was "if he can't even finish a workout with his whole future on the line, how's he going to be through a long season when everyone inevitably gets sick and banged up"?

So perhaps Sloth is assuming too much from a limited response, but coupling the limited Skiles quotes I've seen with the additional stuff I've heard, I think he's probably about right in his assumption.

What difference does it make? Well, I don't know that Skiles is one to change a first impression too quickly, so that's not necessarily a good thing. But he does want to win, and I think if he thinks Thomas can help him win, he'll play him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Chances are, TT will only be OK at best for some time.
> 
> Let's hope he gets up to speed as quickly as he did in the NCAA.
> 
> ...


Thomas won't be ready out of the gates obviously (few rookies are), and the 2-year readiness plan is certainly possible. But I'm also keeping my fingers crossed that Thomas might be ready for a major bump in minutes by year 2. There are many high schoolers who have started by their 2nd season and TT even played a year of college. His real problem with finding court time is that he doesn't have a position yet. He's more of a PF than anything, but certain matchups will limit his ability to play against other big men until he gets a bit stronger. I think about 20 min/game would be solid court time for his rookie year (although I wouldn't be surprised if it were less), and just MAYBE he's productive enough to start in year 2.

One sidenote about TT...I'm happy to say that I'm over the whole height concerns with him. I know he's only 6'8 and some change with shoes on, but over the past few weeks there've been plenty of stats & wingspan measurements showing that he "plays like a 7-footer". His standing reach is 9-feet even, and that's longer than many of the good PF's in the NBA.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I wonder if 6 months from now anyone will remember that people were just completely making this crap up. Or if we'll have to listen arguments like, "Remember how Skiles never really wanted Tyrus in the first place?"


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

BenDengGo said:


> sloth is clearly a bandwagon jumper thats for sure....
> 
> first he wanted morrison....he'll be a star....scored 3/14 yesterday...oh he sucks
> 
> ...


I never said that Morrison sucked, I never said Curry sucked, and I never said Tyrus will be a beast. I said he better be a beast for us to waste our pick on him.


----------



## shagmopdog (Mar 21, 2005)

I think Sefolosha was heavily influenced by skiles, hard nosed, nba ready defender. Sounds like a skiles guy


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> I said he better be a beast for us to waste our pick on him.


hah

you're right, that's not flip-flopping at all....


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm kinda late to the thread. but is there a LINK to the summer league comment from skiles? did he say this in print? 

sloth, if this is your premise, please back it up with actual quotes, otherwise it is pure conjecture.

sorry if i missed the thread it's posted in, and if so, please link it here.

thanks.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

sloth said:


> I remember that Aldridge was Skiles' guy.


Do you have any support for this memory? I'm not talking about if Skiles likes/dislikes Thomas. I'm talking about Aldridge.

I never read anything stating that Skiles was an Aldridge advocate. 

And for what its worth - very little - after the draft Skiles was quite complimentary of both Thomas and Thabo. Very often, hard *** coaches are tougher publicly on the players they have the greatest expectations for. This may or may not be the case here. I'm just saying. 

It should also be noted that what Skiles has said about Thomas is accurate. Its not negative and its not positive. Its simply what it is true.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i found it. would have helped the thread if you'd posted it at the top.

*
Bulls Coach Scott Skiles watched Thomas and guard Thabo Sefolosha -- Chicago's other first-round pick -- from the sideline. Sefolosha, a 6-7 shooting guard from Switzerland, had 16 points on 6 of 8 shooting and had four steals.

"I thought Tyrus was OK for his first game," Skiles said.
*



http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...l11,0,2113254.story?coll=orl-sports-headlines


how on earth one can conclude that he doesn't like him, wasn't impressed with him, from one _very neutral quote_ is beyond me. 

oh wait...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Sloth is a good poster but perhaps he misspoke here. Lets rip him a new one!!! :uhoh: What might be true is that based on one game, one really meaningless game (I almost wish they got rid of the summer league) is that Skiles wasnt blown away by Thomas and maybe less complementary of Thomas so far then Thabo. That, I dont believe, would be a stretch. Skiles has his guys, and Thabo looks like a front runner for that club. Thomas could get there as well.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Actually the day of the draft I heard Ian Thomsen (CNNSI's guy) on the John Thompson show here in DC and he suggested exactly the same thing. * He said Skiles wasn't impressed with TT's two partial workouts with the Bulls, and concerned that, even if he really did have minor ailments at the time (upset stomach, pulled groin, whatever it was), this was a big moment for TT and he should have been able to go hard anyway. His basic comment, as (I'm assuming) paraphrased by Thomsen was "if he can't even finish a workout with his whole future on the line, how's he going to be through a long season when everyone inevitably gets sick and banged up"?*


Yeesh. I never heard that quote/paraphrase/comment.

If Skiles said that, TT really DOES have his work cut out for him to gain Skiles' respect and trust. He had better show day to day grit from this point forward, or its going to be a disaster.



> Well, I don't know that Skiles is one to change a first impression too quickly, so that's not necessarily a good thing. But he does want to win, and I think if he thinks Thomas can help him win, he'll play him.


As to the first sentence, I unfortunately agree, as set forth above. As to the second sentence, I hope you are right, but we saw how Skiles handled the last TT, and I think most of us agree that despite his other troubles, Tim Thomas probably could have helped win a couple more games if we had played him.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *"I thought Tyrus was OK for his first game," Skiles said.
> *


Yup, time to fire Skiles before he ruins the kid.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> Sloth is a good poster but perhaps he misspoke here. Lets rip him a new one!!! :uhoh: What might be true is that based on one game, one really meaningless game (I almost wish they got rid of the summer league) is that Skiles wasnt blown away by Thomas and maybe less complementary of Thomas so far then Thabo. That, I dont believe, would be a stretch. Skiles has his guys, and Thabo looks like a front runner for that club. Thomas could get there as well.


i'm not ripping the little dude. i just slapped him upside the head. and he should know to _post a LINK, back up the claim with support._

otherwise we are reading into something and blowing it completely out of proportion.

just another day on the boards i guess.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not ripping the little dude. i just slapped him upside the head. and he should know to _post a LINK, back up the claim with support._
> 
> otherwise we are reading into something and blowing it completely out of proportion.
> 
> just another day on the boards i guess.



Cant a man read into a quote what he wants?

your not the only one ripping the "little" dude.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Cant a man read into a quote what he wants?
> 
> your not the only one ripping the "little" dude.



You are right.

Ignoring the fact that he spent yesterday in the game thread constantly ripping into Thomas, etc...we shouldn't read too much into this series of posts... Right?

That after continually ripping Thomas, that we shouldn't expect this post was alluding to some more of it? How unreasonable of us.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

rlucas, with all due respect, how anyone can infer from a quote IN PRINT, the MINDSET of a person, the TONE OF VOICE of the person, and declare it NEGATIVE, is reading into something that may or may not be there.

oh, and thank you vintage. :greatjob:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

and i would like someone to find a link where skiles said "aldridge is my guy" in any of the pre-draft media.

that would be appreciated.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> i found it. would have helped the thread if you'd posted it at the top.
> 
> *
> Bulls Coach Scott Skiles watched Thomas and guard Thabo Sefolosha -- Chicago's other first-round pick -- from the sideline. Sefolosha, a 6-7 shooting guard from Switzerland, had 16 points on 6 of 8 shooting and had four steals.
> ...


 Thomas, whom the Bulls acquired on draft night in a trade with Portland, also had his first shot as a pro swatted -- this one by fellow rookie Shawne Williams.

Unlike at LSU, where he played primarily close to the low block, Thomas says he sees himself ultimately playing small forward in the NBA. However, he struggled mightily with his shot, missing six of his nine attempts. And if he's to play small forward in Chicago, his ball-handling and decision-making (six turnovers Monday) must improve.

Bulls head coach Scott Skiles watched the game and deemed Thomas' debut as simply "OK." 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2515872


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> rlucas, with all due respect, how anyone can infer from a quote IN PRINT, the MINDSET of a person, the TONE OF VOICE of the person, and declare it NEGATIVE, is reading into something that may or may not be there.
> 
> oh, and thank you vintage. :greatjob:


Its not consistent. Cause if it was looked at as a positive thing I am sure everyone wouldnt jump on SLoth. Maybe Thomas sucked yesterday, maybe he was worthy of criticism? I dont know, I dont really care about the summer league, but if you dont like what Sloth says, dont post on his thread.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i was merely asking him to post the damn link.

the espn recap _infers_ disappointment from skiles, yes.

however THE ACTUAL QUOTE IS KINDA NEUTRAL: "I thought Tyrus was OK for his first game," Skiles said.

as a moderator i am supposed to ask for links to be posted, sorry if i insulted anyone and the boyking for asking for a link.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yeesh. I never heard that quote/paraphrase/comment.
> 
> If Skiles said that, TT really DOES have his work cut out for him to gain Skiles' respect and trust. He had better show day to day grit from this point forward, or its going to be a disaster.
> 
> ...


Yeah. I've been trying to get a handle on what exactly Skiles' sense of "fairness" is, and I think most folks have it a little bit understood. His concept of "bad jib", for lack of a better term, isn't the same as the board's concept. He never really appeared to have a problem with Jamal or Eddy, for example. They'd occasionally get benched for stupid play, but that was the exception. The rule was they both got pretty heavy minutes with him as the coach. Chandler too, although to a lesser extent.

I mean, I don't think he'd have any compunction, if he truly didn't like them, of totally sitting them as he did with TT, Erob, and some lesser guys. So the question is why was he ok with one set of guys and not ok with the other? And which side of that line does TT fall on?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> I dont know, I dont really care about the summer league, but if you dont like what Sloth says, dont post on his thread.


If you don't like what he says, don't post on the thread?

That is pretty poor policy for promoting discussion on a message board, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Its not consistent. Cause if it was looked at as a positive thing I am sure everyone wouldnt jump on SLoth. Maybe Thomas sucked yesterday, maybe he was worthy of criticism? I dont know, I dont really care about the summer league, *but if you dont like what Sloth says, dont post on his thread.*


Right. Only post in threads where you agree with the premise.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> but if you dont like what Sloth says, dont post on his thread.


We would really have some short debates if we did that, wouldn't we?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Yeah. I've been trying to get a handle on what exactly Skiles' sense of "fairness" is, and I think most folks have it a little bit understood. His concept of "bad jib", for lack of a better term, isn't the same as the board's concept. He never really appeared to have a problem with Jamal or Eddy, for example. They'd occasionally get benched for stupid play, but that was the exception. The rule was they both got pretty heavy minutes with him as the coach. Chandler too, although to a lesser extent.
> 
> I mean, I don't think he'd have any compunction, if he truly didn't like them, of totally sitting them as he did with TT, Erob, and some lesser guys. So the question is why was he ok with one set of guys and not ok with the other? And which side of that line does TT fall on?


I doubt he'd do that to Thomas? Why? Well, I can't know that much about Tyrus yet, but everything I read suggests he really cares about practice and preparation. That's one of the few keys to Skiles's heart. 

Tyrus will see floor time. Maybe not too much of it, but he will get some time.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Right. Only post in threads where you agree with the premise.


No, but dont cut the individual down. Calling someone a little man and saying things like considering the source are both childish and a little bit tiresome. 

How about this, I disagree with Sloth. Period. No slaps on the guy etc. But you know what, whatever Skiles meant to say about Thomas wasnt a complement, probably wasnt a putdown, but seems very unenthused. But then again, thats my reading into it. Now please rip my head off.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Yeah. I've been trying to get a handle on what exactly Skiles' sense of "fairness" is, and I think most folks have it a little bit understood. His concept of "bad jib", for lack of a better term, isn't the same as the board's concept. He never really appeared to have a problem with Jamal or Eddy, for example. They'd occasionally get benched for stupid play, but that was the exception. The rule was they both got pretty heavy minutes with him as the coach. Chandler too, although to a lesser extent.
> 
> I mean, I don't think he'd have any compunction, if he truly didn't like them, of totally sitting them as he did with TT, Erob, and some lesser guys. So the question is why was he ok with one set of guys and not ok with the other? And which side of that line does TT fall on?



I think the distinction comes down to the fact that everyone makes mistakes.

You make a couple of bonehead moves? You sit. Depending on the circumstances, you may get back in or not. Either way, you work on the mistakes in practice, and everybody moves on. You don't learn from the mistakes, eventually there is a problem. See below.

On the other hand, if you don't work to improve, don't accept coaching, don't follow directions, don't act professional, it goes beyond "everyone makes mistakes." Then you are in the doghouse, and there is REALLY a problem.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i was merely asking him to post the damn link.
> 
> the espn recap _infers_ disappointment from skiles, yes.
> 
> ...


boyking? I mean, can you actually post something without putting someone down? Come on Mize, your the best, is this just boredom that has gotten to you? Was the subway ride too hot? This is very unlike you.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Yeah. I've been trying to get a handle on what exactly Skiles' sense of "fairness" is, and I think most folks have it a little bit understood. His concept of "bad jib", for lack of a better term, isn't the same as the board's concept. He never really appeared to have a problem with Jamal or Eddy, for example. They'd occasionally get benched for stupid play, but that was the exception. The rule was they both got pretty heavy minutes with him as the coach. Chandler too, although to a lesser extent.
> 
> I mean, I don't think he'd have any compunction, if he truly didn't like them, of totally sitting them as he did with TT, Erob, and some lesser guys. So the question is why was he ok with one set of guys and not ok with the other? And which side of that line does TT fall on?


Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford were workhorses though, Tim Thomas and Eddie Robinson were messing around in practices and not working. Skiles wants players to work. Thomas won't be exiled, but if he comes in like yesterday, with no energy, no intensity, shooting turnaround jumpshots, he's gonna be behind Sweetney easily in the depth chart.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> No, but dont cut the individual down. Calling someone a little man and saying things like considering the source are both childish and a little bit tiresome.
> 
> How about this, I disagree with Sloth. Period. No slaps on the guy etc. But you know what, whatever Skiles meant to say about Thomas wasnt a complement, probably wasnt a putdown, but seems very unenthused. But then again, thats my reading into it. Now please rip my head off.


Two things have been asked of sloth:

(1) links;

(2) factual support for his subjective interpretation.

Those seem pretty fair requests of someone who is taking a staunch and potentially controversial stance. Especially when that stance is based on supposed quotes and rememberances.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

sloth said:


> Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford were workhorses though, Tim Thomas and Eddie Robinson were messing around in practices and not working. Skiles wants players to work. Thomas won't be exiled, but if he comes in like yesterday, with no energy, no intensity, shooting turnaround jumpshots, he's gonna be behind Sweetney easily in the depth chart.



And when your behind Sweetney then your officially missing. Heck, whole galaxies are missing.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> No, but dont cut the individual down. Calling someone a little man and saying things like considering the source are both childish and a little bit tiresome.
> 
> How about this, I disagree with Sloth. Period. No slaps on the guy etc. But you know what, whatever Skiles meant to say about Thomas wasnt a complement, probably wasnt a putdown, but seems very unenthused. But then again, thats my reading into it. Now please rip my head off.



Woe is you....

People took sloths post for what it was, a continuation of yesterday. How dare mizenkay as for a link to confirm it. Shame on her! She wanted to see the quote in full context, because NO ONE on this board would DARE take a quote out of context to promote an agenda, would they?

And the other stuff directed towards sloth was hardly "rough."


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Two things have been asked of sloth:
> 
> (1) links;
> 
> ...


He can read into whatever situation he wants just as you read into every situation the way you want. He takes a negative interpretation, fine. You take a positive one, fine. If Sloth came in here and said Skiles loves Thomas and the link only said Thomas played ok, you guys wouldnt be having such a hissy fit. 

Now Sloth, im done defending your right to actually having AN OPINION WITHOUT BEING BELITTLED.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

just to go a little o.t, A number of 1st round picks have been signing but so far no word on Tyrus's contract. I believe that if you sign a draft pick it makes it very difficult to then trade him w/o having a waiting period. Could we just be waiting until the 12 th before we trade Thomas the small forward?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Two things have been asked of sloth:
> 
> (1) links;
> 
> ...


Exactly. Sloth passed his post off as factual. People wanted links. Not unreasonable.

There has been no "cutting down" of the tree sloth.

There has been "cutting down" of the substance posted, questioning its validity, questioning if it was factual, questioning the interpetation, questioning the context, etc.

In other words, "debating."


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/quotes_060628.html

*Coach Skiles, what is your take on Tyrus Thomas and his development?

Skiles: “I agree with everything John said. We’ve got to get him in here and see. We’re very high on him and I’m very high on him because I know that he works and he’s got the tremendous length and athleticism. For Tyrus right out of the gate, he’s just got to keep it simple and be active. You’ve all seen us play—we like to be active out there and that’s really what all three of these guys are about. But he’s a cut-above athletically, even in the NBA. We’ll see how he looks in rookie league and take it step-by-step. He’s a worker, so I wouldn’t put any limitations on him and at the same time, I’m going to try and have some patience with him, too.”*



saying he did ok, is well, that he did OK. 

*sloth has an unfortunate history of posting items as if they are news and claiming he has inside sources. this is not NEWS to anyone here.*

_so i asked for a link._


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

It was one summer league game.

I'd be more worried if Skiles said he was impressed with Thomas' performance than Thomas' performance itself.

He's 19.

Dare I say it might take some time for him to "get the hang" of things. It was his first summer league game. People are reading waaaaay too much into this, especially, a certain select few.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/quotes_060628.html
> 
> *Coach Skiles, what is your take on Tyrus Thomas and his development?
> 
> ...



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mizenkay again


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Vintage said:


> It was one summer league game.
> 
> I'd be more worried if Skiles said he was impressed with Thomas' performance than Thomas' performance itself.
> 
> ...



like DC?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> like DC?



....like anyone who is already calling Thomas a bust based off this one game. Or implying/implicity stating the pick is a waste already....

Several people come to mind.

Edit: This would also apply to anyone proclaiming TT to be a superstar in the making, if they were basing it off that summer league game, as well.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> He can read into whatever situation he wants just as you read into every situation the way you want.


Certainly. And on a message board intending to promote discourse, we should expect to be called on it and to provide support for our interpretation. 



> He takes a negative interpretation, fine. You take a positive one, fine.


If this is context specific, I'm not taking a positive interpretation. I take the same position you do. The comment isn't negative or positive, its bland. 



> If Sloth came in here and said Skiles loves Thomas and the link only said Thomas played ok, you guys wouldnt be having such a hissy fit.


All I've asked for is a link. And on only one issue - the statement about Aldridge. Is that a hissy fit, rlucas? Is there something in particular that I wrote that you find offensive or confrontational in my posts in this thread? 

And though some may be more inclined to ask for support for negative statements, you and I both know there are others who will demand support for positive ones. It is to be expected in debate.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Wasn't there a quote out there recently where Skiles stated that Thomas is out of shape (and he knows this) but that he works hard, is tough and plays hard? From Skiles, those would be basically positive things (aside from the being out of shape but it would appear that both Skiles and Thomas acknowledge that fact).

So long as the guy works hard and brings it every day, I don't think Skiles will have a problem. Saying he played "OK" is pretty much it. He played "OK". He didn't light the place up and he wasn't god-awful. He did some good things out there, he did some bad things. In pretty much anybodies book, that would constitute "OK". Extrapolating that into "Skiles is not impressed with Tyrus" seems a bit of a strectch for me.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok. so what do we know? we know that skiles, fully quoted, said "i thought he did OK". 

we know that in the post-draft interview both pax and skiles were very positive on tyrus. we know that skiles knows he needs to be patient with him. he said this.

we know that one summer league game does not declare one a bust or a star.

we know that if a premise of a thread is based on something someone said, that a link is necessary to support said premise.

that is all we know.

thank you.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> Wasn't there a quote out there recently where Skiles stated that Thomas is out of shape (and he knows this) but that he works hard, is tough and plays hard? From Skiles, those would be basically positive things (aside from the being out of shape but it would appear that both Skiles and Thomas acknowledge that fact).
> 
> So long as the guy works hard and brings it every day, I don't think Skiles will have a problem. Saying he played "OK" is pretty much it. He played "OK". He didn't light the place up and he wasn't god-awful. He did some good things out there, he did some bad things. In pretty much anybodies book, that would constitute "OK". Extrapolating that into "Skiles is not impressed with Tyrus" seems a bit of a strectch for me.


thank you flash. as usual, voice of reason.

:greatjob:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Sloth was vehemently anti-Tyrus before the draft so it is not really a suprise that he is still vehemently anti-Tyrus after a subpar effort?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Sloth was anti-Tyrus before the draft so why is it a suprise that he is anti-Tyrus after a subpar effort?



Hey! Dr.Wilson is in the movie! (Robert Sean Leonard)

Off topic and out of curiosity, does anyone else here watch House, M.D.?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> ok. so what do we know? we know that skiles, fully quoted, said "i thought he did OK".
> 
> we know that in the post-draft interview both pax and skiles were very positive on tyrus. we know that skiles knows he needs to be patient with him. he said this.
> 
> ...


I don't get the fuss here. If Thomas had played great and Skiles said he did OK I'd be concerned. But he didn't play great, he did do OK! At best. And I like Thomas. It's one game, and Skiles (as is his custom) gave his honest opinion. Doesn't seem like a big deal at all to me. I'm sure if Thomas plays great today Skiles will say he played great.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I don't get the fuss here. If Thomas had played great and Skiles said he did OK I'd be concerned. But he didn't play great, he did do OK! At best. And I like Thomas. It's one game, and Skiles (as is his custom) gave his honest opinion. Doesn't seem like a big deal at all to me. I'm sure if Thomas plays great today Skiles will say he played great.


right. he did OK.

the premise of the thread is that skiles hates the pick (false). that he disagrees with pax on the pick (false) and that aldridge was really skiles' guy (still waiting on that link, thanks).

so we were DEBATING it.


crazy, i know.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

I don't know about any of you all, but I'm more worried about Skiles dissing Thabo. I mean the absence of anything said speaks volumes. 9 whole words for Tyrus and nothing about Thabo. I think we have a dog-in-house situation.

:clown:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

This thread is hilarious. I clicked into it expecting some real meat to make the day interesting. Instead, its "As the Board Turns" and "Days of our Posting". Maybe a bit of "Desperate (for news) Bulls Fans". 

Rep to Miz for doing her job in a no-nonsense sort of way. Boos to everyone who dissed her for doing it.


(edit: oops! got the dreaded "you must spread some reputation around..." message. Curses!)


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I really cannot believe we are still talking about Tyrus and how he might be a bust due to one summer league game. We all know that these threads are very bump worthy come regular season. 

I'm sure after summer league action i will be disconnecting myself from BUlls message boards. It has already gotten ugly after the draft and the tone doesn't seem to be changing. THis is not saying i won't be back later, but reading posts from people are just nit picking the littlest thing gets annoying. Oh and the constant negative posters are a bummer as well.

On a separate point, i love House. Wonderful show. I'm a big fan of RSL but even a bigger fan of Kenneth Branagh.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

In other news, Rush Limbaugh said something negative about Liberals the other day. Failed to mention his need for and uses of Viagra. World is unshocked


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Vintage said:


> It was one summer league game.
> 
> I'd be more worried if Skiles said he was impressed with Thomas' performance than Thomas' performance itself.


Apparently my rep spreader is running low.

I want to take this comment by *Vintage!* a step further in the discussion of whether Tyrus is indeed a "Skiles" guy. I took a gander at the actual box score (missed the game), and saw this line...

*Tyrus Thomas -- 10pts (.333 fg%), 4rbs (3 offensive), 2 ast, 5 fouls, 6 TO*

...and thought "ouch, kid had a rough first game". I don't think I hate Tyrus. Tyrus isn't "not my guy" because he had such a Tysonesque game. In fact, I'm encouraged by his FTs (4-5, .800), his assists, and his offensive rebounding instincts.

Contrast my "ouch, kid had a rough first game" with Skiles' "I thought he did OK", and Skiles comes out looking like Tyrus' #1 fan. How could he say better without lying?! I looked over the Summer League thread and didn't see a lot of people that were amazed by Tyrus' prowess in that thread.

I think we all need to just take the Summer League with the same grain of salt it appears that Skiles is.

Oh, BTW, I disagree with *sloth!* Period.

































_Unless, of course, he's posting Othella Macaroni. Then I'm his #1 fan!_


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Well, this thread really deteriorated into a useless bunch of BS. It was still like that even after post #8 where MikeDC posted the same info that has been all over on here recently about how Skiles made some negative comments on Tyrus about the workouts for them etc. How many links have to be shown people, come on. There are multiple other threads on here that have links to the Skiles quote about saying it was "OK" so I think it's a bit redundant to have it in every thread. Now while I may or may not agree with Sloth's initial post, I don't think it was deserving in any way of the crap he got for it. MikeDC's post was the best one, and should've stopped a lot of the crap that went on from there, but people chose to ignore it for some stupid reason. Skiles was negative at one point on him, so I think it's logical to assume that a comment saying something was simply "OK" was a negative. My personal interpretation is that he knows that Tyrus is a sensitive kid who needs to be coddled, so saying it was "OK" was the closest he could get to being honest without lying and saying it was good, or hurting his feelings by telling the truth that is sucked. What would you want your boss/coach to say when asked about your performance at work? "He's doing great", "He's alright", or "He could've done a lot better". He could've done a lot better is the accurate one in describing Tyrus' game, He's alright is basically what he really said (I personally would take that negatively if it was a critique from my coach), and He's doing great is a flat out lie.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, this thread really deteriorated into a useless bunch of BS. It was still like that even after post #8 where MikeDC posted the same info that has been all over on here recently about how Skiles made some negative comments on Tyrus about the workouts for them etc. How many links have to be shown people, come on. There are multiple other threads on here that have links to the Skiles quote about saying it was "OK" so I think it's a bit redundant to have it in every thread. Now while I may or may not agree with Sloth's initial post, I don't think it was deserving in any way of the crap he got for it. MikeDC's post was the best one, and should've stopped a lot of the crap that went on from there, but people chose to ignore it for some stupid reason. Skiles was negative at one point on him, so I think it's logical to assume that a comment saying something was simply "OK" was a negative. My personal interpretation is that he knows that Tyrus is a sensitive kid who needs to be coddled, so saying it was "OK" was the closest he could get to being honest without lying and saying it was good, or hurting his feelings by telling the truth that is sucked. What would you want your boss/coach to say when asked about your performance at work? "He's doing great", "He's alright", or "He could've done a lot better". He could've done a lot better is the accurate one in describing Tyrus' game, He's alright is basically what he really said (I personally would take that negatively if it was a critique from my coach), and He's doing great is a flat out lie.


Except that wouldn't really be consistent with Skiles track record of being brutally honest, almost to a fault. Maybe, just maybe, Skiles views these Summer League games with a grain of salt and is looking for aspects beyond the box score. In that case, maybe he WAS being honest. Who knows.

By the way, several of the posters requesting links were asking about the Aldridge quote, not the Thomas one. And they are completely justified in my opinion.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

badfish said:


> Except that wouldn't really be consistent with Skiles track record of being brutally honest, almost to a fault. Maybe, just maybe, Skiles views these Summer League games with a grain of salt and is looking for aspects beyond the box score. In that case, maybe he WAS being honest. Who knows.
> 
> By the way, several of the posters requesting links were asking about the Aldridge quote, not the Thomas one. And they are completely justified in my opinion.


A link to the Aldridge comment yeah I can see that. I guess I was taking it as they wanted links to all the Tyrus stuff, which is all over the board, and common knowledge as far as I can tell. 

As far as Skiles being brutally honest, maybe he is actually smart enough to realize that Tyrus is still a baby in need of coddling....I'm paraphrasing, but I've read stuff indicating just that countless times from numerous sources. I think it's safe to say with his comments on Tyrus at the workout that Tyrus has to work his way into being a Skiles' guy, and has an upward slope to begin with.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I think it's safe to say with his comments on Tyrus at the workout that Tyrus has to work his way into being a Skiles' guy, and has an upward slope to begin with.



Yeah, probably so. I think that's probably true for most guys. After all, he does play hard to get. :cowboy:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

badfish said:


> Yeah, probably so. I think that's probably true for most guys. After all, he does play hard to get. :cowboy:


LOL yeah. That's part of what I don't like about him. I prefer coaches who embrace the guys and get the most out of them by encouragement, not always negative towards them. I know when I played sports the coaches like him would just piss me off, whereas the coach that makes the effort to not be a jerkoff while coaching would get max results. Seems to me that most players respond better to a coach who is more like their friend than a dictator.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

historically, the best coaches are not "friends" of the players......jackson, riley, brown, popovich are all guys who may manipulate their players psychologically to achieve the means to an end, but show me a coach who's friends with the players and i'll show you a losing team. it doesn't work and it never has.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> historically, the best coaches are not "friends" of the players......jackson, riley, brown, popovich are all guys who may manipulate their players psychologically to achieve the means to an end, but show me a coach who's friends with the players and i'll show you a losing team. it doesn't work and it never has.



_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BULLHITTER again_


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> LOL yeah. That's part of what I don't like about him. I prefer coaches who embrace the guys and get the most out of them by encouragement, not always negative towards them. I know when I played sports the coaches like him would just piss me off, whereas the coach that makes the effort to not be a jerkoff while coaching would get max results.


thats not the case in Chicago. You are buying into the myth. There is no "jerkoff" around these parts. I guess this myth lives on.




> Seems to me that most players respond better to a coach who is more like their friend than a dictator.


probably the biggest myth about effective coaching is that a coach has to be buddies with players. That may be one style, perhaps your preference though its probably not exceptionaly effective to be 'friends' with your players. 

Its my view that there needs to be some fear there.

Nobody ever said you had to swap spit with your players, and I would say many great coaches don't. Throughout sports history, I would guess there have been far more great coaches who kept the players 'over there'...and the management...'over here'


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> historically, the best coaches are not "friends" of the players......jackson, riley, brown, popovich are all guys who may manipulate their players psychologically to achieve the means to an end, but show me a coach who's friends with the players and i'll show you a losing team. it doesn't work and it never has.


Look at the most recent championship, Pat Riley, he was friends with all the players. Maybe he wasn't last time he coached the Heat, but this year he was really a friend to everyone. Larry Brown wanted a loving relationship...."I love you guys" ring a bell. Greg Popovich seems to be a "friend" with a lot of his players. This doesn't really seem to be the case to me. Obviously all 3 of them need discipline, but they use positive reinforcement, something that Skiles is foreign to outside of a few select players (The members of the Scott Skiles Super Fan Club). Skiles is more hardlined than the others, and even he got friendly with Tyson and Eddy...and more than friends with hinrich (cowboy hat). Now you might be referring to a coach that tries to be best buddies with everyone on the team, which looks like the case with Isiah Thomas this year, so we'll see how that turns out this year.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

sloth said:


> Look at the most recent championship, Pat Riley, he was friends with all the players. Maybe he wasn't last time he coached the Heat, but this year he was really a friend to everyone. Larry Brown wanted a loving relationship...."I love you guys" ring a bell. Greg Popovich seems to be a "friend" with a lot of his players. This doesn't really seem to be the case to me. Obviously all 3 of them need discipline, but they use positive reinforcement, something that Skiles is foreign to outside of a few select players (The members of the Scott Skiles Super Fan Club). Skiles is more hardlined than the others, and even he got friendly with Tyson and Eddy...and more than friends with hinrich (cowboy hat). Now you might be referring to a coach that tries to be best buddies with everyone on the team, which looks like the case with Isiah Thomas this year, so we'll see how that turns out this year.


i think you have 'friendly' and 'friends' mixed up. Its not the same thing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Larry Brown wanted a loving relationship...."I love you guys" ring a bell.


Larry Brown publicly and privately rode his players to the point of mutiny. 



> Greg Popovich seems to be a "friend" with a lot of his players.


G-Pop throws his players under the bus to the media once a week (exaggeration). Especially Tony Parker. 



> Obviously all 3 of them need discipline, *but they use positive reinforcement*, something that Skiles is foreign to outside of a few select players (The members of the Scott Skiles Super Fan Club).


No they don't. Not exclusively anyway. Two of those guys are the most notorious in the entire league for publicly criticizing their players. And the third used to do it as well. 

And we really don't know what Skiles says at practice. I've seen him do a lot of positive reinforcement cheerleading on the sidelines these last few years.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Look at the most recent championship, Pat Riley, he was friends with all the players. Maybe he wasn't last time he coached the Heat, but this year he was really a friend to everyone. Larry Brown wanted a loving relationship...."I love you guys" ring a bell. Greg Popovich seems to be a "friend" with a lot of his players. This doesn't really seem to be the case to me. Obviously all 3 of them need discipline, but they use positive reinforcement, something that Skiles is foreign to outside of a few select players (The members of the Scott Skiles Super Fan Club). Skiles is more hardlined than the others, and even he got friendly with Tyson and Eddy...and more than friends with hinrich (cowboy hat). Now you might be referring to a coach that tries to be best buddies with everyone on the team, which looks like the case with Isiah Thomas this year, so we'll see how that turns out this year.


Sloth is onto my line of thinking somewhat. I didn't mean you had to be friends with the coach as in go out and get a beer with him or w/e. But friendly, with positive reinforcement. Benching players right and left is NOT the way to positively reinforce anything. Kirk is the ONLY player to start every game he played in last year. Everyone else didn't start in at least 22 games they played in. Either they're good enough to start or they're not. I also don't think they can only be positive, but a positive approach with constructive criticism is better than the just plain old criticism that I see out of Skiles. Maybe I always caught him on bad days, but that's what I saw for the most part. I wouldn't want to play for him personally, and I imagine a lot of the players don't care for it either, unless they're like Kirk or Du and are his golden boys.

And yeah he's right about Riley being buddies with his players, Jackson always seemed to have a good relationship with his players in Chicago except maybe Rodman lol, but that's to be expected and they got along pretty well considering. Larry Brown had a good relationship with his players for the most part, so that made the public criticism easier to stomach at least. I don't mean coddling when I say friendly or positive approach, but just not as negative as Skiles seems to be.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

yeah you know, I don't see the practices. But i do see the games, and I see tons of positive reinforcment during games. If I don't see Skiles applauding his players, or telling them good job as they come out, he's either silent (they know what that means, he's probably not happy) or teaching them what they did wrong. I haven't seen him yelling the lesson either. He is very intense at times, but not yelling at them.

I don't know why this is such a myth that he doesn't encourage them, because he does all the freaking time. Sure, the guys don't want him to come home for dinner because, lets face it, Skiles has no warmth or personality in the workplace or with co workers. I'm sure that would be like hanging out with your HS principle. Creepy and awkward.....Then again, thats got nothing to do with getting your point across to your students. 

Going out for milkshakes?...not required


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i think the perceived "negativity" is based on skiles' deameanor which on the surface seems edgy and/or caustic, but each of the coaches previously mentioned have had their personal "whipping boys" (popvich and parker, jackson and kukoc, riley and many of the knicks and 90's heat bunch) and the players, for better or worse prospered from it. players like chandler, who are used to being coddled since high school are harder to reach because the nba as a business only views players as commodities who either produce or are gone; which is chandler's case is the latter. 

i highly doubt byron scott will be any easier for chandler to perform for than skiles, being that scott is from the same old school mentality of "produce or sit". coaches are paid to win, players are paid to play; if a player doesn't play well a coach can't win, so if it's my butt on the line versus some guy getting 10mil to just grab rebounds, i'm riding his azz with steel spurs until i get what i want, or else move his butt to oklahoma city, which is precisely what paxson elected to do. 5 years is enough to know if a guy's got it or not. the 3C's didn't, and pax cut bait which is what a good gm should do.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> i think the perceived "negativity" is based on skiles' deameanor which on the surface seems edgy and/or caustic,


exactly. LOts of people don't want to get beyond the fact that Skiles has no personality or warmth. He's General Patton. But Patton was a great General. And Skiles is actually much nicer than Patton :biggrin: 



> but each of the coaches previously mentioned have had their personal "whipping boys" (popvich and parker, jackson and kukoc, riley and many of the knicks and 90's heat bunch) and the players, for better or worse prospered from it. players like chandler, who are used to being coddled since high school are harder to reach because the nba as a business only views players as commodities who either produce or are gone; which is chandler's case is the latter.


I don't even think Skiles has whipping boys. I don't believe he's that calculating. He's direct. He's honest. If you don't do what he wants, you are just off his merry go round. He's not worrying about ploys IMO. He's just done with you. He'll check with you later if he's desperate. But he will let you make mistakes as long as you have the right approach. All the players know exactly whats going on. There is no confusion unless the player is just stupid



> i highly doubt byron scott will be any easier for chandler to perform for than skiles, being that scott is from the same old school mentality of "produce or sit". coaches are paid to win, players are paid to play; if a player doesn't play well a coach can't win, so if it's my butt on the line versus some guy getting 10mil to just grab rebounds, i'm riding his azz with steel spurs until i get what i want, or else move his butt to oklahoma city, which is precisely what paxson elected to do. 5 years is enough to know if a guy's got it or not. the 3C's didn't, and pax cut bait which is what a good gm should do.


for that matter, no ex Bull has ever been treated different by any subsequent coach from another team. None. 

And actually, most Bulls coaches have treated most Bulls the same as other Bulls coaches. Its all about the players, not the coach. Face it, we've had a bad patch of players through here. I think they got more than their fair share of slack from all Bulls coaches.

I'm waiting to see what Zeke does the first time some Knick decides he's not going to play screens the way he wants it done on defense. If he coddles them, it'll be the first time they've been coddled really for on the court mistakes. That won't work either way


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)




----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

OziBull said:


>


:greatjob:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

OziBull said:


>


Judging from this picture, I don't think I ever want to see Skiles smile again. I think I'd be less frightened if he just stared at me through an entire meal...


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

haha nah he is not letting go of tyrus arm and it is starting to hurt as you can see on tyrus face.
nah its all love with skiles and tryus


----------

