# Dick Vermeil Agrees With Krause



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

Certain Bulls-bashers take great joy in calling him out for his "organizations win championships" statement.

Well, check out this quote from last Wednesday, courtesy of current KC Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil:

*You build a championship organization, not a championship team. The whole organization succeeds and that's why you end up with a world championship*

http://patriots.com/games/GamesDeta...id=20322&infotype=REPORT&flag=resubmit&bhcp=1

Looks like it's time for certain people to head to the nearest St. Louis Rams message board so they can "inform" Rams' fans that Vermeil gives all the credit for the Rams' Super Bowl win to the organization, not to Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> Certain Bulls-bashers take great joy in calling him out for his "organizations win championships" statement.
> 
> Well, check out this quote from last Wednesday, courtesy of current KC Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil:
> ...


BullsNews, I tend to disagree.

What Vermeil has to say is great because he is speaking from experience, and more specifically experience within a pro football organization. That's great. But this has little or nothing to do with pro basketball and/or pro basketball organizations. I think you are quoting him out of context to say he 'is agreeing' with something Jerry K had said. That is just not the case.

It is generally agreed upon that the dynamics of pro football organizations greatly differ from that of pro basketball. This is due to salary cap restrictions, the large number of player contracts, high player turnover, etc. Its plain and simple, a different game.

So I respect what Vermeil has to say, both as a successful coach at every level and a great spokesman for the game. But to abstractly compare his quote out of context to a prior quote by a GM in another sport altogether doesn't make sense to me. Sorry.


VD


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I'll side with BullsNews on this one 

To me , the answer is obvious.

No one player ( or small cluster thereof ) does it on their own 

It does not matter if it is Football, Basketball, Tiddlywinks or marbles.

Dick Vermeil aside .. I wonder what the reaction would have been if Jerry West made the statement


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Re: Dick Vermeil Agrees With Krause*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> BullsNews, I tend to disagree.
> ...


You make a lot of good points, but Vermeil was still making the same point that Krause made- you need a championship *organization* to win a title, no matter what the sport.

The owner hires the GM, the GM hires the scouts, who recommends players to the GM, who signs or drafts the players, the GM hires the coach, and so on and so on.

Just look at what Robert Kraft has done with my Super Bowl Champion Patriots- he let Parcells walk instead of giving him the GM job, because the Pats already had a fine GM. Parcells took the Giants to a pair of Super Bowls with a GM, and he took the Pats to a Super Bowl with a GM. Did he ever take the Jets to a Super Bowl when *he* was the GM?

Kraft let one of the greatest coaches in NFL history walk instead of making him GM, and my Pats have turned out OK.

Want a basketball example? Just look at the Lakers. Jerry West brought Shaq to town, and he traded for some HS kid. Jerry Buss hired Phil to be the coach, and he also hired West to be the GM.

Can you give me one example of a team in any sport that won a title with incompetent ownership and management?

Yeah, it may be a reach to say that Vermeil agrees with Krause- but they both make the same point, you need a championship organization to put a championship team on the field/court/ice.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> I'll side with BullsNews on this one
> 
> To me , the answer is obvious.
> ...


Actually, I think this whole thread is a pretty non-subtle troll, but I'll step in to point out that I think using a quote from someone in one sport to support another isn't all that useful.

If this were any kind of jumping off point for meaningful debate (rather than another boring Jerry Krause love/hate fest) it would have been acknowledged from the getgo that it's obvious that the mechanics of football and basketball are way different. Put the top couple players in the league on any football team, and you've maybe got a .500 team. Do the same in basketball and you've got yourself a serious title contender.

As far as other sports... "organizations win championships" is a nonsense statement for many. Did the Pete Sampras Organization will all those Grand Slam titles? Of course he had trainers and whatnot... but if the "organizations win championships" theory is just one that points out something so obvious as "gee, you need a trainer, scouts, managers, etc to win" (i.e. something every team has and improve at), then it's so vaccuous as to be without any real utility.


----------



## pduh02 (May 28, 2002)

I totally agree on that one.......

I want to define with my own words of championship organization.

Championship Organization: Is a management build a team for a future to win championship to build their own dynasty. Or the word out of dynasty but to win champions organization of managments hire coaches to do their jobs and drafting a right player. The whole organization work together I'm not only talk about managment I talk about the whole organization like management as in general manager, owner, the front office, players, coaches, and etc. Work as a organization working together to build a championship organization, team, etc.

Thats my own defination of championship organization. My main point is the whole organization not just the players, not just the coaches, not just the managment in front office but the whole organization work as a building championship organization.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*To narrow it down further....*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I think this whole thread is a pretty non-subtle troll, but I'll step in to point out that I think using a quote from someone in one sport to support another isn't all that useful.
> ...




Simply put, I believe the less number of participants you have, the greater impact the two will make....nuff said.:grinning:


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The comments made are more to try and spread credit around instead of just saying one guy is the cause of it all. You know, the old organizational speech giving credit to everyone, including the popcorn vendors.

In reality, many people could be excluded from the equation and you still win championships. With the Bulls there was one guy, MJ, who we would not have won any if we didn't have. Does that mean he is the only reason we won? No, but he was by far the biggest reason. That doesn't mean he did it all by himself.

The problem I have with the comment when Krause made it is that he was always so desperate for attention and positive credit. In his own way I think it was a call to people saying he wanted some credit. Krause has never been a good person with the media, going on and on exagerating about things. And he always had the knack for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. For his sake he should think before he speaks, or try not speaking much at all. Let BJ do the talking.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

If Jerry West made this declaration, it would certainly become the NBA slogan. Writers all accross the nation would all chant in harmony "organizations win championships, organizations win championships..." and would very eloquently demonstrate that this is another reason why West is the best GM in the league.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>laso</b>!
> 
> 
> If Jerry West made this declaration, it would certainly become the NBA slogan. Writers all accross the nation would all chant in harmony "organizations win championships, organizations win championships..." and would very eloquently demonstrate that this is another reason why West is the best GM in the league.



Uhhh, for the folks that don't know it, when Krause made that statement he was quoting an earlier statement made by....you guessed it...Jerry West. The original statement "orginizations win championships" was first attributed to Jerry West, then Krause borrowed it. Of course Krause is villified for saying it and noone even hardly remembers West saying it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, for the folks that don't know it, when Krause made that statement he was quoting an earlier statement made by....you guessed it...Jerry West. The original statement "orginizations win championships" was first attributed to Jerry West, then Krause borrowed it. Of course Krause is villified for saying it and noone even hardly remembers West saying it.


Of course, this seems remarkably unfair if one ignores the contexts in which the statements were made.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

As many others have pointed out in similar threads, the JK quote was spoken at a Bulls organization function, and was intended as a compliment to the Bulls staffers, rather than a statement of policy, or an attempt to limit the importance of the actual players. To some extent, it is a quote that is just as much meaningless fluff as "there is no I in team."

On the other hand, what he said is absolutely true, in football, basketball, baseball or just about any team sport.

If it wasn't true in basketball, a truly great player like Patrick Ewing would have 2 or 3 rings. In more ways than one, the Knicks organization blew that chance for him (just one example, of many).


BTW, while there is no "I" in team, there is a "ME" in team. There is also an "Eat" in team, a "Mat" in team, a "Meat" in team, and so forth. I always thought that expression was trite and lame.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, for the folks that don't know it, when Krause made that statement he was quoting an earlier statement made by....you guessed it...Jerry West. The original statement "orginizations win championships" was first attributed to Jerry West, then Krause borrowed it. Of course Krause is villified for saying it and noone even hardly remembers West saying it.


Ace you may well be right about this.

Can you find any sort of link supporting the fact that Jerry West first made such a statement? I have never found one. Jerry Krause did not 'borrow' it in lieu of something previously said by Jerry West (if so, why wouldn't he have quoted or given credit to Jerry West?)... rather it was his subtle way of trying to gain credit for the dynasty. As if his moves alone made the Bulls win 6 titles.

I agree Jerry K should get some credit for surround the greatest player ever with cogs that would build a dynasty. But his statement about 'organizations win championships', especially in light of having the best player and coach in the history of basketball, clearly showed his hubris. Jerry K can surely grate people the wrong way, but like it or not, he will forever be remember for having said this.


VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I think you guys all continue to miss the point about Krause's statement.

Krause is certainly not the first to have uttered such words (or words to that effect). Others in this thread have indicated that Jerry West and Dick Vermeil have made similar statements. I seem to recall Bill Walsh making such a statement (but I can't back it up at the moment). I'm quite certain there have been many others throughout history.

There is one difference and one difference only in Krause's situation. He had a star player-- a player who also happened to be perhaps the greatest player in the history of the game, and a player who certainly was one of the biggest media darlings in the history of sport-- who took exception to the statement. If Jordan doesn't come out and publicly take exception, Krause's statement is largely ignored.

People like to point out that Krause made the statement because he felt he was underappreciated. Well, is there any doubt about this? He is certainly the single most under-appreciated sports executive in history. The fact that players such as Jordan and coaches such as Phil Jackson-- who have the world at their feet-- cannot and have not to my knowledge publicly given Krause one shred of credit for his contribution to the Bulls success is, in my opinion, shameful.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> As many others have pointed out in similar threads, the JK quote was spoken at a Bulls organization function, and was intended as a compliment to the Bulls staffers, rather than a statement of policy, or an attempt to limit the importance of the actual players. To some extent, it is a quote that is just as much meaningless fluff as "there is no I in team."


This could be the case. It is certainly not remember as such by the popular media. Does anyone have a link to support this?



> On the other hand, what he said is absolutely true, in football, basketball, baseball or just about any team sport.


Okay. Yeah lets open it up to cricket, bobsledding, and 12 inch softball. Haha just kidding bro.



> If it wasn't true in basketball, a truly great player like Patrick Ewing would have 2 or 3 rings. In more ways than one, the Knicks organization blew that chance for him (just one example, of many).


sorry to defeat your only example here but... Ewing would have gotten a ring if he would have showed up in the 4th quarter of game 7 versus the Rockets. Instead, he let Starks shoot himself out of the building. You cannot justify a star players' personal ineptitude by differing the blame on the organization. Please. Ewing was in position to win titles, its just that MJ and Starks (that one season) defeated his chances.

These are all valid points. In team sports, organization assemble teams that win championships. But the championship Bulls were a special case. An exception to the rule? Yes. They had the greatest player ever to play pro basketball and arguably the greatest coach ever. To give credit to the organization in light of this, is viewed as preposterious to many. So most attribute those 6 championships to MJ's desire, skill, will to win and make those around him better. To a lesser degree, Jerry K surrounded the greatest ever with cogs to win those championships.

As history will remember it, MJ and PJ will get the lion-share of the credit for the BUlls dynasty. I'm fine with that. Jerry K had one great draft in 10 seasons and made some nice minor personnel moves. He's a decent GM and a good evaluator of talent. That's the way I'll remember him.


VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace you may well be right about this.
> ...


No. I don't have a link for the West quote. Quite frankly the quote was made a LONG time ago and has been forgotten by many. But, I have read reports and articles in the past referring to West making the comment before and Krause "borrowing" it. I don't think he credited West because it is a trite saying like "there is no I in team" Attributing credit would be sort of silly. I disagree that Krause made this statement because of hubris or a feeling of being underapprecciated. It gets lost in the shuffle a lot of the time that Krause made these comments to the Bulls staffers at an orginizational party to thank them for their hard work. To me, it seems that he was trying to give credit to the people who work under him, which I consider a noble thing to do. 

My personal opinion on the comment is that it is a truism. I can't even really conceive of why ANYONE would find fault with such a comment. Particularly in light of the context which it was given. I think most folks remember MJ saying something about Krause making the comment more than they remember where or why Krause even made it. While it may seem like undo pride or tooting your own horn, the statement is factual. Orginizations DO win championships. Of course, the orginization includes in very large part the players. Still, if it weren't for the GM, those players would not be on the team! Likewise, if it weren't for the coach they would not have an offensive or defensive strategy, if it weren't for the conditioning coach they might not have the conditioning needed to win. If it weren't for the ticket taker at the box office the orginization might not have enough to pay it's players. You can take this on and on and on. The point is that the orginization is a large group of people that all have a job to do. The culmination of which is what we see on the court. SO while the players may deserve 90% of the credit, what is so wrong with the rest of the "team" getting some credit too? 


:wbanana: :vbanana: :cbanana: :bbanana: 


New bannana's!!!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> This could be the case. It is certainly not remember as such by the popular media. Does anyone have a link to support this?
> 
> ...


PJ wouldn't have even been coach of the Bulls if Krause hadn't "discovered" him and brought him up from the CBA. Also, there is no gurantee that Jordan would have won a ring on another team. A large part of success is who you have around you. Ewing was a great player too, but he couldn't get it done with his supporting staff...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

This whole "Organizations win Championships" thing is waaaayyyy overblown. This is a concept that is as old as mankind itself. 

Every management consultant who has ever come down the pike has chanted the same mantra: Organization, organization, organization. Why? Because it's true. There's nothing revolutionary in this idea. It's the organization that makes the business work, whether it's baseball, basketball, football or corporate business.

Why does this have to be an either/or argument. One cannot exist without the other. Without the organization, there is no team and without a team, how can there be organization?

You can make the argument that Jordan and Jackson won all those championships, but as far as I could tell, there were 14 other players on those teams. Plus coaches, trainers, scouts and the like. MJ didn't/couldn't do it by himself. Those other players had to somehow get on the team, did they not? Did they just magically appear or did some sort of _organization_ bring them in?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*My duece coppers*

I think that Krause caught additional heat for a statement that on the surface is obvious because it was common knowledge that he looked forward to trying to build a winner post-Jordan even if that resulting in tearing things up early. The "organization" will win again.



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> People like to point out that Krause made the statement because he felt he was underappreciated. Well, is there any doubt about this? He is certainly the single most under-appreciated sports executive in history.


Most underappreciated in sports history?? Well, this can't be based on ESPNs latest rankings of GMs. 



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> The fact that players such as Jordan and coaches such as Phil Jackson-- who have the world at their feet-- cannot and have not to my knowledge publicly given Krause one shred of credit for his contribution to the Bulls success is, in my opinion, shameful.


With Jordan, clearly it got too personal between the two which as a Chicagoan is quite unfortunent. And, given that Krause did his best to run Jackson out of town on a rail, I think Jackson has been generous in his comments regarding Krause.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> ....
> 
> My personal opinion on the comment is that it is a truism. I can't even really conceive of why ANYONE would find fault with such a comment. Particularly in light of the context which it was given. I think most folks remember MJ saying something about Krause making the comment more than they remember where or why Krause even made it. While it may seem like undo pride or tooting your own horn, the statement is factual. Orginizations DO win championships. Of course, the orginization includes in very large part the players. Still, if it weren't for the GM, those players would not be on the team! Likewise, if it weren't for the coach they would not have an offensive or defensive strategy, if it weren't for the conditioning coach they might not have the conditioning needed to win. If it weren't for the ticket taker at the box office the orginization might not have enough to pay it's players. You can take this on and on and on. The point is that the orginization is a large group of people that all have a job to do. The culmination of which is what we see on the court. SO while the players may deserve 90% of the credit, what is so wrong with the rest of the "team" getting some credit too?
> ...


Well said, Ace.

I do give Jerry K credit for drafting Pippen and Grant, finding PJ, and assembling other cogs to the dynasty. He deserves some of the credit for the 6 rings. Yet most mass media gives the sole credit to PJ and MJ. Hmm.... that is unfortunate but is the ugly truth I guess.

What's done is done and that 'organizations' quote can be argued to the bloody death. I give Jerry props for his past moves no doubt. His present moves leave much to be desired however (past 4 seasons). I leave that for another thread. Either way, I think its time for Jerry K to hang 'em up. Ride off into the sunset, retire to Tijuana, drink some Coronas and occasionally scout Bennetton Treviso in Europe for the Bulls.


VD


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I still think the greatest Krause quote was when he was called for information on how to contact Phil Jackson to talk about the Bulls Championship and Krause asked why would he want to talk to PJ, he was just the coach.

Krause's comments must be viewed with full knowledge of all his other actions.

I think the Florida Marlins won the WS despite management, and solely because of the players and coach. The team was bought, and quickly went back to obscurity because of the management.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> BTW, while there is no "I" in team, there is a "ME" in team. There is also an "Eat" in team, a "Mat" in team, a "Meat" in team, and so forth. I always thought that expression was trite and lame.


Team eat meet, mate? Meet me at ATM. Eat'm, team! Team ate meat at meet. At meet, team-mate Mat ate team!!!! Mat ate team? EAT ME!!! Me eat Ammee!!! Mmmmmmmm.....

:banana: :wbanana: :bbanana: :rbanana: :cbanana: :vbanana::gbanana:


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

why do people whine about the lack of team play in NBA basketball, and praise to the heavans how great the team-play and coaching was with the argentinians and european teams during the WCs, yet when it comes to krause saying organizations win championships and not neccesarily individuals..... then krause gets bashed? basketball is a TEAM sport, on and OFF the court, or does that only apply when team USA is getting their #### handed to them in the World Championships?


----------



## Newguy (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I still think the greatest Krause quote was when he was called for information on how to contact Phil Jackson to talk about the Bulls Championship and Krause asked why would he want to talk to PJ, he was just the coach.


I'm guessing that you find your life to be very blissful.



> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Krause's comments must be viewed with full knowledge of all his other actions.


Jerry bashers please take note.



> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I think the Florida Marlins won the WS despite management, and solely because of the players and coach. The team was bought, and quickly went back to obscurity because of the management.


And there you have it. The exception to the rule IS the rule.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I think the Florida Marlins won the WS despite management, and solely because of the players and coach. The team was bought, and quickly went back to obscurity because of the management.


Really? And who put those players on the roster and hired the "coach" (I'll assume you meant manager)? Or maybe the 25 players, the coaching staff, the clubhouse staff, et al, just got together and said "Hey, the weather in Florida is nice, let's go start a baseball team in Miami". 

And if you want to comment on the Marlins, please get your facts straight. Huzinga (misspelled) broke up that team long before he sold it, because despite winning a World Series, they couldn't even draw 20,000 fans and he was losing money left and right. Wayne figured that if he paid the money to put a winning team on the field, the fans would come. Well, he was wrong- they won a WS and he *still* lost money.

Of course, a lot of the Marlins' problems stem from the fact that there are a lot more Yankee fans in South Florida than there are Marlins fans.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> 
> 
> Really? And who put those players on the roster and hired the "coach" (I'll assume you meant manager)? Or maybe the 25 players, the coaching staff, the clubhouse staff, et al, just got together and said "Hey, the weather in Florida is nice, let's go start a baseball team in Miami".
> ...


I am sure Wayne was thinking he was going to keep that lineup in subsequent years when he bought those players. 

So your argument breaks down to this. If a team has won a championship it must be because the management put the coach/manager there and because they sign all the players. Therefore, it is indeed "organizations" that win championships.

Pardon me if I don't buy it, and instead believe that players can win despite the machinations of a GM that pretty much just had to get out of MJs way.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I think you guys all continue to miss the point about Krause's statement.
> 
> Krause is certainly not the first to have uttered such words (or words to that effect). Others in this thread have indicated that Jerry West and Dick Vermeil have made similar statements. I seem to recall Bill Walsh making such a statement (but I can't back it up at the moment). I'm quite certain there have been many others throughout history.
> ...


Great post, Kneepad. Maybe the problem is that MJ thinks he walks on water, and everything good that ever happened to the Bulls organization was due to him and him alone. I would say he gives Phil some credit, but when Krause first hired Phil, MJ was the most anti-Phil, anti-Triangle guy on the team. I guess MJ has forgotten that he didn't start winning titles until he began playing TEAM ball and trusting his teammates- all of whom were put on the team by KRAUSE.

Vermeil had Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk, Walsh had Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, and West had Magic and Kareem. I guess all of those players had enough class to give those around them some of the credit...


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> I am sure Wayne was thinking he was going to keep that lineup in subsequent years when he bought those players. Give me a break.


Damn, now you're psychic- I'm impressed. 



> So your argument breaks down to this. If a team has won a championship it must be because the management put the coach/manager there and because they sign all the players. Therefore, it is indeed "organizations" that win championships.
> 
> *Pardon me if I don't buy it, and instead believe that players can win despite the machinations of a GM that pretty much just had to get out of MJs way.*


This coming from a guy who argued that MJ would have MAYBE won ONE RING without Pippen. Or are you going to deny making that statement?

But hey, we all know how you operate, so go ahead and change your tune again to fit this argument.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> Maybe the problem is that MJ thinks he walks on water, and everything good that ever happened to the Bulls organization was due to him and him alone. I would say he gives Phil some credit, but when Krause first hired Phil, MJ was the most anti-Phil, anti-Triangle guy on the team. I guess MJ has forgotten that he didn't start winning titles until he began playing TEAM ball and trusting his teammates- all of whom were put on the team by KRAUSE.


Sure.

Michael Jordan made those around him better. Did the Bulls win b/c of playing better 'team' ball? Yes. But this is due to Jordan's maturation as a player, and less b/c of great signings by Jerry Krause. Case in point, what has any of these 'role players' done after leaving Chicago? Nada. It was MJ that pushed their respective games to another level, and MJ that was the 'real' on the floor coach of the Bulls dynasty. His relentless play, on the practice floor and in games, pushed others to excellence. So the credit must be given to MJ for bringing their games to another level.

The list goes on: Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, Scott Williams, Bobby Hansen, Livingston, Simpkins, Caffey, BJ, and to a lesser degree Pippen and Grant. Most of these guys are NBA journeymen who enjoyed success largely on MJ's coattails. And some of then even got fat contracts b/c of it, and never lived up to prior production playing w/ MJ. Pippen and Grant aside, these players were marginal talents and nothing to get excited about. They got rings, and have done nothing since that time. Did Jerry K bring them in? Yes. Any other GM could have done so my friend.

So it boils down to this... MJ's maturation as a player contributed the MOST to the Bulls winning championships. He made everyone around him better. Jerry K (or another GM for that matter) could have given the Bulls other NBA journeymen and still won rings. So who gets the credit here? In large part, MJ. In small part, Jerry K. Jerry K surrounded the best player in the planet w/ servicable cogs to win titles.


VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> I am sure Wayne was thinking he was going to keep that lineup in subsequent years when he bought those players. Give me a break.
> ...



Hmmm...This is an interesting thought. I supposse technically the team MUST have won because of the orginization because without the orginization they wouldn't be there, they did win, the orginization did put them in place...therefore the orginization did win a championship...in spite of themselves? Maybe, some franchises make what appear to be stupid decisions that sometimes in the end are brilliant. I don't follow baseball at all, so I don't know what the reality is, other than it's fairly obvious that the orginization, almost by definition, had some part in the championship. It's sort of like the chicken and the egg argument.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> 
> 
> Damn, now you're psychic- I'm impressed.
> ...


Actually, I said MJ would have won _at least_ one ring without Pippen.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...This is an interesting thought. I supposse technically the team MUST have won because of the orginization because without the orginization they wouldn't be there, they did win, the orginization did put them in place...therefore the orginization did win a championship...in spite of themselves? Maybe, some franchises make what appear to be stupid decisions that sometimes in the end are brilliant. I don't follow baseball at all, so I don't know what the reality is, other than it's fairly obvious that the orginization, almost by definition, had some part in the championship. It's sort of like the chicken and the egg argument.


Very similar to a chicken and egg argument, except we know that MJ preceded Krause.

I can also safely say that without MJ, Krause wins nothing. But you don't have to believe that, that is just my opinion.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I said MJ would have won at least one ring without Pippen, but don't let the truth confuse you.


I can't HANDLE the truth!!!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!


(cut to dancing bannanas)


:rbanana: :gbanana: :banana: :wbanana: :vbanana: :cbanana: :bbanana: 



(this has been an ACE inc production)


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure.
> ...


What about Phil, doesn't he get some of the credit? After all, he's the one who brought in the Triangle, and he's the one who convinced MJ to play team ball. MJ himself claims to have retired the 2nd time because he would play for no other coach.

And who hired Phil?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Very similar to a chicken and egg argument, except we know that MJ preceded Krause.
> ...


I was speaking more about the Marlins analogy you gave on that one. Still, I see your point about MJ already being in place. Also funny that Rod Thorne was bummed that he got stuck with MJ and couldn't get Hakeem or Bowie. Your point has some validity because Krause has never won without MJ. Of course when MJ was retired the Bulls came awfully close to pushing on without him. But, phantom calls aside, MJ did preceed Krause just as MJ & Kobe preceeded Phil Jackson. Using the same argument you could say that PJ was given championships by the virtue of the rosters he inherited. I think the true test of Krause will come when the rebuilding is complete. I also have to take umbrage with the notion that ANY GM could have simply surrounded MJ with the appropriate pieces and collected their championship rings. Building a team is not quite that simple. While former Bulls players have not been that succesful away from the Bulls, Krause did find players that fit into the system well and worked with MJ. Even though MJ is the greatest ever and would have been awesome on any team, there is also no guarantee that he would have had any rings without Krause. I believe, of course, that it is more likely that he would have had rings without Krause than Krause would have had without him, but you never know. For all we know he might have traded for MJ if MJ wasn't already on the team.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> I can also safely say that without MJ, Krause wins nothing. But you don't have to believe that, that is just my opinion.


At least we'll find out if Krause can win without MJ, and vice versa.

Everyone agrees that even last season, MJ was one of the ten best players in the league. Yet he "managed" to lead the Wiz to a 30-30 record when he played. Yeah, I'm impressed...


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I give all my credit to Tex Winter. If he had not written a book on the Triangle offense, there would have never been a triangle offense and MJ would never have won anything.

Thanks, Tex Winter. Coaches who design offensive systems win championships, not players or organizations.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I give all my credit to Tex Winter. If he had not written a book on the Triangle offense, there would have never been a triangle offense and MJ would never have won anything.
> 
> Thanks, Tex Winter. Coaches who design offensive systems win championships, not players or organizations.



I agree that Tex deserves a lot of credit. The guy is masterful at designing offensive and even defensive schemes. He never got enough credit IMO. Still, I have to remind you that HE was a part of the orginization, brought in by none other than Jerry Krause unless I am mistaken.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I think it's darn near impossible to factor out Krause's or MJ's contribution, Who made the Lakers champions Jerry West, or Shaq, think each point is almost the same Both guys played tremendous part in a championship happening, I hear people say that all the time about MJ winning titles without Pippen ,but fact is he didn't, in fact it wasn't until Pippen got over the physical and Mental hurdle that was the Pistons that they were able to suceed,Pippen was one hell of a find by Krause who alot of people at the time thought he was crazy to pick. Mj's selection is the single most important thing to ever happen to the franchise, simply put he reinvigorated the city.So I don't think either played a part does Jordan win a title without Pippen I doubt it he was to valuable as a perimeter defender,ball handler,and secondary scorer, if nott for him Jordan would've been a big scorer who would've been routinely beaten by the Knicks and the Cavs, at the same time without Jordan there wouldn't even be a discussion.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I was speaking more about the Marlins analogy you gave on that one. Still, I see your point about MJ already being in place. Also funny that Rod Thorne was bummed that he got stuck with MJ and couldn't get Hakeem or Bowie. Your point has some validity because Krause has never won without MJ. Of course when MJ was retired the Bulls came awfully close to pushing on without him. But, phantom calls aside, MJ did preceed Krause just as MJ & Kobe preceeded Phil Jackson. Using the same argument you could say that PJ was given championships by the virtue of the rosters he inherited. I think the true test of Krause will come when the rebuilding is complete. I also have to take umbrage with the notion that ANY GM could have simply surrounded MJ with the appropriate pieces and collected their championship rings. Building a team is not quite that simple. While former Bulls players have not been that succesful away from the Bulls, Krause did find players that fit into the system well and worked with MJ. Even though MJ is the greatest ever and would have been awesome on any team, there is also no guarantee that he would have had any rings without Krause. I believe, of course, that it is more likely that he would have had rings without Krause than Krause would have had without him, but you never know. For all we know he might have traded for MJ if MJ wasn't already on the team.


I agree that you are not going to be able to separate the two until Krause wins one without MJ or MJ the player wins one without Krause. The chance of MJ the player winning another is almost non-existant, so all we have is that MJ was perhaps the greatest player of all time. Some will argue, I am sure, that Krause had a hand in that as well, but MJs work ethic is legendary. I somehow doubt Krause gave MJ his heart, as much as Krause might protest that he did.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> 
> 
> What about Phil, doesn't he get some of the credit? After all, he's the one who brought in the Triangle, and he's the one who convinced MJ to play team ball. MJ himself claims to have retired the 2nd time because he would play for no other coach.
> ...


Jerry K, my man.

Hey I hope I'm not coming across as a Krause-basher, b/c I don't consider myself one. If you've followed my past postings, I said that I give Jerry K credit for 3 things: 1 great draft in 10 years, hiring Phil, and surrounding the greatest player ever w/ servicable cogs to win 6 titles.

I'm not hatin' Jerry K at all... its just that I give the majority of the credit (in my mind) for the 6 blingbling rings to MJ: his maturation as a player, his ability to make those around him better, his on-the-floor coaching of teammates, and his clutch game. We will never see another like him. Jerry K of course played a part in the team's success. That cannot be disputed. The debatable part is just how much credit Jerry K should be given. And hopefully I've geared my postings to argue that core issue.


VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think MJ was the greatest player to ever lacethem up and I don't credit Krause for that, I credit MJ. I do, however, think Krause and ALL of the Bulls orginization are entitled to a small percentage of gratitude since they helped win the titles. In fact, I shook Will Perdue's hand the other day and thanked him for helping bring thr rings to Chi-town, his response was..."It was a team effort, I was only a small part of it".


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

Great point, ACE- people convienently forget that in 1993, the Bulls won 57 games. MJ retired, and in 1994, the Bulls won 55 games WITHOUT MJ. Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong were all ALL-STARS WITHOUT MJ.

That would seem to indicate that the team that Krause built around MJ was pretty damn good on it's own- but I'm sure the Krause-haters will find a way to explain that one away as well.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Tex deserves a lot of credit. The guy is masterful at designing offensive and even defensive schemes. He never got enough credit IMO. Still, I have to remind you that HE was a part of the orginization, brought in by none other than Jerry Krause unless I am mistaken.


I know he was around but he wrote his book on the triangle offense before joining the Bulls.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> Great point, ACE- people convienently forget that in 1993, the Bulls won 57 games. MJ retired, and in 1994, the Bulls won 55 games WITHOUT MJ. Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong were all ALL-STARS WITHOUT MJ.
> 
> That would seem to indicate that the team that Krause built around MJ was pretty damn good on it's own- but I'm sure the Krause-haters will find a way to explain that one away as well.


There is nothing to explain. They were all very good players that were unable to win it without MJ, the one player Krause gets no credit for.

It was no coincidence that the Bulls won their championships only when MJ played with them for the entire season.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Deja vu*

We beat this one to death a while ago....

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?topic=65079&forum=10&start=12



> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> What about Phil, doesn't he get some of the credit? After all, he's the one who brought in the Triangle, and he's the one who convinced MJ to play team ball. MJ himself claims to have retired the 2nd time because he would play for no other coach.
> 
> And who hired Phil?


The guy who hired Phil has already anwsered your initial question...

From David Halberstam's book, Billy Packer told of a story of calling Krause and asking for Jackson's phone number as Billy was writing a book about championship coachers. Krause told Packer that Packer should not talk to Jackson because Krause had build the team and hired Jackson. 

Packer said something to the effect of how pathetic and sad Krause is. 

This little example shows why Krause catches heat for saying things that others can say without any problems.

p.s. Halberstam has a Pulitzer and wrote the intro in for NBA at Fifty so he has the respect of the league office.

p.p.s Can't wait until Oct 1. !!!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> Great point, ACE- people convienently forget that in 1993, the Bulls won 57 games. MJ retired, and in 1994, the Bulls won 55 games WITHOUT MJ. Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong were all ALL-STARS WITHOUT MJ.
> 
> That would seem to indicate that the team that Krause built around MJ was pretty damn good on it's own- but I'm sure the Krause-haters will find a way to explain that one away as well.


See my point concerning the 3 things I give Jerry K credit for.

The team in 93-94 was very good, but didn't win a ring. Period. How about a year after that, when Grant was let go (after a seedy handshake deal sealed by Bulls management) and the great Larry Kristoviak was brought in to play the PF? Puh-lease. Those two years balance out in my mind. One great, the other abismal. The lesser year did help expediate MJ's return though.


VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> See my point concerning the 3 things I give Jerry K credit for.
> ...



You have to wonder though if that 93-94 squad may have done better if they were built to be a contender without MJ. Add a player like Reggie Miller to the team to take MJ's place and how much further would they have gone? Conversly, you can ask what would they do if they had never had MJ's influence? Would they have even made it? Who knows.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> You have to wonder though if that 93-94 squad may have done better if they were built to be a contender without MJ. Add a player like Reggie Miller to the team to take MJ's place and how much further would they have gone? Conversly, you can ask what would they do if they had never had MJ's influence? Would they have even made it? Who knows.


True, true.

Pippen would still have been a great player, no doubt, but I think day-in day-out practices against MJ made him a very special player. He showed in '93-'94 that he could carry a playoff team as well. I was really happy for the guy. He receieved lots of negative press throughout the years, so it was nice that he redeemed himself to a certain degree.

I still wish Grant had been re-signed longterm. I point to that event as the start of any real grumblings against Bulls management....


VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Michael Jordan made those around him better. Did the Bulls win b/c of playing better 'team' ball? Yes. But this is due to Jordan's maturation as a player, and less b/c of great signings by Jerry Krause. Case in point, what has any of these 'role players' done after leaving Chicago? Nada. It was MJ that pushed their respective games to another level...


Point taken, Vin.

However, I would counter by pointing out the 1993-94 season, when Pippen, Grant, and the rest of the 'role players' proceeded to win just 2 fewer games than the previous year's team did with Jordan, and came within an eyelash of reaching the Finals where most would listed them the favorite against Houston.

And if you ask Scottie Pippen, his failure in Houston was the result of the "culture shock" of going from the Triangle offense, which played to Pippen's skills and strengths as a player, to the typical isolation offense or two-man game run by most NBA teams.



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> So it boils down to this... MJ's maturation as a player contributed the MOST to the Bulls winning championships.


Yes, but who was it that spearheaded MJ's maturation? I would argue that it was Krause (and, interestingly, Reinsdorf) who identified the fact that the Bulls as a team were unlikely to win a championship playing Michael-ball, and had the guts to replace a very popular coach in Doug Collins with a totally unproven former CBA coach. I wonder how many coaches who have take their teams to the Conference Finals have gotten canned? Collins may be the only one.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Point taken, Vin.
> 
> ...


Good post Kneepad.

I love these threads involving Jerry K... they always seem to get everyone all riled up. And yes, inevitably the blood boils it turns into a MJ vs. Jerry K debate, which is kind of peculiar if you ask me.

In reality it was MJ AND Jerry K that contributed to the Bulls success. Better yet, thrown in PJ, Pip, and the rest of the Bulls. Now the point I am trying to argue is that when the ****e his the fan, I'm going to give MJ the majority of credit for the 6 rings, though not all of it. Jerry K deserves his due as well.

The fact is MJ and Jerry K did co-exist for many seasons. So any argument involving the Bulls success must involve both in the discussion. They are not mutually exclusive. But a valid debate can be ascertained from which party deserves MORE of the credit. That is where I come in.. and the many of others posters here that have made for a lively debate.

We could beat this thing to death, and it'll probably come up again (give it a couple months)... but I'm getting out of Dodge for now. I've enjoyed it all, and I'm still sticking to my guns.


VD


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

YAAAAARRRRHGGGGHHH!!!

Please let the season begin!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Sifting through the sands of potential...*

I've used the phrase "sifting through the sands of potential" to describe Krause's approach before, and it fits now. Krause didn't necessarily put all of his hopes on Jordan when he first took the GM position. Instead, he kept Jordan, acquired Pippen, Grant, Oakley, and others and let the young players battle it out. He set up the right circumstances for the best players -- or those with the most competitive fire -- to win out. Those who worked out, he kept. Those who didn't.....

....history is repeating itself.


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Sifting through the sands of potential...*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I've used the phrase "sifting through the sands of potential" to describe Krause's approach before, and it fits now. Krause didn't necessarily put all of his hopes on Jordan when he first took the GM position. Instead, he kept Jordan, acquired Pippen, Grant, Oakley, and others and let the young players battle it out. He set up the right circumstances for the best players -- or those with the most competitive fire -- to win out. Those who worked out, he kept. Those who didn't.....
> 
> ....history is repeating itself.


WOW. Beautifully put.

Especially the last sentence.  

Sight I'd like to see:

At Grant Park, at the celebration of Championship #7, Krause grabs the mic and, in his truly horrible voice, starts singing "I did it myyyyyyy waaaaay. :laugh:


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, for the folks that don't know it, when Krause made that statement he was quoting an earlier statement made by....you guessed it...Jerry West. The original statement "orginizations win championships" was first attributed to Jerry West, then Krause borrowed it. Of course Krause is villified for saying it and noone even hardly remembers West saying it.


Thank you 

That was my point - I was waiting to see if someone picked it up


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> BTW, while there is no "I" in team, there is a "ME" in team. There is also an "Eat" in team, a "Mat" in team, a "Meat" in team, and so forth. I always thought that expression was trite and lame.


Vince Lombardi liked it 

I guess that will do for me


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

No disrespect to Mr. Lombardi intended.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Sifting through the sands of potential...*



> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I've used the phrase "sifting through the sands of potential" to describe Krause's approach before, and it fits now. Krause didn't necessarily put all of his hopes on Jordan when he first took the GM position. Instead, he kept Jordan, acquired Pippen, Grant, Oakley, and others and let the young players battle it out. He set up the right circumstances for the best players -- or those with the most competitive fire -- to win out. Those who worked out, he kept. Those who didn't.....
> 
> ....history is repeating itself.


Wynn, well said, but untrue.

Oakley had all the competitive fire, but was traded for Bill Cartwright. And no Krause may have not put all his hopes on Jordan, but the city of Chicago sure did.

Historically the Bulls had been mired in many losing seasons before MJ came along. He (Krause) acquired young players and had one masterful draft in 1987. That much I can agree with.

And history will repeat itself IFF we win a championship. We are a long way from that my friend.


VD


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> sorry to defeat your only example here but... Ewing would have gotten a ring if he would have showed up in the 4th quarter of game 7 versus the Rockets. Instead, he let Starks shoot himself out of the building. You cannot justify a star players' personal ineptitude by differing the blame on the organization. Please. Ewing was in position to win titles, its just that MJ and Starks (that one season) defeated his chances.


You define the chance and the consequent blame too narrowly IMO

Maybe some accountability should be taken by the Knicks for not giving him someone better than John Sssshhtttooorrrkkkkssss - who could actually have been lead goose in the Gestalt formation when Patrick faltered at the apex 



> These are all valid points. In team sports, organization assemble teams that win championships. But the championship Bulls were a special case. An exception to the rule? Yes. They had the greatest player ever to play pro basketball and arguably the greatest coach ever. To give credit to the organization in light of this, is viewed as preposterious to many.
> VD


Yeah - let's give no credit to the organisation that drafted him (even if it was Rod Thorn who did not go the distance ) or who drafted Scottie - I guess MJ still would have won six rings without Scottie huh ?

Now there is a controversial subject 

For the record , I say that MJ is lucky if he wins more than 2.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> For the record , I say that MJ is lucky if he wins more than 2.


For the record, this point is simply not debatable. Not basis of argument, no time span, just hot air from everyone involved.

If you've read my posts FJ you'll know that I've said two basic things. To sum up, 1. Jerry K deserves credit for hiring Phil, one great draft in '87, and signing servicable players to surround the greatest player ever and 2. Simply MJ deserves more credit for the 6 rings.

Both deserve credit, they are not mutually exclusive as some here have alluded to. But I simply give more of the credit to MJ.


VD


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Yeah I know Vin - as to how many MJ wins without Pip is wild speculation unable to be known with any reasonable means of testing 

I take on board your comments about apportionment of credit - fair enough 

I go back to my original post wherein I stated that no one does it alone - in what quantities of praise/credit to me are immaterial -for me no one is their own private idaho


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Random thoughts.

Jordan was/is not only the greatest basketball player of all time, he's the greatest performer in team sports of all time. Please consider this homage paid.

The Krause/West/Vermeil thing about "organizations winning championships" was/is/always-will-be the right way to look at success or failure of an organization. To those who have apologized for Krause's statement or have somehow tried to interpret it to save Krause criticism should save their energy. It can stand on its own without assistance.

If it weren't for my great respect for David Halberstam, I'd completely discount Billy Packer's claim of Krause dissing Phil Jackson. Packer is an egotistical pud. However, being a Halberstam fan, I'll believe the exchange took place as told by Packer and say that Krause is also an egotistical pud.

After many years of listening to Packer's commentary, I confess that I don't care much for his work.

After years of watching Krause in action, I think he's well above average at what he does.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

I still can't believe that a man who tried to thank the freakin' janitors and secretaries with a comment about organizations gets villified the way he does. 

I think it mostly has to do with JK's physical appearance. If he was the equivalent of Robert Redford, everyone would be climbing all over the man.

No doubt that MJ deserves most of the credit for bringing six rings home to Chicago. Just give JK his props too.

And don't forget PJ's ego when discussing the players versus management fiasco. PJ had as much, if not more, to do with the dissension that eventually caused the team to break up.

I look forward to this season like no other. It should be fun to watch the team grow.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

*credit paid where credit is due*

For the record, the correct assignation is as follows: MJ 62.5% of the credit for the 6 championships, Scottie 19.5%, Horace and Toni share 4% for their own respective 3-peats, BJ+Bill and Harp+Rodman 3%, 6% goes to the rest of the roster and those also appearing in the bench area including the immortal Chip Schaeffer (sp?), the final 5% goes to the rest of the organization, of which Krause eats the biggest slice of the pie chart. The smallest slice goes to Left-handed Joe-Bob the trash bag changer.

Now we must all break up the percentages of blame for the break-up. My formula only works for positive achievements so I will leave this to someone else.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RealFan</b>!
> 
> I think it mostly has to do with JK's physical appearance. If he was the equivalent of Robert Redford, everyone would be climbing all over the man.


Appearances are not everything - unfortunately for some they are the only thing ( borrowing again from the late great Coach Lombardi - he was talking about winning , however , I just borrowed the text and subbed it ) 

You mention Redford and I think of him in FScottFitz's The Great Gatsby - and the tragic flaws that also accompany "the beautiful" that are never as evident because of the greater slack they get cut

I then think of Albert Brooks's character of Aaron in the movie Broadcast News when he is pissed at missing the news anchor spot ( and the girl - Holly Hunter ) to William Hurt's character of Tom 

Aaron ( Brooks ) - talking to Jane ( Hunter ) alleges Tom ( Hurt ) is the Devil .. and he says ( paraphrasing as I can't remember the exact script off the top of my head ):

_ Do you think the Devil among us would have pointy ears and carry around a pitchfork ? No .. he would be handsome , smooth , witty , funny , popular ..... and then little by little he would chip away at our values and our standards until they would not matter anymore and we forgot what they were in the first place _

Krause is none of these things and has no capacity to sway public opinion because he is despised . Is he an egomaniac desperate for acceptance and recognition ? Is it right and justified to with hold it from someone that so openly craves it ?

Who's the lesser man .. the weaker man ?

He who wants it or he who can't give it ?

Why is Krause despised ? 

Because he does have standards and values ( maybe not in his personal skills but certainly in his approach to the job ) that position his loyalties to a proprietor and in the ideal of having creating something bigger than one person ? 

Well some may say he is Reinsdorf's whore but even if such a harsh knock in some's mind is justified , when all is said and done Jerry Krause will be able to walk away with a small piece of his integrity in place as he never changed his digs to play popular politics with the popstars and fade away into the background just to save his bacon ( no joke intended here ) 

Insofar as his standards and values pertaining to running a basketball operation - he never wittled them away knowlingly until they didnt matter anymore . He did what he thought was right ( even when he had to know how unpopular some of his more controversial decisions were ) and was hated for it

The Devil does not have integrity

If you take that quote out of Broadcast News and you are looking at where to apply it in the Gm'ship of teams in this league , may I introduce you all to John Gabriel


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

While I'm thinking movie quotes and references - I just wanted to throw one more out there 

Sean Penn ( Platoon Sgt ) to Jim Calveizel ( the deserter ) in the Thin Red Line 

_ In this world ... a man onto himself.. is nothing _


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

FJ, you kill me!

Anyone who can write about:
"gestalt" 
"...Own Private Idaho," (whether you were referencing the book, River Phoenix movie movie or B-52's song) 
Jay Gatsby's tragic flaw and 
Albert Brook's brilliant dialogue (alluding to a concept of the nature of evil that very closely mirrors the lessons the Jesuits beat into my head, BTW)

in the same thread is A-Numba-One-Okay with me!:yes:

JK may not be a success as a demon. Nonetheless, if you asked him to name himself, I wouldn't be surprised if he said "My name is legion, for I am many."

And he eats enough donuts to feed a legion...
Hmmmm....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Thank you
> ...


Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one here who knew about West saying it first! LOL!


----------

