# Skiles: "There are several negative influences on Eddy..."



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

This was somewhat of an eye-opener when I heard it. This is virtually an exact quote from Skiles on his weekly radio show with Neil Funk. When a caller asked how Skiles can change the perception that Eddy Curry doesn't care, Skiles responded:

"I don't think I can change that perception of Eddy. Only Eddy can." 

Then here's the most interesting part...

*"There are several negative influences for Eddy on this team that we need to get rid of. We already took care of some of them earlier in the season..."*

I don't think there's any way to take that quote other than to think there are at least a few players on this team that will be gone because of their influence on what is one of our only two virtually untouchable players. Thinking about it further, who could Skiles be talking about? Well, I'll assume it has to be any/all of the following guys:

Jamal, Tyson, Fizer and ERob

The main reason I list those guys is because the rest of the players are Pax's (and I assume Skiles') guys, so I find it hard to believe it could be them, though I'll admit it is possible. 

Thinking about it even further, I assume Jamal and Tyson are the main culprits, simply because of their closeness with Eddy. I'd add ERob in there if he actually seemed to be a factor at all. He just seems to be so non-existent that he's neither a good nor bad influence on anyone.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I don't think so. I think Skiles was being candid and is making it clear who will be gone or at least shopped. Did anyone else hear this or does anyone else think this is as significant as I do?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I don't think you are reading too much at all. Skiles and Paxson are both very blunt guys. They don't seem like guys that will feed us any BS. As to who he was referring to Erob is obvious(the whole cell phone incident), Jamal(being they are best friends), and then Tyson(also close but not as close as he is to Jamal). Can't imagine anyone other than those 3 being who he was talking about. If he was talking about just one person my best guess would be Erob. He did say several though so he could be all 3 of these guys. Saying they already took care of some of them earlier in the season obviously means Jalen and Donyell. Wouldn't have been Baxter because he was just trade filler.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

Another possbility is Chris Jeffries. He was certainly criticized by Rick Brunson after the trade with Toronto.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

And let's not forget Corie Blount


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

well considering that Fizer has always taken a backseat to whoever has been on the roster Id rule him out .  

Jamal has bought into what Skiles is trying to accomplish more than any other Bull so I would rule him out .

I would think it was Tyson as he seemed to do the most talking with the least amount of action .

I also think Erob and his Ive gotten paid and Im good now why do need to to work any harder attitude just doesnt sit well with Skiles .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Could easily be Cartwright and his bigman coach(es).

Could be Krause.

Could be any of a number of guys.


----------



## kirk_2003 (Jun 23, 2003)

the whole team! :laugh:


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

Why in God's name would anyone familiar with Bulls basketball think that Skiles is talking about Tyson?

Tyson has displayed the strongest combination of fire and hard work on the court. Tyson doing the most talking with the least action? Yea, 'cause he dove over the front row for the ball and got hurt for it. LOL

How soon we forget. Exclude Tyson from the list.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

LOL. DaBullz I think Skiles is referring to the here and right this very minute.

My money is on E-morosa or Tyson. 

Or hey, maybe it's Pargo.


----------



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

I know who it is, the culprit is Bob Thornton


----------



## Snuffleupagus (May 8, 2003)

I think Corie Blount's sudden removal from the team makes a lot more sense now. I think that's who Skiles was referring to.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Heard it too.

I think it's E-Rob and Jamal. E-Rob is an easy pick, but Jamal has had his problems getting along with the coaches for all his career but half of this season. 

He might be putting on a good face for the fans and media, and be up to his old tricks in the locker-room.

It was scary hearing him compare EC to Jo Barry (I assume Carrol).


Also, what did he mean: There were some things we suspected and they were validated by what we learned in the player meetings?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Of course it's JC...

He gets blamed for everything else, he must have something to do with this too.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I think it was Rose, Marshall and Blount .. we just had the wrong veterans for our talent 

Marshall was a slacker ona bad team ..went up a gear on a good veteran team .. then got into punching matches with Bill Berry and openly campaigned for Pete Myers because ( inference ) he didn't F with us 

Rose was the "star" who's personal agenda driven by ego and stardom and being "the man" compromised what his role really was which was to make the young players better on the floor as he had the capacity of doing in what he can create out there

Blount... the player's player perhaps pandered to the panzy ..which was not what the needed from him ... and who may have been more divisive - particularly in the ERob fiasco 

ERob.. obviously 

And Jamal .. not from the point of view of being a bad team guy but the buddy buddy thing was / is perhaps distracting and puts both players in comfort zones and gives rise to a possible us and them axis 

Rose, Marshall, Blount, ERob and Crawford 

Three of them are already gone


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Of course it's JC...
> 
> He gets blamed for everything else, he must have something to do with this too.


Kirk has tried to counsel him but he hasn't come around


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Of course it's JC...
> 
> He gets blamed for everything else, he must have something to do with this too.


Where theres smoke...

Thats all.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Where theres smoke...
> ...


Give me a break..

There's 14 other guys on this team and because he's pretty good friends with 1 guy HE's the guy that must be the problem?

This is the same guy who's the best on the team at getting him the ball.

It might be JC, we don't know, but it could just as well be any of the other players.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I didn't hear the interview, obviously, so I'm trying to pick up what was said from here.

1. Skiles compared Eddy to Joe Barry Carroll
2. Pax said we need to trade away our whole team so we we can be sure we're putting good players around Joe Barry Carroll.

------------------

I'm simplifying a little bit for effect here, but this whole line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense at all. If Eddy is Joe Barry, he's really not worth that effort. And if Eddy is THAT impressionable, I don't think anything the Bulls do will ever adequately shelter him from bad influences. Even if they put the most ideal team possible around him, they probably pale in comparison to the influence his friends and family have.

Perhaps the next step will be to move the franchise to another city to get Eddy away from all the bad influences.

------------

Enough of the witch hunt. Eddy Curry isn't a two year old. He's an adult who can make decisions for himself. I'd like to hear an argument as to how, if he is truly this much of a lump, he's EVER going to be successful for us.

Finally, I'd like to hear an argument as to how yet another round of public mudslinging by the team management does anyone any good.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Give me a break..
> ...


KH is the best...and...yes...


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I didn't hear the interview, obviously, so I'm trying to pick up what was said from here.
> 
> 1. Skiles compared Eddy to Joe Barry Carroll
> ...


MDC,
Let me clarify the Joe Barry Carroll statement that another poster made earlier. Skiles NEVER compared Eddy to JBC. It was the caller who said Eddy reminded him of JBC because they used to call him Joe Barely Cares and he sees the same problem in Eddy. Skiles simply responded to the caller's question.

I think Skiles made it clear by his actual statements that Eddy is one of the few who is going to stick around. I think Pax also made it clear last night, after being asked if Eddy is untouchable, when he said "It would be very, very tough to trade Eddy." As Krause used to say, it seems it would take a deal that "knocks his socks off" in order to give up on Eddy right now.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I didn't hear the interview, obviously, so I'm trying to pick up what was said from here.
> 
> 1. Skiles compared Eddy to Joe Barry Carroll
> ...


Actually he said Jo had tons of talent but didn't love the game and he didn't want that to happen to Eddy.

He then said the above mentioned statement.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I think it's JUST E-Rob. There hasn't been a behavioral report on anyone else except for him. And he's the only guy that's really been benched, other than Fizer, who the organization has praised for his professionalism.

I think it's just E-Rob. JYD, Gill, AD, Hinrich and Crawford have all demonstrated a level of work ethic that Pax can't be upset about. JC is definitely good friends with EC, but so what? Crawford's not the model citizen, maybe, as he demonstrated with some of his Jalen-esque whining towards the beginning of the season, but he's done pretty much everything right and won some serious consideration in the eyes of a GM and coach that were pretty much against him to start out with.

It's E-Rob, I'm positive. Get just one guy like that on a team and it'll mess up youngsters, big time.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually he said Jo had tons of talent but didn't love the game and he didn't want that to happen to Eddy.
> ...


So lets extrapolate: If he's talking about players who effect Eddy negatively because of their oncourt play...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> I think it's JUST E-Rob.


He said *playerS* and he said *them* .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> MDC,
> ...


Thanks (and to GB) for the clarification. I think the basic point I'm making stands whether it was Skiles who said it or whether he just tacitly agreed.

I've thought Eddy was like Joe Barry for a while. The question I'm getting at is why should we buy the idea that getting rid of player X or Y is going to make a lick of difference in how much Eddy "loves the game". It just doesn't compute to me... there are way just way too many things that go into a player's psyche to really think that this is going to make a difference.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He said *playerS* and he said *them* .


 So does this mean it couldn't be Bob Thornton ?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let me try to put this another way. If the goal is to make Eddy _love_ coming to work, is running off the people he likes and publically making known that he's the reason they're being run off going to make him enjoy coming to work more or less?

I understand that the team as a lot invested in Eddy turning into a beast, but I think they're going on a witch hunt instead of asking the hard questions.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Let me try to put this another way. If the goal is to make Eddy _love_ coming to work, is running off the people he likes and publically making known that he's the reason they're being run off going to make him enjoy coming to work more or less?
> 
> I understand that the team as a lot invested in Eddy turning into a beast, but I think they're going on a witch hunt instead of asking the hard questions.


I didn't get the impression that it was about turning Eddy into anything.

It was as though he was there already, but they needed to remove impediments, obstacles, barriers that kept him from doing what they knew he could and what they wanted him to do...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Through all of this I can't help but think of Memphis:

Ok, Battier/Miller and Posey may be character figures. But, Hubie helped J Will and Bonzi Wells find situations where they are productive. Shipping out cancers may be a start, but it isn't an end. At some point in time Pox/Skiles are going to have work with what we have, not only concentrate on shipping what they no longer want.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Eddy Curry has to grow up and take care of himself. We can't be trading away our talent just because supposedly it's a bad influence on Eddy.

I think Eddy is a bad inlfuence on Eddy.

This is kind of just making an excuse for Eddy...again. First it was that Eddy was out of shape. Now it's that there are evil bad influences that are making him play bad.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Well considering Jamal was one of the few guys who actually worked out last summer...I don't know that Eddy is really all that influenced by Jamal...or at least not in a way that is really Jamal's fault.
> 
> Eddy Curry has to grow up and take care of himself. We can't be trading away our talent just because supposedly it's a bad influence on Eddy.
> ...


Exactly. 

And like Skiles said - Eddy is the _only_ person who can change the perception of Eddy. Bottom line.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> LOL. DaBullz I think Skiles is referring to the here and right this very minute.
> 
> My money is on E-morosa or Tyson.
> ...


"We already took care of some of them earlier in the season..."

That would cover Krause, Paxson, Thornton, et al.

Peace!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> "We already took care of some of them earlier in the season..."
> ...


Um, Paxson is a bad influence on Eddy? 

Huh? I don't get it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I meant Cartwright, not pax (in this context)


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> My money is on E-morosa or Tyson.


E-morosa :laugh: :laugh: 

I can see how other players might affect Eddy's growth. As someone earlier mentioned, Blount could've been one of the past bad influences. After he was cut, Blount said the Bulls management didn't like the fact that he would always be positive with Eddy. Who knows exactly what went on, but maybe Skiles would push Eddy to work out longer and maybe Blount would feed Eddy something different. Maybe he'd tell Eddy to ignore Skiles cuz he's just riding him too hard for no reason, or something to that effect. That's total speculation, of course, but stuff like that could have an effect on a young player, especially like Eddy.

Skiles clearly stated on the radio show that there are multiple bad influences currently on the team and that they would be removed. Erob's contract is too hard to easily get rid of, so my money is on the 2C's. It's a Bulls tradition to trade future all-stars, so it's probably their turn this summer. I just hope they're traded out west so they only come back to haunt us 2 times a year.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> "We already took care of some of them earlier in the season..."
> ...


Krause left last season. 

"We" indicates Skiles meant after he was part of the team or else he would have said "The Bulls..." as he has on many occasions when talking about things the organization did before he got there. 

As far as Thornton, it's possible, but I'd say unlikely considering he still works for the team, albeit not as an assistant coach anymore (you could see him often sitting right behind the Bulls bench during games).


----------



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

I have added alot of winks when it comes to blaming Thornton


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Dalibor was cut too 

I think that was very telling


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Pox sabotaged Jay's bike too


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> So does this mean it couldn't be Bob Thornton ?


no, just that it couldn't be *only* Bob Thornton.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Who says it has to be a player? Maybe it was just behavioral issues or maybe he had some bad habits that Skiles made him stop. I missed the radio show so I can't say too much but I know from the past radio shows, Skiles has said that Eddy is like a little kid and that Skiles has to "be the parent" and "take away the toys" 

If not, it's probably E-rob. Him calling Eddy on a cell phone before the game was stupid on E-rob's part



> Before the game, Kendall Gill told Eddy Curry to shut off his cell phone and be a pro. Cell phones are supposed to be turned off in locker rooms, and Curry's kept going off. As it turns out, the lack of professionalism wasn't limited to Curry because apparently the person calling Curry was Eddie Robinson from the other end of the room.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> If not, it's probably E-rob. Him calling Eddy on a cell phone before the game was stupid on E-rob's part


Let's get our facts straight, it was reported ERob was NOT the person who called Eddy and he was joking about that with the reporters the night it actually happened.

Why is everyone so quick to place blame on people when they have NO idea who's really at fault?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's get our facts straight, it was reported ERob was NOT the person who called Eddy and he was joking about that with the reporters the night it actually happened.
> ...


It's still attitude. E-Rob wasn't just joking with the reporters, I don't think... I think he was joking in the locker room too. He wasn't the one that called Curry, but I think he was joking around pre-game in the locker room, not just with the reporters in a fabricated press ramble. I may be wrong.

And seriously, cel phone aside, can you really contest that Eddie Robinson has some seriously strange work ethic? The comments about technology were just confusing; the comments about jumpers not needing practice probably did him in. Any even semi-coached player in the galaxy will tell you that jumpers are EXACTLY that, just repetition. Why else do you hear about players trying to make 200 shots at the end of every practice, or shooting 100 free throws every day in the summer, or whatever? 

And his comments as the season was winding down about basically giving up on the team is something that Eddy will (and rightly should) take very personally. Robinson has given up on the team; as fans, we may have that right, but as players, they do NOT. It is their JOBS to play basketball and care about their teams.

Blowing off the team meeting is like the cherry on top.

So throw out the cel phone incident; can you find another player on the Bulls with as many character issues? And these are only the ones that made it into the press.

For good contrast, look to, well, ANY other player on the Bulls. Chandler has been announcing his new commitment in the offseason for a month now. Crawford is an RFA that is being as civil as possible. Fizer is even saying the right things; how can someone we treated like we treated FIZER say he wants to come back to a team like the BULLS?

Hinrich also eagerly awaits a new season to prove himself, and looks to work out hard this offseason.

AD, JYD, and the NBDL's have been nothing but as hard working as possible.

ERob has many more issues than just a cel phone incident, and that's what this is really about. I agree with some of the posts that say he's not THE "factor" that Skiles might be referring to, but he manifests a lot of what is wrong with this team.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> ERob has many more issues than just a cel phone incident, and that's what this is really about.


Really?

I look at the title of the thread and I keep seeing the name Eddy, I don't see ERob.

When I do see ERob it's in assumptions like the ones you and others are making in this thread in regards to what or who is negatively influencing Eddy.

Eddy is a grown man making a lot of money, I'm not buying this because it's just another excuse to justify Eddy's attitude or lack thereof.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*"There are several negative influences for Eddy on this team that we need to get rid of. We already took care of some of them earlier in the season..."* 

Everybody is presuming that Skiles is referring _exclusively_ to players. As far as _people_ are concerned, its not much of a stretch to suggest that as a team veteran, Robinson hasn't contributed much to developing a positive work environment. Beyond that we can only guess if there's anyone else who's intentionally or unintentionally become a distraction to Curry or any of the other young players on this team.

I didn't hear the program either, but isn't it possible Skiles was also referring to an atmosphere that existed within the organization prior to Paxson and his own arrival on the scene?

For example, lets think back to that American Express commercial that came out a year or so ago. You remember...the one that portrayed Cartwright as everyone's Daddy and the players as a collection of 12 year old day campers? Face it, that's exactly how the Bulls used to treat the Bulls young players...like children who needed nurturing mixed with a pinch of dicipline and a whole bunch of patience. 

Most people will live up or down to the expectations of the authority figures in their lives. Krause and Cartwright repeatedly preached patience, apparently to the extent that there was little sense of urgency when it came to turning potential into productivity. Apparently the previous regime was so accomodating to its players that no one was in the kind of shape they should have been when the season began. Skiles made it an issue immediately upon his arrival. His observations about work habits and conditioning were later confirmed by both Rose and Marshall after they were traded when they publicly admitted they couldn't keep up with their new teammates during Toronto practices.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that Skiles may have been referring to more than individuals when he used the term "negative influences." I think that more than anything else he's been trying to change work habits, establish high standards of accountability, and reduce the comfort zone of players like JC, TC and EC. Until this season they were used to being coddled and treated like precious commodities because they were only being viewed as the long term future of the organization at the expense of providing an immediate return. Skiles wants to treat them like men. They're not used to that. Skiles wants them to act like professionals on and off the court. No one ever showed them how. They say old habits die hard. Well, perhaps its these old habits that Skiles views as negative influences that need to be eradicated along with any individual who hasn't bought into the Bulls program by now.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> And seriously, cel phone aside, can you really contest that Eddie Robinson has some seriously strange work ethic? The comments about technology were just confusing; the comments about jumpers not needing practice probably did him in. Any even semi-coached player in the galaxy will tell you that jumpers are EXACTLY that, just repetition. Why else do you hear about players trying to make 200 shots at the end of every practice, or shooting 100 free throws every day in the summer, or whatever?


But here is the kicker. 

EVERYTHING I have ever read up until this season about Eddie and his work ethic praised him. 

- When he was found by his AAU coach, he said Eddie was the type of guy who spent 8 hours in the gym each day working on his game and playing as much as he can.

- When Paul Silas first found Eddie, he commented on how hard he worked to get on the floor and how talented Eddie was. His work ethic is how Eddie sprang from an UFA to the 6th man in less then two seasons if I remember correctly.

Guys, you don't make it to the league unless you have talent and drive... ESPECIALLY when you are an undrafted free agent. Everything prior to this year, including the Bulls fluff pieces, have talked about how Eddie has worked hard on his game so he can become a better player.

You don't just lose work ethic. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm not even sure I buy into the "bad influence" thing. Curry is a grown man now and I don't think any of his teamates should have THAT big an influence on him. One may think that JC would be the first person to think of, he and Eddy ARE best friends. But Crawford has spoken about Eddy to the press before and basically said he needs to get stronger, stay in shape etc... Also JC was the hardest working remaining Bull in the berto during the offseason. It would be awfully odd for him to be a "bad influence" and one of the hardest workers on the team all in teh same instance. I think perhaps the people that are negatively influencing Eddy are just the people that the Bulls orginization has alienated or maligned just talking to Eddy behind the scenes and trelling him things like "the Bulls have no loyalty". If thats the case then it seems that E-Rob, Fizer, and perhaps Jeffries would be the targets. But who knows?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

The level of denial on this board is unbelievable to me sometimes.

Skiles is clearly talking about Jalen Rose when he says negative influences were removed earlier this season. How much clearer does he have to say it? I wouldn't be surprised if Marshall wasn't included as well. Sure, he was productive on the floor, and the Bulls missed that after he was traded. But what was he putting in the kids ears off the court? None of us knows. Marshall, like Rose, has never been known as one to work hard on his game.

And ERob is obviously one of the bad influences still present. Again, how much clearer does Skiles have to make it? The question is, if it's more than one guy he's talking about, who are the others?

And regarding Cartwright and Krause-- I thought we had exercised the notion once and for all that the head coach is in any way responsible for players off-season conditioning. It's just simply not the case. To suggest that anyone in Bulls management condoned the players off-season work habits is rediculous. Every team in the NBA lays out a suggested off-season workout program for it's young players-- the Bulls are no exception. The catch is there's not a damn thing a team can do to force players to follow it. It's up to the players and the players alone. By the way, C Blizzy, if that's not treating them like men, I don't know what is.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> None of us knows.


Exactly...

So why is it ok to speculate one way, but not speculate another?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> *"There are several negative influences for Eddy on this team that we need to get rid of. We already took care of some of them earlier in the season..."*
> 
> I guess what I'm suggesting is that Skiles may have been referring to more than individuals when he used the term "negative influences."


C-Blizzy, you make some good points, and I'm sure you're correct to an extent. But, looking at the quote again, the part that makes me believe it's specifically about players in this case is when he says "on this team." He didn't say "there are negative influences around this team" or "around Eddy."

There are obviously some other negatives surrounding this team that Skiles has referenced many times in the past. Bad attitudes, thought-processes, work habits. They all contribute to the whole "losing culture." But, in this particular case, I believe Skiles is referring to actual people and, more specifically, players.

This is the biggest indication yet that there is once again going to be major turnover on this roster, which is just depressing. This team is already made up very differently than it was just six months ago and in another six months, the only guy left from the 30-win team may very well be Eddy Curry. It will be almost 100% Pax's team. I'm not sure I like that.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Exactly...
> 
> So why is it ok to speculate one way, but not speculate another?


Way to pull a quote out of context.

When I said "no one knows" I was clearly referring to Donyell Marshall because there were no public reports of off-court bad influence that I'm aware of. None of us here were happy that Marshall was included in the Rose trade. But maybe there were reasons he was included of which we are unaware?

In the case of Rose and ERob, however, it seems very obvious. Don't you agree?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Bliz- 
Hasn't Skiles himself basically said he felt the need to "treat Eddy like a kid"?

From that perspective, he doesn't seem that different from Cartwright. He might be more of a hard-*** as a father, but the basic paradigm is still there.

Kneepad- 
There's a lot of interesting stuff in your post.

First, I've grown to question the Bulls off-season workout plans. Marshall was at a couple points noted as a guy who was really "with the program" this past off season, and yet he was out of shape by Toronto standards. That lends some credence to the idea that the Bulls haven't expected enough out of players... perhaps the Bulls workout plans haven't been effective even when they have been adhered to (that is, there are two problems at play... adhering to the plan and the plan itself). 

Second, I see a lot of tension in what you're saying with regard to what an organization should expect from a player and how much young players can be influenced. If players are really as easily influenced by "bad role models" as you suggest, doesn't this imply that management should also be able to influence the players in pretty significant ways? Conversely, if management should take the view that players are grown men who can make the right decisions for themselves, isn't the proper conclusion that other players won't constitute that much of an influence?

Of course, my opinion on this is the latter. I think players are generally smart enough to know the difference between hard work and slacking. Players that are truly hungry and truly want to get better will do it. Players that are happy to just slide along aren't going to meet more than the required expectations. That being said, players are also smart enough to recognize that in each other.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But here is the kicker.
> ...


The fact the he shot so well, particularly from the outside, would indicate to me that he at least worked hard on his shot.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The fact the he shot so well, particularly from the outside, would indicate to me that he at least worked hard on his shot.


People ignore me like the plague it seems. No one wants to question Skiles in this whole process. It's a damn shame.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> First, I've grown to question the Bulls off-season workout plans. Marshall was at a couple points noted as a guy who was really "with the program" this past off season, and yet he was out of shape by Toronto standards. That lends some credence to the idea that the Bulls haven't expected enough out of players... perhaps the Bulls workout plans haven't been effective even when they have been adhered to (that is, there are two problems at play... adhering to the plan and the plan itself).


All I know is during the dynasty years, the Bulls off-season conditioning was considered second-to-none. Players such as Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Charles Oakley, B.J. Armstrong, and others, transformed themselves from skinny college players into solid-as-a-rock NBA players. You tell me what's changed from then to now.



> Second, I see a lot of tension in what you're saying with regard to what an organization should expect from a player and how much young players can be influenced. If players are really as easily influenced by "bad role models" as you suggest, doesn't this imply that management should also be able to influence the players in pretty significant ways? Conversely, if management should take the view that players are grown men who can make the right decisions for themselves, isn't the proper conclusion that other players won't constitute that much of an influence?


I don't know for sure. I've never lived day-to-day with an NBA team. I do strongly suspect that players spend a lot more time amongst themselves than they do under the influence of coaches and management. And it's not just influencing off-season workout habits-- it's influencing will to win and their acceptance of losing-- the so-called "losing culture". Losing teams sit around and talk about things like how they want to be traded, how the coach has it out for them, what they can do to land that next big contract, or how individual stats are more important than team success. Winning teams talk about what they can do as individuals and as a team to improve the team's W-L record and advance to the next round of the playoffs. Guys like Rose and ERob I'm guessing were/are the former. Guys like Hinrich, AD, JYD, I'm guessing are the latter. The Bulls need a lot more of those latter guys. Once the center of balance has swung, I suspect the winners can influence a few losers.



> Of course, my opinion on this is the latter. I think players are generally smart enough to know the difference between hard work and slacking. Players that are truly hungry and truly want to get better will do it. Players that are happy to just slide along aren't going to meet more than the required expectations. That being said, players are also smart enough to recognize that in each other.


Curry and Chandler obviously don't. All their lives they've been told they're sure things for NBA success. Told they had no need to play college ball. They've been able to coast by on talent alone. Now, suddenly, that's not enough. Chandler was recently quoted as saying he thought he worked out hard last summer, but knows now that he didn't really. Curry obviously doesn't realize the importance yet.

So the question is why? Is it because they're not smart enough to know it on their own? Is it because they never saw a veteran player take the lead? I honestly don't know. Probably both of those and other reasons as well.


----------



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

If Eddie has always had a great work ethic why didn't he follow his fellow Flintstones to MSU? 

Is it possible that Eddie had his mind on one goal, that huge pay day? 

ERob wouldn't be the 1st guy to take a break after his huge contract, MLB's Fernando Tatis' game when down the toilet after he got his deal from the Cardinals, last we saw of Fernando he was cut by the Devil Rays.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?


Well if we bring in his past at Charlotte why can't we bring back his past before arriving in the NBA as an *undrafted* player?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> Well if we bring in his past at Charlotte why can't we bring back his past before arriving in the NBA as an *undrafted* player?


LOB, I was just asking what does his work ethic have to do with going to MSU with the other "Flintstones"?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> Well if we bring in his past at Charlotte why can't we bring back his past before arriving in the NBA as an *undrafted* player?



you mean undrafted like Ben Wallace and Brad Miller?


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> you mean undrafted like Ben Wallace and Brad Miller?


 yeah but both of those guys have worked to become all stars, where Eddie is happy being a jump shooter. Wallace and Miller are both overachievers where as Eddie continues to play below his talent level.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> People ignore me like the plague it seems. No one wants to question Skiles in this whole process. It's a damn shame.


What exactly are we questioning Skiles about?

If it is his blunt matter of fact approach and the fact that he sometimes speaks negatively in the media about players who were up until his arrival treated like "12 year old day campers" (thanks cblizz, that one was great) then I don't have a huge problem with that. Especially since the statement that started this thread was essentially about a response to a caller to a radio show. Skiles did not initiate that discussion from what I can gather. The season is over and the **** is hitting the proverbial fan. Surprise!!!

Or is it about the fact that Eddie Robinson once upon a time had a work ethic that has somehow vanished into thin air once he got paid? We sure didn't see evidence of much of a work ethic this season. And by missing his end of the season evaluation meeting he surely did "validate" what was thought of him to begin with. I think we need to "validate" his parking so he can get out of here ASAP. 

And what are these negative influences on Eddy Curry - people or things? It doesn't really matter because apparently they are going to be dealt with. Is it time for Eddy to grow up? Oh yes, long overdue. Maybe the Bulls can move his family and relatives to Boca Raton or something so Eddy doesn't have that hometown crutch to lean on. A year of college would have done that boy WONDERS. 

Retro, just responding to your post cause I don't want you to feel like you have the plague - I know, people never respond to me either, but that's ok, it's not personal, it's just basketball.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> If Eddie has always had a great work ethic why didn't he follow his fellow Flintstones to MSU?
> 
> Is it possible that Eddie had his mind on one goal, that huge pay day?
> ...


Do some research.

Robinson, as everyone knows, is not the smartest guy. He did not play high school basketball because of his academic problems, and ended up dropping out because of those problems. He did, however, end up getting a GED so he could go to college. 

After going to JUCO, he declared for the 1997 Draft, which made him ineligible to go to Division I hoops. He filed an appeal so he could go to MSU with the rest of the Flintstones, but was denied. That is when he went to Division II I believe and was the nations leading scorer. 

He then left school and was an UFA in 1999, and that is when he wowed Paul Silas and became a member of the Charlotte Hornets.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> What exactly are we questioning Skiles about?
> 
> Retro, just responding to your post cause I don't want you to feel like you have the plague - I know, people never respond to me either, but that's ok, it's not personal, it's just basketball.


It's all for not. 

People will only see what they want to and while I think Skiles may be a good basketball mind, he is a horrible people person... and unfortunately that is the most important part of being a head coach.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Do some research.
> ...


LOB,

Let me add to this and say that in regards to your point about ERob looking for a huge payday, he actually turned down the highest contract offer from the Rockets and signed with the Hornets.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Do some research.
> ...


I stand corrected he must have a tremendous work ethic, started back w/ his education.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> Or is it about the fact that Eddie Robinson once upon a time had a work ethic that has somehow vanished into thin air once he got paid? We sure didn't see evidence of much of a work ethic this season.


Again, I'll say I'm not in agreement with ERob being this money grubbin person who's made his buck and now doesn't give a damn.

Originally the Rockets offered him the highest contract and he turned it down to sign with the Hornets.

The puzzling thing about this season IMO is that if in fact ERob's work ethic vanished once he got paid, well that means he didn't have it from December to the end of February when he was playing and producing.

So after playing and producing, and showing no work ethic as a lot of people are saying, we then punished him for it, but for 2-3 months it was ok to not have a work ethic?

Apparently so, because he saw the floor...


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> I stand corrected he must have a tremidous work ethic, started back w/ his education.


Jab... dodge, dodge... hide. Whatever, man.

Some people have smarts, some don't. Some are athletically gifted, some art. Some people can spell, some can't. Don't fault a man because he doesn't understand something like math or science. For every strength you have, I bet you have a weakness.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> All I know is during the dynasty years, the Bulls off-season conditioning was considered second-to-none. Players such as Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Charles Oakley, B.J. Armstrong, and others, transformed themselves from skinny college players into solid-as-a-rock NBA players. You tell me what's changed from then to now.


Well, we went from Chip Schaeffer to Fred Tedeschi didn't we? I've brought that up before, so maybe it's a factor. Obviously there's not very good evidence to be found, but man, our former players always seem to be in better shape than they ever were as Bulls. Elton, Brad Miller, Marshall, Rose, Baxter... all of those guys we've seen or heard were in bad shape at some point as Bulls, and they've all lost some weight or gotten in better shape with other teams (in fairness I think Miller went from bing in bad shape his first season to pretty good shape his second season here). I don't know if all of that is the responsibility of the trainer, but it's one explanation.



> I don't know for sure. I've never lived day-to-day with an NBA team. I do strongly suspect that players spend a lot more time amongst themselves than they do under the influence of coaches and management. And it's not just influencing off-season workout habits-- it's influencing will to win and their acceptance of losing-- the so-called "losing culture". Losing teams sit around and talk about things like how they want to be traded, how the coach has it out for them, what they can do to land that next big contract, or how individual stats are more important than team success. Winning teams talk about what they can do as individuals and as a team to improve the team's W-L record and advance to the next round of the playoffs. Guys like Rose and ERob I'm guessing were/are the former. Guys like Hinrich, AD, JYD, I'm guessing are the latter. The Bulls need a lot more of those latter guys. Once the center of balance has swung, I suspect the winners can influence a few losers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, I'll say I'm not in agreement with ERob being this money grubbin person who's made his buck and now doesn't give a damn.
> ...


believe whatever you need to believe arenas if it helps you get through the day.
it's like those japanese soldiers at the end of WW2 who refused to believe the war was over. Good for you. Keep on truckin' 

:|


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Jab... dodge, dodge... hide. Whatever, man.
> ...



Retro,

It's not that I didn't do my homework, I just view the past differently than you., I have followed the Flintstones since they were recruited by Izzo. I am a huge MSU fan and have known about Robinson's talent since he missed going to state. A highschool drop out, doesn't scream work ethic to me regardless of how stupid the man is. It's not like Robinson was going to Brother Rice in suburban Detroit and the academics were too tough.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FWIW,

Abe Lincoln didn't graduate high school. Neither did Thomas Edison.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, but I for one would not relate "stupidity" with graduating from high school.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> FWIW,
> ...


For the record, I wasn't the one that brought up Erob's stupidity as an excuse. 

Abe Lincoln, wasn't he the guy that read by the light of a candle in a little shack in Springfield?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, we went from Chip Schaeffer to Fred Tedeschi didn't we?


I belive off-season training would fall under the guidance of strength and conditioning coach Al Vermeil, not the trainer. Krause always referred to "Camp Vermeil" starting during the off-season. Al is still available to any player who wishes to make use of his considerable expertise.

Obviously the players we've had in the past were motivated to improve their bodies and their games in the off-season. They got their butts kicked by the Knicks and Pistons in the playoffs and realized they needed to get stronger in order to win. Our current players, with some exceptions, haven't figured this out yet. They look for every excuse they can to not improve. It's one of several reasons why they're losers.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DId Eddie Robinson just get compared with Abe Lincoln? 


Eddie would look pimp in one of those stovepipe hats. I still think Eddie has the better jumper....but without Abe he wouldn't be getting paid so....


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> For the record, I wasn't the one that brought up Erob's stupidity as an excuse.
> ...


I wasn't an excuse. It was simply a comparison that while some guys are good and talented at certain things, others are not. You started the query in the first place.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> DId Eddie Robinson just get compared with Abe Lincoln?
> 
> 
> Eddie would look pimp in one of those stovepipe hats. I still think Eddie has the better jumper....but without Abe he wouldn't be getting paid so....


LOL!! classic Ace, simply classic.


----------



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

Retro,

I brought up his failure to get into MSU in response to your article regarding Eddie's great work ethic. Just because Eddie worked his *** of for a brief period doesn''t mean that work ethic is ingrained in his character. 

While I wasn't doing my homework I found a great article on all the succcesses that came out of Northern Flint Highschool. The article doesn't focus on Eddie too much but it's a interesting read. Alot of kids from the mean streets of Flint have worked their asses off to reach the NBA. 

Here's the link if you're interested 

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1208/45_224/67151578/p1/article.jhtml


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> Retro,
> 
> I brought up his failure to get into MSU in response to your article regarding Eddie's great work ethic. Just because Eddie worked his *** of for a brief period doesn''t mean that work ethic is ingrained in his character.
> ...


I have read this article and it is a good read. Thanks for sharing. I'm just going to end all Eddie discussions because it is like arguing about religion.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm just going to end all Eddie discussions because it is like arguing about religion.


Then I guess we can agree to disagree on this subject.

BTW you don't want to get this deist talking about religion.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> All I know is during the dynasty years, the Bulls off-season conditioning was considered second-to-none. Players such as Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Charles Oakley, B.J. Armstrong, and others, transformed themselves from skinny college players into solid-as-a-rock NBA players. You tell me what's changed from then to now.


Thats what Mariotti is talking about when he says Krause squandered the momentum from the dynasty years.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> but without Abe he wouldn't be getting paid so....


I thought the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery...


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

//"There are several negative influences on Eddy..."//

I think Skiles is referring to Usama Bin Laden and Chemical Ali :yes: 

Poor Eddy, he is so sensitive kid 
Let send him some money to see a "shrink".


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Thats what Mariotti is talking about when he says Krause squandered the momentum from the dynasty years.


There's some merit to that argument.

Krause, I think, was spoiled by having Jordan around. Phil Jackson too. Jordan took much of the responsibility of calling out players he thought were loafing, keeping it a player/player issue and preventing it from becoming a management/player issue. That prevented JK/PJ from having to play the heavy as Paxson and Skiles are having to now.

Krause and the entire organization probably over-estimated the ability of these kids to self-motivate. And they brought in the wrong veterans to do so.

But as I said earlier, as far as I know a team cannot force players to work out during the off-season. All they can do is try and motivate them by whatever means available into doing so.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> believe whatever you need to believe arenas if it helps you get through the day.
> ...


As usual...

Respond with words that don't saying anything at all instead of responding to what I said.

1. All he cares about as money yet he didn't take the largest contract offered to him as a undrafted free agent?

2. He has no work ethic yet for close to 3 months it was obviously ok because he was played (and produced), but then we stopped playing him because he has no work ethic?

You can keep on truckin and dodging my questions with BS...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> As usual...
> ...


arenas, I have to admit I am a little surprised at your opinion of E-Rob. I was one of his biggest supporters when we signed him but I am very lukewarm on him now. I understand the point about him not playing and I agree that he should be if nothing else to make his value higher. But when he comes out and says things like "he doesn't want to work on his jumper" and he is "afraid to drive the lane because there is too much contact" you have to question where his head is at. I don't think E-Rob was LOOKING to get a big contract and get lazy but I think he got one and then became lazy. Too busy counting his money and playing with his toys to worry about working on his game. But thats just my take...we are ALL entitled to our opinions.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> arenas, I have to admit I am a little surprised at your opinion of E-Rob. I was one of his biggest supporters when we signed him but I am very lukewarm on him now. I understand the point about him not playing and I agree that he should be if nothing else to make his value higher. But when he comes out and says things like "he doesn't want to work on his jumper" and he is "afraid to drive the lane because there is too much contact" you have to question where his head is at. I don't think E-Rob was LOOKING to get a big contract and get lazy but I think he got one and then became lazy. Too busy counting his money and playing with his toys to worry about working on his game. But thats just my take...we are ALL entitled to our opinions.



what ACE said. geez. 

I thought my response was kinda pithy. Oh well. Like I said, to each his own. 

And as far as him getting playing time let's not forget that was very early on in Skiles' tenure and once E-rob showed his true colors then, I am simply speculating here, he was benched. I mean what player in their _right mind_ goes to the press and admits he is afraid to drive to the basket. 

And as far as him not accepting the contract from Houston to go to Charlotte, who cares? That is the past. In the present, he is a waste of time. And this, of course, is just my own personal opinion. I don't feel the need to continually justify this to you. 

Thank you.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> arenas, I have to admit I am a little surprised at your opinion of E-Rob. I was one of his biggest supporters when we signed him but I am very lukewarm on him now. I understand the point about him not playing and I agree that he should be if nothing else to make his value higher. But when he comes out and says things like "he doesn't want to work on his jumper" and he is "afraid to drive the lane because there is too much contact" you have to question where his head is at. I don't think E-Rob was LOOKING to get a big contract and get lazy but I think he got one and then became lazy. Too busy counting his money and playing with his toys to worry about working on his game. But thats just my take...we are ALL entitled to our opinions.


I actually believe ERob is a nice player, and would be pretty good in the right system, I'm not going to say he's a bad player because he's not a gymrat.

I'm not going to jump on the "Hate ERob Tank" that's bowling him over here for these reasons...

1. When played, he produced. Plain and simple. Does floor production count for anything? He doesn't drive, he shoots mainly jumpers right? Ok, well he shoots 48% from the field. If he has some superstition that hey my J is on so I'm not going to stay after practice and shoot extra J's, alright. If he was bricking shots and not doing anything about it, then I would feel the other way. 

2. If in fact he dogs it in practice, and he might, we don't know, at one time it was alright because he was being given minutes. So in other words, at one time Skiles was rewarding him PT even though he didn't deserve if in fact he was dogging it.

3. If he's the cancer that some believe, and doesn't give the effort he should, who would know that better than his teammates? If those things are true, why are his they confused when it comes to him not playing?

Why is the media confused as to why he didn't get to play?

4. I'll say it again, all he cares is about money, yet when he was a undrafted FA he turned down the highest contract offered to him by the Rockets?

Yes he's getting paid now, but is that his fault? If you pay him $6.2 million to sit the bench, that's bad business on your part, if anything keep sending him out there to play his value up so you can get rid of him. 

Is anyone going to say he wasn't playing well? Some in the media said he was playing the best ball of his Bulls career, and I agree with that.

Now that we played him for 22 minutes in the last 22 games, why would anyone take him now?

Are we going to trade Tyson and make some team take ERob as a part of it, so we can get back what, Malik Rose or Mike Miller?

Ehh...

Again, I'm not going to jump on the tank, and I'm not going to let my personal feelings about the guy cloud the reality of the situation.

It's a very weird situation and one that we haven't really put ourselves in a position to get out of.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> And as far as him getting playing time let's not forget that was very early on in Skiles' tenure and once E-rob showed his true colors then, I am simply speculating here, he was benched.


December to the end of February he got to play, I could understand your point if it was a shorter time, so basically ERob was a good boy for 3 months?

You're right...

You're speculating.

I'm looking at the facts of the situation and going from there, not speculating.

You don't have to justify anything to me, it's fine you feel the way you do, and the same goes for me so don't come at me with this I'm like the Japanese soliders WWII crap like I'm talking nonsense and you're exactly right.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> December to the end of February he got to play, I could understand your point if it was a shorter time, so basically ERob was a good boy for 3 months?
> ...



I understand what your saying and I do agree to a point. Skiles is mismanaging things by not playing E-Riob, he IS the only true sf with any talent on the team. Makes sense to play him if we want to get anything for him or out of him. By the same token, he started getting benched after talking to the media about not working on his jumper and not driving the lane. If I am a coach and I read in a paper that one of my players "refuses to drive the lane" I'll bench his behind until he has splinters too. So I see both sides.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But here is the kicker.
> ...


While this is true, he has been blessed with a freakish athleticism. I'm talking all-NBA athleticism.

He wanted to get paid. That's why he worked hard in the gym. That's why he played hard for Silas. Once he got the kizzy, it was all over. Economists would talk about indifference curves, utility functions and the labor-leisure tradeoff or something like that.... bottom line is i don't think eddie feels the need to work the way that skiles wants him to. 

The problem is the guaranteed contract, IMO


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> The level of denial on this board is unbelievable to me sometimes.
> 
> Skiles is clearly talking about Jalen Rose when he says negative influences were removed earlier this season. How much clearer does he have to say it? I wouldn't be surprised if Marshall wasn't included as well. Sure, he was productive on the floor, and the Bulls missed that after he was traded. But what was he putting in the kids ears off the court? None of us knows. Marshall, like Rose, has never been known as one to work hard on his game.
> ...


Right on. I'm stunned that people are thinking of other names other than Rose, EROB and maybe maybe maybe Crawford (although i think he's bought in) and marshall.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> By the same token, he started getting benched after talking to the media about not working on his jumper and not driving the lane. If I am a coach and I read in a paper that one of my players "refuses to drive the lane" I'll bench his behind until he has splinters too. So I see both sides.


If that is the reason, then ok I can live with that...

I wonder though why is it such a mystery if it were that simple?

Again, very weird situation.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> If that is the reason, then ok I can live with that...
> ...



That I definitle agree with. It doesn't seem like it is really in anyones best interests to leave him rotting on the bench. But the same could be said for Fizer as well.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> That I definitle agree with. It doesn't seem like it is really in anyones best interests to leave him rotting on the bench. But the same could be said for Fizer as well.


Fizer...

That's another hmm?

The hmm with that that I can't forget is once Skiles said he was going to put Fizer in the game, but he was in the bathroom, Fizer basically came back and said Skiles was lying, and Skiles never refuted that...

That was a hmm? with me...

IMO Fizer should have never seen the floor until January so he had the time he needed to heal.

I think Fizer next year will go somewhere and be alright, just like other guys who have left Chicago.

I know a lot of people want to blame the players for this and that, but at some point it has to be more than coincidence that guys leave our team and don't have positive things to say about the organization and are productive immediately on their new teams.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> There's some merit to that argument.
> 
> ...


I think that drafting high schoolers is like investing in an agressive growth fund. The variance is a lot higher than bonds (chandler, leon smith, miles vs KG, Kobe) but the overall payoff is higher. I knew this as a fan of the Bulls when they drafted these guys, and I'm sure Krause did as well. Krause took a gamble with Curry and Chandler and so far its been marginally disappointing. Curry for attitude reasons and Chandler for health. But....its still far to early to declare Curry and Chandler BUSTS and Krause an idiot for drafting them. Drafting high schoolers into the NBA is a multi year commitment... and fans should realize that.

The Rose trade is another story....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that drafting high schoolers is like investing in an agressive growth fund. The variance is a lot higher than bonds (chandler, leon smith, miles vs KG, Kobe) but the overall payoff is higher. I knew this as a fan of the Bulls when they drafted these guys, and I'm sure Krause did as well. Krause took a gamble with Curry and Chandler and so far its been marginally disappointing. Curry for attitude reasons and Chandler for health. But....its still far to early to declare Curry and Chandler BUSTS and Krause an idiot for drafting them. Drafting high schoolers into the NBA is a multi year commitment... and fans should realize that.
> ...


ANd Krause was reportedly AGAINST the Rose trade. I like your way of thinking. Right on with the analysis.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes he's getting paid now, but is that his fault? If you pay him $6.2 million to sit the bench, that's bad business on your part, if anything keep sending him out there to play his value up so you can get rid of him.


Its bad business to sign a dog to a multi year deal. Or.... its bad business to create an environment where good players seem like dogs. 

If its the first, than EROB is still a dog... the Bulls were just stupid to invest in him.

If its the second... then the Bulls are a poor organization. A true professional works hard even in a bad spot... but its tough to expect that from everyone. I don't think anyone, even the biggest EROB fans, would call him a "true professional." Ha ha... its funny to even write something like that.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> If its the second... then the Bulls are a poor organization.


Almost everyone who has come and gone throughout the past few years has given those sentiments.

Do we ignore them and continue to say it's the players?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I belive off-season training would fall under the guidance of strength and conditioning coach Al Vermeil, not the trainer. Krause always referred to "Camp Vermeil" starting during the off-season. Al is still available to any player who wishes to make use of his considerable expertise.
> 
> Obviously the players we've had in the past were motivated to improve their bodies and their games in the off-season. They got their butts kicked by the Knicks and Pistons in the playoffs and realized they needed to get stronger in order to win. Our current players, with some exceptions, haven't figured this out yet. They look for every *excuse* they can to not improve. It's one of several reasons why they're losers.


Sounds like you're as fed up with all the excuse making as Paxson was when he challenged the team with his theme of "No Excuses." I'm sure he saw the same kind of lack of dedication you're describing which is why he challenged them that way. Nice try, Pax, but it didn't work. As you've described them Kneepad, collectively this group are losers. So what choice does managent have but to cut out whatever cancer exists before the situation becomes terminal. BTW, you're right...Vermeil's available, though he's somewhat eased himself into retirement and handed the day to day conditioning responsibilities over to Erik Helland.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Sounds like you're as fed up with all the excuse making as Paxson was when he challenged the team with his theme of "No Excuses." I'm sure he saw the same kind of lack of dedication you're describing which is why he challenged them that way. Nice try, Pax, but it didn't work. As you've described them Kneepad, collectively this group are losers. So what choice does managent have but to cut out whatever cancer exists before the situation becomes terminal. BTW, you're right...Vermeil's available, though he's somewhat eased himself into retirement and handed the day to day conditioning responsibilities over to Erik Helland.


The way I see it, there are 3 types of players on the Bulls:

1) those who are satisfied collecting their millions, living the NBA lifestyle, and do not care one way or the other whether their team wins or loses. Furthermore, they show no signs of ever changing this attitude.

2) same as #1, except they show signs of possibly being converted into caring about winning and losing, and doing whatever it takes to win.

3) those who are already willing to do whatever it takes to win.

It is Paxson's job to determine which group each player is in. Those in #1 need to be removed from the organization. Those in #3 are obviously keepers (assuming they have the necessary talent to contribute on the court). The tricky group is obviously #2. It is the success Paxson has in correctly identifying these players that will determine how quickly this team gets back to championship contention.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling 3 of the 4 players who comprise our young core fall into this group.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> The way I see it, there are 3 types of players on the Bulls:
> 
> ...


I'm in absolute 100% agreement with your characterization of the Bulls current roster. You are right on target with your assessment. Lets hope Paxson is successful eliminating those you describe as _satisfied._
:greatjob:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> The way I see it, there are 3 types of players on the Bulls:
> 
> ...


i disagree , for the most part of the last 5 years Shaq has been the best player in the nba , and thru that time he has been injury prone , out of shape a loudmouth who spoke out against the nba , the refs, his teammates and anything else that crosses his mind , he has been unsupportive at times (the kobe rape case specifically) and ego manaical , a far worse person than e-rob and there has been no improvement in his game in the weak points of his game to make up for his lessening athletism , and he is still a laker , do you know why , he produces on the court which makes none of the aforemention stuff matter showing how important it is in the scheme of things .

you dont get rid of players for stuff like that only if it affects on court performance , when e-rob plays , he produces so I have no problem in fact this year he showed a willingness to play through pain . players are paid to play in games well , not practice they are not paid to be humble or brave or any other positive character traits and it annoys me to hear this as a reason to get rid of a player and other comments about them that are completely unsubstantiated such as robonison took the money and NOW HE PLAYS SOFT , no , he never drove before its not something thats a part of his game although i've seen proof that he has tried to implement it , although he would still perfer to shoot jumpers , so if you ask me if he is a negative influence on curry i say who cares curry is a grown man , and he has enough people telling him whats right to do , he should be man enough to do them no matter who else is in the locker room with him , he is after all suppose to be the team's #1 option and go to guy , why are so many people saying he is so weak mentally to be thrown off track ?

if anything it says more bad about eddy than can ever be said about eddie or anyone else on the roster and until he gets it in gear and plays to the point no one cares about the "influences" it will continue to be that way


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

in the NBA there is a constant battle between talent and attitude. talent almost always wins the battle. thats why coaches get fired so often.

erob does not have enough talent to warrant his attitude.... given what the bulls are trying to do. 

shaq has more than enough talent to make the entire nba bend to his will. if he tries acting like that 5 years from now when he's not effective anymore.... its bye bye shaq.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> in the NBA there is a constant battle between talent and attitude. talent almost always wins the battle. thats why coaches get fired so often.
> 
> erob does not have enough talent to warrant his attitude.... given what the bulls are trying to do.
> ...


but the thing is what exactly has e-rob done that was so bad ? He doesn't badmouth teammates , doesn't have a gun charge on him or some other law breaking activity going on , he simply is the player the bulls signed basically no better no worse , on the hornets he was a bench player on the bulls which is a worse team he is a starter because he is a better player than linton and dupree , which admittedly doesn't mean much except when you notice he was out of the rotation for no good reason , I'm not that big a fan of robinson i just know the on court product is better with him then without him and if the goal is to win ....you do the math .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The biggest negative influence on the whole team is the losing.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The biggest negative influence on the whole team is the losing.


Six seasons of it to be exact. Ah, rebuilding...what a ride! Thanks, JK.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

IMO, people dislike Erob for several reasons:

1.He made us (Jerry) believe that we can trade Artest and he will deliver.
2.Erob costs a lot of money. 
3.Erob is occupying a spot, which was occupied by players like Pippen, Kukoc.
4.Erob , like Jamal , has problem to see a “big picture” during the game.
5.Erob reminds us about Krauz mistakes.
6.His presence prevents us to go after a better free agents.
7.He disappointed us from day one, being in the Bulls uniform.
8.He is not familiar with the words: sacrifice, team player, champion, pride...
9.He got what he wanted (big contract) and he has an empty “wish list”.
10.He afraid/avoids physical contacts during a game.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> but the thing is what exactly has e-rob done that was so bad ? He doesn't badmouth teammates , doesn't have a gun charge on him or some other law breaking activity going on , he simply is the player the bulls signed basically no better no worse , on the hornets he was a bench player on the bulls which is a worse team he is a starter because he is a better player than linton and dupree , which admittedly doesn't mean much except when you notice he was out of the rotation for no good reason , I'm not that big a fan of robinson i just know the on court product is better with him then without him and if the goal is to win ....you do the math .


To me, he's worse than a guy with a gun charge. If the guy with a gun charge cares.... then I'll take the guy with the gun charge. Rodman had a gun charge on his record… but he busted his *** out there so it was acceptable from a basketball standpoint. EROB just seems to have an apathetic approach to his NBA career. If he was not so talented... we would not care. Its just a shame to see it wasted. Now... maybe we can blame skiles... maybe he should be getting EROB on the court... who knows. I think that skiles is trying to instill an overall work ethic/professionalism attitude to the Bulls and EROB is not buying into it. We don't want Curry, Crawford, Hinrich, etc not staying late after practice to shoot jump shots. We don't want them skipping out on their exit interviews. There is more to being a pro than just playing the games.... if you are an all star you can get away with things a bit more.... EROB is not an all star.

I'm just POed that we just can't dump the guy without having him on our cap so we can get a guy in here to help the team. 

It may be skiles.... but I don't think so. I don't know for sure though since i'm not around the team


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The biggest negative influence on the whole team is the losing.


This is true.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Six seasons of it to be exact. Ah, rebuilding...what a ride! Thanks, JK.


Actually, six seasons, while in total, is not correct. There are two different rebuilding plans going on. Krause started one with Elton and then changed and went to plan #2 when he drafted the HSers.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

...with profound apologies to the dead horse.

*John Paxson addressed the situation of forward Eddie Robinson, the only Bull who refused to meet with Paxson and Scott Skiles for an end-of-season interview.

"I'm obviously disappointed, and it's pretty clear that he and I are not on the same page right now,'' Paxson said. "I did talk to one of his representatives. And when I get back into town, I plan on sitting down with his representatives present and determine what's best for the Chicago Bulls.''

A close friend of Robinson's, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Robinson told him that after Skiles benched him for most of the season, it was clear he didn't fit in the team's future and skipping the interview couldn't hurt him any further.*


http://www.suntimes.com/output/basketball/cst-spt-lebron21.html


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i disagree , for the most part of the last 5 years Shaq has been the best player in the nba , and thru that time he has been injury prone , out of shape a loudmouth who spoke out against the nba , the refs, his teammates and anything else that crosses his mind , he has been unsupportive at times (the kobe rape case specifically) and ego manaical , a far worse person than e-rob and there has been no improvement in his game in the weak points of his game to make up for his lessening athletism , and he is still a laker , do you know why , he produces on the court which makes none of the aforemention stuff matter showing how important it is in the scheme of things .


The Bulls do not have anyone on their roster who is producing anywhere near the level of Shaq. If/When they do, if that player does not have the best attitude in the world, I'm sure they'll make adjustments.

My point is that bad apples are very detrimental to a team that is trying to re-build from the depths of the league as the Bulls are.



> you dont get rid of players for stuff like that only if it affects on court performance , when e-rob plays , he produces


You might learn a bit from Bulls history. In the early-to-mid 80's, the Bulls had quite a few ERob's on the team. Guys like Orlando Woolridge, Quentin Dailey, Ennis Whatley, Jawann Oldham, and Reggie Theus had plenty of talent and produced when they played. Yet Krause got rid of every last one of them. Why do you think that was? Because they were in group #1 from my previous post-- guys that were happy collecting their checks and getting their stats and smoking pot and chasing women-- they weren't anywhere close to being dedicated to becoming NBA champions. The team had a losing culture. Krause rightly rebuilt the team around the one guy who was dedicated to winning-- Jordan.

With all that has come to light about ERob, I remain stunned that there are still those on this board defending him! I know we've been bad, but jeez-- can we please set our sights just a bit higher?

As for Curry, yes, technically he is a grown man (old enough to vote, drink, get drafted, etc.) Yes, he should be man enough to stand up for himself. But he isn't. He's lived a coddled, protected life surrounded by people telling him how great he is. He became a multi-millionaire at age 19. Now he's 21. Like many/most 21 year olds, he's easily influenced by peer pressure. He wants to fit in with his teammates. He's clearly a follower as opposed to a leader. If those teammates are telling him he doesn't have to work on his game and he'll still earn millions based on his talent alone, those are teammates I would prefer are not around. He needs to be surrounded by guys who will encourage him to work, and call him out if/when he doesn't.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> As for Curry, yes, technically he is a grown man (old enough to vote, drink, get drafted, etc.) Yes, he should be man enough to stand up for himself. But he isn't. He's lived a coddled, protected life surrounded by people telling him how great he is. He became a multi-millionaire at age 19. Now he's 21. Like many/most 21 year olds, he's easily influenced by peer pressure. He wants to fit in with his teammates. He's clearly a follower as opposed to a leader. If those teammates are telling him he doesn't have to work on his game and he'll still earn millions based on his talent alone, those are teammates I would prefer are not around. He needs to be surrounded by guys who will encourage him to work, and call him out if/when he doesn't.


But if this is the case... and I think it's true... I just don't see him ever being that successful. This kid grew up here and I'm sure he's got people coming from all directions to tell him what's what. Under those conditions, I just don't think it's viable to think dumping an ERob is going to make much of a difference either way.

And on the other hand, I do see a lot of negative consequences to not playing the ERob. Although not playing him sets an example for Curry, I also see it as opening up the Bulls to having his confidence in the coach undermined. I mean, is the lesson Eddy learning necessarily that loafing doesn't pay, or is he learning a more warped conspiracy theory that the team isn't playing Erob out of some personal vendetta? Given that Eddy is impressionable and ERob might have his ear, that's a possibility too.

In that context, playing Erob would eliminate the conspiracy theory mentality. A happy Erob would, at the very least, be less of a passive-aggressive menace to Curry's impressionable mind. Plus, playing ERob has two benefits. There's the possibility that he's one of those guys who works harder when he's happier, and thus, by playing more and winning more, he'll start to take the game seriously again. And if that doesn't work, at least his value his gone up, thus making him marginally more tradeable.

And in this context, getting him off the team, I agree, is still the best option. It's not like I want a loafer on the team, playing or not. I just see the current limbo situation as likely being counterproductive for all involved.

It also reflects some serious paralysis by analysis on the Bulls part. On one hand, they're afraid to play ERob because they're afraid he'll actually do well, sending a signal that you don't have to work hard to play, or even to play well. But at the same time they appear deathly afraid of cutting him because that would also send a signal that you can get your way by pouting and you can get money for nothing, and they're afraid they'll look stupid if he goes to another team and plays well.

So, afraid to **** or get off the pot, they sit there miserable and unhappy. Get over it and make a freaking decision guys.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> But if this is the case... and I think it's true... I just don't see him ever being that successful. ... I just don't think it's viable to think dumping an ERob is going to make much of a difference either way.


You may be right, Mike. But is ERob really worth the risk? I don't think so. Do you?

And it's more than just the influence on Curry. It's developing a "one for all, all for one" mentality within the team. I know that sounds corny, but it's important. It's the difference between teams with winning cultures and teams with losing cultures.



> And on the other hand, I do see a lot of negative consequences to not playing the ERob. Although not playing him sets an example for Curry, I also see it as opening up the Bulls to having his confidence in the coach undermined. I mean, is the lesson Eddy learning necessarily that loafing doesn't pay, or is he learning a more warped conspiracy theory that the team isn't playing Erob out of some personal vendetta? Given that Eddy is impressionable and ERob might have his ear, that's a possibility too.


Maybe. I guess I just don't see that as being too likely.



> Plus, playing ERob has two benefits. There's the possibility that he's one of those guys who works harder when he's happier, and thus, by playing more and winning more, he'll start to take the game seriously again. And if that doesn't work, at least his value his gone up, thus making him marginally more tradeable.


Uh, he was playing there for awhile, wasn't he? Then something suddenly happened to land him in the doghouse. So obviously just playing him didn't work all that well.



> It also reflects some serious paralysis by analysis on the Bulls part. On one hand, they're afraid to play ERob because they're afraid he'll actually do well, sending a signal that you don't have to work hard to play, or even to play well. But at the same time they appear deathly afraid of cutting him because that would also send a signal that you can get your way by pouting and you can get money for nothing, and they're afraid they'll look stupid if he goes to another team and plays well.


I think it's more paralysis by analysis on your part. 

I don't think the Bulls were/are "afraid" to play ERob. They're just simply not going to unless he gets with the program. And I don't think they're afraid of cutting him for fear he'll play well with another team. The off-season is just beginning-- let's see what they do. I'm sure they're still hoping to unload him as filler (salary balance) in a trade. If the end of the off-season rolls around and he's still on the roster, it wouldn't totally shock me if they did cut him.

Just a general comment... I think it's really hard for we as fans to evaluate these kinds of situations because we know probably 1/100th of all the interaction that takes place between the various members of the team and coaches. I'm not a huge Paxson/Skiles fan overall, but I do trust them to handle this situation in a way that's best for the team. In any case, I feel as though it's kind of pointless to second-guess them because of how little we do know.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> To me, he's worse than a guy with a gun charge. If the guy with a gun charge cares.... then I'll take the guy with the gun charge. Rodman had a gun charge on his record… but he busted his *** out there so it was acceptable from a basketball standpoint. EROB just seems to have an apathetic approach to his NBA career. If he was not so talented... we would not care. Its just a shame to see it wasted. Now... maybe we can blame skiles... maybe he should be getting EROB on the court... who knows. I think that skiles is trying to instill an overall work ethic/professionalism attitude to the Bulls and EROB is not buying into it. We don't want Curry, Crawford, Hinrich, etc not staying late after practice to shoot jump shots. We don't want them skipping out on their exit interviews. There is more to being a pro than just playing the games.... if you are an all star you can get away with things a bit more.... EROB is not an all star.
> ...


is there really any proof that robinson has been apathetic this season ? , He said he does not put in extra work , but no one has ever said he did not put in enough , that he didn't have good practice habits while he was at practice, there was an article earlier this season saying he was playing through his injuries , in fact there is more proof to say that he has worked hard this year when you consider he was being played right in the middle of the skiles "I play the guys who do the work I ask from them" mantra he was on in the beginning of his tenure as a bull coach , in fact there was a story saying robinson was not being played because of an argument not anything done on a court practice or otherwise , i have yet to read one that said otherwise , in fact his benching confuses many of his teammates so its not that its all in e-robs head

i believe the beef on why robinson hasn't been playing has been personal not professional and that in this season no one has a right to say that he's loafed


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> The Bulls do not have anyone on their roster who is producing anywhere near the level of Shaq. If/When they do, if that player does not have the best attitude in the world, I'm sure they'll make adjustments.
> 
> ...


the fact that robinson isn't shaq is not supposed to matter in this era of professionalism(so told to us by skiles and pax) ...or do you believe its just a double standard that has yet to be executed?

is there a player on the bulls who has been on the bulls since before this past season whom their work ethic hasn't been called into question , in fact most of those same players have been this year , erob has not , its only been said he hasn't put in extra work, no one has said he was out of shape , thus requiring him to do so , now i would like it if he did but we are talking about a small thing he unlike some, he did put in his work over the summer and when he played unlike some produced what was expected of him so for this season i cant there is a lot to complain about , unless there is a need to rehash the 2002-03 season in which there is plenty. 

If curry followed his example on being ready for the season would we be having this conversation ? I personally find the need to pin this one on robinson without merit whom i dont consider that strong a personality anyway, i really cant see him leading anyone, for one in past seasons its been said that he had lost a lot of respect for not being prepared so ...it would seem to me the only way he would have any pull is by doing the right thing which is apparently what he did for this season , and for that he is the scapegoat for curry not being strong mentally...is pax going to sift through eddy's entourage too? and try to find the rotten apples and then why not stop there then maybe he should try to find which of curry's family are poisoning him ?

In truth its on eddy , to work hard and play hard and it always has been and if its not then he should be splitting his salary with who else is responsible.I believe in blaming eddie robinson for his problems when he has them, not eddy so it shouldn't be the other way around.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It comes down to this, I think (and I'm not the only one voicing this in this thread, but I'll say it again)...

ERob is ONE reason, one barrier to Eddy's development. Is he the only reason? Not by any means. But is he a reason that Bulls management can easily do something about? Sure.

Eddy does need his own drive, his own ability to grow up and weed out the bad influences on himself. He needs to be more aggressive on and off the court, and you can't pin that on any one player.

But if we're talking about optimizing an environment to grow, and if Curry just isn't showing those attributes because he's still being a follower and not a leader, I say, let's guarantee that he's led the right direction and maybe after a slow while, he'll start to adopt it as his own character. That's a lot more probable for a young, soft, moldable personality like EC: training a leader to grow, not looking to genetic predisposition for leadership abilities.

The first problem in EC's development is that we're losing a lot. But if we're stuck in this losing environment for the short term (and we definitely are), then producing a "winner" is much more difficult than it might be if the team was successful. Getting rid of "negative influences" is one step in that.

ERob isn't getting lynched for this, but he's the only guy on the team that's had any bad character reflected in the media since Jalen's whining left to Toronto (btw, I'd say that Marshall was a good character guy, or neutral at best). Even Crawford, when his minutes have been unjustly cut, has grimaced and continued on without a snide comment or any whine.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> is there really any proof that robinson has been apathetic this season ? , He said he does not put in extra work , but no one has ever said he did not put in enough , that he didn't have good practice habits while he was at practice, there was an article earlier this season saying he was playing through his injuries , in fact there is more proof to say that he has worked hard this year when you consider he was being played right in the middle of the skiles "I play the guys who do the work I ask from them" mantra he was on in the beginning of his tenure as a bull coach , in fact there was a story saying robinson was not being played because of an argument not anything done on a court practice or otherwise , i have yet to read one that said otherwise , in fact his benching confuses many of his teammates so its not that its all in e-robs head
> ...


I feel this way about EROB for many reasons.

1.) The constant injuries. Maybe, maybe maybe he's just that fragile.... but it seems that the last 2 seasons he would jump at the chance to hit the IR and not come until he was 100%. I'd like my players to be chomping at the bit to get back in there and help the team win... especially for the money he's being paid.

2.) The man has freakish athleticism but is content to make a career of taking mid range jumpers. Granted, he hits these jumpers at a high percentage.... but I want to see more based on what I think he can do and what he's being paid. He came around for a spell this year.... no doubt... but then *something* happened. Either way, his game is pudding soft (she-rob)

3.) I've never seen a passion for winning (or anything really, except for "electronics") from him. His demeanor on the bench. The way he plays. The quotes in the paper. Maybe he's just really, really laid back.... but he comes off like he does not care if the Bulls win or lose. He's happy to collect his paycheck, buy his ice (sun-times article) and life the life. More power to him... the CBA lets him do this... but as a Bulls fan that wants the team to win I demand more. It seems to me that I care much more if the Bulls win or lose than EROB.


4.) The benching this year. I don't know the cause. But, Skiles seems to me that if you buy into his system (practice and play hard) that he'll play you. This team needs to practice hard. Maybe it was based on an argument. Maybe it was FU coach I don't need to practice. Maybe it was a comment about not caring about winning or losing. I don't know. Maybe Skiles is just a jackass. I still don't know why Fizer was benched for the 2nd half of the season. 30 and 20 in one of the last games seems to show that he could play a little. But, it seems to me what those 2 were not buying into the system. Eddy Curry and the boys need to buy in. Any possible benefit that EROB could provide on the court is not worth Eddy Curry thinking he can get away with not practicing hard. He needs development. 

Why is it that we don't hear EROB saying "i get mad when the Bulls lose... we need to do something about it" but we are blessed with articles about custom jewelry and electronics? It seems clear to me where his priorities are....


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> It comes down to this, I think (and I'm not the only one voicing this in this thread, but I'll say it again)...
> 
> ERob is ONE reason, one barrier to Eddy's development. Is he the only reason? Not by any means. But is he a reason that Bulls management can easily do something about? Sure.
> ...


Forgive the pretention in quoting myself, but I might add that Jermaine O'Neal did EXACTLY this in Indiana. They grew him into a leader, even as recently as last year. They also removed some of the "bad influences" on him (haha, Jalen Rose... and later, Ron Mercer, who isn't THAT "bad" but not so great either... ironic, no?), and got some better ones around him. More importantly, they grew Jermaine into a leader because the team grew into a winner and O'Neal noticed that it was because he was doing his job.

Let's let Eddy do his job, cut the "negative influences", and start winning. Let's also get guys that can help us win games, even if it's not a ton. Do you realize how encouraged these guys were to play hard after a 30 win season? That's just silly. But it really drove Crawford (and Chandler, to some extent) to walk into the season improved and ready to talk playoffs. For some reason, that didn't totally rub onto Curry, but he must have realized that going 9 - 12 in March/April 2003 (that's 35 win basketball, and a lot of losses were OT or close) and his own stats exploding were SOMEHOW related.

Let's start winning a few, and then let's let our young guys see if they want to push themselves to the next level and be a PART of it, or if they want off the team.

ERob's most negative influence might be this: he has given up on this team ever winning. That might be the organization's fault as much as his, but that's his present sentiment and it's too late to change that. We can't convert him back into a hardcore mentality like he had in Charlotte; he's given up on us. Curry, also, had quite a work ethic back in high school when he worked like crazy with Tim Grover to lose weight and gain the soft touch he now enjoys near the hoop. We can't let him follow in the footsteps of one that has given up on the team. That means making some changes on the coaching and organization side too, but it means changing the landscape of the roster, as well.

So, another Jermaine comparison has arisen, but with rightful cause.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> It comes down to this, I think (and I'm not the only one voicing this in this thread, but I'll say it again)...
> 
> ERob is ONE reason, one barrier to Eddy's development. Is he the only reason? Not by any means. But is he a reason that Bulls management can easily do something about? Sure.
> ...


the thing is with blaming e-rob is that there is no proof , none that he is even a friend of curry the only thing that even remotely syas anything is that people say e-rob had curry's # to call him in that cell phone incedent of which he was cleared of having anything to do with it(i remember seeing JC in eddy's circle Tyson even jaywill) let alone leading him on a road to ruin through complacency and bad attitudes , management hasn't named him , it could just as easily be chris jefferies, kendall gill or jyd , the fact that robinson has complained that he had his time cut means nothing to me especially considering other teammates have also voiced the concern on e-robs behalf, its also not like robinson calls them over for this reporters ask him questions and he responds nothing he's said reminds anyone of the wonderful speech we all heard from jay williams last season about his team his coaches and sys. being run. Robonson simply said he isn't being played and he doesn't know why ....hardly worse than any other bulls player could be expected to act ....outside of LJ3 and dupree or paul shirley none of whom really play well enough to complain if they get no time, Fizer made the same comments months ago about PT but because he is considered less important it was brushed under the rug . Has fizer ever shown up for play out of shape? I would say he has , and i like most bulls fans if i had a choice in the matter would choose him over robinson if it meant getting out from under robinsons contract. But thats not really the issue , the issue is how is eddie robinson automatically considered the scapegoat for another man's frame of mind?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I feel this way about EROB for many reasons.
> ...


1)he has played through injuries this past season and for this past season has been relatively injury free

2) thats his game and it has always been that way , he doesn't have that great a handle and he isn't terribly creative , so he simply does what he does best and hit mid range J's 

3) I read quotes where he cared , for instance proir to the 2002-03 season he was in the gym all summer in what was considered a spirited race for a starter spot between him and donyell in which he worked on his game and was lifting weights because he wanted to be "like t-mac" and he will need to build his body up for the pounding he will take . He's mad about not playing so that in itself suggest he has some desire and not as in such apathy as he has been claimed to be in. I find this to be a catch 22 if he complains about not playing he is a malcontent if he accepts it he is too laid back and just accepting a check for nothing 

4) the benching which is a mystery to everyone not named skiles and possibly paxson any reason you can muster is pure conjecture because players are paid to play and he was the best small forward on the roster so he should have been playing because his play said so . i dont see how you blame him when its the coach who decides this , his reasons are his own but since they aren't play related i find fault with it because its his job to try to win , not audition nbdlers or settle personal beefs like it appeared he did with blount.

do you see e-rob on cribs? reporters ask what they ask whether its about jewlery or whatever ...he could choose not to answer but he would be a jerk not to, it doesn't seem to me that robinson goes out of his way at all for attention , in fact i cant remember a quote from him in a story not about him , which tells me he's not like others who spout off about things in a way that brings reporters to him.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> the thing is with blaming e-rob is that there is no proof , none that he is even a friend of curry the only thing that even remotely syas anything is that people say e-rob had curry's # to call him in that cell phone incedent of which he was cleared of having anything to do with it(i remember seeing JC in eddy's circle Tyson even jaywill) let alone leading him on a road to ruin through complacency and bad attitudes , management hasn't named him , it could just as easily be chris jefferies, kendall gill or jyd , the fact that robinson has complained that he had his time cut means nothing to me especially considering other teammates have also voiced the concern on e-robs behalf, its also not like robinson calls them over for this reporters ask him questions and he responds nothing he's said reminds anyone of the wonderful speech we all heard from jay williams last season about his team his coaches and sys. being run. Robonson simply said he isn't being played and he doesn't know why ....hardly worse than any other bulls player could be expected to act ....outside of LJ3 and dupree or paul shirley none of whom really play well enough to complain if they get no time, Fizer made the same comments months ago about PT but because he is considered less important it was brushed under the rug . Has fizer ever shown up for play out of shape? I would say he has , and i like most bulls fans if i had a choice in the matter would choose him over robinson if it meant getting out from under robinsons contract. But thats not really the issue , the issue is how is eddie robinson automatically considered the scapegoat for another man's frame of mind?


ERob has publicly given up on this team. Again, that's not a horrible thing to do if you're the ultimate pragmatist, but giving up on ANYTHING isn't something you teach a young player, in anything. Don't give up for a rebound, don't give up on defense, don't save or hold yourself back at all... follow your shot for the offensive board, don't give up on your man if he gets past you, don't give up a single easy basket even if you're up by 20. (By the way, these are things most guys learn in college ball...)

The last thing you want a young player to learn is how to give up on an entire team that has taken you in and paid you a lot of money.

JYD, Gill, AD, and the rest of the team has taken a disciplining tone with the younger players. And maybe ERob has been a victim of the media; I'm very much willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But Paxson, Skiles, the media, everyone seems to be on record that ERob has at least SOME form of character issue.

Has anyone ever worked in fast food? Or as a waiter? Anyone ever raise children? Anyone ever teach anyone anything for the first time? Anyone ever train the new guy at work? Anyone even coach basketball or another sport?

If you have done any of those, you know the importance of an example. I wouldn't say ERob lacks certain QUALITIES, like work ethic or whatever. But I'd say he lacks MATURITY, and EC's natural immaturity as a youngster in professional basketball cannot learn from the example of one who is immature as well. We've hashed the maturity gap between high schoolers and college grads, but it's just true-- the years between 18 and 21 are the years where you learn how to be a MAN, not just the years you learn how to play a sport.

And ERob is the pro on this team that is most a vet and still close to his age. Curry's not going to go kick it with AD or JYD, guys that are 9-12 years older than him. When I go to work, and there's a bunch of old guys around, I look to the guy that is most fun and youngest. Curry's going to hang out with JC and TC and ... who? Hinrich? Dupree? Fizer? Probably ERob. 

He's got more influence than just one player on the roster, and anyone who has ever done anything on a team knows that it only takes one guy.

Again, if it's not as it seems, then it's not. But based on what it SEEMS, ERob should be a goner, or have a serious attitude adjustment. I'm looking forward to seeing how the spin doctors work their magic on the player recaps look at bulls.com.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> ERob has publicly given up on this team. Again, that's not a horrible thing to do if you're the ultimate pragmatist, but giving up on ANYTHING isn't something you teach a young player, in anything. Don't give up for a rebound, don't give up on defense, don't save or hold yourself back at all... follow your shot for the offensive board, don't give up on your man if he gets past you, don't give up a single easy basket even if you're up by 20. (By the way, these are things most guys learn in college ball...)
> ...


I agree :yes:

I also think that Pax shouldve caught this last summer when he had to fine Erob 50 Grand for not returning his phone calls :upset:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How stupid are the 3C's (and Hinrich)? People must think they're awfully stupid if they believe ANY player with half a brain wouldn't react to the Bulls organization being pathetic the same was as ERob.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Fizer...
> 
> That's another hmm?
> ...


Anyone remember this?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Anyone remember this?


yeah, I remember. Skiles said he was going to put Fizer in the game but that Fizer was in the bathroom when he went to call his name. I don't remember the part about Fizer saying Skiles was lieing though. But I am thinking Fizer surely didn't take THAT long in the bathroom, Skiles probably could have put him in if he really wanted to.


----------

