# Curry Doesn't Get It -- Rebounding is PART OF A CENTER'S RESPONSIBILITIES!!!



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ec27,1,7706773.story?coll=cs-basketball-print



> Passive rebounding led to Eddy Curry taking a passive position for much of Sunday's loss--sitting on the bench.
> 
> Despite scoring 12 points in the first 5 minutes 7 seconds, Curry played only 24 minutes because the coaching staff got tired of watching him fail to pursue rebounds aggressively.
> 
> ...


What part of "Rebounding is part of a big man's JOB" doesn't Eddy understand??? How many times does Skiles have to tell him that scoring is great, but its not the whole job.

Scoring gets highlights. Defense wins chanpionships. Right?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ec27,1,7706773.story?coll=cs-basketball-print
> 
> 
> ...


Fed the LP feed of the Bucks broadcast crew, it was painfully obvious he was pulled because of his defense and rebounding and I stated that in another thread. The Bucks crew of course harped that Curry was simply pulled because he made a "mistake". Apparently they feel Smith and Pachulia are All-World and the rebounding disparity was to be expected. No thought was given to the fact that Curry's defense was about as effective as mine would have been in a rec league game or that we were getting hammered on the boards because Eddy forgot about the "jump" technique.

The Bucks crew was further quoted in that thread as ripping Skiles for his substitutions. True again, although they were too stupid to understand the foul implications and Skiles pattern of trying to put folks down for the half with 2 fouls.

C'mon, its pretty clear some folks are looking to blame Skiles no matter what happens.

The Bulls allowed 61 first half points. Skiles rewarded them with a couple days off and they came out with NO defensive intensity. Redd was on fire and we had no answers, but we got absolutely killed on the boards when we should have owned them. Perhaps the Bulls got a little too fat at the holiday, but now we'll get to see how they "rebound".


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The question is: Why is it every time the Bulls have a shortcoming, it is one the Twin Cs fault?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> The question is: Why is it every time the Bulls have a shortcoming, it is one the Twin Cs fault?


Its not always the twin C's fault -- but in this case, it IS Eddy's fault that he doesn't seem to understand that rebounding needs to be a part of his game.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

Curry would be a monster if he could rebound. What is the cause of his woes? Is he always out of position? Lack of skills? What?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>YearofDaBulls</b>!
> Curry would be a monster if he could rebound. What is the cause of his woes? Is he always out of position? Lack of skills? What?


He thinks his work is done once he's laid a body on one of the opposing players. He rarely, if ever, actively pursues the ball, to the point where he's content to let a rebound hit the floor right in front of him. 

Also, I've never seen a big man with poorer natural instincts. You know how Dennis Rodman not only corralled a huge percentage of defensive rebounds, but was always in the immediate neighborhood of just about all the rest? Curry is the anti-Rodman. He has no natural knack for rebounding whatsoever.

Another big difference is this: even though Rodman came into the league a terrific inborn rebounder, it was only through hard work that he became the absolute best. Not only did he build himself up physically, he watched thousands of hours of tape to learn shooters' tendencies and the characteristics of their missed shots as well as the rebounding/boxing-out techniques of his opponents. 

Has anyone heard of Eddy going to such lengths to shore up the biggest weakness in his game? I haven't.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>YearofDaBulls</b>!
> Curry would be a monster if he could rebound. What is the cause of his woes? Is he always out of position? Lack of skills? What?


The skinny is he doesn't react well to the ball at all.

You often see him watching the ball, instead of anticipating where the ball is going to be and moving to that spot. You also see a ball coming his way, and often don't see Eddy jump up to get it. I don't think that this is a lack of desire--he just hasn't learned that aspect of rebounding.

This is definately an area of his game that would have improved by going to college even for two years. He is still getting used to not being the biggest and strongest (as he was in high school).

He actually has been boxing out much better this year compared to season's past. He boxes out his man much more often than Chandler this year, however Chandler is a better rebounder because he goes up to get the board, making up for bad positioning.

I have seen improvements each year with Eddy's defense and rebounding fundamentals, and while they are still a deficiency in his game, there is nothing that indicates to me that he will never "get it". I still expect him to improve on the other side of the ball each year


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

What I don't get is that Davis played the most out of any of the Bulls' big men and gets only 3 rebounds, yet Curry gets singled out. Plus, Davis' man, Joe Smith scored 21.

If we keep Eddy, we are going to have to focus on utilizing what he does bring to the table instead what he doesn't. He's never gonna be a dominant rebounder, so we're gonna need Tyson and the rest of the guys to step up on the boards. We won six titles during the 90's with a starting centers who never averaged more than the 6.2 rebounds Carwright avergaed in 90-91. However his(and Longley's) poor rebounding was balanced out by Jordan and Pippen being strong in that aspect. Maybe having a Liliputian backcourt and a weak rebounding center will turn out to be too much to overcome.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Davis does have quite a few of these nights where he plays crappy defense and doesn't rebound yet Curry gets blamed. What I saw last night in Eddy Curry is that he does box out. He is not Tyson Chandler though. He does not attack the ball like Chandler. When the ball bounced on the opposite side of the rim, Chandler would go get that, Curry doesn't. Curry had his man boxed out, most of the time it was Davis' man coming in for the offensive board. Curry can be blamed for not being aggressive enough but he was not just messing up. Davis was the one messing up the most. Davis wasn't boxing out, and let his man get the ball many times.


----------



## MVPKirk (Dec 17, 2004)

I thought that on the play where Curry was yanked, it was more AD's fault anyway...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ec27,1,7706773.story?coll=cs-basketball-print
> 
> What part of "Rebounding is part of a big man's JOB" doesn't Eddy understand??? How many times does Skiles have to tell him that scoring is great, but its not the whole job.
> ...


Similar statements were made last season about his best friend's mindset. Coincidence?

What won't be viewed as coincidental is when Curry finds himself playing for someone else just like his pal JC. Simply put, Paxson and Skiles aren't interested in players who won't get their hands dirty. Rebounding and playing physical, interior defense is the mandatory dirty work that goes with being a PF or center. Ask yourself this question: Would John Paxson have drafted Eddy Curry?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Oh, and as for what Antonio Davis brings...how many times have we heard Skiles remark about how AD acts as a settling influence with the first unit...a group comprised of two rookies, a second year player and a 21 year old.

Unfortunately there isn't a stat column for "settling influence" in a boxscore. But apparently that's what Skiles likes most about what AD has to contribute, and that makes statistical comparisions Davis' and Curry's game performances an exercise in futility and basically a waste of time.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ec27,1,7706773.story?coll=cs-basketball-print
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, he doesn't get it. And apparently some people here don't get it either. When he's able to score, that great. But you have to be at least an adequate rebounder if you're a center. If you get killed on the glass, you do more to harm your team than you do on offense by scoring 15ppg.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> The question is: Why is it every time the Bulls have a shortcoming, it is one the Twin Cs fault?


Should we blame the PG for getting killed on the glass?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

In all fairness, I believe Eddy's entitled to a lapse as is everyone. Sometimes its just not your night and perhaps Eddy just wasn't quite geared up enough after the holiday break. 

Eddy has been doing a much better job at defense and rebounding, but he did look like the Eddy Curry of old last night. We all know he's not a basketball-first type of guy so it really is possible that he'll get back on track as the schedule ratchets up once again.

My initial reaction was from another thread in which the Bucks broadcast team was being cited as additional proof this is on Skiles. I don't believe it is and I believe he made the right decision in letting Eddy take a seat. I think Harrington did exactly what we've always expected the vets to do - come in and deliver when the young guys aren't getting it done. 

Skiles is right. The vets off the bench have really done a great job so far and AD has made a solid contribution in the starting lineup. Its funny, because each of them has been ripped fairly good at one time or another on the board, but this is probably the best contributions we've gotten from our veteran players since the glory years. We've given a lot of credit to the young guys who are finally playing ball and getting it done, but these guys deserve some kudos as well.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'm not sure what folks expect of Curry. He couldn't even grab 10 boards a game when he was far and away the biggest, strongest and most agile guy on the floor - in High School! How is he supposed to be getting 10 boards a game when night after night he's going up against guys who are just as big as he is, just as strong as he is and just as agile as he is?

It's very frustrating watching a ball zing inches past Eddys head and he makes no effort to get the ball. It's not that Eddy is slow to react - it's that he doesn't react at all. Some guys have it. That desire to just go out and get the ball, no matter what. Chandler is like that. He fights for that ball. When that ball is comming off the rim, he's giving it all he's got to either get the ball or at least tap it away from the other team. Eddy just kinda watches things go by. Even on those nights where Curry gets 8 or 10 boards, it always seems like more luck than any inherent talent that he has in that regard.

When Curry's head is in the game, on both sides of the floor, he's a pretty good ballplayer. Problem is, quite often he drifts when he plays defense. He is and always will be a gifted post player, i just don't know if he'll ever be more than a below average defender for a center.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mr. Potential is doing all right. It is Bulls management wants him for a cheap price by advertising his failures.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

In the Bucks game, Curry suffered what the medical practioners call a "setback." He had been doing better, and then last night, oops, he reverted to "Bad Eddy."

Some guys are instinctive rebounders and some aren't. Curry most definitely is not. Skiles and staff have made some progress in teaching Curry to get his tail into someone in the other colored jersey when the ball goes up. OK, this is grade school stuff and it should be second-nature to a 22 year old basketball player, but any progress is good progress. Maybe, with time, Skiles & Co. can teach Curry to use his considerable backside AND look for the ball. They've also taught him to make certain mechanical reactions that has improved his weakside help defense. When Curry concentrates on something other than his next awesome post move, he's a much better (though not good) player on the defensive end. Last night was not one of those nights.

We should never expect that Curry will anticipate anything on the defensive boards. It just ain't there.

This said, I'll take consistently average defensive play from Curry. He can do this if he brings his head with him every night. It's not up to the coaches or the other players, it's up to Curry.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Should we blame the PG for getting killed on the glass?


maybe the sg's, i mean who was boxing out redd?

that's the wierd thing. curry gets pulled w/o hesitation for Harrington (who did a great job), yet Redd lights up our whole perimeter to the tune of 39pts and 8 boards. where was adrian griffin? isn't he a better rated defender than Pike? with Hinrich in early foul trouble and duhon not doing a whole lot shouldn't griffin see some kind of pt, maybe paired up with Gordan.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, Griffin definitely should of been in the game.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

If I'm gonna believe Griffin could have slowed Redd, I might as well have put Nocioni on him to see if he could "knock him off his game". Redd was in a terrific rhythm and perhaps getting a little physical with him might have changed that. Nocioni did pick up a charge on Redd, but other than that he was just flopping about the court like a fish out of water. I'd have pointed at Redd and said get in there and knock him on his azz a few times. We sure didn't have much to lose the way he was shooting.

Did anybody else see Charles Barkey say a Redd for Nene trade straight up was a good deal for both teams? If I'm Milwaukee, I'd rather have Redd. If I'm Denver....I'd rather have Redd.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Coaches may want to improve Curry’s defense dramatically , but not for expense of the game. We all know that Curry could get 17 points, three to five rebounds, one block …almost every night. Skiles needs to learn how to use Curry more efficient. 

Curry will be a good player, sometime hopefully within next couple years. Let him play.

Bulls fans are tired watching his "education and evolution" , we will be happy to see what he got now with all its deficiencies.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Keep your hands up









Keep your eye on the ball

and









Jump.

Rebounding just ain't


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well Curry was playing good defense last night though. I think Antonio Davis was the problem in there. Put Chandler in there next to Curry to get some rebounds. Curry was altering a lot of shots that came in/near the lane last night. It was not that he was not playing defense, just not rebounding.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Taking care of the ball is part of a PG's responsibilities, so lets kill Hinrich while we we are at it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Bulls won championships with Longley and Cartwright. Neither of these guys were much better rebounders than Curry. But it was enough.

So IMHO Pax is just going to have to figure out if Curry is bringing enough for what he costs vs. what he could bring in return. And factor this against the rest of the squad and how they project.

Not an easy equation.

But if Bulls don't commit to Chandler AND Curry, it won't be b/c of lack of rebounding .


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Bulls won championships with Longley and Cartwright. Neither of these guys were much better rebounders than Curry. But it was enough.


Longley and Cartwright weren't on the verge of seeking potentially cap-strapping long term contracts at $10 million per year. They were complimentary players, albeit vital ones, and were paid accordingly.

In evaluating Curry's game and comparing him to the other centers in the NBA, we fans must take into consideration what he will demand and what he will garner on the open market. Its a huge part of the "Curry calculus".


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Longley and Cartwright weren't on the verge of seeking potentially cap-strapping long term contracts at $10 million per year. They were complimentary players, albeit vital ones, and were paid accordingly.
> ...


Cartwright and Longley also couldn't score like Curry.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> Taking care of the ball is part of a PG's responsibilities, so lets kill Hinrich while we we are at it.


Finally someone is making sense, kill Hinrich.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> 
> Cartwright and Longley also couldn't score like Curry.


There is a lot more to playing the post than scoring - just like with every other position. 

But you missed the point completely. Curry's game, and what he brings to the table (scoring for example), must be considered in light of his contract demands. 

The same applied to Crawford. Crawford brought some good things to the table, just not $55 million worth of good things.

But I've been reading these boards for awhile, I know what you value in the game. As a fan, I just don't happen to place the same proportionate amount of emphasis on those things.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Longley and Cartwright weren't on the verge of seeking potentially cap-strapping long term contracts at $10 million per year. They were complimentary players, albeit vital ones, and were paid accordingly.


If their small contracts were so friendly, what big FAs did we sign after we had Longley or Cartright on board?

And was anyone seeking $10M per year contracts back then?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Bulls won championships with Longley and Cartwright. Neither of these guys were much better rebounders than Curry. But it was enough.
> 
> So IMHO Pax is just going to have to figure out if Curry is bringing enough for what he costs vs. what he could bring in return. And factor this against the rest of the squad and how they project.
> ...


Both Longley and Cartwright played interior defense like the brick wall Shaq referred to himself as last week. Longley was the team leader in blocked shots from 95/96 through 97/98. Cartwright's elbows were feared league-wide. Both players provided the kind of physical toughness you'll never see from Curry.

Hell, in Cartwright's rookie season alone he nearly averaged a double/double (21.7ppg and 8.9rpg). And with the Bulls he was one third of Chicago's original three-headed monster in the middle, sharing time during the years with Stacy King, Will Perdue, and Scott Williams

As for Longley, he was also one of three centers the Bulls played in their rotation during his stay in Chicago. The three-headed monster in the middle at that time consisted of Longley, Perdue and Wennington primarily with a little James Edwards, Robert Parrish and Joe Kleine sprinkled in towards the end of the dynasty. 

Luc only averaged 26mpg with the Bulls. And Bill Cartwright average 25mpg during his Bulls career.

So to compare Eddy Curry with either Luc or Bill as rebounders/defenders is completely inappropriate, IMHO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Eddy Curry, 24 minutes, 4 rebounds.

Antonio Davis, 29 minutes, 3 rebounds.

One of them is the team captain, even.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Eddy Curry, 24 minutes, 4 rebounds.
> 
> Antonio Davis, 29 minutes, 3 rebounds.
> ...


This is what I am talking about. All I hear is how it is Eddy's fault that the *ENTIRE* team is getting killed on the boards. Also, yes you do blame the PGs. Remember, it is a team. If the team is getting killed on the board it is everybody's job to help out.

However, we can't look at the game as a vacuum. Skiles has been jerking Eddy Curry's minutes from day one. It is like he wants to have someone to focus on in the post game press conference. So Eddy is a bad rebounder. Big freaking deal. He is 10 times the scorer that any other Bull is in the interior and offense is 50% of the game. Do you bench Rodman because he is inept on offense?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Eddy Curry, 28 minutes/game, 6.8 rebounds (~8.7 rebounds/36 minutes).

Amare Stoudamire, 36 minutes/game, 8.7 rebounds.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Both Longley and Cartwright played interior defense like the brick wall Shaq referred to himself as last week. Longley was the team leader in blocked shots from 95/96 through 97/98. Cartwright's elbows were feared league-wide. Both players provided the kind of physical toughness you'll never see from Curry.


Plus, Longley, and the rest of the "three headed monster" had Rodman to rely on to wipe up the boards. We have no such luxury.

I'm not blaming Eddy for all the Bulls' woes. But he does need to rebound.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

http://aol.nba.com/bulls/stats/

bulls rebounds per game 42.9 
bulls opponents 43.1 

some people are making mountains out of molehills .the bulls win just as much for good rebounding as they lose for bad rebounding which is probably zero.

curry by the is the bulls 2nd best rebounder if you are going to blame him , also blame harrington and AD who are weaker rebounders than curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not blaming Eddy for all the Bulls' woes. But he does need to rebound.


An important distinction that many are obviously incapable of making. 

Eddy Curry is a significant part of the Bulls recent succes, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean his rebounding becomes insignificant in evaluating him - particularly in a contract year.

Its not personal, its an observation.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If their small contracts were so friendly, what big FAs did we sign after we had Longley or Cartright on board?
> ...


That doesn't even make sense. Why would the Bulls sign free agents to play positions that were already manned properly at a reasonable price?

Its like asking, "If Trent Hassel is so reasonably priced, why don't the T-Wolves sign another defensive-minded shooting guard?"

And, since you asked, Brian Williams comes to mind for one.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> http://aol.nba.com/bulls/stats/
> 
> bulls rebounds per game 42.9
> ...


Good grief. People aren't blaming Curry for the Bulls' rebounding. People are blaming Curry for Curry's rebounding.

Curry is twice as quick and bigger than Harrington and AD. He should absolutely destroy their rebounding numbers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense. Why would the Bulls sign free agents to play positions that were already manned properly at a reasonable price?
> ...


Jordan was making $40M and Pip wanted more. So yeah, there were guys looking for big contracts.

The Bulls had an opportunity to sign Motumbo as a FA, but didn't go after him. Consider that the Bulls would have had: 3 defensive players of the year (Jordan, Rodman, Motumbo) to go along with Pip and the mitten (Harper).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Jordan was making $40M and Pip wanted more. So yeah, there were guys looking for big contracts.
> ...


I don't understand your point. The issue was whether or not Longley or Cartwright, not Jordon/Pippin, were earning elite-player type of wages; i.e. the types of wages that Curry will be demanding (and has already demanded).

Curry's salary demands have to be taken into consideration in evaluating what he brings to the table. That is all I'm saying. Athough I consider it an obvious point, its meeting quite a bit of resistance and I'm not sure why.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Good grief. People aren't blaming Curry for the Bulls' rebounding. People are blaming Curry for Curry's rebounding.
> ...


rebounding is a skill , take a look at the top rebounders , if that were the case only the big and quick would be the best rebounders why are there players like shawn marion who is only 6'7 in the top 10 or an unatletic player like kurt thomas ?

it helps to be big and quick but if i needed a board i would take a plodder or and undersized player who knew how to get the ball over a some big and quick guy any day of the week, in fact in the top 10 there is only 1 center shaq o'neal who even if he were small er would be an excellent rebounder , some players just have it and some dont. .

curry boards well enough , not particuarly good but he never really was any good at it , he boards well enough for what basically should be the standards for him, expecting him after 4 years to suddenly be great at something he was always mediocre at since the day he picked up a basketball, is unfair and really a wasted effort in futility.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> curry boards well enough , not particuarly good but he never really was any good at it , he boards well enough for what basically should be the standards for him,


In my opinion, that is a cop-out. Particularly when discussing a player who is going to demand $10 million per year.

I agree with your point that rebounding is a skill. But its a skill that in large part is composed of desire. Curry, to date, has shown a lack of that desire and it needs to change if he is to get the big bucks.

I don't expect Eddy Curry to rank in the top 5 in rebounds. But for what he is seeking in a contract, I don't want to read lines like the following in the Chicago papers: "Eddy Curry is averaging a career high 6.3 rebounds per game this season." 

I don't see why that is an unrealistic expectation to put on a 6'11" 285 lb, athletic center.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense. Why would the Bulls sign free agents to play positions that were already manned properly at a reasonable price?
> ...


Let's try again - Name any SIGNIFICANT FA that the Bulls signed b/c Cartwright or Longley were signed to reasonable contracts.


p.s. Williams signed for the minimimum


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> In my opinion, that is a cop-out. Particularly when discussing a player who is going to demand $10 million per year.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Do you think Pax still has Curry on the roster b/c he thinks he *may* turn into a very good rebounder?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> ...


Again, that doesn't make sense. Of course he has him on the roster, in part, because he may develop his weaknesses. Including rebounding.

And you ignored my other point. Why would a dynasty sign free agents to man positions that were already well manned by existing players under contract? The fact that they didn't does not mean that the existing players were being paid at an elite level. 

You refuse to acknowledge the significance of Curry's contract demands in evaluating his play. That is nonsense. $$ and performance cannot be a segragated analysis in a league that has a cap.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Both Longley and Cartwright played interior defense like the brick wall Shaq referred to himself as last week.


In the last ten games, Curry has played as good a D as Longley ever did. And Curry already rebounded better.

p.s Longley did pass much better.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Again, that doesn't make sense. Of course he has him on the roster, in part, because he may develop his weaknesses. Including rebounding.


Are there other young players that really improved their rebounding/min numbers?

Just like Grinch said, great rebounding is a skill just like great shooting.

Curry doesn't have the ability for greatness in this area. Pax already knows this.




> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> And you ignored my other point. Why would a dynasty sign free agents to man positions that were already well manned by existing players under contract? The fact that they didn't does not mean that the existing players were being paid at an elite level.


And you ignored that the Bulls built up their championship teams by signing their own players or trading for them. Not by being some physically conservative team with cap space.



> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> You refuse to acknowledge the significance of Curry's contract demands in evaluating his play. That is nonsense. $$ and performance cannot be a segragated analysis in a league that has a cap.


Not true. My very first post in this thread discusses this. And you *must* have read it b/c you responded to it. 

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1757893#post1757893

Maybe you need to slow down, rook.

And again, i will state: 

if Bulls don't commit to Chandler AND Curry, it won't be b/c of lack of rebounding .


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Are there other young players that really improved their rebounding/min numbers?
> ...


Rook? :laugh: I suppose that means something? The # of posts someone has on an internet message board? But I digress. 

You are right, you did make reference to the contract figures. But then you proceeded to ignore that reference by repeatedly comparing Curry's production, a supposed cornerstone seeking cornerstone $$, to that of Longley and Cartwright, role players who were paid accordingly.

Its like comparing Curry's production to Tony Battie's and then saying Pax should re-sign Curry because the comparison is favorable. I don't buy that analysis. Curry's production must be compared to the production of players who earn a like wage because of the cap.

And rebounding is a skill, but its not a skill like shooting. Its a skill based in large part on desire. Not entirely on desire, but largely. Much more so that other skills such as shooting, ball handling, passing, etc.

Curry has all the physical tools to be a far better rebounder than he is. Can anyone really debate that?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> In the last ten games, Curry has played as good a D as Longley ever did. And Curry already rebounded better.
> ...


But we both know the real point here was Skiles pulled Eddy because he had a relapse. You're right, Eddy has been playing better. Unfortunately, Eddy looked like he was still on Christmas vacation at the defensive end in the Milwaukee game. The real question is should anyone be complaining because Skiles was not thrilled with his effort Sunday and ONLY played him 24 minutes - a whopping 4 minutes under his season average.

Four whole minutes - Good Grief Charlie Brown. Fire Skiles, fire Paxson.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!Rook? I suppose that means something? The # of posts someone has on an internet message board? But I digress.


Most people that post on this board for a period of time aren't so combative or at least put their arguments together a bit more coherently.

Fine with me if you don't want the benefit of the doubt. 




> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Its like comparing Curry's production to Tony Battie's and then saying Pax should re-sign Curry because the comparison is favorable. I don't buy that analysis. Curry's production must be compared to the production of players who earn a like wage because of the cap.


Longley and Cartwright were centers on Championship teams. There is a difference.



> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> And rebounding is a skill, but its not a skill like shooting. Its a skill based in large part on desire. Not entirely on desire, but largely. Much more so that other skills such as shooting, ball handling, passing, etc.
> 
> Curry has all the physical tools to be a far better rebounder than he is. Can anyone really debate that?


 

Again, can you find someone that figures per minute improved drastically because they finally got it?


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Rook? :laugh: I suppose that means something? The # of posts someone has on an internet message board? But I digress.
> ...


Rik Smits had the physical tools for rebounding too. The dude was 7'4. It wasn't until his 7th season in the league that he broke above 7 into 7.7. 

http://aol.nba.com/playerfile/rik_smits/

He was kept because helped his team win with his scoring. Eddy's career might parallel Rik's [their names being spelled unconventionally another strange connection]. I think the Davis connection, one of which we have, took care of rebounding for that team. In this case Tyson, AD (for now), and Noc take care of rebounding.

Whatever Eddy's price, I think we need to pay because he is very central to our winning. More often than not his scoring has been essential to our wins. He's broken down Hummer that we need to get going. Once we got it rolling, there's no stopping it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Rik Smits had the physical tools for rebounding too. The dude was 7'4. It wasn't until his 7th season in the league that he broke above 7 into 7.7.
> 
> ...


Good point about Smits.

I would prefer to keep Curry, but not at "whatever Eddy's price" is. Not unless he can continue to show the improvement he has shown since the Minnesota game. 

I agree that his scoring has been a factor in the Bulls' recent play. But his defensive improvement, although recently in decline, has been far more important. 

Its just that I don't agree that you pay a guy max or near max dollars just for scoring. Particuarly post players. I get the sense some of you think I don't care for Eddy. Thats not the case at all. I just want Paxson to exercise caution in projecting Curry's future with this team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Most people that post on this board for a period of time aren't so combative or at least put their arguments together a bit more coherently.
> ...


I don't think I'm being combative. I'm debating a point. 

And how, exactly, do you propose that I find a player whose rebounding numbers went up because they "got it"? I don't know why a player on the Sonics might show a jump in rebounding #s (or even more subtle, a steady increase from game to game) because the lightbulb came on. 

Regardless, its an unecessary exercise. Curry can rebound better than he does and will rebound better if he can learn to focus more on the court. I don't understand why people are so quick to give him a pass on what is obviously a deficiency in his game.

I guess Antonio Davis is wrong when he says in today's paper that Eddy can, and needs to, rebound better. I think I'll defer to the veteran allstar post player.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> I guess Antonio Davis is wrong when he says in today's paper that Eddy can, and needs to, rebound better. I think I'll defer to the veteran allstar post player.


Rook, on these boards, its' common practice to provide a link...

For example....

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?intID=3834994

Skiles on rebounding in the last game....



> It wasn't just Eddy, it was a total team thing," Skiles said. "We didn't protect the basket well enough and we didn't defend the perimeter."


p.s. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how much a skill rebounding is.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Rook, on these boards, its' common practice to provide a link...
> ...


Gosh, chief, thanks for the pointer. I'm learning a lot:

"A guy who is 6-11, is long and has great hands, you've got to jump and rebound and block shots," Antonio Davis said. "You have to protect the paint. That's putting a lot of pressure on him. But I think it's getting him to think about what he has to do on the floor in order for us to be successful.

"There are some things he can do with his technique. But a lot of it is just the will to want to go get the basketball."

Link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...7bulls,1,149759.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Is that better? I particularly like the part where AD says "a lot of it it is just the will to want to go get the basketball". 

Sounds familiar.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Both Longley and Cartwright played interior defense like the brick wall Shaq referred to himself as last week. Longley was the team leader in blocked shots from 95/96 through 97/98. Cartwright's elbows were feared league-wide. Both players provided the kind of physical toughness you'll never see from Curry.


I must have had a different type of TV back then. I remember guys like Ewing and Olajuwon and David Robinson scoring 30+ every time they played us, and guys like Shaq and Shawn Kemp repeatedly dunking on Longley's head. I also remember that the best crunch-time lineup for the first dynasty team featured Scott Williams at center, and the best crunch-time lineup for the second dynasty team was usually Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and Rodman.

I wouldn't confuse "toughness" with "effectiveness" here. Cartwright may have been tough, but injuries and age had robbed him of much of his effectiveness for most of his years with the Bulls. I would say calling Longley "tough" is a huge stretch -- I can't count the number of times during his tenure with the Bulls that he was called out for toughness by Phil or Jordan. When Longley was effective, imo it was more on the offensive end as a spot-up jump-shooter than as a staunch defender.

Curry is not tough. He is not a great defender or rebounder. But I am much more worried by his turnovers and stamina than I am by his toughness. I agree that a contract demand starting at $10 million per is way out of line with what Curry brings now or probably will bring in the future. I hope that Paxson realizes this and acts accordingly, otherwise this is Crawford Redux.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm being combative. I'm debating a point.


I agree. Lighten up on the guy... he's not calling anyone names and he's thinking out pretty solid arguments. It'd be one thing if he was just telling people to go to hell, but if you're being combative because you're expressing a legitimate point I don't see any harm in that :yes:

OK, I'll get off the :soapbox: now


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. Lighten up on the guy... he's not calling anyone names and he's thinking out pretty solid arguments. It'd be one thing if he was just telling people to go to hell, but if you're being combative because you're expressing a legitimate point I don't see any harm in that :yes:
> ...


Thanks. 

Admittedly its hard not to be a little bit combative when in both threads that I elected to post in, the response to my (evidently minority) opinions has been to condescendingly call me a "rook" and a "newbie".

But I'm trying to play nice as best I can. :yes:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm on your side too Ron.

So many people are quick to pull the trigger, and it stems from a culture of losing. Now when we are doing well, people question whether its a fluke and our 0-9 start was the real deal.

It's hard for a lot of people to be optimistic after 6 years of losing, and an expected 7th year this season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I must have had a different type of TV back then. I remember guys like Ewing and Olajuwon and David Robinson scoring 30+ every time they played us, and guys like Shaq and Shawn Kemp repeatedly dunking on Longley's head. I also remember that the best crunch-time lineup for the first dynasty team featured Scott Williams at center, and the best crunch-time lineup for the second dynasty team was usually Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and Rodman.
> ...


Things I remember about the Bulls and the C position:

1) Kukoc played a LOT of center.
2) Rodman guarded opposing centers in the crunch. Remember him guarding Shaq? I do.
3) Longley guarded Malone when the Bulls played Utah.
4) We had a guy named Dele who was a pretty good C and was given minutes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can you find someone that figures per minute improved drastically because they finally got it?


How about Dennis Rodman, who averaged about 4.5 rebounds per game in his first four years in the league, and better than 14 per game in his last four years in the league?

BTW, Ron: Nice to have you on board. And the Penguin was one of my favorite Cubbies.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> How about Dennis Rodman, who averaged about 4.5 rebounds per game in his first four years in the league, and better than 14 per game in his last four years in the league?


http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=RODMADE01

Rodman averaged 4.5 ppg in his first year in the league. After that 8.7ppg, etc.

It does look like he posted some improvement in rebounds per minute.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...7bulls,1,149759.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> Is that better? I particularly like the part where AD says "a lot of it it is just the will to want to go get the basketball".
> ...


Yes, the link is appreciated. 

I guess AD's and Harringtons' will was lacking, too. Right?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> In my opinion, that is a cop-out. Particularly when discussing a player who is going to demand $10 million per year.
> ...


how much a player makes has no bearing on what his individual skills are .

what is important if a player makes such a great sum is if they are helping you win and by how much.

there are 10 mil a year post players in the nba who cant board, score , play defense , avoid legal trouble ,shoot, pass or get along with their teammates , and at the end of it all is one simple question to determine whether or not he is overpaid.

does he make a real differnce in his team fortunes?

with curry when he is playing well the answer is an obvious yes and in the end that why he'll get his $ and rebounding will have nothing or almost nothing to do with it.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's try again - Name any SIGNIFICANT FA that the Bulls signed b/c Cartwright or Longley were signed to reasonable contracts.
> ...


I believe Rodman's final contract with the Bulls was a one year, $10 million dollar deal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=RODMADE01
> ...


thru dennis' 1st 4 year he avg. a rebound every 3.02 minutes a rate thats higher than 7 out of the top 10 rebounders in the nba currently.

and he played small forward and shooting guard alot of that time , its not a fair comparison in his 5th year he actually started to play the 4 , and he avg. 12.5 rebounds, he was always a great rebounder , he got better at it but whoever trotted out his rookie rebound #s(4.3) for rodman forgot to mention he did that in 15 minutes a game.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, the link is appreciated.
> ...


Ah yes, the shell game. Stumble, change the subject. AD has proven his mettle through long and distinguished career. 

And Harrington who? Oh, you mean that guy who is in the last year of his contract who will be lucky to get a million per from the Bulls to resign? I'm a little less concerned about his rebounding than I am Eddy Curry's.

And, for the record, I'm not picking on Curry because of the Milwaukee game. I'm talking about his career to date and projecting it forward. You will find that I am not the type of guy who will get all worked up in a frenzy when a player has the occassional off night - it happens to all players.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> Ah yes, the shell game. Stumble, change the subject. AD has proven his mettle through long and distinguished career.


No shell game here. AD says it's about will and he comes up short big-time in the last game.

AD says it's about will but he came into the league and his rebounds/min always stayed the same each year. That sounds like a skill, not will, to me.

Interesting thing about skill. Many of the guys that have it, don't realize it and attribute it to hard work.

That's why superstars often don't make the best coaches.



> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> And, for the record, I'm not picking on Curry because of the Milwaukee game.


So what's the bottom line? What's the minimimum you would trade him for?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Anyone so sure that Curry can just "will" himself into being a good rebounder should check out the kid's splits for the year.

He actually rebounded slightly more in slightly less minutes in our first 9 games (all losses) compared to our last 14.

Curry has shot the ball better, gotten to the line more, blocked more shots, turned the ball over quite a bit less in our last 14 games. Besides the numbers, everyone has commented on how his help D is much better in the last 14 games.

So is there a separate lightbulb for rebounds or is it tougher to turn rebounding on and off than AD and certain posters think?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3514/splits


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Anyone so sure that Curry can just "will" himself into being a good rebounder should check out the kid's splits for the year.
> 
> He actually rebounded slightly more in slightly less minutes in our first 9 games (all losses) compared to our last 14.
> ...


Im not a believer that Curry will ever be a good rebounder, but your posts, particularly your response to newbie, are very thought provoking


----------

