# JC Wants to Play Saturday vs. Bulls



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Even Jamal Crawford, out since Dec. 22 with a right turf toe and not expected back for another week or so, participated in practice for the first time and claimed he might be ready to return in one of the upcoming two games against the Bulls. 

“It felt good,” said Crawford. “No pain. Of course, I haven’t tested it in a contact scrimmage yet. That’s tomorrow. But sure, I’d like to play against Chicago. Those were certainly dates I circled on my calendar at the beginning of the season.” Chicago, of course, just happens to be Crawford’s previous team. “Do I feel any pressure to get back?” he smiled. “No, certainly not from anyone in the Knicks organization. If there’s any pressure, it comes from within. My team needs me. I want to play.”*

http://www.nba.com/knicks/inthepaint/practice_050113.html

Gil Thorpe would be proud.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Monday I guess would be more likely but I know he's burning to play at the United Center.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

After Tyson has a monster block on him or Gordon makes Jamal look lost on defense do you think he fakes an injury.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

He's going to have his *** handed to him "the right way"...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Greg Ostertag!</b>!
> He's going to have his *** handed to him "the right way"...


That is just funny for some reason, but funny in the "right way"


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Just a guess here, but I suspect this may be mostly rhetoric. Jamal I'm sure is very aware that the Knicks will be cautious with him. NY has 47 games left. They're playing in the weakest division in the entire league.

Sounds like JC may be layin' a little of the old "Hold me back" on the rest of the league. Sounds good anyway. "My team needs me." Oh, brother.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Just a guess here, but I suspect this may be mostly rhetoric. Jamal I'm sure is very aware that the Knicks will be cautious with him. NY has 47 games left. They're playing in the weakest division in the entire league.
> 
> Sounds like JC may be layin' a little of the old "Hold me back" on the rest of the league. Sounds good anyway. "My team needs me." Oh, brother.




Erm, the article says he smiled while saying all this. 

It's more of a reaction than the proclamation you seemed to take it as.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

I would love to see Jamal play on Saturday...almost guarantees a win for da bulls.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Rose , Crawford and JYD on the Knicks against the Bulls would just be flat our hilarious 

WTF is Isiah thinking with that team ?

No cap room - no draft picks 

I mean if you've got Nazr and Ariza at your core going foward with Jamal and Starbs .. and the unproven Sweets .. and no cap room or draft picks .. you have one seriously mediocre team for a long time to come

Knicks continue to suck arse


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Jamal is great one-on-one, but against a great TEAM defense like ours, he will settle for looooong jumpers. If he hit's his first 2 or 3, we will have a fight on our hands. If he doesn't we will win in a landslide and he will go 12-26.

BTW, with Jalen, Jamal, and Starbury how the hell can all three get 25 shots/game?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> Jamal is great one-on-one, but against a great TEAM defense like ours, he will settle for looooong jumpers. If he hit's his first 2 or 3, we will


put Deng on him.


----------



## MoochBull (Jan 14, 2005)

The knicks are not any better with Crawford than without him. We ought to beat them easily at home.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Former Bulls guard Jamal Crawford is on the injured list with turf toe. *As of Wednesday, he was still wearing a walking boot on his right foot and, barring a miraculous recovery, won't take the floor against his old team either Saturday or during Monday's rematch in New York.*

"I had that date circled on my calendar as soon as the schedule came out," Crawford was quoted in the New York Daily News. "I want to be out there, but I haven't even started running yet. I can't sit much longer."

Crawford, who went on the injured list Dec. 26, is averaging 19.3 points and shooting .398 from the field for his new team.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38366158

:whoknows:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> 
> BTW, with Jalen, Jamal, and Starbury how the hell can all three get 25 shots/game?


Given that there will be no defense played, the other team should be able to take care of their own offensive business more quickly, thus allowing that crew the time to get all of their shots in, plus a few for Houston.

The bigger question is whether there will be enough time for all of Jamal's gratuitous dribbling.....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Apparently some people have forgotten just how good Jamal can be. His offense has won some games for the Bulls and to take him lightly or automatically assume Gordon will get the best of a matchup with him is foolhardy at best.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Apparently some people have forgotten just how good Jamal can be. His offense has won some games for the Bulls and to take him lightly or automatically assume Gordon will get the best of a matchup with him is foolhardy at best.


what about his defense? lol. couldn't resist. 

and, well foolish me. if jamal plays, i hope mr. ben gordon _LIGHTS. HIM. UP!_

...but i don't think jamal will play. if the knicks trainers allow him to return to action before he is really ready, that would be very foolish and unprofessional on their part, and i wouldn't want _any player_ to risk that, no matter how much i personally may or may not like them. that would be silly. the knicks apparently are not rushing him back into action. jamal wants to return for the single reason that it is his former team and he somehow has it in his head that he wants to show them a thing or two. a little backcourt trickery perhaps. 

how ridiculous. he would risk further and lingering injury? yeah, the knicks would LOVE that. i don't think they would let him play if he wasn't really healed. 

but i have always thought that jamal had a bit of what i call "martyr syndrome", like he is going to ride into town on his big horse and somehow save the day with the buzzer beating game winner that he has been fantasizing about since he circled the game on the schedule.

puhleeeeze.







:boohoo:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> what about his defense? lol. couldn't resist.
> ...


I'm sure he does want to stick it to his old team. After all, he wanted to stay in Chicago and they wouldn't pay him. Still, as you said, he probably won't play and it would be irresponsible to rush him back into the lineup. I can understand why he wants to play but he probably won't.

As far as defense goes, Gordon isn't exactly a great defender either, I think a Jamal/Gordon matchup would be rather fun to watch actually. I imagine if Jamal did play that he would have good big game(s) but the Bulls would end up winning in the end.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

I hope Noc. puts him on his ***. Oh, nm, that would never happen b/c JC's too soft to drive the lane.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure he does want to stick it to his old team. After all, he wanted to stay in Chicago and they wouldn't pay him. Still, as you said, he probably won't play and it would be irresponsible to rush him back into the lineup. I can understand why he wants to play but he probably won't.
> ...


well gordon did pretty well against allen iverson, so i think his defensive game is picking up somewhat. 

i'm guessing we will have to wait until APRIL 8th for the much anticipated jamal crawford vs. the bulls game. i may have to get tickets to that one too. 

you are right about one thing though, it would be entertaining to watch jamal and ben, cause ben would have his way with him. 

peace. and GO BULLS!


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

My prediction: Crawford will score 30 and the Knicks will lose. I don't see how the Knicks can match up with the Bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> well gordon did pretty well against allen iverson, so i think his defensive game is picking up somewhat.
> ...


See I don't even think that Gordon did a good job on Iverson really. Iverson got by him several times with ease and the bigs did a good job of rotating but thats not Gordon. I've read what a good job Gordon did on Iverson but it sure didn't seem like that to me. It seemed more like Iverson didn't have a good game and that our TEAM defense was good.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> My prediction: Crawford will score 30 and the Knicks will lose. I don't see how the Knicks can match up with the Bulls.


That's amazing. Better, younger, and more balanced team for 1/3 the price.  

I am sure Jamal would get his points somehow though.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> See I don't even think that Gordon did a good job on Iverson really. Iverson got by him several times with ease and the bigs did a good job of rotating but thats not Gordon. I've read what a good job Gordon did on Iverson but it sure didn't seem like that to me. It seemed more like Iverson didn't have a good game and that our TEAM defense was good.



I agree about Gordon's defense on Iverson. He was adequate, but the rotation sealed the deal. He certainly didn't lock AI down...not that any defender in the league is capable of totally containing AI 1on1, but Gordon still wasn't quick enough laterally to stay IN FRONT of AI...he just did a good job of CHASING him and herding him into the bigs. 

As for Jamal, Gordon would definitely have trouble with him...are you kidding? Jamal has a major height advantage and, for as many flaws as he has, creating his own shot is not one of them. He's a fantastic offensive player, if a bit streaky when it comes to shooting. He could just flat out shoot 3-14 in an open gym or shoot 10-11 with Gordon in his face. I don't think Gordon's defense would be on display vs. Jamal one tiny bit. 

And, hey, what's with the hoping JC gets knocked on his rear or that he gets injured or making fun of him for wishing he were healthy enough to play? He's just having a totally natural desire to play a team that has without question dicked him around in the past. Any of you would be pumped to see Jamal play and any of you would be super pumped to play if you were in Jamal's situation. It's only natural. Of course, looking at these quotes, there is no way he WILL play, in my opinion...but it's only natural to wish it so. 

If he were to go on Saturday, I'd predict that he'd have a pretty decent game...and I also predict he'd drive more than we're used to seeing him drive because he's capable of it and he'd be motivated to do so. However, with this injury, who knows.


----------



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

I would hope Jamal would score 60 on us, but we ultimately win on the heels of Eddy and Tyson bailing us out all just for the purpose of pissing off Pax-lovin', Jamal-hatin' posters here.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> I would hope Jamal would score 60 on us, but we ultimately win on the heels of Eddy and Tyson bailing us out all just for the purpose of pissing off Pax-lovin', Jamal-hatin' posters here.


I don't think so. IMO the Pax supporters (and you can count me in that group for the sake of discussion) love the team game and most importantly wins. Who puts up stats is of secondary or terciary importance.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think so. IMO the Pax supporters (and you can count me in that group for the sake of discussion) love the team game and most importantly wins. Who puts up stats is of secondary or *terciary* importance.


Now I dare you to tell me what tertiary actually means. You have five minutes...and no cheating!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

newark star ledger 




> *Forget modern medicine and the Knicks' crack medical staff. All it took to get injured guard Jamal Crawford back onto the court was the coming home-and-home series with the Chicago Bulls.*
> 
> Crawford, who has missed the past nine games with turf toe on his right foot, brought a smile to the faces of his struggling teammates when he took part in practice yesterday and said it was possible he might even play tomorrow afternoon in Chicago.
> 
> ...


if the knicks had a home and home against the bobcats, still think jamal would be "chomping at the bit"? sorry, lenny, but the miz thinks not. 

whatever happens happens. and the bulls win.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think so. IMO the Pax supporters (and you can count me in that group for the sake of discussion) love the team game and most importantly wins. Who puts up stats is of secondary or terciary importance.


No, that ain't true.

That's probably true for you, and not the whole board. I've seen you post and you're mostly about winning.

Not as much with other Pax supporters.

A lot of Pax supporters like style, but it's not considered "style" because apparently it leads to winning.

Last year, a lot of them Pax supporters loved how Kirk played defense even though players he guarded routinely got about their average or better when playing against him. His D was OK, but it wasn't worlds better than Jamal's. Kirk's D just made it look like he was trying but it seemed to yield the same results as Jamal's. That's the definition of stylistic difference.

Those guys are still here today and have periodically asked the criticizing to stop (yeah cause that's going to happen on a message board :shy when it came to Kirk. 

A handful of those Kirksters will either go to the Jamal update thread, rub their hands, and gleefully update us on one of Jamal's bad games. They will also microanalyze Jamal's quotes to prove how flawed he is. They really like to see him fail. Ya'll know who you are. 

I like wins too, that's why I would like us to ultimately win.

But since people are always doubting one of my favorite individual players, I would really like him to succeed as well.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If Jamal plays he sounds like he is going to have a helluva game. Remember how he plays against the Sonics? I can only imagine what he'll do to us. He'll be zoned in and focused.

And Ben Gordon stopping Jamal? That's laughable. Ben Gordon is not going to have an effect on Jamal's performance. No defender in this league really does. It's all about how Jamal is playing and how hot he is.

If Jamal has one of his 50 point games we will lose.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> See I don't even think that Gordon did a good job on Iverson really. Iverson got by him several times with ease and the bigs did a good job of rotating but thats not Gordon. I've read what a good job Gordon did on Iverson but it sure didn't seem like that to me. It seemed more like Iverson didn't have a good game and that our TEAM defense was good.


"I thought I did a pretty good job - he scored 21 points," Gordon said. "That's a guy, on a given night the leading scorer in the NBA, (who) can get 60. I think *with the help of my teammates*, I did a decent job on him.

"Man, he is ridiculously fast. That's definitely the fastest guy I've ever played against, with and without the ball.

Iverson shot 8-for-21 from the field, attempted just 5 free throws and wasn't much of a factor beyond the first quarter.

*"I thought Ben was very good against him," Skiles said. "The key was keeping him off the line and we did that."*

"(Gordon) got tired in the first half and asked to come out," Skiles said. "He got tired because you get tired chasing that guy around. That guy is one of the best players in the world. We felt like he was leaving it all out there.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38366158

One other thing, Ace. Regarding your other statement: I'm sure he does want to stick it to his old team. After all, he wanted to stay in Chicago and they wouldn't pay him.

I don't know if that's an entirely fair assessment. It seemed at the time that the Bulls did want to keep him in Chicago and were willing to pay him. They just weren't willing to pay him as much as the Knicks. No one consistently throws money around the way the NY franchise does. Can you blame the Bulls for not offering him a contract comparable to the one he got from Isiah?

I think its also worth noting that there apparently weren't any "Lets dump Crawford" vibes from management permeating the air at Berto last summer as negotiations moved forward. For example, consider this statement from the man some consider as Crawford's replacement:

"I don't really feel added pressure because I don't feel like I replaced him (Crawford)," Gordon said. *"When I got drafted, I thought he was still going to be here."* 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,5659378.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

While Gordon's statement is by no means proof positive of how much love the Bulls were showing JC, it does sort of give you the impression that his teammates thought there was a chance he'd remain a Bull.

Again, it was the Knicks, and no one else, who established Crawford's value. All indications are that he received two offers...one from Chicago and one from NY. So the next time you suggest the Bulls weren't willing to pay him, you might want to qualify that by saying that not only the Bulls, but no other team in the league as well was willing to pay Crawford as much as the Knicks were.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> See I don't even think that Gordon did a good job on Iverson really. Iverson got by him several times with ease and the bigs did a good job of rotating but thats not Gordon. I've read what a good job Gordon did on Iverson but it sure didn't seem like that to me. It seemed more like Iverson didn't have a good game and that our TEAM defense was good.


Difference between AND1 and NBA is that you just described EXACLTY how an NBA guard SHOULD play defense.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> See I don't even think that Gordon did a good job on Iverson really. Iverson got by him several times with ease and the bigs did a good job of rotating but thats not Gordon. I've read what a good job Gordon did on Iverson but it sure didn't seem like that to me. It seemed more like Iverson didn't have a good game and that our TEAM defense was good.


I agree:

Gordon did a solid job on D by funneling AI along the baseline and stepping out of the way, not by keeping his man in front. Eddy and Ty seemed to be the root of AI's trouble. Our bigs were able to rotate over at the last minute without picking up fouls. Though, if Iverson was hot he still would have dropped 50.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Apparently some people have forgotten just how good Jamal can be. His offense has won some games for the Bulls and to take him lightly or automatically assume Gordon will get the best of a matchup with him is foolhardy at best.


Even I agree with that...but I doubt Skiles and the Bulls will take him lightly if he plays (and that goes for ALL the Knicks). I would think Hinrich has a grasp on some of Jamal's weak spots, which is a plus when it comes to defending him. Hinrich is just scrappy like that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ace, I'm just curious...do you see any flaws with Jamal's game as an NBA player?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> "I thought I did a pretty good job - he scored 21 points," Gordon said. "That's a guy, on a given night the leading scorer in the NBA, (who) can get 60. I think *with the help of my teammates*, I did a decent job on him.
> ...


First, I did say in my post where I read that Gordon did a good job defending Iverson, I just disagreed as apparently several other posters have as well. He didn't do a good job keeping Iverson in front of him or challenging Iversons shots, our bigs did. And Iverson didn't have a particularly Iverson-esque game anyway, he is injured right now ya know?

The Knicks gave Jamal a reasonable contract. It's not some gross overpayment, if the Bulls REALLY wanted to keep Jamal they simply would have paid him what the Knicks were willing to. Also, the Bulls didn't even HAVE to sign & trade him, they could have simply said, take the full MLE deal or we will keep you a year. Sure, other teams weren't bidding on Jamal but the KNicks NEEDED the Bulls cooperation to pay him as much as they did. The Bulls willingly dealt him. Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent...it happened. Thats all the proof you need right there IMO. I think the 5.7 mil deal he signed was reasonable and I think most people with a good understanding of how NBA salaries work agree that it is a reasonable deal. The MLE wasn't even much less than that! 

In any case, I'm not making a big deal out of it, the team Pax has put together in spite of letting Jamal go seems to be doing pretty well so it just isn't a huge deal anymore. Still, I don't believe it was the best thing to do .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Ace, I'm just curious...do you see any flaws with Jamal's game as an NBA player?


Of course I do I have pointed out Jamal's flaws numerous times. I'm not just some ridiculous fanboy or something. BY the same token I have always believed that Jamal's flaws will mostly be corrected as he gains more experience and strength.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

By the way, why is everyone talking about this Gordon vs. Jamal matchup? If Jamal plays (which I'm doubting he will), it's gonna be Duhon defending Marbury (a good matchup btw) and Hinrich defending Crawford, right? As I just mentioned, I think Hinrich will cause Crawford fits. Gordon will come in and play his usual 25 minutes or so, likely being matched up with either Marbury or one of his backups. Besides, I think we've learned by now that the Bulls aren't about playing shutdown one-on-one defense. They play TEAM defense. Tyson, Eddy, and AD will be instrumental if the Bulls are to win 1 or both of these games. They need to protect the paint, rebound, and overall outplay Kurt Thomas and Nazi Mohammad. That's the real key to the game IMO. The Knicks usually win when they get solid games from their bigs.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> By the way, why is everyone talking about this Gordon vs. Jamal matchup? If Jamal plays (which I'm doubting he will), it's gonna be Duhon defending Marbury (a good matchup btw) and Hinrich defending Crawford, right? As I just mentioned, I think Hinrich will cause Crawford fits. Gordon will come in and play his usual 25 minutes or so, likely being matched up with either Marbury or one of his backups. Besides, I think we've learned by now that the Bulls aren't about playing shutdown one-on-one defense. They play TEAM defense. Tyson, Eddy, and AD will be instrumental if the Bulls are to win 1 or both of these games. They need to protect the paint, rebound, and overall outplay Kurt Thomas and Nazi Mohammad. That's the real key to the game IMO. The Knicks usually win when they get solid games from their bigs.


I agree that Hinrich will guard JC if he plays and that is a better matchup than Gordon.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> First, I did say in my post where I read that Gordon did a good job defending Iverson, I just disagreed as apparently several other posters have as well. He didn't do a good job keeping Iverson in front of him or challenging Iversons shots, our bigs did. And Iverson didn't have a particularly Iverson-esque game anyway, he is injured right now ya know?


AI has had three worse games this season. That tells me that someone slowed him down. Or maybe we got lucky and he slowed himslef down. Why discount Gordon's defense? 

As to the other point, when is AI not injured?

AI's injuries.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> So the next time you suggest the Bulls weren't willing to pay him, you might want to qualify that by saying that not only the Bulls, but no other team in the league as well was willing to pay Crawford as much as the Knicks were.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> AI has had three worse games this season. That tells me that someone slowed him down. Or maybe we got lucky and he slowed himslef down. Why discount Gordon's defense?
> ...


I'm not "discounting" Gordon's defense, I watched the game and Iverson got by Gordon repeatedly and was met by our bigs just as several other people have pointed out. Also Gordon didn't even defend AI the whole game. 

True, AI is usually injured, but this latest one is more serious than usual I believe.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course I do I have pointed out Jamal's flaws numerous times.


What are they?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> What are they?


shot selection, fighting through screens, he needs to penetrate more and get more ft attempts, toughness. Thats it in a nutshell. 

My contention has always been that the guy had 2 years of HS ball, 1 year of college ball and was a phenomenal talent to even make it into the NBA based on that. As he matures his shot selection should improve and he should learn to defend better (there are signs of that already in NY). Also, when he entered the league he was skinny as can be, he has since added some much needed muscle but if he can add another 15-20lbs of muscle or so, which I think he can and wants to do, it will make fighthing through screens and penetrating (without fear of injury) much much easier for him. He also will probably develop a solid post up game at that point too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I have a hard time lending any credibility to the Crawford-related opinions of Bulls fans who still have pictures of Jamal Crawford in their avatars.

I have seen the following in this thread:

(a) Wanting Crawford to go for 60 against the Bulls just to irritate the "pro-Paxson" contingent;

(b) Saying Hinrich didn't play much better defense than Crawford last year;

(c) Saying that pro-Paxson fans on this board are more about style than winning; and

(d) Criticisms of Crawford's replacement's (Gordon) defensive effort against Iverson, even though the "overly critical hard ***" coach of the Bulls thought Gordon did a very good job and said so publicly (as did Paxson on the radio this morning).

All of this simply goes to confirming my belief that a lot (but not all) of the misplaced and unwarranted criticism of Skiles and Paxson around here is based more on the treatment of Crawford than anything else.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> If Jamal plays he sounds like he is going to have a helluva game.


LOL... If everyone played as good as they "sound" then Marcus Fizer would be a 3-time all-star...





> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Ben Gordon is not going to have an effect on Jamal's performance. No defender in this league really does. It's all about how Jamal is playing and how hot he is.


That is some high exalt for one of the most inefficient scorers in the league. It's sort of silly to suggest that defenders have no impact on Jamal's game-- I mean, if you asked Michael Jordan to name the five defenders who gave him the hardest time I'll bet he could name them without thinking twice. 

But not Jamal... No... He can't be touched...

(By the way, excellent post Ron Cey)


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> I have a hard time lending any credibility to the Crawford-related opinions of Bulls fans who still have pictures of Jamal Crawford in their avatars.
> 
> I have seen the following in this thread:
> ...


 

but hush yo' mouth ron! god forbid any of us "kirksters" or "paxsters" or whatever should be a fan of the kind of TEAM basketball that is being played by the bulls right now.

*"Everything goes better if you win, everybody knows that. We're out in front right now; we're playing real good basketball—good team basketball. Everybody is coming in and contributing. It's fun; it's the type of basketball you want to play.

- kirk hinrich's sixers postgame comments*

i guess i am a "kirkster" and a "paxster" and i will not deny it. 

rock on.




:rock:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> ...and I also predict he'd drive more than we're used to seeing him drive because he's capable of it and he'd be motivated to do so.


Was that supposed to be complimentary? 

Doesn't that just basically validate why the Bulls should not want a player like Jamal Crawford on the team?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> shot selection, fighting through screens, he needs to penetrate more and get more ft attempts, toughness. Thats it in a nutshell.
> ...


...and then what?

Assuming he does it all, does he because an A-tier NBA player on the level of LeBron and Kobe, or a B-tier player?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> I have a hard time lending any credibility to the Crawford-related opinions of Bulls fans who still have pictures of Jamal Crawford in their avatars.
> 
> I have seen the following in this thread:
> ...


Nice post dude. Is this your first screen name?

If so, welcome. I've seen your posts for a little bit, but all the same...welcome.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> ...and then what?
> ...


If he improves on ALL of those things in a major way I think he becomes a player that is deadly in this league. I don't know if it is fair to compare him to guys like Kobe & Lebron because those guys are awfully good. Maybe on the level of a Pierce? Maybe on the level of a Penny Hardaway in his prime?

The thing is, I know Crawford works hard on his game and he has commented before that he knows he needs to add some strength and he wants to work on a post up game so I think his head is in the right place. He even recognizes that he wants to be a better defender. For all of the criticism this guy gets I still think he is a winner, a guy who WANTS to win, and as we saw with MJ, a will to win can never be discounted. In all reality, Jamal will probably improve and be a very good player but will never reach the level of a Kobe or a Lebron.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Maybe on the level of a Pierce? Maybe on the level of a Penny Hardaway in his prime?


And on a scale of 1 to10, with ten being most likely, what chance do you see of him becoming another Paul Pierce?

EDIT: And when?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice post dude. Is this your first screen name?
> ...


Thanks. And yes, its my first screen name. I started posting last month.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> And on a scale of 1 to10, with ten being most likely, what chance do you see of him becoming another Paul Pierce?
> ...


I'd say a 7 and I'd say by the middle of next season. I think adding some strength will really be a huge help for him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> The thing is, I know Crawford works hard on his game and he has commented before that he knows he needs to add some strength and he wants to work on a post up game so I think his head is in the right place. He even recognizes that he wants to be a better defender.


Those are words. He is in his 5th year as an NBA player. Where is the increased strength, the committment to defense, improved shot selection?

One of the most irritating things about Crawford is that he has "acknowledged" his weaknesses for years and "says" that he will improve. But he doesn't. 

So how long are you going to buy into the rhetoric before you expect actual results? 

Crawford used to be my favorite player and I still consider him to be the most talented of the "3Cs". But last season - and especially this season - has proven that he is what he is. And I don't want core pieces of my favorite team playing the way he plays. Its not a style of play that can ever succeed consistently against true contenders.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd say a 7 and I'd say by the middle of next season. I think adding some strength will really be a huge help for him.


I think Marbury and Pierce with a competent big man will be quite a trio.

We shall see. In 1 years time, we will see.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Those are words. He is in his 5th year as an NBA player. Where is the increased strength, the committment to defense, improved shot selection?
> ...


I agree...I bought into the Crawford hype for a while until I finally got the chance to watch him be a starter and play big minutes. That's when I lost all hope for him being the elite player I thought he would be. You said it best: "He is what he is." I think he's mostly maxed out his potential by now.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Those are words. He is in his 5th year as an NBA player. Where is the increased strength, the committment to defense, improved shot selection?
> ...


you see, thats the thing, he HAS improved. He is much stronger and noticably bigger than when he was a rookie, he has played much better defense in NY, in fact before he went down I think he was averaging like 2 steals a game. He really isn't even THAT bad a defender, his main problem is he can't fight through screens well....he needs to add strength. 

It's easy to look at what he does and say "oh he is just talking the talk" but people forget that he IS a hard worker. After all, season before last he worked more at the Berto than anyone except Hassell, thats pretty darn good, he always has worked hard like that. Plus the guy may be a 5th year pro player but he hasn't played organized ball much prior to his stint in the NBA, he missed one whole year due to ACL injury (which he rehabbed from quicker than expected). 

I can understand how some folks might get down on the guy but the signs of improvement are there and I still have faith that he is going to be a really good player in a failry short time.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Marbury and Pierce with a competent big man will be quite a trio.
> ...


Assuming everything remains the same for them they might be pretty good. I don't know there are a lot of question marks on that NY team. But, as you say, we will see.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I can understand how some folks might get down on the guy but the signs of improvement are there


No, they aren't. Any improvements he may have made are marginal at best. 

He is a terrible defender. Thats my opinion. Terrible. Difficult to debate, but its what I see. And I've seen him play plenty for New York this season, and he hasn't improved one iota on that end of the court. And steals don't mean much, but I'm sure that issue has been addressed at some point so I'll spare you the analysis.

His shot selection is just as bad as it was last year, his assists have gone down, and his turnovers have increased even though he handles the ball less.

And yes, he has gained a few pounds of muscle. But 5 years worth? Not even remotely close. 

He is not improving. He's just talking about improving, which is nothing new.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

You guys are making me almost go ALL CAPS here. But I won't. I won't...I swear...

Is it okay to like a guy? To have an irrational, emotional connection with a player or group of players you've spent hours and hours and hours...and hours...analyzing, following, watching, admiring? 

Hi, my name is BealeFarange. And I'm a Jamal Crawford fan. 

Should that be a shame to admit? Should I then feel like I need to immediately defend my basketball knowledge and talent analysis cred? I enjoy watching Jamal play basketball. I like his talent, his crossover dribbles, his unstoppable hot streaks. 

I understand that he has major weaknesses. I'm disappointed that, no, I don't think that he's going to be a top-tier superstar. I'm upset that he still won't drive to the hole and finish like I know he's physically capable of doing. 

However, I am willing to accept those things as a condition of my being his fan. I still wish the best for him, even if he is a Knick. I definitely wish he could play vs. the Bulls...and I would still wish him great individual success if he were to suit up. Why? Because the NBA is entertainment. And I enjoy watching the way Jamal puts the ball in the basket. 

I have a similar attachment to Eddy. I know he has problems and I would hate to be faced with the option of re-signing him to a max...or not. To a lesser extent, I have that same attachment to most of the Bulls. Tyson, Kirk, Ben and Luol. I'm a fan.

I know this rant was somewhat unsolicited. I just have a problem with the idea that the Krause kids couldn't play. I believe they could. And that the culture-change that happened when Pax came in (coupled with the loss of Jay Williams) was overwhelming for a group of teenagers, a rookie coach, and a rookie gm. I believe that the team at the end of 2002-3 had talent and potential and...gasp...had actually accomplished something on the court. I believe that it could have worked...it just would have been different. 

Now that Pax's vision has (somewhat) matured, I'm happy to ring it in. I am. I'm also happy that some of my longtime favorite players (Eddy, Tyson) are around to see it happen...and are around for me to watch. I'm just somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that this is some kind of "told-you-so." 

Last season was an unqualified disaster...and I think Pax/Skiles/BC are as much to blame for that as any of the players outside of Eddy Curry, upon whom the entire blame for his laziness falls. I loved JC and I loved the 2002/3 Bulls...and I still knew last season was a disaster. Why was it a disaster? Because of radical culture change and clumsily handled transition. That's why. That's my final answer. The kids did and still do have talent. Jamal will hopefully succeed in New York and Eddy/Tyson will hopefully stay in Chicago. 

The stormy waters have been crossed...and we're still all Bulls fans. We still all want what's best for the team...and please excuse those of us sensitive souls who were somewhat shocked by the drastic uprooting of everything we'd bought into heart and soul. We're settling down now and we're not changing our tunes by cheering for these Paxson guys. They're still Bulls. I just wish this winning could have happened sooner rather than later...and I see no reason to dump on the guys we were riding with for so long. I also see no reason to dump on one another. 


*GO BULLS!!*


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> If he improves on ALL of those things in a major way I think he becomes a player that is deadly in this league. I don't know if it is fair to compare him to guys like Kobe & Lebron because those guys are awfully good. Maybe on the level of a Pierce? Maybe on the level of a Penny Hardaway in his prime?
> ...


Your comments are idiotic and ignorant. It's the same as saying if Linton Johnson improves his ball handling, sharpens his jumpers and three pointers, and sees the floor better, he would be a Scottie Pippen.

It's too freaking bad that not all players can be as they're hyped to be.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> No, they aren't. Any improvements he may have made are marginal at best.
> ...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I will just say that I respectfully disagree with yours. I have seen a lot of improvement from Jamal in NY. Besides, sometimes it can seem almost overnight. Remember Eddy Curry floundering around early in the season on defense? Now he is rotating and playing well. Once Jamal is able to fight through screens it should be a dramatic improvement.

Anyway, I can see I am wasting my typing here so we will just agree to disagree. If Jamal ever gets much better you can come back and tell me I was right, if he fails to, I can come back and tell you your right.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> 
> 
> Your comments are idiotic and ignorant. It's the same as saying if Linton Johnson improves his ball handling, sharpens his jumpers and three pointers, and sees the floor better, he would be a Scottie Pippen.
> ...


idiotic and ignorant? Gee, I thought we didn't insult other posters around here? Anyway, some of your posts haven't exactly been creme de la creme but I certainly have managed to remain civil, perhaps you should give it a shot.

ANd Jamal has far more natural talent than LJ, he is younger than LJ, and has a lot more upside. Just because you don't realize this I will refrain from calling you an idiot.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> If he improves on ALL of those things in a major way I think he becomes a player that is deadly in this league. I don't know if it is fair to compare him to guys like Kobe & Lebron because those guys are awfully good. Maybe on the level of a Pierce? Maybe on the level of a Penny Hardaway in his prime?
> ...


Are you serious??? Jamal as good as Paul frickin Pierce? Penny Hardaway in his prime? C'mon man. Paul Pierce at 24 (Jamal's age NOW): 26.1ppg, 1.88spg, 3.2apg, 6.9rpg, 44% FG, 40% 3pt
Penny in his prime: 21.7ppg, 2.02spg, 7.1apg, 4.3rpg, 51% FG, 31% 3pt. Paul Pierce routinely is amongst the top players in FTA in any given season. He's the Anti-Crawford in that regards. Penny Hardaway in his prime was an amazing player.

Go create a poll on the general NBA board. Ask the denizens there whom they would prefer to have on their team - the 2004-05 version of Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce or Penny Hardaway in his prime? I somehow think you're not going to like the results.

There is no way that Jamal even approaches those players. I understand you think he's special but at what point in time do folks stop saying what he's going to become and start talking about what he is? You ought to set your sights possibly a bit lower - Larry Hughes perhaps? Jamal isn't even as good as he is right now and you're speaking in terms of Bryant, James (not quite) and Pierce and healthy Penny???????


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Even though I disagree with some of people's perceptions on JC, I'd rather just let the topic die down. We can always rehash these arguments on the Jamal Update thread (still going strong!) or by going to the Knick board. It looks like JC won't be playing anyways.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Oops! Double post! Must be those ISP issues!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you serious??? Jamal as good as Paul frickin Pierce? Penny Hardaway in his prime? C'mon man. Paul Pierce at 24 (Jamal's age NOW): 26.1ppg, 1.88spg, 3.2apg, 6.9rpg, 44% FG, 40% 3pt
> ...


Yeah, I am serious. And I didn't say he was as good as Pierce is now. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, I'm entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or whether the majority of people disagree with it or whatever. I guess if it happens I will look that much smarter!  

Thats one of the reasons I was sad that we let him go because I think he will be very good.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am serious. And I didn't say he was as good as Pierce is now. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, I'm entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or whether the majority of people disagree with it or whatever. I guess if it happens I will look that much smarter!
> ...


And incidentally, this was a hypothetical question by GB as to IF Jamal fixed what I perceieve to be holes in his game how successful could he be. I put a 7 (out of 10) that I think he will fulfill his potential. This comparison to Pierce or Penny in his prime is based on Jamal completely fixing all of the holes in his game, which, I will admit may not happen..I think it will but who knows?


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

ACE, 

j00 are 5t00p1d jc playz 4 the kn1cks!!!!!

lololol pax rulez...we r w1nnin6 suckaz!!!



Thought I'd try to not read your posts and jump aboard the flame-JC wagon. Wasn't as fun as I hoped. I'll go back to being a thougtful, considerate poster now. 

I feel for you, Ace. You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> ACE,
> 
> j00 are 5t00p1d jc playz 4 the kn1cks!!!!!
> ...



Thanks! I mean, I admit he has flaws, I admit that my opinion is only based on seeing him play every game since he was a rookie, every summer league game, every regular season game, even his stint at the EBC. I could be wrong and I am willing to admit that freely. All I can scout is his talent, I can't get in his head and thats where what really matters takes place. Still, people act like I should have my head examined for having an opinion that is my own. I guess if I am eventually proven right a lot of people will have a crow feast.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> I have a hard time lending any credibility to the Crawford-related opinions of Bulls fans who still have pictures of Jamal Crawford in their avatars.
> 
> I have seen the following in this thread:
> ...


LOL hmmmm. . .this all looks *eerily similar* to what I have said.

Only you left certain things out, Mr. C.

-I said I hope Jamal scores 60, but that WE (meaning the Bulls) ultimately WIN. 

-I also said that there are Pro-Pax fans who tend to be about style as well. Not all of them are. The point they are probably about as much style as Jamal fans.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

ace20004u,

I don't exactly agree with all of your views on JC, but I have to give you credit-- you form your own opinions and stick by them, which is hard to do sometimes. 

I don't think the JC phenomenon will ever be fully explained-- why it is that people seem to just love him or absolutely hate him. 

But it's pretty silly to attack other posters about it (not saying you do this ace, but other posters).

Anyways, I think everyone would like to see JC suit up for at least one of these games. It would be an entertaining thing to watch.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> I admit that my opinion is only based on seeing him play every game since he was a rookie, every summer league game, every regular season game, even his stint at the EBC.


Is this for real? Every game?

Wow!

Are there other players you can say this about? Honestly, I'm just amazed and curious.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this for real? Every game?
> ...



Agreed. Are you related to him ace?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am serious. And I didn't say he was as good as Pierce is now. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, I'm entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or whether the majority of people disagree with it or whatever. I guess if it happens I will look that much smarter!
> ...


You're very much entitled to your opinion. As I am mine. For five years now I've read how great Jamal is _going_ to be. At some point in time the "going" has to change to "is". This league has been littered with players with more natural talent than Jamal who never did much with that talent. It also has its' fair share of players who have had far less natural talent than Jamal and whom have done very well for themselves.

Crawford will be 25 in what, two months? When does he stop being referred to as a work-in-progress and start being looked at for the player he is?

You'll be more than welcome to come in here and serve up a huge plate of I-Told-You-So when Jamal attains the enviable status of Paul Pierce or Young Penny. It's my opinion (and that's all that it is) that I'll never see that particular plate of delicacy served in this forum. He's good, but he'll never be anywhere near the franchise-type players that Pierce is and Penny was. He's best suited as a second or third option on a veteran-laden team.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this for real? Every game?
> ...


yeah, every game. Some of his college games too. I did miss 3 games Jamal was in, I confess. I missed his 50pt outburst against Toronto because it wasn't televised anywhere and I missed 2 Indy games that I was blacked out of...thats it. I even watched all the preseason games too.

And yeah, there are definitley other players I can say that about. I like to follow players progress and I watch a lot of NBA just to do that. I try to watch a lot of HS & college too to see who is up and coming. In any case, I can say the same thing about KH, EC, and TC to name a few. I am really only a Bulls fan so I can't say I have seen ALL of any other players games other than Jamals. But, I watch EVERY summer league and preseason game etc...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Are you related to him ace?



Nope. Just like him as a player, he's a prospect I have gotten behind and have a lot of faith in.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> ace20004u,
> 
> I don't exactly agree with all of your views on JC, but I have to give you credit-- you form your own opinions and stick by them, which is hard to do sometimes.
> ...


Thanks. It's ok not to agree with other peoples views. I have kept my opinion even as others have changed theirs. There have been many players that I have harped on that have become stars even when other people doubted that they would. I could name a dozen players and a dozen more that have made it as solid role players in the NBA as I thought they would when other people called me crazy. I was talking about what a good center Brad Miller was when others were calling him a scrub. There are tons of examples I could give. But I haven't always been right either, no one is ALWAYS right. Thats why I think it is important to respect other peoples opinions and not attack the person. If you disagree with me on something thats fine, feel free to tell me, feel free to tell me why, but don't go calling me an idiot or something just because I don't agree with your view.

In any case, we are all Bulls fans and just because some us have differing opinions in the end we all want the Bulls to succeed, nay dominate, and thats why we come here.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I have spent so long writing posts today (see the end of page 4, this thread) that I haven't gotten any work done. 

I never get work done. I'm a horrible worker. I should be fired. 

Oh, by the way, I got a raise today.


Huh???


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BealeFarange</b>!
> I have spent so long writing posts today (see the end of page 4, this thread) that I haven't gotten any work done.
> 
> I never get work done. I'm a horrible worker. I should be fired.
> ...


LMAO, sounds like my day too!


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Are you related to him ace?


Could Ace really be JC'sBigSis? :laugh: 

:grinning:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> Could Ace really be JC'sBigSis? :laugh:
> ...


Nope, regardless of my comment on the duvet cover on the other thread, I assure you I am all man! lol


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, regardless of my comment on the duvet cover on the other thread, I assure you I am all man! lol


And I believe you, just giving you some grief my friend.

With all the talk about Jamal being fired up about facing the Bulls, how jacked up is Ben going to be facing the Knickerbockers, especially in the Garden? Ben is from New York, right? I'll feel like a jack *** if he is not...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> LOL hmmmm. . .this all looks *eerily similar* to what I have said.
> 
> ...


I would never root for any player to go for 60, 50, 40, or 30 against the Bulls. That means the Bulls struggled to guard that player, which is not a good thing. My two favorite players in the league are KG and Dwyane Wade, but I don't want either one to do jack squat when they play Chicago. I'll never understand a contrary position.

And I wasn't trying to pick on your posts, I was just remembering off the top of my head some things that stuck out to me. Sorry if it seemed like I was singling you out. 

And maybe its just semantics, but most fans I know who have supported what Paxson started doing beginning with the Rose trade are about substance, not style.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> And I believe you, just giving you some grief my friend.
> ...


Yeah, I think he is from NY. I am sure he will be pretty psyched as well he should be. If Crawford ends up playing that will certainly heighten the drama if nothing else, I kind of hope he does even though it probably hurts the Bulls chances to win.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> 
> Your comments are idiotic and ignorant.


Moo!!

Moo!!

Dude. 

Respect the poster even if you don't respect the post. *Ace!* doesn't need me to be AD and come throw down to protect him, but this is just not a post a decent person would make. I happen to fall on the opposite side of the great Crawdaddy divide from *Ace!* as well, but his posts are always clear and well spoken and DECENT to the other posters.

To you sir, I say "Moo!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Moo!!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> Could Ace really be JC'sBigSis? :laugh:
> ...


I remember the pre-Crawdaddy *Ace!* as a rational and sensible human being. Maybe we can all get together and have an intervention?



____________________
Deuce


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Moo!!
> ...


lmao

:laugh:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think he is from NY. I am sure he will be pretty psyched as well he should be. If Crawford ends up playing that will certainly heighten the drama if nothing else, I kind of hope he does even though it probably hurts the Bulls chances to win.


indeed he is. mt. vernon is a suburb just north of nyc. 

he's played tons of times at msg for the big east tourney.

says it's his "home away from home"

they don't call him "madison square gordon" for nothing! 

he loves playing there. hopefully he will do very well.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember the pre-Crawdaddy *Ace!* as a rational and sensible human being. Maybe we can all get together and have an intervention?
> ...


Thats great! I knew SOMEONE would confuse me for a rational and sensible person one of these days....I never guessed it would be you Deuce! lol :yes: :grinning:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Moo!!
> ...



As it happens that I speak fluent bovine, I must say, Wynn, that while I agree with your sentiments, your choice of language violates our profanity policy.

Now if you had said "mooo" or even "moo-ooo" that would have been perfectly fine.

I'm surprised the editing software didn't pick it up.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ben Gordon grew up in Mount Vernon, NY, a close-in (its southern neighbor is the Bronx) suburb of New York City. The bad parts of Mount Vernon rival the worst parts of any town anywhere, and since NYC proper has gotten so cleaned up and gentrified and revitalized, places like Mount Vernon and Yonkers and Newark and Irvington seem even worse by comparison.

EDITED to correct appalling "its/it's" error.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

So will Jamal be booed or given a respectful cheer when he shows up in town?

I still don't get what Jamal did to become this lighting rod of criticism. He seems like such a nice kid on and off the court, he's well liked by all of his teammates--he tries to say the right things to the media generally.

Yet he was the most hated Chicago Bull in a long time...and continues to be villified.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet he was the most hated Chicago Bull in a long time...and continues to be villified.


Now, now. Lets not get carried away. Personally, I hated the guy in your avatar a lot more.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> So will Jamal be booed or given a respectful cheer when he shows up in town?
> 
> I still don't get what Jamal did to become this lighting rod of criticism. He seems like such a nice kid on and off the court, he's well liked by all of his teammates--he tries to say the right things to the media generally.
> ...


:yes: 

futuristxen is dead on. as usual.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah, every game. Some of his college games too. I did miss 3 games Jamal was in, I confess.
> ...


Ever kiss a girl?






:laugh:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Ever kiss a girl?
> ...


Why don't you hook up with him, GB, honey? You could be his first.:kiss:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> I'm surprised the editing software didn't pick it up.


It tried, but the software responded with a database error.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> I still don't get what Jamal did to become this lighting rod of criticism. He seems like such a nice kid on and off the court, he's well liked by all of his teammates--he tries to say the right things to the media generally.


For myself I think it's just a matter of being very disappointed. When Jamal cam to Chicago I was excited about having him. I thought he'd be one of the guys to help this franchise return to greatness. I was disappointed when he seemed to become a disciple of Jalen. I got annoyed when he'd go into an interview after a bad game and blame the coach for his own bad play. I got tired of his constant talking about improving but never getting any work done. In a sense, we all tend to be harder on those that disappoint us the most. If Jamal were talentless hack then we'd root him on like we did Linton and the Duper. He isn't talentless, he just has no mental fortitude.....

.........giving you a picture into why I feel the way I do?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It tried, but the software responded with a database error.


Entirely possible. :sigh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Ever kiss a girl?
> ...


 

if only you knew man....lol


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Why don't you hook up with him, GB? You could be the first.:kiss:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:uhoh: 

:hurl:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

For the record,

some of us have Jamal Crawford avatars simply because we think the Bulls would be better with him as 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th guard than we are without him. 

I believe the Bulls would have 2 more wins with him, especially in the games where we needed scoring late in Q4 of games we were close in, and that Gordon fouled out or wasn't on his game.

That, and to suggest that the knicks were the only team BOTH willing to pay Jamal's contract wishes AND to pay Paxson's S&T demands. To ignore the 2nd part of the above is... well, ignorant.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I believe the Bulls would have 2 more wins with him, especially in the games where we needed scoring late in Q4 of games we were close in, and that Gordon fouled out or wasn't on his game.


I tend to believe that Jamal would have shot us out of at least a couple of our wins, so I guess its a push...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> For the record,
> 
> some of us have Jamal Crawford avatars simply because we think the Bulls would be better with him as 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th guard than we are without him.


And some of you have allowed his departure to taint your general opinions of the organization and its direction notwithstanding the dramatic improvement shown sans Crawford. That lacks objectivity.

Nice signature. Nice avatar.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> For the record,
> 
> some of us have Jamal Crawford avatars simply because we think the Bulls would be better with him as 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th guard than we are without him.


For the record, not many people hate Jamal/Paul.

Believe he was no longer a fit for this team: yes.

Hate him: No.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I have a question for Jamal fans:


Would he quietly (*QUIETLY!*) join Othella, Griffin, and Pike on the bench if Skiles asked him to?

What in his past record supports your answer?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I have a question for Jamal fans:
> 
> 
> ...


I think we all know the answer is no, he wouldn't. The history on that is uncontrovertable.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-sportsshowcase&prov=ap&type=lgns

With NBA-high payroll, Knicks define themselves as a .500 team

``I don't think we're a great team right now, I never said so,'' Wilkens said. ``Certainly we can have a say in a lot of things, but I don't think we've found out who we are. We haven't had everybody here to do that yet. When we do, we'll get a better handle, but if you look at our club now, yeah, we're not more than (.500).''

The feeling around the locker room seemed much more positive just a couple weeks ago, before Jamal Crawford went down with a toe injury expected to keep him sidelined for at least two more weeks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I think we all know the answer is no, he wouldn't. The history on that is uncontrovertable.


Prove it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> I think we all know the answer is no, he wouldn't. The history on that is uncontrovertable.




We don't know for sure, but the history isn't very good. I think it was good reason to put his place as a longterm member of this organization into doubt.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Prove it.



Very sly debating/message board trick. Wait until someone answers a question you don't want to and them put _them_ on the defensive.

If he's not right, tell us why. 
Prove he's wrong.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Prove it.


He has a history of moaning about getting benched. If you think he would go to to the bench quietly "for the good of the team, how about _you_ prove it?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> He has a history of moaning about getting benched. If you think he would go to to the bench quietly "for the good of the team, how about _you_ prove it?


:buddies:


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> He has a history of moaning about getting benched. If you think he would go to to the bench quietly "for the good of the team, how about _you_ prove it?


if we were in the middle of a hot streak who knows. 

when we were losing bad jc, jwill, curry, chandler, erob, rose, etc etc were all vocal about when they were benched at one point or another.

winning takes care of alot of problems. tyson said he didn't like getting bench also (just this november). tyson's still coming off the bench but we don't hear a peep out of him now.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> For the record,
> 
> some of us have Jamal Crawford avatars simply because we think the Bulls would be better with him as 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th guard than we are without him.
> ...


I agree with TB1 about Jamal's impact. He might have won us a game or two with one of his hot streaks early in the season. He also could have easily shot us out of some games when he was shooting 20% but still firing at will. I've never called Jamal selfish or a cancer or any of those buzzwords, but his game wasn't always conducive to good team basketball - ball movement, working for a good shot, etc. This team finally tries to do that, and I'm not sure I see Jamal fitting into that dynamic very well. And on defense? Let's just say I was never too high on Jamal's individual or team defense, though I wouldn't say it's as bad as some people claim.

The last paragraph...what are you talking about? Are you saying other teams were willing to give Jamal that kind of deal? Or that other teams were willing to give up as much or more in a S&T? Why did we hear absolutely NOTHING about this? Let me guess - it's Paxson's fault. He didn't do his due diligence...right? Who are these teams? What were they offering?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

You guys know how I felt about Jamal. Praised him when he deserved it and criticized him when need be. I wanted to keep him as another offensive option and not as our #1 option. Looks like things have worked themselves out despite of what I think. 

I know our offense is a lot better this year.(in terms of ball movement) Not near as much dribbling and jacking up bad shots. That could be because Scott had training camp with the team and he didn't last year. 

Would Jamal come off of the bench? If you go by what he did in the past, he would, but would not like it and tell us so. However, with Jamal we have our big sg that we need. Even though his defense is suspect.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> He has a history of moaning about getting benched. If you think he would go to to the bench quietly "for the good of the team, how about _you_ prove it?


He goes more quietly to the bench than others. Jalen Rose for instance made Jamal's protestations seem pretty tame.

The thing Jamal was really complainging about, wasn't being benched. It was being constantly blamed for everything that went wrong. Jamal always seemed to be the target of fans and coaches ire, though I can't for the life of me figure out what he did to earn the disdain?

I mean, literally, if Jamal didn't complain, people on here would ***** that he didn't care and he would never be special because he just accepts being benched--all he cares about is getting his check(basically he would get the eddie robinson treatement, Eddie didn't mind sitting on the bench most of his time here...sometimes even supposedly for the good of the team)...I haven't seen Jamal do anything that anyone on here didn't have a problem with. And he has literally been on all sides of everything. There are times when he shut up and went to the bench, times when he said something, times when he passed a lot, times when he shot a lot, times when his shot was falling, times when his shot wasn't falling, times when he was the reason we won, times he was the reason we lost---and yet the one thing that remained consistent and remains consistent to this day, is this constant *****ing on the part of message board folk about him.

It's just amazing that someone could do so little but draw so much disdain.

Most of you guys said good riddance when he left, but when he said he was happy to be wanted, you acted shocked!

I mean even this thread, Jamal wanting to come back early to play his old team, which is a totally reasonable notion, is twisted to be this completely awful cat killing act.

I suppose at least now he is a Knick, which should allow more justification to the hate. But it would be nice if we could show some maturity in the situation, as fans.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> 
> winning takes care of alot of problems. tyson said he didn't like getting bench also (just this november). tyson's still coming off the bench but we don't hear a peep out of him now.


Tyson said what any competitive athlete would say. He WANTS to start. But he also said what good team players say - I'll do this if it's for the good of the team. This was before the Bulls started winning in bunches, mind you. 

Jalen would have said he's a scapegoat. Tough to say what Jamal would have said - if Jalen was there with him, he might have said something similar. If not, he probably would have said "ask the coach."


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> For the record,
> 
> some of us have Jamal Crawford avatars simply because we think the Bulls would be better with him as 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th guard than we are without him.


I don't agree.

I think it would hurt the whole dynamic defense to start with. Eddy would look at him and say - ' It's ok not to work hard on D ' .
and it would hurt our offense since he'd be claiming so many bad shots for himself.

I'm happy Jamal , especially his 'me first' moaning character is away from our young team , and I think our recent play and record show that. Let NY deal with him. He is a very talented player , but the effort ain't there , the commitment ain't there , and the moaning+low BB I.Q is.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i know that *PC Load Letter* and i have both posted threads about the current issue of *DIME magazine* (yes, i was the person who sent it to him, and yes, i am so nice, and yes, you should all try and get it)

FWIW - here is an interesting take on jamal crawford from the article about kirk. it is obviously the take of the writer, Peter Hamby. allow me to transcribe it for you now. i wish this were available online and i could just post a link.





> Though Paxson was pleased to welcome Hinrich into the lineup last year, Jamal Crawford wasn't exactly thrilled, a scenario that created a minor controversy in the Bulls clubhouse. Last November Hinrich stepped into Crawford's spot in the starting lineup and, at least to some observers, outplayed the more senior point guard. The Bulls had lost four of their first six games in blowout fashion, leading then-coach Bill Cartwright to bench Crawford and Jalen Rose in favor of playing Hinrich and Eddie Robinson.
> 
> Hinrich, relishing his first real NBA minutes after missing the first five games with a viral infection, took advantage by his second game in the starting line-up, scoring 10 points and dishing out four assists against the Nuggets on 11/11/03. Crawford meanwhile, had only six points and five assists in the game. When a reporter after the game asked Crawford if he was being out-played for his spot, Crawford keeled over in sarcastic laughter, then looked up at the reporter. "You being funny?" he asked.
> 
> ...




that's a pretty classy quote by kirk, and it was an extremely unclassy one by jamal after that denver game.

that was a real eye opener for me about the type of guy jamal is. not the type of player, but the type of person.

so i don't think jamal would take kindly to coming off the bench for skiles.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> He has a history of moaning about getting benched. If you think he would go to to the bench quietly "for the good of the team, how about _you_ prove it?


I'd be satisfied with a quote, perhaps demanding a trade. Particularly during the time (all but one year of his career) where he was a bench player for us.

Feeling he was being scapegoated for a one game benching isn't the same thing as complaining about not being a starter.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Crawford, who wasn't afraid to express his opinion of Cartwright's moves, said about his benching: "I respect coach and he's only doing what is best for the team."


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/7581684.htm

this is in regards to a skiles' benching when he first joined the bulls.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> So will Jamal be booed or given a respectful cheer when he shows up in town?
> 
> I still don't get what Jamal did to become this lighting rod of criticism. He seems like such a nice kid on and off the court, he's well liked by all of his teammates--he tries to say the right things to the media generally.
> ...


You're kidding, right?

There's life on this board and then there's the real world. 

On this board, Crawford had his detractors for sure, much like other flawed Bulls' players do. Heck, Hinrich has had any number of critical threads devoted to his shortcomings. However, most of the "hate" I've seen has come as a result of Crawford lovers who, after Crawford left the team, used their presumably sincere love for Crawford as a platform to slam everything Bulls, particularly Bulls' management. The Jamal hating has been reactive.

In the real world, I know very few casual Bulls fans (there are a lot more of them there are of us) who give any thought to Crawford at all. They don't love him and they don't hate him...they simply don't care about him BECAUSE HE DOESN'T PLAY FOR THE BULLS ANYMORE.

Crawford didn't fit with where the Bulls were going. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Bulls are, in fact, going 
_somewhere_. 

For me, Crawford is plainly and simply irrelevant.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> For me, Crawford is plainly and simply irrelevant.


That's a fair point of view. However, FJ asked a darn great question to start this thread.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> That's a fair point of view. However, FJ asked a darn great question to start this thread.


Kismet started this thread.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Kismet started this thread.


My bad. FJ asked in another thread if we'd rather have Crawford, Rose, and Marshall than Othella, FWill, and Pike. A truly great question.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> My bad. FJ asked in another thread if we'd rather have Crawford, Rose, and Marshall than Othella, FWill, and Pike. A truly great question.


The truly objectivist answer seems like it would be, "we're winning 45% of our games with Othella, FW, and Pike, and that's a lot better than we ever did with Marshall, Rose and AD."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> The truly objectivist answer seems like it would be, "we're winning 45% of our games with Othella, FW, and Pike, and that's a lot better than we ever did with Marshall, Rose and AD."


My turn to correct.

We never had Marshall, Rose, and AD at the same time.

I don't think we had a 9 game losing streak with Rose, Marshall, and Crawford, either...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> My turn to correct.
> ...


doh! (late edit: I meant to put JC, if that wasn't obvious)



> I don't think we had a 9 game losing streak with Rose, Marshall, and Crawford, either...


we certainly never had TWO five-game win streaks within a month of each other, either. Let's not start another tiff about choosing arbitrary samples of games again, eh? :laugh:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> My bad. FJ asked in another thread if we'd rather have Crawford, Rose, and Marshall than Othella, FWill, and Pike. A truly great question.


Well, the answer to _that_ question is undoubtably yes.

I have had my problems with Jamal and Jalen, but I never really bought into the "cancer" hysteria. I think they could have been convinced to buy into Skiles' system and be good contributers.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, the answer to _that_ question is undoubtably yes.
> ...


I generally think Crawford could have, I'm less sure about Rose. He, like most vets in the NBA, seems to be a real front-runner when it comes to how he plays (although, in fairness, every time I actually saw Rose play I was impressed- and surprised- by the chemistry he'd show on the court; he was always rooting, cheering, and talking up teammates in the games I saw him play with the Bulls).

I was never a huge fan of Crawford, and a look through the archives here will find a large amount of criticism from me directed at his game. But we'd be a couple of games better if we had him, and if we end up out of the FA game in 06 anyway (which it looks very possible we might), we just as well would have been better having him around as another asset until then.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DP


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Prove it.


You're kidding, right? I presume you remember Crawford and Jalen complaining about not starting, even though they played starters minutes and virtually the entire 4th quarter, in a WIN on the road? How does that jell with the theory that Crawford was team first?

Nice signature. Nice avatar.

I notice you didn't even respond at all to mizenkay's post about Crawford's childish and divisive comment to the media after being questioned if he lost his starting job to Hinrich. 

Why don't you cite some examples, real examples and not just typical Crawford lip service, of him being the type of player who sacrifices for the team? 

I've cited two (one stolen from mizenkay) showing he is a me first putz. Your turn.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> My turn to correct.
> ...


*I don't think we had a 9 game losing streak with Rose, Marshall, and Crawford, either...*

Your right, it wasn't 9. Tuesday Nov 19 2002 until Dec 7, 2002, *10 straight*. later on that same season we lost*8 *. Jan 29 2003 until we won on Feb 15. 

We did indeed win 30 games that season but we had two long losing streaks of 10 and 8.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> *I don't think we had a 9 game losing streak with Rose, Marshall, and Crawford, either...*
> ...


Ouch! 

Not to mention we never had as high a winning percentage with those me-first-no-defense-playing scrubs (Marshall excluded) as we have right now.

DaBullz, don't argue statistics when talking about Rose or Crawford as Bulls. Statistics aren't your friends in that particular debate.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron --

Please back off the "putz" comments and "nice avatar" insults.

We don't always succeed, but the goal is to keep it civil.

Thanks, my friend.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Ron --
> 
> Please back off the "putz" comments and "nice avatar" insults.
> ...


well to be fair, ron didn't call _dabullz_ a "putz". he called _jamal_ a "me first putz". 

which i kinda agree with too. 







 :angel:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> FWIW - here is an interesting take on jamal crawford from the article about kirk. it is obviously the take of the writer, Peter Hamby. allow me to transcribe it for you now. i wish this were available online and i could just post a link.
> 
> that's a pretty classy quote by kirk, and it was an extremely unclassy one by jamal after that denver game.
> ...


Thats messed up. But then he had the same reaction to Jay Williams.

Class A ****.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I don't think we had a 9 game losing streak with Rose, Marshall, and Crawford, either...







If I wasn't before, I'm convinced now.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> *I don't think we had a 9 game losing streak with Rose, Marshall, and Crawford, either...*
> ...


Warm and creamy smackdown.

Yum.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Jamal's career will evolve much like Larry Hughes. Larry Hughes is ballin nowadays. I cant name 5 gaurds playigng better than he is right now.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> that's a pretty classy quote by kirk, and it was an extremely unclassy one by jamal after that denver game.
> 
> ...



That quote could be taken a lot of ways but of course we all know which way you would push something like that .

I would like to point out that Kirk was already starting so how could he be outplaying jamal for a position he was already given. 

The Hornets benching game was the game before the Nuggets game so jamal and Jalen was already NOT starting.

Kirk did have 10pts and 4 assists but jamal only had 5pts and 5 assists so this article is suspect at best but not based on that but the fact that Hinirch had only played two game prior to the Nuggets game .One game against Philly and one against the Hornets. The pHilly game he shot 1-10 and fouled out with 6 assists though and the Hornets game he had 9 to's and jamal and Jalen closed out the game in the fourth.

There are obvious FACTS missing in the magazines retelling of the events and who is to say Jamal after seeing what happened with the media fishing for stories between Jay and himself the year before was asked a silly question he laughed it off not as a dig at Kirk but because he knew what the writer was going for by asking that question.

Im not offering excuses just saying we should all know by now how partial quotes in print come out wrong .


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Way too much politics in this board. No one player was resposnible for our losing last year and no one player is responsible for our winning this year. I think it is just a matter of us being do, our players are now learning what it takes to win. I think Jamal would have been an asset to this team. You can always use another scorer.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/sports/basketball/15knicks.html 

(NY TIMES is a subscription site; so i posted alot of the article, but not ALL of it)



> Jamal Crawford has a steel plate in his right shoe, an orthotic pad on top of the steel plate and a dozen loops of tape around the foot that rests on the orthotic pad that rests on the steel plate.
> 
> His injured right big toe would seem to be well protected. Now if only there were a medical device to cushion Crawford's emotions.
> 
> ...



if he is bitter and won't reveal it why is he painting himself (continually) as the scapegoat and (continually) moaning about the draft choices? if anyone is having trouble moving on it's jamal. or so it seems. 




*sidenote to TRUTH*



> There are obvious FACTS missing in the magazines retelling of the events and who is to say Jamal after seeing what happened with the media fishing for stories between Jay and himself the year before was asked a silly question he laughed it off not as a dig at Kirk but because he knew what the writer was going for by asking that question.


which is why i credited the writer who wrote the piece. i just posted a viewpoint from a national magazine that i found relevant. but i can see why you would think _"we all know which way you would push something like that"._ i guess you think keeling over in sarcastic laughter about a fellow teammate in whatever context - in this case a derogatory one - is just good locker room fun and games. ok. cause that part was well documented and not the figment of the writer's imagination. it really happened. and jamal really acted like a putz. 

he is still acting like a putz. 





:grinning:


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Good post Miz. Hopefully the media can get all of the he said she said stuff out of the way after this home and home is over with and they can move on and get over the past. I think both teams have benefited from the move hopefully we can soon leave it at that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Ron --
> 
> Please back off the "putz" comments and "nice avatar" insults.
> ...


Putz was referring to Crawford. I've never called anyone a "name" in here.

But I'll drop the avatar comments. Although I think its an obvious point regarding credibility, particularly when coupled with the "Fire the guys who turned around this basketball team" clubs.

Its agitating, but I don't consider it insulting.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> If you think he would go to to the bench quietly "for the good of the team, how about _you_ prove it?


Why would it be Jamal going to the bench ? He proved to bring his individual game against Jay Will.

But I don't know if he would have gone to the bench quietly.

And with some good reason: he was our best player last year. Obviously not the most consistent, but the one who would help us win games.

I think his flaw is that he's too optimistic. How is that a bad thing ? As he showed when he kept singing playoffs when we were like 12 games out of the 8th place spot last year, he seems to expect way too much. Expecting way too much of himself, of other people, that's the problem.

Especially with Ben struggling or not proving to be groundbreaking at RMR, I think he expected that he would be staying and would help carry the team.

Had he lost his job, I don't think he would announce it to everyone, but the press would find a way to dig it out of him.



> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> that's a pretty classy quote by kirk, and it was an extremely unclassy one by jamal after that denver game.
> ...


Your quotes are devoid of context.

I really don't where he's definitively moaning because all of this is just presswork.

It all seems like reaction more than complaining, where he takes the initiative to air the laundry.

And his reactions are justified because his expectations have continually been broken. This was his favorite team, he expected a lot from them. He expected to be the point guard of the future, he expected to have Jalen Rose as the main scorer, he's expected to start, he expected to be back. I think he's been too optimistic in expecting a lot of things, but some fault lies in how he's been managed. He's been continually put in a position where he has had to defend himself.

Kirk's expectations have never been broken like that on this team as far as we can see. After his crappy preseason, out of nowhere (maybe in practice), Kirk suddenly gets to start. And he's going to do whatever he can, and the team loves him. There hasn't been a game he hasn't started since.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

JC remains a game time decision for today:

http://www.wokr13.tv/sports/nba/livescores/game.aspx?sched=4912


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Sam Smith on the scene, with the story.



> Jamal Crawford is coming for the Bulls, and especially Eddy Curry. Forget the wall and the Corvette. Curry's the bug and Crawford's the hammer.
> 
> Crawford isn't about to forget all the guards the Bulls drafted after him, the bitter negotiations of last summer, the confusing instructions about his shooting. Nor will he forget he was the scapegoat for three coaches, two general managers and more players than in those mob scene AOL commercials. Crawford is about to give the Bulls and Curry some face time.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> "Nah," Crawford said this week at the Knicks' training facility here. "Me and Eddy have been talking about the [Saturday] game a lot. He said they're going to kill us. No, no, there's no running into a brick wall and that stuff. We were just laughing about it. Eddy's my [best] friend. He's a funny guy."


All right, Eddy. Let me just say right now that if you're going to talk smack like this, you better back it up. Nazr Mohammed, Kurt Thomas, and anyone else the Knicks are going to try to guard you with are simply horrible defenders. If it's in the fourth quarter and we need buckets and I see you unable to even establish post position the same way you couldn't against the likes of Jason Collins and Marc Jackson, I am going to have no choice but to make some sort of unflattering comparison between you and Grimace and permanently add it to my signature.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? I presume you remember Crawford and Jalen complaining about not starting, even though they played starters minutes and virtually the entire 4th quarter, in a WIN on the road? How does that jell with the theory that Crawford was team first?
> ...


You've cited NONE. I see you didn't read my response to TomB.

There was a game when BC benched both Rose and Crawford and both complained NOT ABOUT BEING BENCHED, but about being made scapegoats.

Throughout his years with the Bulls, Crawford has played a 2nd string role and has said all the right things. People have provided numerous quotes, and TomB in a new thread today, about how Crawford got along fine with Skiles or how he would do what's best for the team for it to win. Nothing about his unwillingness to play for the team on the 2nd unit. 

When JWill was drafted, he was drafted to play Crawford's position. Crawford played 2nd string and played well for us.

When Crawford was hurt, he worked his tail off to rehabilitate himself and he came back before projections said he should and he played the best ball of his career for the rest of that season.

Mizenkay's post, and Truthhurt's obvious response destroys any credability to the claim that Crawford would talk down one of his teammates. 

I suggested the kind of proof that is required. The newspapers aren't your friend, as they're simply full of quotes from Jamal and his teammates, not one of which you can produce from a three year span to support your statement.

I am NOT a huge fan of Crawford. I think he has serious flaws in his game, and I commented about it frequently when he was a Bulls' player. I think he shot us out of games when he started the season at PG, and I do not think he was suited to be PG at all. 

I do happen to believe he'd be a better 3rd guard for us than Duhon or a better 4th guard, no doubt, than FWill or Pargo. Having the best team possible is what matters to some of us, and how we treat our players matters, too.

As for turning around the team, that's not a given at this point. The Bulls sure looked turned around twice during that 30 win season, before Fizer's injury and during the final 2-3 months when many people drank from the 3Cs kool-aid (including Paxson).

We have 15 wins and a brutal schedule coming up. It's not even clear that we're going to win 30 games, though I'm inclinded to believe we can. If we finish with 29, the team will have been turned around. Around from 15 -> 21 -> 30 -> 23 -> something less than 30.

Now, do tell why it wasn't "turned around" when we went from 15->21 wins or from 21->30?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> There was a game when BC benched both Rose and Crawford and both complained NOT ABOUT BEING BENCHED, but about being made scapegoats.
> 
> ...


Oh, they were complaining about being "scapegoated" not the fact that they were benched? It just so happened that they made this complaint immediately after being benched. I guess there is no correlation.  

Plus, the "a game" you mention was a win. But you don't want to mention that. I don't blame you.

And to compare the way this team is playing now to any stretch of the 30 win seasons is simply a look at the win column. That team never played like this team is. 

Not only is the winning percentage better now, but I don't recall that 30 win team being the best defensive team in the entire league - like holding the longest streak of games holding opponents under 100 pts or boasting the #1 opposition fg% in the league (widely acknowledged as the most accurate statistic reflecting team defensive prowess). 

Any marginal success achieved in 2002-2003 with Rose and Crawford was fool's gold. This is real. You, me and everyone else in here know it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, they were complaining about being "scapegoated" not the fact that they were benched? It just so happened that they made this complaint immediately after being benched. I guess there is no correlation.
> ...


Yes, there's a difference between feeling the coach is blaming you for the team losing the past couple of games (or whatever) and being benched because you're beaten out for the job, or are unqualified for the job.

In the WIN (whoppee!), BC felt a lineup shakeup was in order. However, both players felt they were being blamed for the team's fortunes.

Rose went back into the starting lineup immediately, but Crawford did not. There's a clue about what games you can go look at the recaps for and try to find a Jamal quote to support your statements.

Otherwise, it just looks like you are pretending to know a situation you cannot possibly know without being in the locker room or in meetings between the players, coach, and GM that weren't open to the public or reporters.
.
As for that 30 win team, do you remember what their home record was?


----------

