# Mcgraw: Hinrich admits lacking motivation



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp

*"Just trying to stay focused is hard when you're used to all the excitement, getting ready to really play and make a run at something that you've worked for all year," he said.

"Right now, we're just trying to improve and show what we can do, I guess. It's just a whole different approach. It's almost like I'm forcing myself to have fun."

Bulls coach Scott Skiles pointed out that Hinrich had 21 points and 13 assists in a win at Toronto last week. In the three games since then, though, Hinrich has hit just 7 of 29 shots (24 percent).

"The guy's had a long, hard season," Skiles said. "He's played a lot of minutes, a lot more minutes than I'm sure a lot of people thought he was going to.

"His effort level has not dropped at all. We want him to be more aggressive looking to shoot. But it just kind of comes and goes. I think it's just part of being a rookie point guard."

Hinrich's assist totals have remained high. He is averaging 8.8 assists this month*


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

...and its to the rookie's credit that although he may not have the playoffs to look forward to as a motivating force, it hasn't affected his ability to play hard game in and game out.

Skiles: "His effort level has not dropped at all. We want him to be more aggressive looking to shoot. But it just kind of comes and goes. I think it's just part of being a rookie point guard."


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

so we bash Erob, Jamal, Eddy, Tyson etc for not playing hard or lacking motivation but my bet is that Kirk will be defended to all hedoublehockeysticks for not having motivation. Double standard? Hmmm maybe


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

There ain't no double standard rlucas. Kirk plays hard all the time. All he said is that its hard to be motivated when there is no postseason to look forward. He is not used to this. However despite that his effort late in the season has been just as good as it was early on in the year. That has not wavered.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> so we bash Erob, Jamal, Eddy, Tyson etc for not playing hard or lacking motivation but my bet is that Kirk will be defended to all hedoublehockeysticks for not having motivation. Double standard? Hmmm maybe


Funny how you phrase things. Who's got the double-standard here? The players you've mentioned get "bashed" (as you like to call it) for not playing hard. I've yet to see that mentioned about Hinrich. I know. I know. Heaven forbid that every player on this team be held to the same standards right? You would rather they all be like the players that you've mentioned. Guys who take nights off. Who don't put forth their best night in and night out. You're the guy who wonders why your father shells out his hard-earned cash to watch these guys and yet you're willing to give "your guys" the benefit of the doubt. Hinrich is to be subtly jabbed at by you yet your guys are perfectly excused from being held to the same standards. Nah. There's no double-standards going on here. Not at all.

What a hoot!


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> so we bash Erob, Jamal, Eddy, Tyson etc for not playing hard or lacking motivation but my bet is that Kirk will be defended to all hedoublehockeysticks for not having motivation. Double standard? Hmmm maybe


There _is_ a distinct difference between the words "motivation" and "effort." There are plenty of days when I don't feel very motivated, but that doesn't prevent me from puting forth a consistent effort. Motivation just makes it easier, that's all.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> so we bash Erob, Jamal, Eddy, Tyson etc for not playing hard or lacking motivation but my bet is that Kirk will be defended to all hedoublehockeysticks for not having motivation. Double standard? Hmmm maybe


ummm. not quite. but good try! we bash e-rob (mostly deserved) and eddy et al for lacking motivation _throughout_ the season from my observation. now as the season is winding down and hinrich runnin' on fumes, his legs are like jelly and he has nothing to play for, well, he's still playing hard and showing up most nights (i think the pacer game was an anomoly)...so...i'm not going to defend him for not having motivation...i'm going to say i understand it perfectly. 

i think mike mcgraw has flat out run out of things to write at this point. either that or he knows a "hinrich lacks motivation" headline will get read (and posted  ) a lot faster than an "e-rob has a come to jesus meeting with pax after missing most of practice with a sniffle 'cause he is a big wuss"...for some reason, though i am very curious about the latter.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I agree 100% with RL... 

I'm curious to know when those other guys haven't played hard?

Let's not confuse playing hard with diving into ball racks and all that crap...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I agree 100% with RL...
> 
> I'm curious to know when those other guys haven't played hard?
> ...


I think the only one who sometimes doesn't play hard is Eddy. They way he doesn't move for rebounds at all. Maybe it's reflexes or something else, but sometimes it looks like he should try harder.

I've been on the fence about Jamal for instance, but I couldn't accuse him of not playing hard.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Im so sick of this .Ill be glad when this season is over and never even had this attitude when we had Kornel David suiting up .

How many times is Skiles gonna throw jabs at the rest of the team by insuinating that Hinrich is the only player that gives effort every game ? 

I hate to say it but in the long run this gets a coach tuned out .


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Im so sick of this .Ill be glad when this season is over and never even had this attitude when we had Kornel David suiting up .
> 
> How many times is Skiles gonna throw jabs at the rest of the team by insuinating that Hinrich is the only player that gives effort every game ?
> ...


what? *rlucas* was the one who insinuated this and his buddy arenas perpetuated it with his comment. the story had absolutely nothing to do with jamal or eddy or tyson etc. nor did it even MENTION them. man some people are just so sensitive. 

read the quote again. skiles says he's not surprised: kirk has had a long season and that he still gives a great effort. where does that mention the three C's? 

are you disagreeing that kirk plays hard? 

:no:


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> what? *rlucas* was the one who insinuated this and his buddy arenas perpetuated it with his comment.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> what? *rlucas* was the one who insinuated this and his buddy arenas perpetuated it with his comment. the story had absolutely nothing to do with jamal or eddy or tyson etc. nor did it even MENTION them. man some people are just so sensitive.
> ...


  

The name of the article is Hinrich lacks motivation and Skiles gives Kirks his own little excuse portfolio .How do you lack motivation but still "*play hard * ".If anyone else on this team even hints they feel this way they are a lazy bum no matter what their situation .

You dont have read Rlucas or Arenas comments to even know this just read Skiles responses when it comes to anyone besides Hinrich over the last month.


Do I think Hinrich plays hard ? Yes but no harder than anyone else out there .


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

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



 right back at you.

can you honestly say that eddy curry, for example, has consistently played as hard and with as much effort night in and night out as kirk hinrich has this season? serious? 

wow. ok.


----------



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

These Skiles says Kirk is great/Kirk is great threads are very alienating to other players and fans of those other players. The article doesn't have to mention Jamal, Eddy, or Tyson because we haven't really heard Skiles go out of his way to say anything positive about them, other than they need to work. It's been Kirk this, Kirk that. At a way to divide the team (and this Chicago Bulls basketball message board ranked 14,280 according to my toolbar) Scotty. Oh well, at least they at that crazy organization are giving us something to chew on.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm still trying to figure out why the article is titled "Hinrich admits lacking motivation" when there is no direct quote from him in the article admitting lacking motivation. At most you have to imply that that is what he means by saying he misses not having the tourney or the playoffs to play for. He still says he goes out there and tries to improve.

And now we're all boiled in a semantic debate...thanks to Mcgraw.

But IF Hinrich had said blatantly that he lacked motovation, RLucas is right in that he is the only player on our team who would be allowed to say that. Hinrich, for whatever reason, has always gotten a free pass from Bulls fans. Even when he was playing horribly in summer league.

Hinrich is very much the teacher's pet.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

what I said wasnt entirely fair. What I meant to say is, if this article was, for instance, Tyson lacks motivation, the masses would be all over it like fly on crap. Theyd be calling for Tysons head. But because its Kirk, he gets a free pass on criticism. To kirks credit, there is nothing in this article that says he has mailed it in. And its a terrible title. But at the end of the day, a double standard exists. Its a fact anyone else could replace Kirk in the title and it would be a bash fest. Why does a double standard exist? I have some theories. But when you win 30% less games, everyone is held accountable. And that includes Kirk. if he doesnt have motivation right now, then bench him too. What is he shooting recently? 24%? That isnt overly impressive. But I am sure his problems will be blamed on everyone else. Kirk is above blame on this board


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I have my theories for why you hate Kirk as well my friend. But I don't want to get into that because you are a good poster and I don't want you to get upset and leave this board.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> I have my theories for why you hate Kirk as well my friend. But I don't want to get into that because you are a good poster and I don't want you to get upset and leave this board.


Deng, be a man and say it so I can laugh at you. I will say why I dont value Kirk as highly as you or most. because I cant remember so much for a rookie who actually didnt help the team win more games. Great rookies help their teams. Kirk is good. I cant say it enough. And his assists total would be much higher if he had teammates who can shoot. But some of the stuff is just laughable. he isnt a pure shooter as we thought. ironically, he is better shooting off the pass then the dribble, insinuating he is a better 2 guard then pg for that role. he also isnt a stopper. he has been lit up alot this year. Sure, he gives effort. but no one is above blame. I have said this all year. So be a man and tell me your theories


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Hinrich is very much the teacher's pet.


He's the best basketball player on the basketball team. If that doesn't earn you some leeway in a *players* league, I don't know what does.

Was Michael Jordan the teachers pet too?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He's the best basketball player on the basketball team. If that doesn't earn you some leeway in a *players* league, I don't know what does.
> ...



:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He's the best basketball player on the basketball team. If that doesn't earn you some leeway in a *players* league, I don't know what does.
> ...


Oh Christ. Is this enough for you Deng. Someone putting Kirk and Michael Jordan in the same sentence. thats beyond comprehension to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Deng, be a man and say it so I can laugh at you. I will say why I dont value Kirk as highly as you or most. because I cant remember so much for a rookie who actually didnt help the team win more games. Great rookies help their teams. Kirk is good. I cant say it enough. And his assists total would be much higher if he had teammates who can shoot. But some of the stuff is just laughable. he isnt a pure shooter as we thought. ironically, he is better shooting off the pass then the dribble, insinuating he is a better 2 guard then pg for that role. he also isnt a stopper. he has been lit up alot this year. Sure, he gives effort. but no one is above blame. I have said this all year. So be a man and tell me your theories


99% on the mark on the assessment of Hinrich, though I think he's proving to be quite effective at PG.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Oh Christ. Is this enough for you Deng. Someone putting Kirk and Michael Jordan in the same sentence. thats beyond comprehension to me.


ok technically he didn't put them in the same sentence.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp
> 
> *"Just trying to stay focused is hard when you're used to all the excitement, getting ready to really play and make a run at something that you've worked for all year," he said.
> ...


Translation:

"Coming from a highly successful program like Kansas to the Bulls, where 

*the record sucks

*My teammates are worse, speaking relatively of course, and 

*Theres no post-season


...really, really sucks."


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> ok technically he didn't put them in the same sentence.


Its just ludicrous regardless. you get the point mate. the kid is good, everyone agrees on that. But jordan? give me an F'in break. he doesnt deserve the breaks that MJ or anyone on those teams got


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Actually, I agree that Kirk should be sitting quite a bit. He has done an admirable job avoiding the "rookie wall" but his steadily decreasing shooting % suggests that perhaps he is finally running out of gas a bit.

but given the constant hustle Kirk has demonstrated throughout the season compared to our other, underperforming heroes, (Eddy, the Chocolate Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man, Eddie, the pouting wingman who's afraid of the lane, Tyson "Mr. Fragile" Chandler, who is a 7 footer who can't score, and company) why shouldn't Kirk, who has come out and exceeded all expectations placed on him, be held to a different standard for criticism?

Yes, these are team losses, but the rook deserves some slack, where the vets (and yes, the 3 C's count as vets by now) do not deserve slack.


Back to Tyson for a moment -- remember, this is a 7-footer _who can't score._

Imagine going to the Y and playing a game with the rims lowered to 9 feet. Wouldn't you be embarassed if you weren't a scoring machine in a game like that?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Fine but don't get pissed off.

1) You are obsessed with prospects and assume just because they are young they will be better than someone who has done the right thing and gone to school and improved themselves. You are always going to look at a 18 year old and say he will be better than someone who is 22 and has played 4 years at a very good basketball school. You assume a college senior sucks because they are still in school and did not leave early. When did staying in college become a bad thing?

2) You are still mad we did not get Pietrus. You have denied this to me but it is the truth. You talked Pietrus up to death and refuse to acknowledged that you were wrong and Kirk was the right pick.

3) You also have this utter disdain for Paxson and Skiles along with Reinsdorf and since Kirk is their guy you feel obligated to trash the kid. 

On a side note I will admit that there are PG's I think that are better than Kirk. I would love for you to give me a list and I will tell you which ones I like at PG better than Kirk. Please do that for me.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

with ten games left in a brutal season it goes without saying that it's tough to find motivation. Why all the fuss? The reason Kirk gets a pass is because whether he's having trouble staying motivated or not, it's evident to most observers that he's still playing his guts out every night, save the Indiana game perhaps. Curry can only play his guts out for a quarter at a time. Crawford sometimes only plays 110% if his shot is falling, though I think his effort is usually good. Chandler plays so hard that he'd foul out by the 6 minute mark in the first quarter, but we'll see if he can get his game back before the season ends - he's lost a lot of slack for his weak back. ERob plays so hard that he refuses to go into the paint when he plays and sits out with a cold. The vets are just playing out the string. The NBDLers are just glad to be here. 

with ten games left in a horrible season, it's not surprising to hear anyone on this team say they're lacking in motivation, outside of the NBDL mob who are playing for their bball lives. It's the histories of the players that determine whether it should raise eyebrows. If Curry says it, the reaction will be "here we go again. Eddy's counting down the days until he can start eating Big Mac's all summer." With Chandler it might be "he wants to sit around in California all summer instead of work on his back and his strength." etc etc etc. Kirk hasn't given us reasons to doubt his desire to improve yet, so this comment doesn't draw the same criticism.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Where did anyone compare Hinrich to Michael Jordan?

Oops..there they go in the same sentance again.

Micheal Jordan and Kirk Hinrich both played/play for the Chicago Bulls.

ARGH! Not again!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Fine but don't get pissed off.
> 
> 1) You are obsessed with prospects and assume just because they are young they will be better than someone who has done the right thing and gone to school and improved themselves. You are always going to look at a 18 year old and say he will be better than someone who is 22 and has played 4 years at a very good basketball school. You assume a college senior sucks because they are still in school and did not leave early. When did staying in college become a bad thing?
> ...


1) wrong
2) wrong
3) wrong

I said my beef. and your theories are trash. period. ultimately i judge a player by his impact on W/Ls. And right now, his impact is the worst of any of the so called top rookies.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Oh and for the record I agree the Kirk and MJ reference was insane to say the least.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Michael Jordan watch Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls play the Cavs at the UC this season...



NOT AGAIN!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Michael Jordan and Kirk Hinrich both went to college.


oops!!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Look here: The reason I made the reference is because someone called him the teachers pet--said that he had a special relationship with his coach.

Most coaches have the same relationship with the player they really think makes their team run--ie: Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson.

Rlucas is being intentionally deceptive (and delirious) if he thinks I'm stretching it to say anything about their respective physical abilities.

I'd challenge ANYONE on the board to find that in that sentance. 

Bring it---idiots.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

PGs better then Kirk for you Deng. 

1) Barron Davis
2) Mike Bibby
3 Bobby Jackson
4 Gary Payton
5 Tony Parker
6 Jason Williams
7 Stephon Marbury
8 Chauncey Billups
9 Steve Francis
10 Steve Nash
11 Andre Miller
12 Sam Cassell
13 Jason Kidd
14 Gilbert Arenas


Thats 14 that I could think of. So he is in the upper half of PGs in the NBA? He and Curry are the only 2 guys we can say that about.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Look here: The reason I made the reference is because someone called him the teachers pet--said that he had a special relationship with his coach.
> 
> Most coaches have the same relationship with the player they really think makes their team run--ie: Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson.
> ...


Deceptive? No I said you were dumb to Insinuate Kirk should get the same breaks as MJ. Whats deceptive about that? Your comment was foolish. I have said it to your face


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> PGs better then Kirk for you Deng.
> 
> 1) Barron Davis
> ...


Bobby Jackson? He's not exactly an assist man.

And most Houston Fans would LOVE to swap Francis for Hinrich. Check clutchcity.net if you doubt that.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

This thread is finally getting interesting! You guys ought to take this on Jerry Springer or something!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> PGs better then Kirk for you Deng.
> 
> 1) Barron Davis
> ...


pretty good for a rookie though. I think he'll pass Payton and Cassell soon due to their age, I'd argue he's not far behind Jason Williams either since he plays some defense. And that's assuming just a marginal amount of improvement. He could improve quite a bit, we'll just have to find out.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Deceptive? No I said you were dumb to Insinuate Kirk should get the same breaks as MJ. Whats deceptive about that? Your comment was foolish. I have said it to your face


EXCEPT...I said nothing about "getting breaks". I specifically commented on the relationship he had with his coach.

Hinrich isn't excepted from anything that the team goes through.

Thats been Pippen--from day one.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Good list. With the exception of Jason Williams and Bobby Jackson I agree that right now everyone there is better than Kirk. Having said that I think Kirk will improve and in 2 years will be at least in top 7 PG's in the league.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Bobby Jackson? He's not exactly an assist man.
> ...


Bobby Jackson is flat out a better player then Kirk. His impact on the game is more. Assists or not

If Houston offered Francis for Hinrich straight up, only a fool wouldnt take that. Francis cant dominate in every system, Id agree. But look at the impact his loss had on Houston that season? If that doesnt show he is a good player, what does?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> pretty good for a rookie though. I think he'll pass Payton and Cassell soon due to their age, I'd argue he's not far behind Jason Williams either since he plays some defense. And that's assuming just a marginal amount of improvement. He could improve quite a bit, we'll just have to find out.


Aye--and I think he could be as effective at off-guard as he is at PG----should the team every acquire a competent one.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Look here: The reason I made the reference is because someone called him the teachers pet--said that he had a special relationship with his coach.
> 
> Most coaches have the same relationship with the player they really think makes their team run--ie: Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson.
> ...



Your comments are just as funny as they are stupid .Michael Jordan won games by himself and could be said to be the sole cause of his team winning games at times .

Kirk Hinrich has won nothing in fact for all this yakking about him being the Bulls best player.Most of the time he is not even factored in as a difference maker in the winning or losing of games.

Its a reason Crawford and Curry get 99% of the blame around here because winning and losing is based upon them showing up not upon whether Kirk is giving effort every game .

Kirk is a gonna be a damn solid player and is a pretty good one now but sometimes you guys just say the


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Bobby Jackson is flat out a better player then Kirk. His impact on the game is more. Assists or not


Oh, I'd agree. But they don't exactly go out every night and do the same thing.

I don't have a problem with your list---you just fudged it a bit, thats all.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> EXCEPT...I said nothing about "getting breaks". I specifically commented on the relationship he had with his coach.
> ...


No what you said was its a players league and Jordan was a teachers pet, so why shouldnt Kirk be. Talk about deceptive and insinuating he deserves something? At the end of the day, when your team wins 22 games and goes down 30% for the year, everyone is held responsible. Kirk included. I will say Kirk did what was asked of him. but the fans have severely overrated this kid this year. He is good, not great. Might be great, but not great right now. There are 15 guys in the NBA, at his spot better then he is. Some of those guys are backups on other teams. Sometimes I feel that Kirk has been misused here. Again, not his fault


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

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


He didn't even read the post or try to refute my arguments.  

The pbox looms...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, I'd agree. But they don't exactly go out every night and do the same thing.
> ...


in what way? what position would Bobby J play in chicago if he were a Bull? Id say the Point. Some would say the 2. But he is a better player at this point then Crawford or Kirk.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> No what you said was its a players league and Jordan was a teachers pet, so why shouldnt Kirk be.


 

Wrong again.

People are hearing what they want to hear, not whats really being said...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> pretty good for a rookie though. I think he'll pass Payton and Cassell soon due to their age, I'd argue he's not far behind Jason Williams either since he plays some defense. And that's assuming just a marginal amount of improvement. He could improve quite a bit, we'll just have to find out.


I would agree. Its good. to be 15th in the NBA is quite an accomplishment for a rookie. And realistically he can move up 4-5 spots over the next couple of years. So I see him around 10. Good, but nothing to give him a free pass over imo. And that doesnt include such young PGs as Livingston, Vujanic, Paul. Telfair, Barbosa, etc who might pass him. I think Kirk is good. But I think he is close to his ceiling under the current system.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


Your insinuation was obvious. and frankly, as 3 or 4 other posters have pointed out, pretty much ridiculous.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> in what way? what position would Bobby J play in chicago if he were a Bull? Id say the Point. Some would say the 2. But he is a better player at this point then Crawford or Kirk.


In line with your last sentence: you have to start two in the backcourt.

Skiles would start KH and BJ---not BJ and JC. 

I think everyone knows it too---even if they don't agree with it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> In line with your last sentence: you have to start two in the backcourt.
> ...


i would agree. But guess who would have the ball in their hands most of the time? Bobby Jackson. but then again we are talking about Scott Skiles here


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Your insinuation was obvious.


obviously too complex for you to figure out.

As for the three or four JC fans...bah!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He didn't even read the post or try to refute my arguments.
> ...


The person that makes the Bulls go is not Kirk its Crawford .I wont argue whether Kirk plays harder than jamal or plays better defense than Jamal .

But Jamal on his A game raises the level of play of his teammates while Kirk for his consistent effort and hard work even when he brings his A game the team for some reason will still more then likely come up flat .

Is that Kirks fault? NO

Skiles and Pax seem to choose a player on the team they most could relate too and thats Kirk .The relationship in now way compares to Mj and Phils its just assanine to say so .


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> obviously too complex for you to figure out.
> ...


what we have here is a case of someone who talks before thinks and then backtracks with insults and double talk. Good try but people know what you meant. Even Deng, who loves Kirk, called to pretty ridiculous. I guess your just smarter then everyone else

and in case you havent figured it out, there was insinuation there


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> In line with your last sentence: you have to start two in the backcourt.
> ...


Actually with Skiles history he probably starts all 3


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> The person that makes the Bulls go is not Kirk its Crawford .I wont argue whether Kirk plays harder than jamal or plays better defense than Jamal .
> ...


im not a Jamal fan but its true. Kirk cant win us a game by himself under the current system. Jamal is the only player on this team that can. And if he ever lands on another team that will consistently allow him to play the PG spot without jerking him around, I would say he would pass Kirk as well. But on this team, i would agree with the Kirk fans that Kirk is the MVP of the Bulls this year. But that isnt saying much since the club is the worst or second worst team in the NBA.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Rlucas, one question and I mean this in the nicest way possible. Why do you assume Kirk has hit his ceiling?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> The person that makes the Bulls go is not Kirk its Crawford .


We're 20-51.

With fans like you, Jamal doesn't need detractors.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> im not a Jamal fan but its true. Kirk cant win us a game by himself under the current system. Jamal is the only player on this team that can.


Eddy Curry.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I guess your just smarter then everyone else


at least everyone else having this discussion...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Rlucas, one question and I mean this in the nicest way possible. Why do you assume Kirk has hit his ceiling?


In this system i dont see them allowing him to play off the ball. I think he is a damn good shooter, off the ball. With jamal heading for the exits, Id expect Kirk to have the ball in his hands even more next year. Which is ok, but not for really fun basketball to watch. Kirk would be a great player in a system like Sacramentos where everyone touches it, though he would never play there as of now. In this set, he will dominate the ball. He still struggles against intense pressure. he doesnt shoot well off the dribble. He has shown he can finish in traffic with funny shots but I doubt he does it with explosion, the James play excluded. And for someone who gets so much props for his D, alot of players have lit him up this year. The effort is there, he just doesnt have the god gifted genetic ability to get better at D. On O, in the right place, he could be better. But does anyone think Skiles is going to bring Sacramentos offense to Chicago? 

is this good enough for you?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddy Curry.


he needs a pass


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Deng, what makes you think Kirk will become much better?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> We're 20-51.
> ...



Rightttttttttttt  

If we had left Jamal at pg all season would our record had been any worse ? I dont think so .

The difference between fans like me and one like you is Im not rooting for Kirk to fail or taking cheap shots at him whenever I can .Hes a bull so when the ball goes up I cheer for whoever is wearing that red and black so even when I criticize Kirk or whatever player its not because some personal BS .

Can you say the same ?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> he needs a pass


Yup...I am smarter than everyone having this discussion.

Gonna strike down Kareem, Shaq, Wilt and Russell too? They too needed a pass.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I hear you I really do. But listen why can't he improve shootinf off the dribble, why can't his defense improve as he becomes more used to players and their tendicies, why can't he get stronger which will allow him to finish with more explosion? We have seen that he has the drive and determination along with a high work ethic. I see no reason why he will not improve on these things. Just because he went to Kansas for 4 years does not mean he is a finished product. Kirk is a good shooter off the ball and we should do that more. Maybe another ball handler will be added at some point. Who knows?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

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


Quite easily...and I have on several occasions.

You, quite expectedly, skipped over all those posts without comment.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Quite easily...and I have on several occasions.
> ...


But only after it seems you have put your foot in your mouth .........on several occasions .

It seems like someone doesnt learn from their mistakes . :uhoh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> But only after it seems you have put your foot in your mouth .........on several occasions .


Again...proving my point that you've never read them.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Yup...I am smarter than everyone having this discussion.
> ...


all of those guys had a wing guy who was the go to guy at crunch time

does the names Magic, West, Robertson, Havilcek mean anything to you?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Again...proving my point that you've never read them.


Yes Ive read it but proving it aint what you write its what you do .


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Eh, in any event, I do think Hinrich deserves some breaks that the rest of the team does not right now. Now back when Tyson was averaging 13/10 at the beginning of the season, I would have said the same for him. But those days are long gone. Remember back then rlucas. It was as if you couldn't rip on Tyson. 

If you play really hard and produce -- and play good D every game, these guys will back you. And it doesn't hurt to be a productive rookie as opposed to just a productive player when obtaining the love of fans. 

The other thing is that Kirk has averaged 8.8 assists a game this month. Add his usually good defense to the mix, and it means he's producing on offense and defense every game, even if his shooting has kind sucked.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> all of those guys had a wing guy who was the go to guy at crunch time
> 
> does the names Magic, West, Robertson, Havilcek mean anything to you?


Ok...the center isn't the one that wins the game...it's the...whoa...

You're putting Jamal up there with Magic Johnson.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

<IMG SRC=http://www.scottnath.com/vacation/images/thumbs/jerry_springer_thumb.jpg>


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This thread is pretty stupid. Kirk is expressing what any rational person in his situation would be expressing -- frustration. Nothing more, nothing less. He still busts his tail on every play and leaves it all on the court. The title of this article is nothing more than mild sensationalism -- props to McGraw for attracting attention.

rlucas, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I see where you're coming from with pretty much everything on all topics. However, I simply do not agree with your stance on evaluating a player's worth largely through team record. I think doing so is just an extremely oversimplified and patently shortsighted means of judgement. Sure, Kirk's team sucks. But to call him overrated is the same thing as calling someone like Tracy McGrady -- whose team actually has a worse record than the Bulls -- overrated as well. A related argument is posed when people say that TJ Ford did more for his team this year than Hinrich did (and is thus a more valuable player) because the Bucks are a better team than the Bulls. Well, this is just a stupid argument. You put Kirk on the Bucks and they have just as good a record -- or better -- than they do now with Ford. Conversely, you put Ford on the Bulls and we're stuck with the same record we have now, or worse. This whole team success/player worth topic really just irritates the hell out of me because it's simply not an accurate way of judging a player's talent or influence on a team.

*Kirk is 21st overall in the NBA over the course of the season in regards to Roland Rating.* Kirk, overrated? The stats simply don't agree.

http://www.82games.com/rolandratings0304.htm



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> The effort is there, he just doesnt have the god gifted genetic ability to get better at D.


Would you agree that someone like Josh Howard has the God-given genetic ability to bet better at D? What about Dwyane Wade? I would too. Here's the kicker, though: at the combine last spring, Kirk tested out a better overall athlete than Josh Howard did. Kirk was also nipping at Wade's heels in terms of overall scores. So if Kirk doesn't have the "genetic" ability to get better, I don't know who does.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nice post vv.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Thank you. Some of these arguments just get a little old after a while.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> <IMG SRC=http://www.scottnath.com/vacation/images/thumbs/jerry_springer_thumb.jpg>












"Wear the Horns..."


Come on...sing with me...

"My Speawww and Magic HEEEEEWWWWmeeeeet..."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Those roland ratings are terribly misleading.

They're solely based upon +/-. The Bulls are so bad that when Kirk is off the floor, we got someone like Brunson or Dupree at guard. This is what the stat measures, and it only means that Hinrich is a lot better than either of those two.

RLucas is absolutely right to look at the IMPACT a rookie has on a team.

V V is right about TMac being overrated.

Peace!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I just thought I'd point out that according to those roland ratings, Jalen Rose is ranked #29 in the NBA. And he supposedly sucks. At 29, he's ahead of Tim Duncan.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I just thought I'd point out that according to those roland ratings, Jalen Rose is ranked #29 in the NBA. And he supposedly sucks. At 29, he's ahead of Tim Duncan.


Those ratings are not reflective to the overall contribution to the team. All you have to do is look at No. 8. Jeff Foster.

http://games.espn.go.com/cgi/fba/playerrater?iSort=1&iPeriod=1&iPos=5 Sure it's individual performance but it's more accurate. Compares stats against the average of the rest of the league. The more a player leads in a category, the higher the rating.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Those roland ratings are terribly misleading.


I'd say they're a little misleading, but not overly so. They still accurately (and scientifically) illustrate a player's value to his team. And by and large, the vast majority of the list is made up of good to great players who legitimately impact the game. And if a player impacts the game such that it registers a significant beneficial +/- for his team (and is thus recorded by the Roland Ratings), I don't think it's accurate to call him overrated -- unless, of course, he was annointed as some kind of star when in fact he wasn't (but was rather more like a good complementary player with star _potential_ -- kind of like, say, Kirk Hinrich).



> They're solely based upon +/-. The Bulls are so bad that when Kirk is off the floor, we got someone like Brunson or Dupree at guard. This is what the stat measures, and it only means that Hinrich is a lot better than either of those two.


Agreed. That said, where is T-Mac on that list? Jamal Crawford? Who backs up Stevie Franchise? Jason Terry?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Good link, spongyfungy. Scientific, statistically sound. I'd say this is pretty accurate:

http://games.espn.go.com/cgi/fba/playerrater?iSort=1&iPeriod=1&iPos=0

Note for rlucas: Kirk is 3.70 points -- a sizeable margin -- better than Bobby Jackson on these lists.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Miami went from 13th out of 15 in the Eastern Conference and 7th place in the atlantic division to 6th in the East and 2nd in the Atlantic.

They added Odom and suffered a huge dropoff from Caron Butler.

And they added Wade, and he's the real difference in that team's record. IMPACT.

Wade is easily the 3rd best rookie this season, behind LeBron and Anthony. All three have proven to be IMPACT players whose teams have gone from Bulls territory in the standings to playoffs in a single season.

I like Kirk a LOT, but I'm not overly blinded by homerism or fanatacism that I'd overrate him.

And respectfully, Jamal Crawford is a better offensive player right now than Hinrich is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

V V,

You asked where TMac is on the list.

Looking at Orlando's data:

http://www.82games.com/0304ORL.HTM

TMac is -5.6 +/- and the team is -9.5 without him for +3.9.

Nailon is +9.7, Penigar is +15.9, Archibld is +28.6, Dial is +34.7, Rooks is +7.4, and Gaines is +5.3.

You decide who plays when TMac is out.

For the Bulls:

http://www.82games.com/0304CHI.HTM

Hinrich is -4.1

Gill is -9.8, Brunson is -8.7

Hinrich benefits from his replacements being WORSE +/- ratings.

See?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> 2) You are still mad we did not get Pietrus. You have denied this to me but it is the truth. You talked Pietrus up to death and refuse to acknowledged that you were wrong and Kirk was the right pick.
> 
> 3) You also have this utter disdain for Paxson and Skiles along with Reinsdorf and since Kirk is their guy you feel obligated to trash the kid.


2)Kirk's been great, but Pietrus would have been a better fit for this team...

It's disappointing to think the homework wasn't done so that it would have actually been a possibility we would have taken him.

3)Paxson and Skiles haven't shown anything other than backwards results, I'm done going into what's gone on, but I'm not really going to change my feelings until I see a move that takes this team forward. Up until this point not one move has been made up until this point that shows a step towards being competetive.

You might say well we hired Skiles, well ya, but Skiles winning % isn't better than Bill's as coach, and Bill had more "meaningless wins" last year than Skiles is going to get this year at the helm.

No one wants to seem to address the fact that one coach has lost more than the other but one is a genius, and the other a bum?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I just thought I'd point out that according to those roland ratings, Jalen Rose is ranked #29 in the NBA. And he supposedly sucks. At 29, he's ahead of Tim Duncan.


I don't care what anyone says, Jalen would still be the best player on this team...

I would have gladly kept him and brought in a vet coach that could have brought this team together.

My Clippers are much better this year because we brought in a great coach and made a commitment to our star players.

We've done neither...

We've gone backwards...

That's fact.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Arenas,

I'm pretty sure the records aren't discussed more because the two brought different qualities to the team---and what Skiles has brought has been far better and far more valuable than what Cartwright brought.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Miami went from 13th out of 15 in the Eastern Conference and 7th place in the atlantic division to 6th in the East and 2nd in the Atlantic.
> 
> They added Odom and suffered a huge dropoff from Caron Butler.
> ...


Chicago added a gimp Scotty Pippen, a hobbling 7-footer with the offensive game of a 5th grade girl, traded away its best offensive player for two aged garbage men past their prime which have no business starting in the NBA (but start for the Bulls), and, last but not least, a handful of NBDL players.

Compare the rosters.



> Wade is easily the 3rd best rookie this season, behind LeBron and Anthony. All three have proven to be IMPACT players whose teams have gone from Bulls territory in the standings to playoffs in a single season.


I'd agree, and it's not really a contest. The top 3 are the Big 3, the stars of this class. That said...

...why isn't Pheonix dominating? They have Amare, Matrix, a rising star in Johnson, decent role players (that put ours to shame, BTW) and a hot young point guard. Does Amare suck that bad? Does Barbosa suck that bad? Matrix? Joe Johnson? Marbury, when he was there? Do any of them have any IMPACT?



> I like Kirk a LOT, but I'm not overly blinded by homerism or fanatacism that I'd overrate him.


Are you implying I am blinded by homerism or fanaticism and that I overrate him? I think I've demonstrated enough objectivity in this thread -- and this forum -- to render this notion patently absurd. However, in the case you're not aiming this at me, then my bad . 



> And respectfully, Jamal Crawford is a better offensive player right now than Hinrich is.


Of course he is. There's a good chance he always will be, too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

About the "homerism" remark. I was talking only of myself.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> About the "homerism" remark. I was talking only of myself.


Gotcha.

But seriously, does Amare, Matrix, Joe Johnson or Barbosa have any IMPACT whatsoever? What about Marbury?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Are you implying I am blinded by homerism or fanaticism and that I overrate him?


I don't think theres a regular poster here who does.

The topic has been examined from every angle and turned inside out.

If there is...theres no reason for it.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> About the "homerism" remark. I was talking only of myself.


Hey DaBullz. Ya might want to check your sig. I'm not sure if I want to join the Fire Paxson club or the Fire Paxson club.

Just tryin' to help out!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I am banking on having the majority of the questions I posed in this thread going unanswered.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> 2)Kirk's been great, but Pietrus would have been a better fit for this team...
> ...


yeah, and Sam Bowie was "a better fit" too. I like Pietrus, and I've seen him play a little more than some of us here because I live in Warrior territory. He's a great, but somewhat overzealous defender and an inconsistent player on offense, but with some promise. I'd love for the Bulls to make a move for him and think he will eventually be a solid starter and all-NBA defense candidate. 

That said,

Kirk is a better player. Thus he was a better pick. We didn't have a good enough roster at the draft to pass up the best player for a better "fit", especially after Jay lost his battle with the streetlight. Pietrus, from what I've seen of him, wouldn't have helped us win any more games than Kirk has. He wasn't even ready for big minutes until the last couple weeks due to his tendency to foul everything in sight.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey DaBullz. Ya might want to check your sig. I'm not sure if I want to join the Fire Paxson club or the Fire Paxson club.
> ...


Whatchutalkinboutwillis?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Whatchutalkinboutwillis?


Oh, sure. NOW you change it!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Gotcha.
> ...


What did Phoenix do they year before they got Amare and the year they got him?

36-48 to 44-38. A change of +8

Yep, Amare is an IMPACT player.

Marbury?

26-56 to 40-42. A change of +14.

Yep, Marbury is an IMPACT player.

&c


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What did Phoenix do they year before they got Amare and the year they got him?
> ...


Marbury hasn't had an impact at all on the Knicks either...


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

For the record .. as much as I rate Kirk Hinrich .. the double standard exists 

If this comment had been attributable to any of the other younger players .. KABOOM !

Does Kirk put forward effort even whilst lacking motivation ?

Yes

That's not the point though 

Kirk is the vicarious incarnation of Paxson and Skiles image of how they would otherwise approach being a pro and playing the game if they still could 

Hence Kirk is a symbol that is being thrown to the others 

When the realism of that image fades and it is still shines on you crazy diamond ( special shout out to Syd Barrett - Electric Slim and die hard Floydies will understand ) then this only excaberates the divide between the have and have nots in this woeful ensemble of what is supposed to be a basketball team 

As much as there is fine line between flame thrower type motivation to cajole performance out of public tarring and feathering to completely alienating your "talent" .. so too is there a fine line to pandering and sheltering to what the truth is in what is required to maximise performance and settling for subpar and unfinished works in progress that never get to be all that they were supposed to and should have been 

If this delicacy in the dynamic is the real root of the problem .. and it is .. then whose fault is it anyway ?

DaBullz ... looks like you have room for me in both of your clubs if you'll have me 

* THIS FRANCHISE RUINS PLAYERS *

There I said it and I don't take it back 

F_ K Bulls Management .. the true wooden spooners and the engine room of incompetence which envelopes this organisation 

At least with Fat Jerry and Bill the Horse Whisperer... we had players producing when it didn't matter 

Paxson and Skiles can't even get this bunch of mental pygmies to achieve even this .. not realising their drop and give me 20 approach has no effect nor will have an effect on this group ... so rather than insisting on the wrong method .. sometimes in the interests of forward momentum it pays to sit on your principles if they are actually making you move backward 

Its this refusal to consider alternatives in style and structure of management that may elicit different responses from the players which is at the root of our incapacity to turn the corner 

Until this is addressed with what we got , ain't nothing is going to change until we firesale our talent for less than what they really are yet no one can see because we have mismicromanaged them - and then we bring in the new crew and dick them over as well unless we keep drafting Kirk and Elton / Emeka types who are nice solid pieces that we will confuse as difference makers in their own right


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah, and Sam Bowie was "a better fit" too. I like Pietrus, and I've seen him play a little more than some of us here because I live in Warrior territory. He's a great, but somewhat overzealous defender and an inconsistent player on offense, but with some promise. I'd love for the Bulls to make a move for him and think he will eventually be a solid starter and all-NBA defense candidate.
> ...


The difference between Portland selecting MJ over Bowie and Pax selecting Kirk over Pietrus is that John immediately played off the pick of Kirk as a "complementary" player (least from what I remember). Pax said he picked Kirk up as someone to fit in with the guys, not someone who was superior in talent to carry this team. OK, good. Role players ! Problem is that the role Kirk was supposed to play (knocking down jumpers from outside, getting the ball inside) was already filled by someone. 

And now that one problem has become problemSzzzzzzz with all these changes and shifting approaches to the game brought by Pax. [Begin Pax Rant here] It seems like he's forced everything thinking it's the quickest way to something, but like some other John in Chicago who had some say over the flow of the offense and is now gone, has no idea of how to improvise when his way doesn't work. The roles including that of the point guard have completely changed (or actually bounced around) as a result of Pax imposing, but changing his mind on everything. At the start of the season BC wanted something of a 6-12 PG in Jamal. Now it's a. . .I don't know, a 12-6 in Kirk ?

Everything about this team seems forced. From opening day it seemed like, force the ball into Eddy rather than Jalen/Jamal hit jumpers to open Eddy up. And Eddy was fat too. With the JYD trade, Jamal all of a sudden became the bailout option, a bailout option really out of the flow of the offense. I've counted numerous possessions where he doesn't even touch the ball (usually after he messes up horribly in one play). It seems like there's a quota in his mind of if he's screwed up enough, that he's got to defer.

And the arrival of Kirk seems to enforce this forcedness of this year's team.

(No it's not Kirk's fault, he's doing his job)

Kirk's a great team player and aggressive and all, but he isn't a great fit for what the offense is supposed to be. He penetrates like we all wish Jamal would do and gets assists, but the ball still doesn't flow around when he's in there, and his shot's even shakier. His chemistry with the big guys isn't even all that great. The only differences between he and Jamal is that he plays defense and penetrates. In a nutshell, he's forcing things too, aggressively, but aggressive doesn't always equal efficient. But because this team lacks so much efficiency, aggressive begins to look like efficiency. And that's one way Kirk is made to look really good (erm, in playing basketball).


----------

