# Why the "right way" isn't cutting it



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DC had his chance to rant. Now it's my turn.

We don't seem to be able to tolerate having a star player on the team. Why is it?

Gordon comes off the bench and puts up two 40 point games, and though he's still a studly player, his performance has tailed off considerably. Instead of scoring all game long, it seems like he goes into "no concsience" shooting mode only when the team needs someone to step up. What's changed? Seems to me, Skiles came out in the press and said that he needs to figure out how to get his teammates involved more. So he focuses on that and you see the results.

Why isn't Gordon playing 40 minutes all season long? Why isn't Nocioni? It doesn't seem to me to be the winning way to keep your best players out of the lineup so everyone on the bench gets some PT.

Why can't we make use of guys like Tim Thomas? We had him and he clearly could have helped us. Not the "right way" kind of player? Screw that! Put guys on the floor that help you win.

Why is the rotation rigidly programmed? Can't you look at the guys the opposition puts on the floor and see the mismatches and adjust immediately? Or even start the tallest guys we have when the opponent starts a bunch of really tall guys?

Why is it that our guards and most of our other players don't dunk every time the opportunity arises? It's not like they can't (witness that awesome dunk by Gordon a couple games ago, and we know Kirk can dunk, too). I was embarassed when Hinrich was a rookie and went to the rookie game to see how out of place his game looked among all the other players there.

Why is it that Deng can get a really hot hand and then the offense stops running through him for a long stretch? 

It seems to me that Ben Wallace is a superstar and needs to be pampered according to what he's used to and how he rightly should be. The players are individuals, not cogs in some machine and interchangable parts. So maybe Wallace is still a kick-*** player, but his spirit is broken. Broken by being treated like an NBA newbie and subjected to silly rules like "no headbands."

How is it that we have no consience about dumping our leading scorers 3 straight years, and then bring in guys on expiring contracts and treat them like dirt, too? I mean, AD wanted to stay in Chicago and keep on playing, and he was clearly upset at being traded like a baseball card. PJ Brown wins awards for being a good guy and he complains about the treatment, too.

The "right way" worked for only a short time and then got old. At the time, people talked about the movie Hoosiers as if that were the model to follow. Maybe Glory Road is the movie that is the model to follow; in the movie, the team played "the right way" until the coach saw it was miserable and the players begged him to "let them play their game." The result was an NCAA championship.

I admire Phil Jackson as a coach. He was and still is able to work with the eccentricities of the individuals that are the players. He cajoled, used his Zen, kissed asses, and whatever else it took to get the most of his players and in the process to get them to buy into a difficult offensive scheme. In the end, he's only got one finger without a ring. He took over a Lakers team with less talent than the previous season and from a highly touted coach who couldn't win with those players and won a threepeat.

I obviously am not a fan of the suits. In all things big business, there's labor and management, and I tend to side with labor. The NBA, like most entertainment businesses, is about *the talent *(that's not "talent" as in ability to dribble or defend, it's the people who do it). When entertainment becomes about the suits, you end up with the Michael Eisner disaster stories. 

So in a roundabout way, I get to my ultimate point. Instead of looking at the players and thinking about ways to juggle them around/trade them for others that'll fit Skiles' system, maybe we should really question whether a different coach may be in order. 

No, this isn't me being upset about the last loss, or the last two, or even this not-very-good month of basketball. It's 23 wins, 47 wins, 41 wins, and what's again shaping up to be a disappointment. We've already done the talent shuffle and it seems we're as good as we're maybe ever going to be with Skiles as the coach. I'm not exactly saying he's a bad coach, but rather it's time (like it was time with Doug Collins/PJax) to make a change and see if another coach might get more out of the talent or let the new guy give input into personnel moves.

From time to time, people ask "if not Skiles, who?" Gosh, I sure like Rick Carlisle and thought he ran coaching circles around Skiles tonight. I realize we're not going to get him, but the fact he exists means there are other coaches out there who might also be better. I knew PJax as a player for the Knicks, but had no clue he'd be the coach he turned out to be; so it's not a requirement the guy has a track record. How about we give Kareem a shot?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Well, I see some of your points there. I don't know if it's accurate saying this team is as good as it will get under Skiles. We have seen progression in the players under his "guidance", and that's half of his job right there. If we got a good post player in the draft next year, or through a trade without giving up our core players, the team would get better. I don't know if he's the coach to win championships with us if we had the right players, but the team could definitely get better.

That said, I'm still not sold on Skiles as a coach, but with an incomplete team, it's hard to fully and accurately evaluate him. I don't think that he does everything right, but that's just my opinion. I don't like his rotations either, but I do like his rules that go against individualism and thuggism. I think some of the rules might go a little far (headband), but I hate those thug-type players, and am glad that as an organization it's not allowed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

"The Right Way" and jib and all that claptrap has always been nonsense.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Reference to Skiles being outcoached always seem pretty random and lacking support to me. Who are the big players you wanted to run out there? It was seemingly the opposite, the small line up, that got us back into the game. 

If you ask me, the problem is that the team has NOT been playing the right way or at least has not be executing. The ball movement the past couple games has just been atrocious. 

Since when did ball movement, hustle, and defense become such a bad thing? Frankly, I'm more pleased with Skiles' rotations recently than I have been in some time. Sitting Brown, Duhon, and Allen more for players like Sweetney, TT, and Thabo strikes me as the opposite of obsessing over jib. 

Gordon played 37 minutes on a bum ankle tonight and played a great game. What's the problem there? No offense but sometimes I feel like your overriding concern is whoever (I guess it's almost always Skiles) is standing between Gordon and superstardom on any given day. He been incredible for at least a month now. Even MJ had off days. It's not a big deal and it's almost never someone else's fault.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)




----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)




----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Though I like him, I've questioned some things about Skiles. His ability to properly utilize and emphasize bigs. His attitude, even if he's trying to be friendly, might be rubbing people wrong. He may not be flexible enough and pushing to emphasize our emerging guys (Gordon and Deng especially) over guys that have won him games in the past (Duhon, Kirk, Noc). Maybe he's just plain worn everyone out of him.

But in light of more obvious problems, I don't think he's the big one. And thus, I don't think replacing him is the solution.

Personally I think the players are playing at close to the peak of their abilities. And I think that peak has expanded considerably for most of them (Deng, Gordon, Noc, Kirk, Duhon) under Skiles.

So I guess the only guy I see potentially playing "below capacity" might be Wallace. But there are ample other reasons to explain his (relative to his past) poor performance; age, a bad back, lack of compatible teammates.

A couple of other points: I don't think we _are _playing "the right way", at least insofar as it's commonly thought of. Skiles seems to be doing quite a bit to manage the fragile egos of his players. Remember the year started of with a quasi threat of unhappiness from Noc if he didn't start? The whole headband fiasco. Wallace not playing within the scheme. PJ Brown's blowup? Those guys are all playing. I think Skiles has gone to pretty great lengths, actually, to satisfy those guys. He might secretly want to kill them all, but on the surface he's been downright "player friendly".

Finally, I'd add that while this team is not bad at all, it's structurally not very sound. A simple rule of thumb might be Larry Brown's 3 guys who can bring the ball up, 2 good wings, and 3 quality big guys. We've got three guys who can bring it up (Kirk, Ben, Chris) and 2 good wings (Deng, Noc), but only 1 legitimate big man (Wallace). Make that 0 legitimate big men if his back isn't right.

So I don't think Skiles is the problem. At least, I can't conclude that when I see a couple of other, more obvious problems, as described above and elsewhere.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> "The Right Way" and jib and all that claptrap has always been nonsense.


Boy howdy, do I agree with that!


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I hate the right way!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Reference to Skiles being outcoached always seem pretty random and lacking support to me. Who are the big players you wanted to run out there? It was seemingly the opposite, the small line up, that got us back into the game.
> 
> If you ask me, the problem is that the team has NOT been playing the right way or at least has not be executing. The ball movement the past couple games has just been atrocious.
> 
> ...


Carlisle went right at Hinrich and got him in foul trouble. He double teamed gordon when we needed him to score and effectively shut him down. It wasn't our small lineup that came back, but rather playing Thabo at guard - first Skiles benched Gordon and then Hinrich drew his 5th foul and then he played Gordon. Our small lineup was successful when Carlisle went small, but in doing so, he rested his big guys and was able to use them at the end of the game when they pulled away and put the game away. When he went back to his rested crew, they built a 10 point lead with 2:00 and 1:00 left, and we weren't going to overcome that.

All this was done with guys like Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy - guys who regularly get slighted on this board as being not very good, and very overpriced. Done with guys who were playing their 2nd game with the team.

There's also the W at the end of the game. That's just a little meaningless thing, tho, right?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If the "right way" means a good work ethic combined with consistent effort then I don't see how it could be a bad attribute for a player or a team. 

As far as the demoralization of stars goes, I don't think the accusations hold water on closer inspection.

I don't really believe that Wallace is so weak-minded that his play has been significantly affected by the lack of an afro and head-band. However, it would be intelligent for the Bulls to remove the headband ban after the all-star break as a way of showing faith in Ben and the team for the stretch run.

As far as Gordon's playing time goes, there are several factors that seem to have limited it at different times this season. 
--One factor is his continued troubles with ball-handling and play-making. He just doesn't fill the point guard position very well. 

--A second factor has been his relative weakness on defense compared to the other guards and his tendency to get into foul trouble. 

--The third factor in the beginning of the season was cold shooting and streak shooting. If Gordon's main strength as a player is his scoring ability, why play him for extended minutes if he's not scoring?

The Bull's problems have been, and continue to be a lack of quality size on the front line. The Bulls are a very short team, and that hurts on both ends of the floor -- particularly with rebounding. If the Bulls had a legitimate 7 footer to back up or play beside Wallace they would have consistently outrebounded other teams, rather than merely matching them in that area of the game. PJ Brown has been a major disappointment -- particularly on the boards. Nocioni's recently reported self-appaisal is that he was not genetically constituted to fill the role of a big frontline man. The Bull's other Bigs are OK, but only in limited roles.

The Chandler trade has cost the Bulls about 7-10 games in the win column so far this year. It will cost the Bulls many more wins over the next few seasons.

Curse's on Cheapskate Jerry!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Players come and players go. The only thing constant in a sub .500 3+ seasons has been Skiles and Hinrich.

While in other threads, people are talking about moving this player or that player, I'm suggesting that we've been there, done that, and that you might want to look at a coaching change.

For DC -
It could be, and I happen to believe, that it doesn't take a good coach to win 41 games with Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni. They would do well under almost any system. Looking at them, I wonder if they wouldn't be doing a LOT better under a whole slew of different coaches. That translating into a better record, of course.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Though I like him, I've questioned some things about Skiles. His ability to properly utilize and emphasize bigs. His attitude, even if he's trying to be friendly, might be rubbing people wrong. He may not be flexible enough and pushing to emphasize our emerging guys (Gordon and Deng especially) over guys that have won him games in the past (Duhon, Kirk, Noc). Maybe he's just plain worn everyone out of him.
> 
> But in light of more obvious problems, I don't think he's the big one. And thus, I don't think replacing him is the solution.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Sign me up for the wrong way pronto. I've had it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> DC had his chance to rant. Now it's my turn.


I don't know how you kept those opinions behind closed doors for so long. :biggrin: 

2 points of agreement, though.

First, it was very disturbing to see Deng playing so aggressive and effective only to become an afterthought. 

Second, I've never been more routinely frustrated with Skiles in-game coaching decisions as I have this season. I think he has literally blown 4-5 games through his rotation decisions this season. And that is A LOT considering we've played a total of 42 games. 

I keep telling myself that Skiles' teams peak at the right time, and remind myself that I'm *always* frustrated with his rotations until usually around late February or so when he seems to start tightening it up. And in hindsight, I've always determined that his rotations are what end up making the team so much better during the late season/playoffs.

We'll see how it shakes out. At the latest, when this long road stretch comes to a close its time to show some consistency with the rotations. 

I'm getting sick of it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Carlisle went right at Hinrich and got him in foul trouble. He double teamed gordon when we needed him to score and effectively shut him down. It wasn't our small lineup that came back, but rather playing Thabo at guard - first Skiles benched Gordon and then Hinrich drew his 5th foul and then he played Gordon. Our small lineup was successful when Carlisle went small, but in doing so, he rested his big guys and was able to use them at the end of the game when they pulled away and put the game away. When he went back to his rested crew, they built a 10 point lead with 2:00 and 1:00 left, and we weren't going to overcome that.
> 
> All this was done with guys like Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy - guys who regularly get slighted on this board as being not very good, and very overpriced. Done with guys who were playing their 2nd game with the team.
> 
> There's also the W at the end of the game. That's just a little meaningless thing, tho, right?


The majority of your argument seems to be that we lost to a team we should have beat and therefore Skiles coached poorly. Are the players ever accountable? The Spurs lost to the Bulls last week, does that mean Skiles coached circles around Popovich and that Popovich is a poor coach? There's not a whole lot Skiles can do to force the players to hit wide open shots. There's not that much he can do if he shouts until he's blue in the face and the ball movement still isn't there. I guess at some point you can argue he's not getting through to the team anymore but considering the hard play he's gotten from them the last few years that strikes me as far fetched. Maybe I'm just doing a poor job of drawing conclusions but at no point in this thread have you said "Skiles did X when a smarter coach would have done Y." Even when that type of analysis is produced it has to be discounted to some degree since it is based largely on hindsight.

As far as your specific comments, doesn't Skiles then get credit for playing Thabo? Gordon was probably sitting because he's hurt. He still played 37 minutes and you have no evidence that he would have played substantially less if Hinrich wasn't in foul trouble plus we don't know how Hinrich would've performed if he stayed in the game especially since he had started hitting shots when he was pulled. Gordon wasn't shut down, he scored 31. As far as I can tell O'Neal, Armstrong, Murphy, and Dunleavy played the entire fourth quarter where they oustcored us by only one point so I wouldn't say they pulled away so much as haulted our run. It would've been nice to get some fresh legs in for the 4th but I'm not exactly sure what a good substitution would've been. Wallace and Noc looked terrible, Deng and Gordon couldn't be pulled, and Thabo seemed to play well while only logging 35 minutes. Maybe you give TT or Khryapa some burn but it's a tough call.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> The majority of your argument seems to be that we lost to a team we should have beat and therefore Skiles coached poorly. Are the players ever accountable?


Yes -- if Paxson aquired them. No if anyone else.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Players come and players go. The only thing constant in a sub .500 3+ seasons has been Skiles and Hinrich.
> 
> While in other threads, people are talking about moving this player or that player, I'm suggesting that we've been there, done that, and that you might want to look at a coaching change.


That's a pretty absurd way of obscuring the fact that Skiles' teams have more or less met or exceeded expectations in every season. The Bulls are on pace for 45 wins and coaches generally aren't fired for falling 2 or 3 games short of expectations.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> That's a pretty absurd way of obscuring the fact that Skiles' teams have more or less met or exceeded expectations in every season. The Bulls are on pace for 45 wins and coaches generally aren't fired for falling 2 or 3 games short of expectations.


He's wanted Paxson and Skiles fired basically since before the ink was dry on their contracts. Don't get too worked up over it. :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> He's wanted Paxson and Skiles fired basically since before the ink was dry on their contracts. Don't get too worked up over it. :biggrin:


After stretches of bad games, it's always the players' fault. Never skiles, right?

So when people throw out their "let's trade player X, he's useless" threads, what's wrong with asking about the coach? he's the one constant. his record is below .500 in 3+ seasons.

Drafting Gordon and deng and signing Nocioni was good for a nice bump in our record. With all the moves, the cap space trades, the high profile FA signing, etc., are we better off? Really? it doesn't show in the record.

(I note that the team's record with Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni is 10 games over .500 in 3 years)

For JB:
If you think the Bulls are a 50 win team, then what are the Pacers? How about before their recent trade, too? Is .their .500 record better than expectations? (it is to me).

It isn't that Carlisle coaches one game better, it's every game.

And I note Boerwinkle's article/post where even Skiles says he may have blundered.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> After stretches of bad games, it's always the players' fault. Never skiles, right?
> 
> So when people throw out their "let's trade player X, he's useless" threads, what's wrong with asking about the coach? he's the one constant. his record is below .500 in 3+ seasons.
> 
> ...



I disagree with Skiles' rotations (edit: sometimes) but I'm hesitant to blame him for a poor game or stretch of games (or credit him for a good game or stretch of games) because I think the system a coach runs and his ability to get his players to play hard is where he wields the most influence. I tend to look more at the body of a coaches' work and despite your biased spin on Skiles' performance he has been rather succcessful. 

I watched the entire game on Saturday and listened to most of the game last night and the three biggest problems seem to be an inability to convert easy baskets, poor ball movement, and too many turnovers. To me those types of mistakes are the epitome of poor execution as opposed to poor strategy or substitutions. Aside from struggling on the boards (for which Wallace has to receive at least some of the blame) I can't point to any manner in which the Jazz or Pacers exploited the Bulls in terms of matchups or playcalling.

As I said in the other thread, I don't expect the Bulls to win 50 games (if I were a betting man I'd probably go with 46 or 47), I just wouldn't rule out the possibility. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the Pacers but I respect the organization and Carlisle a lot so in the preseason I probably would've pegged them as about a 44 win team.

I believe Skiles second guessed himself for failing to sub in fresh players in the 4th and I agreed with that some in my last thread. I just don't think you can blame him much for failing to save a largely brutal performance.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

complaining about skiles is immaterial because he's pax's guy , they think the same which is why they get along .

Paxson wants the team he has , he desperately wanted to get rid of the star mentality when he arrived and he's done that , only to bring one back who is declining and occasionally warring with his coach.

they are guards and see the game as guards , Pax is very good at drafting perimeter players and signing perimeter based power players like noce, and drafting thomas.

but in the end you need an offensive post presence and the bulls dont have one anywhere on their roster .

can any1 honestly say they see tyrus being a post up threat worthy of being a 1st or second option ...he's young but he's old enough for me to see that wont ever be the case .

they got alot for curry ...in the end I dont think it was enough and they should have just kept him and tyson and built upon the 47 win squad of 2 years ago and let that team grow.

because without an offensive post presence it will never be enough , they got ben wallace , and because he cant score its not enough , gordon and deng have developed to the point where they avg. almost 40 points between them and its clear it will never be enough which is why there is that gasol talk now..

this was never the right way .

they just said it was.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> That's a pretty absurd way of obscuring the fact that Skiles' teams have more or less met or exceeded expectations in every season. The Bulls are on pace for 45 wins and coaches generally aren't fired for falling 2 or 3 games short of expectations.



Expectations were to be an elite team in the Eastern Conference and to at the very least make the 2nd round of the NBA playoffs.

We supposedly had a team that gave the world champs "one hell of a run for their money" in the playoffs last season and added the multi-time all star, DPOY to the roster!

We're on pace for "abject failure." 

Abject failure is usually a fireable offense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I disagree with Skiles' rotations but I'm hesitant to blame him for a poor game or stretch of games (or credit him for a good game or stretch of games) because I think the system a coach runs and his ability to get his players to play hard is where he wields the most influence. I tend to look more at the body of a coaches' work and despite your biased spin on Skiles' performance he has been rather succcessful.
> 
> I watched the entire game on Saturday and listened to most of the game last night and the three biggest problems seem to be an inability to convert easy baskets, poor ball movement, and too many turnovers. To me those types of mistakes are the epitome of poor execution as opposed to poor strategy or substitutions. Aside from struggling on the boards (for which Wallace has to receive at least some of the blame) I can't point to any manner in which the Jazz or Pacers exploited the Bulls in terms of matchups or playcalling.
> 
> ...


When they double team Gordon, you have to have a plan B. I didn't see it.

Deng started out playing quite well. Whatever plays the Bulls run (a coaching thing, no?), they didn't get him the ball. Looks like Plan A or Plan B to me.

Why didn't Griffin play? Why not last game? Griffin has actually proven to be a good player (started for the Mavs, 5 rebounds and 4 steals last game he got PT). The team needed bigger players to counter Indy's bigger players. Skiles went small instead, and it took him into Q4 to even play a big lineup (which worked).

What were Carlisle's mistakes in the game? I didn't see any.

I think you missed a dozen or so plays where Indy posted up Dunleavy on Hinrich. Not only was it effective, it drew a T out of Hinrich and 5 fouls early. Granger got to the FT line plenty and scored a very efficient 19 points. Those were exploited mismatches. 

I've seen Indy play a lot, and their whole scheme is built around exploiting the advantages they have. They run clearouts and two man games on one side as much as they can.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> complaining about skiles is immaterial because he's pax's guy , they think the same which is why they get along .
> 
> Paxson wants the team he has , he desperately wanted to get rid of the star mentality when he arrived and he's done that , only to bring one back who is declining and occasionally warring with his coach.
> 
> ...


For JB's benefit...

39.2 points/game between our top two guys. 54.9 between our top three guys. 70.0 between our top four.

Wizards: 50.7 between their top two guys. 69.9 between their top three.

Their top 3 score like our top four. The dropoff from our #4 to #5 is to ... Duhon at about 6/game.

From where I sit, we need our top four to put up 80.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I think Skiles is a good coach. He's not great, but I think the difference between a good coach and a great coach, at least in the regular season, is maybe 2 wins. Personnel is the biggest determining factor, and no coach can change the fact that Brown and Wallace are playing badly. 

For the record, though, I'd love to see how this team would do if we played up-tempo like Phoenix. We don't quite have the athletes, but it's clear that our five best players are Kirk-Ben-Luol-Noc-Ben. That lineup is not more undersized than Phoenix's lineup. Fit the game plan to the personnel and try to dictate the game, rather than letting Indiana dictate it with 4 huge players.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont think it matters their top 3 is like the bulls top 4 because they have arenas .

A great and dominant perimeter player who is unstoppable would quell all of this talk but the bulls dont have one. Gordon is very good but he's not great , in fact i'm less than sold he will ever be a full fledged 40 minute a game superstar , like the wizards have in Arenas , not that the wizards are by any means a great team but if you are going to spit in the face of convention and not have a consistently good if not great offensive post presence . The bulls dont have a Kobe , T-mac Lebron or Wade, if Arenas was a bull instead of Gordon I might think differently ...but that isn't the case.

the bulls did this once but they had Pippen and Jordan ...deng and gordon doesn't quite measure up...sounds nice though.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Personnel is the biggest determining factor, and no coach can change the fact that Brown and Wallace are playing badly.


:greatjob:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> When they double team Gordon, you have to have a plan B. I didn't see it.
> 
> Deng started out playing quite well. Whatever plays the Bulls run (a coaching thing, no?), they didn't get him the ball. Looks like Plan A or Plan B to me.
> 
> ...


I'd say that sitting the offensively inept Wallace so that leaving someone open to double Gordon is more costly represents a worthwhile adjustment. I'm not great with X's and O's, what are some examples of things you think Skiles should have done? Also, just to clarify, you're arguing that had Gordon not been shut down by a double team during part of the game, he would've scored 40 or 50 and the Bulls would have won, and that Skiles could have strategically rendered the double team ineffective? It just seems there are at least a half dozen reasons we lost that were more glaring than Gordon scoring _only_ 31 points.

You think the coaching staff decided to stop running plays for Deng for no apparent reason? I think there needs to be more conclusive evidence than the fact that he wasn't getting the ball before alleging they would do something so illogical. 

Dunleavy made three shots in the paint which is not insignificant but doesn't seem overwhelming. Wouldn't sitting Gordon for Thabo (prior to Kirk's foul trouble) be an adjustment here? Thabo and Griff seem pretty similar to me. Unless you wanted to play both at once I don't see Griff's DNP as a very big deal.

I have no idea whether Carlisle made mistakes. I have little familiarity with Indiana's bench or sets and mistakes are rarely clear when you win.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont think it matters their top 3 is like the bulls top 4 because they have arenas .
> 
> the bulls did this once but they had Pippen and Jordan ...deng and gordon doesn't quite measure up...sounds nice though.


Perhaps the Wizards' top 3 have a moderate edge over the Bulls top 4 offensively but the Wizards don't play defense. They're 28th in defensive efficiency and the Bulls are 2nd.

I think the coaching staff gets the majority of the credit for our defense and honestly it's the main reason we've been a competitive team three years running.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I say we let Randy Livingston coach the team. Skiles sucks.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Personnel is the biggest determining factor, and no coach can change the fact that Brown and Wallace are playing badly.


Ben's numbers are not significantly off from last season. Factor in a slow start with a new team and I don't really know what the problem is...but I know that "he is playing badly" is not very accurate. His numbers overall are down, but only slightly, and again, that includes a little break for adjustment to a new team.

05-06 DET 82 82 35.2 .510 .000 .416 3.7 7.6 11.3 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.07 2.00 7.3 
06-07 CHI 40 40 34.0 .463 .000 .414 3.8 6.2 9.9 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.45 2.10 6.6

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_wallace/career_stats.html


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> So when people throw out their "let's trade player X, he's useless" threads, what's wrong with asking about the coach? he's the one constant. his record is below .500 in 3+ seasons.


Two things: 
A) What was Bill Cartwright's record as a head coach of the Bulls? If it's all about wins and losses, why did you support him so much, but throw Skiles under the bus any time the Bulls hit a skid of more than one game?
B) I can hardly remember you giving Skiles ANY credit for anything good that's happened since he's been coach. So, you can throw around the accusation that people scapegoat players all you want, but you just seem to do the opposite - scapegoat the coach (with the exception of blaming Kirk consistently) - is that any better?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'd say that sitting the offensively inept Wallace so that leaving someone open to double Gordon is more costly represents a worthwhile adjustment. I'm not great with X's and O's, what are some examples of things you think Skiles should have done? Also, just to clarify, you're arguing that had Gordon not been shut down by a double team during part of the game, he would've scored 40 or 50 and the Bulls would have won, and that Skiles could have strategically rendered the double team ineffective? It just seems there are at least a half dozen reasons we lost that were more glaring than Gordon scoring _only_ 31 points.
> 
> You think the coaching staff decided to stop running plays for Deng for no apparent reason? I think there needs to be more conclusive evidence than the fact that he wasn't getting the ball before alleging they would do something so illogical.
> 
> ...


Dunleavy drew fouls. Those don't count as FGA. Look at the 6 PF in Hinrich's stat column...

As for X's and O's... If you have a guy that's double teamed, you can run him through multiple screens/picks to get him free. As for Deng, I don't see they really run plays for him at all, let alone setting screens and picks for him in particular. 

Try this next time you watch a game. Follow a particular player, Gordon or Deng or Hinrich. When Hinrich passes to Gordon so he can be PG, you'll see Hinrich go run diagonal across the lane to the corner. He'll just stand there, waiting for a drive/kick. If you follow Gordon or Deng, you'll see the same thing. Gordon in one corner, Deng in the other.

What makes Deng a good player in our system is that when he gets the kickout pass on a drive, he does manufacture shots for himself by driving. IN spite of what people say about him not being able to.

When Deng was scoring 28 points a game for several in a big stretch (right after he hurt his wrist), he came and got the ball. That is, instead of standing in the corner, he would run from the corner to the FT line (extended) and made himself available for a short pass. He nails those jumpers, but we don't see that play often.

Another play I've seen for Deng, but don't see it a lot in recent games, is a backdoor cut and pass from Wallace in the post.

Aside from standing in the corner, I see Gordon get the ball on the wings where he dribbles across the FT line (extended). It's a horrible play because you have a big setting a pick / pick&rolll for Hinrich at the top of the key, so Gordon effectively ends up driving into a triple team (his man, hinrich's man, and the man guarding the pick setter).

When Gordon gets the ball at the top of the key, the bulls tend to clear out the lane and have just a pick setter at the top of the key. He is effective shooting, using the pick, or driving the lane for layups or kickout passes. He's lightning quick. When he doesn't have the green light to shoot, he doesn't hold the ball very long at all.

When Hinrich plays at the top of the key, he dribbles and dribbles and dribbles. He'll end up driving down a sideline, or even down the lane. He passes up close shots, which tend to get blocked, and keeps dribbling. He does draw defenders to him and passes to guys on the wing, and when they hit shots, it's an assist. 

Another play I see for Hinrich is when he's denied the ball. I see a pass to the post and Hinrich cuts to the basket and uses the post man as a pick. Back door pass, and it's usually a layup.

Hinrich often uses several picks that players end up setting for him as he dribbles around, and can find a reasonable shot.

As for what I argue how Gordon should be handled, it's been consistent. Give him the ball at the top of the key as PG and let him shoot (green light) and drive at will. 

As for what I argue how Deng should be handled, I'd like to see him come get the ball on every play. It wouldn't bother me in the least if he was the first pass every play and early in the clock.

I think you mentioned before the lack of motion. When the plays call for two guys to stand in a corner, there's lack of motion by definition. You see Deng get shut down when they play him straight up and put a man in the corner with him. The defender doesn't have to do anything but stand there, and resist the urge to help out on defense. This is one reason why we've seen teams run zones against us and we have a hard time - they're playing straight up (zone) and not double teaming or playing weakside help defense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Two things:
> A) What was Bill Cartwright's record as a head coach of the Bulls? If it's all about wins and losses, why did you support him so much, but throw Skiles under the bus any time the Bulls hit a skid of more than one game?
> B) I can hardly remember you giving Skiles ANY credit for anything good that's happened since he's been coach. So, you can throw around the accusation that people scapegoat players all you want, but you just seem to do the opposite - scapegoat the coach (with the exception of blaming Kirk consistently) - is that any better?


Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What'd Cartwright get, chance-wise? part of 3 seasons? (end of one, full one, start of another). What'd he do? 15 -> 21 -> 30 wins. I liked the trend, and he was developing 3 HSers who were coming into their own under his coaching.

He's also a black man and coached a team of black men. For that reason, as well, I wanted to see him succeed. It's a sad thing, in my eyes, when the talent is black men and they have serious problems getting into management positions. It seems pretty obvious to me that former players make pretty good coaches.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Perhaps the Wizards' top 3 have a moderate edge over the Bulls top 4 offensively but the Wizards don't play defense. They're 28th in defensive efficiency and the Bulls are 2nd.
> 
> I think the coaching staff gets the majority of the credit for our defense and honestly it's the main reason we've been a competitive team three years running.


and what does it equal the last 2 seasons they have 1 1st round depature and 1 2nd round departure , same as the bulls , plus at the moment the wizards are 1st in the conference while the bulls are 6th.

so what do defensive rankings mean when they have more wins and a better seed and if the season ended today they would likely beat the raptors while the bulls face the cavs with the cavs having homecourt advantage .

whose likely to be more successful?

i think you know the answer.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Dunleavy drew fouls. Those don't count as FGA. Look at the 6 PF in Hinrich's stat column...
> 
> As for X's and O's... If you have a guy that's double teamed, you can run him through multiple screens/picks to get him free. As for Deng, I don't see they really run plays for him at all, let alone setting screens and picks for him in particular.
> 
> ...


Man, that's a clinic!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> and what does it equal the last 2 seasons they have 1 1st round depature and 1 2nd round departure , same as the bulls , plus at the moment the wizards are 1st in the conference while the bulls are 6th.
> 
> so what do defensive rankings mean when they have more wins and a better seed and if the season ended today they would likely beat the raptors while the bulls face the cavs with the cavs having homecourt advantage .
> 
> ...


I think it's pretty twisted to talk about a game and a half lead halfway through the season as something extremely profound. I just don't understand how the difference between one Arenas buzzer beater rimming out makes the Wizards a demostrably better team. The Bulls are an average offensive team and an elite defensive team. The Wizards are an elite offensive team and a horrific defensive team. If you forced me to bet who would end up with the better record, I'd choose the Bulls.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Man, that's a clinic!


Haha. Agreed. I'm not really capable or willing to debate that type of minutia. It's not a perfect substitute but I'll say that throughout the league, players - even Skiles' detractors - rave about his sets. Additionally, it is surprising to me that Skiles either would realize which plays lead to easy baskets for a player like Deng or would choose not to use such effective plays for some reason.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. Agreed. I'm not really capable or willing to debate that type of minutia. It's not a perfect substitute but I'll say that throughout the league, players - even Skiles' detractors - rave about his sets. Additionally, it is surprising to me that Skiles either would realize which plays lead to easy baskets for a player like Deng or would choose not to use such effective plays for some reason.


Some coaches have sets that are good for guards, some have sets that are good for centers.

There's no doubt that Skiles' sets are designed for guards and outside shooting, and generally playing close to the floor (as opposed to above the rim)

You can watch the players like I said and see if my description is accurate...


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Why is it that our guards and most of our other players don't dunk every time the opportunity arises? It's not like they can't (witness that awesome dunk by Gordon a couple games ago, and we know Kirk can dunk, too).


Kirk dunked four times in warmups before the game and at halftime against the Pacers yesterday.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

chibul said:


> Kirk dunked four times in warmups before the game and at halftime against the Pacers yesterday.


Yeah, I know he can, but why doesn't he in games? It's a high % shot, after all.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Yeah, I know he can, but why doesn't he in games? It's a high % shot, after all.


Dunking is how the Bucks lost Michael Redd for a month. I hate dunks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

narek said:


> Dunking is how the Bucks lost Michael Redd for a month. I hate dunks.


In my first post, I talked about him at the rookie all-star game. Everyone on the team was dunking, except Hinrich.

I think it's drilled into him by our coach not to dunk for some reason. I know Hinrich dunked at Kansas just fine.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich often uses several picks that players end up setting for him as he dribbles around, and can find a reasonable shot.


What KILLED me about Hinrich last night is that at LEAST five times, Hinrich ran a pick & roll with Deng, Gordon, etc...and instead of dumping the ball off to the guy setting the pick (who was always WIDE open) Hinrich would dribble to the other side of the court, and either dump it down to Brown (which is like tossing the ball into a black hole), or dribble around some more.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Yeah, I know he can, but why doesn't he in games? It's a high % shot, after all.


Can he really dunk in a game, though? Obviously he can on the break...but do you think Hinrich can penetrate into the lane and finish with a dunk? I don't see it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What'd Cartwright get, chance-wise? part of 3 seasons? (end of one, full one, start of another). What'd he do? 15 -> 21 -> 30 wins. I liked the trend, and he was developing 3 HSers who were coming into their own under his coaching.


I agree that he wasn't dealt a "winning" hand personnel-wise, but I'd argue that Skiles wasn't either - particularly post-Jalen trade where Jamal and Kirk were the only guys who were worth guarding, but even after that, when he coached a team with 3 rookies playing prominent roles and the still-flawed towers to 47 wins. I'll say this - I don't remember you offering all that much support for the trend Skiles had set as of that point - 23 -> 47 wins. So, I occasionally wonder if you're moving the goalposts out of some non-basketball disdain for Skiles. You have every right to, if you so choose, but I'm just wondering if that's what it is.



> He's also a black man and coached a team of black men. For that reason, as well, I wanted to see him succeed. It's a sad thing, in my eyes, when the talent is black men and they have serious problems getting into management positions. It seems pretty obvious to me that former players make pretty good coaches.


I agree with your point here, but I just don't think Cartwright was quite up to the task of being a head coach - not when he was ours, anyway...maybe with a little more time on NBA staffs. I think you're dead-on more generally, though. I just rarely got the impression that, if the game came down to coaching choices, Cartwright was the one to bet on. With Skiles, I consistently think the better basketball mind is sitting on our bench, though I admit he does more than his share of things that make me scratch my head.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I agree that he wasn't dealt a "winning" hand personnel-wise, but I'd argue that Skiles wasn't either - particularly post-Jalen trade where Jamal and Kirk were the only guys who were worth guarding, but even after that, when he coached a team with 3 rookies playing prominent roles and the still-flawed towers to 47 wins. I'll say this - I don't remember you offering all that much support for the trend Skiles had set as of that point - 23 -> 47 wins. So, I occasionally wonder if you're moving the goalposts out of some non-basketball disdain for Skiles. You have every right to, if you so choose, but I'm just wondering if that's what it is.


So far, 47 is the peak (and currently still looking like it to me), not a step along the progression.



> I agree with your point here, but I just don't think Cartwright was quite up to the task of being a head coach - not when he was ours, anyway...maybe with a little more time on NBA staffs. I think you're dead-on more generally, though. I just rarely got the impression that, if the game came down to coaching choices, Cartwright was the one to bet on. With Skiles, I consistently think the better basketball mind is sitting on our bench, though I admit he does more than his share of things that make me scratch my head.


Cartwright was tasked with three things:
1) Running the Triangle offense - the most difficult offense to learn and it generally takes teams a while to get it.
2) Training twin towers (as a PF/C in his playing days, an outstanding choice) along with a bunch of other rookies/young players.
3) Try to win games, which he succeeded at better than his predecessors (post jordan). He was given a schizo kind of team makeup - Krause trades Brand for Chandler, yet signs or trades for guys like Rose and Hawkins and Mercer and ERob and Brad Miller and Donyell Marshall. Does he play the vets or the younguns?

As a coach, the bigs developed quite well under his tutelage. Guards like Hassell and Crawford developed, too. He even got a lot of quality games from Marcus Fizer.

His first season/partial season, he won 17 games in less than half a season with a team that Floyd got 4 wins in 25 games out of and that won just 15 games the year before.

He was uncerimoniously dumped after achieving a record similar to the Bulls start this season (and last, too). The team was actually playing close to (1 game under) .500 ball until the rumors hit the papers about his demise as coach.

The only thing I can say that I saw as a flaw in Cartwright is that his throat was screwed up and he couldn't yell at the team while they played too well. But that's picky.

I can say that the man is one of the true good guys involved in the NBA and always was. A class act, who deserved better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I think it's pretty twisted to talk about a game and a half lead halfway through the season as something extremely profound. I just don't understand how the difference between one Arenas buzzer beater rimming out makes the Wizards a demostrably better team. The Bulls are an average offensive team and an elite defensive team. The Wizards are an elite offensive team and a horrific defensive team. If you forced me to bet who would end up with the better record, I'd choose the Bulls.


is it or is it just reality , that if the season ended today most likely the bulls would be 1st round fodder and the wizards wouldn't ...the margin of games between them doesn't mean much but the fact that the wizards better record placing them against an inferior team while the opposite is true for the bulls is in my opinion very important....and really their records over the past 3 years are virtually identical.

also the where teams indiviually rank is nice and all but wins are the ultimate statistic and they make all the others pale in comparison ....i say this because you can rank their comparitive and defensive ranks to say the bulls are a significantly better team , and when the wins say otherwise , the off./def. ranks become meaningless

if ben wallace avg. 1 point and 3 reb. but the bulls were undefeated no one would have a problem with him...but they are when the bulls are under expectations and his stats are slightly down across the board from last season and there are many who have issues with his production.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> He's also a black man and coached a team of black men. For that reason, as well, I wanted to see him succeed. It's a sad thing, in my eyes, when the talent is black men and they have serious problems getting into management positions. It seems pretty obvious to me that former players make pretty good coaches.


I understand the racial argument, but Skiles is a former player, no?

FWIW, I think Carlisle is a better coach than Skiles as well. Does that constitute a reason for me to want Skiles fired? Only if Carlisle was available and wanted to coach our team. Not because I recognize there is a better coach out there than Skiles, therefore we should naturally be able to find a better coach. Hey, lets take a flier on XYZ guy. How many Phil Jackson type success stories are there compared to Tim Floyd type stories?

This resembles my view on people wishing for All Stars at every position. Of course you can find players better than someone on your team at every position (unless you are lucky enough to have the best or arguably the best). I don't see the point in complaining about what's already there without discussing what you can do to improve it. Get rid of Skiles? Who would you replace him with that is better?

Any lateral coaching move would not make sense to me until the offseason or his contract is up. i.e. making a change just to make a change usually isn't a good move in my book. Yes, I know that George Karl and the Denver Nuggets exist.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> and what does it equal the last 2 seasons they have 1 1st round depature and 1 2nd round departure , same as the bulls , plus at the moment the wizards are 1st in the conference while the bulls are 6th.
> 
> so what do defensive rankings mean when they have more wins and a better seed and if the season ended today they would likely beat the raptors while the bulls face the cavs with the cavs having homecourt advantage .
> 
> ...


Just 1 day later Washington slides to second in the standings while the Bulls move up to fifth. Washington would face Indiana at home and Chicago would face New Jersey at home. I wonder what tomorrow might bring?

"Evidence" using playoff positioning halfway through the season when there are still 6 teams all within 3 games of each other is relatively pointless. It's also a convenient argument to make after the Bulls have had a bad stretch of games.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I understand the racial argument, but Skiles is a former player, no?
> 
> FWIW, I think Carlisle is a better coach than Skiles as well. Does that constitute a reason for me to want Skiles fired? Only if Carlisle was available and wanted to coach our team. Not because I recognize there is a better coach out there than Skiles, therefore we should naturally be able to find a better coach. Hey, lets take a flier on XYZ guy. How many Phil Jackson type success stories are there compared to Tim Floyd type stories?
> 
> ...


I suggested Kareem.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I suggested Kareem.


And he certainly seems like he has the resume to be a clear cut better choice than Skiles. What if it didn't work? You give up a good coach in Skiles and are left with someone who can't get the job done. At the same time, other real NBA coaches would have viewed this, lessening the likelihood of them signing with us. The time to take a flier on guys such as Kareem is when you are losing, as Krause did with Floyd and Cartwright.

You like the 3-year trend of 15 (Floyd) 21 (Cartwright) 30 (Cartwright), but do not like the trend of 23, 47, 41? Remember Cartwright started out the season 4-10 before he got canned.

http://www.answers.com/topic/kareem-abdul-jabbar



> Post-NBA career
> 
> Abdul-Jabbar had been interested in coaching since his retirement, and given the influence he has had on the league, he had presumed that opportunities in that realm would come easily. However, during his playing years, he had developed a reputation of being introverted and sullen, often refusing to speak to the press, leading to the impression that he had nothing to say. In his biography My Life, Magic Johnson recalls instances when Abdul-Jabbar brushed him off when Magic (as a ballboy) asked for his autograph, Abdul-Jabbar froze out reporters who gave him a too enthusiastic handshake or even hugged him, or refused to stop reading the newspaper while giving an interview.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Can't be a bad choice if he learned under PJax.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Some coaches have sets that are good for guards, some have sets that are good for centers.
> 
> There's no doubt that Skiles' sets are designed for guards and outside shooting, and generally playing close to the floor (as opposed to above the rim)
> 
> You can watch the players like I said and see if my description is accurate...


Thanks. I'll give it a shot.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> is it or is it just reality , that if the season ended today most likely the bulls would be 1st round fodder and the wizards wouldn't ...the margin of games between them doesn't mean much but the fact that the wizards better record placing them against an inferior team while the opposite is true for the bulls is in my opinion very important....and really their records over the past 3 years are virtually identical.
> 
> also the where teams indiviually rank is nice and all but wins are the ultimate statistic and they make all the others pale in comparison ....i say this because you can rank their comparitive and defensive ranks to say the bulls are a significantly better team , and when the wins say otherwise , the off./def. ranks become meaningless
> 
> if ben wallace avg. 1 point and 3 reb. but the bulls were undefeated no one would have a problem with him...but they are when the bulls are under expectations and his stats are slightly down across the board from last season and there are many who have issues with his production.


I would be more inclined to agree with your arguments if the Wizards were 6 games ahead of the Bulls in the standings but we're talking about one game here. I do not believe that one win indicates the Wizards are better than the Bulls. Maybe the Bulls have played a more difficult schedule, maybe the Bulls have choked away some games they're unlikely to in the future, maybe the Wizards have received some lucky basketball bounces. In my mind, the standings don't tell us which team is better right now and a one game edge and the team's records are virtually equal so the key to determining who will finish with a better record is evaluating which team is better and I think a lot of evidence suggests the Bulls are the better of the two teams.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I would be more inclined to agree with your arguments if the Wizards were 6 games ahead of the Bulls in the standings but we're talking about one game here. I do not believe that one win indicates the Wizards are better than the Bulls. Maybe the Bulls have played a more difficult schedule, maybe the Bulls have choked away some games they're unlikely to in the future, maybe the Wizards have received some lucky basketball bounces. In my mind, the standings don't tell us which team is better right now and a one game edge and the team's records are virtually equal so the key to determining who will finish with a better record is evaluating which team is better and I think a lot of evidence suggests the Bulls are the better of the two teams.


The wizards had a horrendous start. They've been playing outstanding basketball over a long stretch of games.
7-4 in january
12-4 in december
5-9 in november

(19-8 in their last 27, 11 games over .500)

I don't see them falling off that pace, barring injury.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I would be more inclined to agree with your arguments if the Wizards were 6 games ahead of the Bulls in the standings but we're talking about one game here. I do not believe that one win indicates the Wizards are better than the Bulls. Maybe the Bulls have played a more difficult schedule, maybe the Bulls have choked away some games they're unlikely to in the future, maybe the Wizards have received some lucky basketball bounces. In my mind, the standings don't tell us which team is better right now and a one game edge and the team's records are virtually equal so the key to determining who will finish with a better record is evaluating which team is better and I think a lot of evidence suggests the Bulls are the better of the two teams.


well let me allievate your doubts , the bulls have actually faced an easier schedule than the wizards thus far. (the bulls are 17th in Stregnth of schedule while the wizards are 12th)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi?season=2007&sortColumn=sos

and what happens in the games count if the bulls lost a game they wouldn't have lost in 100 tries already this season its still a loss, there are no do overs, and moral victories only count in the minds of the overly optimistic, the only reason wins matter is playoff positioning and draft position , at the current time the bulls are picking where the knicks pick and playoff position has the bulls in a disadvantage while the opposite is true , both teams have avoided any serious injuries to their important player and have been for the most part healthy .

and i know you dont believe the wizards are better , in fact you have already stated you believe the bulls will end up with the better record .

all i'm really saying is that the lack of a superstar or a consistant star level post presence basically puts the ceiling for the bulls in the 2nd round no matter how many games they win (for which I still believe will be 50+) and if the bulls dont get homecourt advantage the odds are against them even reaching that far, because the top teams all have what the bulls lack superstar perimeter players or a consisteant offensive post presence and in some cases both...and all this right way banter doesn't mean much when it goes up against that.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Expectations were to be an elite team in the Eastern Conference and to at the very least make the 2nd round of the NBA playoffs.
> 
> We supposedly had a team that gave the world champs "one hell of a run for their money" in the playoffs last season and added the multi-time all star, DPOY to the roster!
> 
> ...


I am glad that this seasons Bulls exceeded your lofty expectations. I think those season tickets came in mighty handy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> I am glad that this seasons Bulls exceeded your lofty expectations. I think those season tickets came in mighty handy.


Ah, got to love the personal "calling out" posts.

Very productive. I'm sure the admins will be all over this one.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah, got to love the personal "calling out" posts.
> 
> Very productive. I'm sure the admins will be all over this one.


We don't get this point without your help. I know at least one poster will be giddy inside since we lost last night and you don't disappoint me.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah, got to love the personal "calling out" posts.
> 
> Very productive. I'm sure the admins will be all over this one.


Guilty.

http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/358958-keep-comin-game-six-thread-pistons-bulls-5-17-07-7pm-ct-8pm-et-espn-21.html#post4756423


----------

