# Interesting Segment on Chicago 670 THE SCORE today



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Boeers and Bernstein.

At noon they have a segment called "The 2nd Half" where they go over what they have been discussing up until that point... and other smaller news blurbs.


Paraphrasing....

Bernstein: "Who was that guy that used to play for the Bulls?"

Boeers: "Which guy?"

Bernstein: "That PG... what's his name? I can't remember it."

Booers: "Hmmmmm"

Bernstein: "Oh yeah. Its Kirk Hinrich. Can the Bulls win without him?"

Boeers: "I've been covering and following the NBA for the long time.. .and the best skill that I think you can pick up is to learn. We may be learning something about this current bulls team over the last few games. Might be learning something important. Now... I'm not saying the Bulls are better off without him... but he may be able to help you land a big burly 6'5" guard. He just might."



Just thought it was interesting given the discussions we've been having on here. Note that the other station in town, 1000, is the station that covers the Bulls.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Boeers and Bernstein.
> 
> At noon they have a segment called "The 2nd Half" where they go over what they have been discussing up until that point... and other smaller news blurbs.
> 
> ...


I know how much you were happy to hear this blob. Andd certainly you can't wait to pass it along, Nice job, K4E. So are you happy now?

I am not against the idea itself, and they certainly bring the legitimate point but I always find it amusing the way certain poster bring along the news to say indirectly whatever he want to say. Like I said, for the sake of argument, valid point. Who brought that news into the forum? Quite amusing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I am not against the idea itself, and they certainly bring the legitimate point but I always find it amusing the way certain poster bring along the news to say indirectly whatever he want to say. Like I said, for the sake of argument, valid point. Who brought that news into the forum? Quite amusing.


Certainly.

For certain.

I wonder if the radio talk show hosts scan the message boards for segment ideas?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

If it's said it's said.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

What I am saying is that with exact same topic you already creat so much of trouble last week and eventually got that particular thread lcoked up by moderator. 

Yet here you are again trying to bring up the same argument only by stand behind those guys on the radio.

If othere poster than you posted this, that's one thing. After what you did couple of days ago and still trying to do the pretty much same agin here is totally another. And I am against that. Not what those two fools were saying on the radio. You are starting another thread for the exact same thing to satisfy your own agenda.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Boeers and Bernstein.
> 
> At noon they have a segment called "The 2nd Half" where they go over what they have been discussing up until that point... and other smaller news blurbs.
> 
> ...


Both of those guys thought Crawford was a joke and advocated trading him the last two years he was a Bull. I guess that probably means they don't really know what they are talking about when it comes to basketball. Right?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> <b?Both of those guys thought Crawford was a joke and advocated trading him the last two years he was a Bull. </b> I guess that probably means they don't really know what they are talking about when it comes to basketball. Right?


They said this, WOW, I changed my mind cause those two guys must be basketball genius or something. They are right, YES, let's trade off Kirk. :clown: 






What a joke!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Hey, K4E posted something the media said, whether he has his own agenda or not is really irrelevant, if it is media worthy, it is board worthy. I would suggest that if you don't like K4e's opinions about something you just DON'T take the bait in the first place, just a friendly suggestion, I really don't wanna be locking any threads today...so lets keep it civil.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

It is an intruguing thought! I think it's something that should be looked at, but I just have a bad feeling about trading Hinrich. The problem is getting a "team first" SG, since it is not the most unslefish of positions.

What are some good ones to look at? We need a Rip Hamilton type SG. Good team guy, good fundamentals, good defender, etc. If we're going to trade Hinrich then we need someone better than Raja Bell or Mickael Pietrus in return.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

geez. kick a guy when he's down and trying to come back from injury. nice. i hope he was listening.

thanks for the report k4e. sounds like it was sportsradio at it's absolute finest. do they give prizes for that kind of stellar sports journalism? 

maybe the bulls should just shelve kirk for the rest of the season so his injury doesn't hurt his trade value. wouldn't want him available for the first playoff run in seven years. he sucks. pargo rules. pike will carry us to the promised land. whoo hooo.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Hey, K4E posted something the media said, whether he has his own agenda or not is really irrelevant, <b>if it is media worthy, it is board worthy. </b> I would suggest that if you don't like K4e's opinions about something you just DON'T take the bait in the first place, just a friendly suggestion, I really don't wanna be locking any threads today...so lets keep it civil.


If that is our moderator's point, then I can't argue with that. Just have to keep it civil I guess then.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Both of those guys thought Crawford was a joke and advocated trading him the last two years he was a Bull. I guess that probably means they don't really know what they are talking about when it comes to basketball. Right?


Actually... since you mentioned this... I'll paraphrase what they had to say about Jamal on today's segment. Very interesting you brought this up.

Bernstein was reading the NY Post Article about Jamal. Quoted the "winning situation " part... the "KNICKS CRAP" part and the "bounce off the backboard dunk over defense part."

Bernstein asked Boeers "whaddya think?"

Boeers: "welll... err..... I guess I'd have to ask them what they were expecting? Jamal is playing pretty much like he played here. Were they expecting a defensive stopper? Jamal does what Jamal does."

At no point did either of them use the harsh language you describe... but granted, I don't listen to them every day. It certainly didn’t seem like Boeers hated Crawford at all. He was defending him. Bernstein was enjoying the contents of the article.

Then they ripped the hell out of Isiah.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Until we get another team leader (whether it be via trade or internal growth), I am not willing to trade Hinrich.

Hinrich has this gift, and it is extremely rare in such a young player. Some of you may disagree with me, but Gordon and Duhon are not ready to take over this team. Chandler may be emotionally, but he isn't the one running an offense. Same with AD.

We have been searching for an identity since '98, and now that we have the glue for that identity, people are calling for a trade.

Am I against trading Hinrich, yes. But that is because I don't see another player out there that could give the same value to our team (for the talent level). If the right deal came along, sure I would trade him. I'm not saying we live and die by Kirk. I just don't think that there is a "right" deal out there. I wouldn't expect a "right" deal to be available until Gordon or Duhon matures (if ever) into a team leader type role. I don't expect a trade of our core until Kirk's contract year, unless the "right" deal comes along instead of resigning one of our big men this offseason.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> thanks for the report k4e. sounds like it was sportsradio at it's absolute finest. do they give prizes for that kind of stellar sports journalism?


Well... its certainly no New York Post, that's for sure. I think someday if they clean up their act THE SCORE hopes to have the journalistic integrity of the New York Post.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> geez. kick a guy when he's down and trying to come back from injury. nice. i hope he was listening.
> 
> thanks for the report k4e. sounds like it was sportsradio at it's absolute finest. do they give prizes for that kind of stellar sports journalism?
> 
> maybe the bulls should just shelve kirk for the rest of the season so his injury doesn't hurt his trade value. wouldn't want him available for the first playoff run in seven years. he sucks. pargo rules. pike will carry us to the promised land. whoo hooo.


Hehe Miz, you've seemed frazzled a bit lately. Kirk can't come back soon enough! 

As for the story, talk about shootng the messenger! I thought it was amusing and I don't think K4E had any agenda to push with posting what those radio jock boneheads had to say about "that one point guard..."


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Well... its certainly no New York Post, that's for sure. I think someday if they clean up their act THE SCORE hopes to have the journalistic integrity of the New York Post.


Isn't it a oxymoron to put "journalistic integrity" and "NY Post" in the same sentence?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Isn't it a oxymoron to put "journalistic integrity" and "NY Post" in the same sentence?


Yeah... I should have put a  in that post. I was being sarcastic (shocker!).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> geez. kick a guy when he's down and trying to come back from injury. nice. i hope he was listening.
> 
> thanks for the report k4e. sounds like it was sportsradio at it's absolute finest. do they give prizes for that kind of stellar sports journalism?
> 
> maybe the bulls should just shelve kirk for the rest of the season so his injury doesn't hurt his trade value. wouldn't want him available for the first playoff run in seven years. he sucks. pargo rules. pike will carry us to the promised land. whoo hooo.


As long as k4e's paraphrasing is accurate, I don't understand why you find this so engraging.

This is what Boerr's said:
"I've been covering and following the NBA for the long time.. .and the best skill that I think you can pick up is to learn. We may be learning something about this current bulls team over the last few games. Might be learning something important. Now... I'm not saying the Bulls are better off without him... but he may be able to help you land a big burly 6'5" guard. He just might."

So he is saying that the Bulls aren't better off without Hinrich. But he also*suggests* that the Bulls may consider trading him for a 6'5" guard.

I don't know what is so unfair about that statement.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

BealeFarange said:


> Hehe Miz, you've seemed frazzled a bit lately. Kirk can't come back soon enough!
> 
> As for the story, talk about shootng the messenger! I thought it was amusing and <b>I don't think K4E had any agenda to push with posting what those radio jock boneheads had to say about "that one point guard..."</b>


I will only comment on this one this one last tiem cause Ace want us to be civil, but are we all forgot about this thread already or what? And who started that thread?

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=152187 

If I am only one who think this is rather distasteful tact from K4E, then my apology to every other posters. Maybe I have my own agenda against K4E. :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually... since you mentioned this... I'll paraphrase what they had to say about Jamal on today's segment. Very interesting you brought this up.
> 
> Bernstein was reading the NY Post Article about Jamal. Quoted the "winning situation " part... the "KNICKS CRAP" part and the "bounce off the backboard dunk over defense part."
> 
> ...


Yeah, Boeers was defending Crawford. He said it's not Jamal's fault, the Knicks signed a low percentage shooting guard who doesn't defend and who doesn't make his team any better, that's Jamal doing what Jamal does.

Unless you are among the group who think Jamal is a better defender than Duhon  , then Boeers just told the truth about Jamal. 

It just so happens, the truth isn't so pretty.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It just so happens, the truth isn't so pretty.


Well you're not so pretty yourself!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I may risk starting another firefight with what I'm about to say, but I think (GASP) that the 4 games without Kirk have shown that it might be in our best interests offensively if he shoots a little less. Curry's gone off for some big scoring games at a very efficient clip without Kirk in there - having him beat up the opposing frontcourt a little more than usual has helped us to create leads and survive some wretched shooting from our guards. Maybe, instead of shooting a couple of those quick-release 3s that Kirk usually shoots, he should dump it into Eddy (provided there's time on the clock for him to operate).

I don't, however, think we're better off without Kirk in any other way. Kirk's backcourt mates shoot better when Kirk is defending the other team's big guard and initiating the offense. Despite being a little overmatched at SG size-wise, Kirk doesn't usually let Bonzi Wells types score 30 points. Despite his shooting woes, Kirk is a much better scorer than Duhon is and defenses have to respect him more. He is the QB of this team, to use a tired cliche - I'm just starting to think he can be a little bit more effective in that role by passing up on those occasional early 3s he takes in favor of getting Eddy a touch.

The last few games, if nothing else, have shown me that an energized and involved Eddy Curry are very important to this team. I'm 99% convinced that we have to retain him at ANY cost now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> The last few games, if nothing else, have shown me that an energized and involved Eddy Curry are very important to this team. I'm 99% convinced that we have to retain him at ANY cost now.


Agree 100%.

Kirk is a better defender against the bigger guards than Duhon is, no doubt.

Which one of the two is better at feeding the big man inside though..... since that perhaps should be the focus of our team?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually... since you mentioned this... I'll paraphrase what they had to say about Jamal on today's segment. Very interesting you brought this up.
> 
> Bernstein was reading the NY Post Article about Jamal. Quoted the "winning situation " part... the "KNICKS CRAP" part and the "bounce off the backboard dunk over defense part."
> 
> ...


Whenever it was that Jamal had that one 40+ point game, B&B both noted the next day that Crawford will always be propped up by the "basketball stupid." This was in response to a caller sarcastically pointing out that Crawford was a scorer and Bulls could use a scorer on their team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Whenever it was that Jamal had that one 40+ point game, B&B both noted the next day that Crawford will always be propped up by the "basketball stupid." This was in response to a caller sarcastically pointing out that Crawford was a scorer and Bulls could use a scorer on their team.


Yah... he's a super talented average NBA guard at this point. He needs to develop further.... If he does not he'll be forever an average player IMO.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

BealeFarange said:


> Hehe Miz, you've seemed frazzled a bit lately. Kirk can't come back soon enough!
> 
> As for the story, talk about shootng the messenger! I thought it was amusing and I don't think K4E had any agenda to push with posting what those radio jock boneheads had to say about "that one point guard..."



no. i'm glad he posted it. sorry if it appeared that i was shooting the messenger. 

i just find the comments to be a tad harsh considering everything hinrich has meant to the franchise up to now. or maybe he doesn't mean as much as i thought...


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I may risk starting another firefight with what I'm about to say, but I think (GASP) that the 4 games without Kirk have shown that it might be in our best interests offensively if he shoots a little less. Curry's gone off for some big scoring games at a very efficient clip without Kirk in there - having him beat up the opposing frontcourt a little more than usual has helped us to create leads and survive some wretched shooting from our guards. Maybe, instead of shooting a couple of those quick-release 3s that Kirk usually shoots, he should dump it into Eddy (provided there's time on the clock for him to operate).
> 
> I don't, however, think we're better off without Kirk in any other way. Kirk's backcourt mates shoot better when Kirk is defending the other team's big guard and initiating the offense. Despite being a little overmatched at SG size-wise, Kirk doesn't usually let Bonzi Wells types score 30 points. Despite his shooting woes, Kirk is a much better scorer than Duhon is and defenses have to respect him more. He is the QB of this team, to use a tired cliche - I'm just starting to think he can be a little bit more effective in that role by passing up on those occasional early 3s he takes in favor of getting Eddy a touch.
> 
> The last few games, if nothing else, have shown me that an energized and involved Eddy Curry are very important to this team. I'm 99% convinced that we have to retain him at ANY cost now.


No kidding. Even though he shoots only 4th-most rate on the team, it seems like we can still afford for him to shoot even less. I agree completely with this post. Hopefully Kirk is taking notes on the bench. 

Is Curry just revitalized after the injury though, or was Kirk actually stifling his opportunities? It's probably a bit of both.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> Kirk is a better defender against the bigger guards than Duhon is, no doubt.
> 
> Which one of the two is better at feeding the big man inside though..... since that perhaps should be the focus of our team?


Kirk's gotten better at feeding the post. He's still not great, but he's decent. Duhon is pretty good, usually. Both of them are good enough to keep Eddy involved unless he's being hemmed in on both sides like the Grizz did late last night. I just think that after we establish Eddy early in the game, we go away from him. I'm not sure if Skiles is dictating that, or if Kirk and Duhon, and the team by extension, just stop looking his way. In the games Kirk's been out, we've looked for Eddy a little bit more throughout the game and he's done well. I think it might be wise to keep doing this after Kirk gets back, and the easiest shots to identify as ones that could go to Eddy are the 2 or 3 per game that Kirk takes early in the shot clock (and misses too often) on pullups or very quick drive and dish plays from Duhon.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just thought it was interesting given the discussions we've been having on here.



About as interesting as a puddle in the rain...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Did anyone ever think that if Eddy had been playing like this the entire season, Kirk wouldn't HAVE to shoot so much??


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

madox said:


> About as interesting as a puddle in the rain...


Watching the ripples can be hypnotic.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> No kidding. Even though he shoots only 4th-most rate on the team, it seems like we can still afford for him to shoot even less. I agree completely with this post. Hopefully Kirk is taking notes on the bench.
> 
> Is Curry just revitalized after the injury though, or was Kirk actually stifling his opportunities? It's probably a bit of both.


yeah. I don't even feel like Kirk takes bad shots, per se. I just think he takes a few "quick" shots. They're usually fairly open, but he doesn't make them consistently. In those situations, usually pullups or early shots off a Duhon pass, I'd rather see him draw a defender back out to him and then try to go inside to Eddy. I'm in no way saying that Kirk shouldn't shoot the ball in general - just that when we have a full shot clock, getting Eddy the ball for a high% shot might be better than taking a low% outside jumper.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> No kidding. Even though he shoots only 4th-most rate on the team, it seems like we can still afford for him to shoot even less. I agree completely with this post. Hopefully Kirk is taking notes on the bench.
> 
> Is Curry just revitalized after the injury though, or was Kirk actually stifling his opportunities? It's probably a bit of both.


With Kirk out and especailly when Ben wasn't on the floor, the first offensive option had to be Curry almost by default. So going more insode for Curry was obvious choice under the circumstances. That being said, i woudn't call that kirk was stifling Curry's game. What if they all collapse on Curry when we don't have Kirk or Ben outside?

I guess Kirk/Ben and Curry's preformance is and should be complementary one. With recent development in Curry's game, expecially on the defensive side, I can see that they will develop good inside/outside game for the long time to come.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Does anyone want to calculate the shooting percentages of Duhon and Gordon over the last four games? I think it's somewhere around 20% and 32%, respectively. If Curry doesn't continue to average 20+ ppg and resumes the level of play he displayed for the first 80% of the season, will this get us by?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Did anyone ever think that if Eddy had been playing like this the entire season, Kirk wouldn't HAVE to shoot so much??


maybe. but now that Eddy is playing like this, we might as well keep feeding him. His efficient scoring is a big reason why we've won all these games despite losing Kirk and having our guards lay more bricks than a construction team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Does anyone want to calculate the shooting percentages of Duhon and Gordon over the last four games? I think it's somewhere around 20% and 32%, respectively. If Curry doesn't continue to average 20+ ppg and resumes the level of play he displayed for the first 80% of the season, will this get us by?


It depends on what "get us by" means.

Winning the NBA Title? No.

Playing at the level we were playing at before? Yah, we are IMO.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

lgtwins said:


> With Kirk out and especailly when Ben wasn't on the floor, the first offensive option had to be Curry almost by default. So going more insode for Curry was obvious choice under the circumstances. That being said, i woudn't call that kirk was stifling Curry's game. What if they all collapse on Curry when we don't have Kirk or Ben outside?
> 
> I guess Kirk/Ben and Curry's preformance is and should be complementary one. With recent development in Curry's game, expecially on the defensive side, I can see that they will develop good inside/outside game for the long time to come.


We aren't going inside to Eddy any more than before, he's getting the same number of FGA and FTA without Kirk as he was with him, but he has cut his TO from 2.5 to 1.5 the last 4 games.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Does anyone want to calculate the shooting percentages of Duhon and Gordon over the last four games? I think it's somewhere around 20% and 32%, respectively. If Curry doesn't continue to average 20+ ppg and resumes the level of play he displayed for the first 80% of the season, will this get us by?


My only real point was that I'd rather see this statline:
Hinrich 7-14 FG
Curry 10-16 FG

than this one:
Hinrich 7-17
Curry 8-13.

This might be able to happen with just three different decisions per game. I'm not saying we overhaul everything and give Eddy the ball every time. sloth/bbs might want that, but I think our "share the wealth" approach is fine. It's really just a slight modification. If Eddy doesn't respond to getting a few more touches, so be it. He's gotten more lately and converted on them, and I say let's give him the chance to keep it rolling.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I may risk starting another firefight with what I'm about to say, but I think (GASP) that the 4 games without Kirk have shown that it might be in our best interests offensively if he shoots a little less. Curry's gone off for some big scoring games at a very efficient clip without Kirk in there - having him beat up the opposing frontcourt a little more than usual has helped us to create leads and survive some wretched shooting from our guards. Maybe, instead of shooting a couple of those quick-release 3s that Kirk usually shoots, he should dump it into Eddy (provided there's time on the clock for him to operate).
> 
> I don't, however, think we're better off without Kirk in any other way. Kirk's backcourt mates shoot better when Kirk is defending the other team's big guard and initiating the offense. Despite being a little overmatched at SG size-wise, Kirk doesn't usually let Bonzi Wells types score 30 points. Despite his shooting woes, Kirk is a much better scorer than Duhon is and defenses have to respect him more. He is the QB of this team, to use a tired cliche - I'm just starting to think he can be a little bit more effective in that role by passing up on those occasional early 3s he takes in favor of getting Eddy a touch.
> 
> The last few games, if nothing else, have shown me that an energized and involved Eddy Curry are very important to this team. I'm 99% convinced that we have to retain him at ANY cost now.



As a huge Kirk fan I agree with this completely. He should avoid any shot where he is hesitant or heavily pressured. We have really needed Kirk to score in the past, and we still do, but we do not need to rely on him as much with Curry playying so well, our new star Ben, and solid rookies Noce and Deng getting comfortable in the league. Eddy's play the last couple games has really eased the burden of losing Kirk. 

Pargo has also done a nice job for us and I think will beat out Reiner for the 12th playoff spot on the roster. Although I am hoping we get a chance to face Miami where Reiner might be more useful. If Noce and Deng continue to play as well as they have maybe Griffin, gets left off and we keep Reiner and Pargo, thoughts?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bullsville said:


> We aren't going inside to Eddy any more than before, he's getting the same number of FGA and FTA without Kirk as he was with him, but he has cut his TO from 2.5 to 1.5 the last 4 games.


He was also playing limited minutes until last night. Are his attempts per 48 the same, or higher?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually... since you mentioned this... I'll paraphrase what they had to say about Jamal on today's segment. Very interesting you brought this up.
> 
> Bernstein was reading the NY Post Article about Jamal. Quoted the "winning situation " part... the "KNICKS CRAP" part and the "bounce off the backboard dunk over defense part."
> 
> ...


So he agreed with the particularized complaints of Crawfords game by saying "what did they expect" and "Jamal does what Jamal does" and you consider that a defense of Crawford?

Uh, ok.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Does anyone want to calculate the shooting percentages of Duhon and Gordon over the last four games? I think it's somewhere around 20% and 32%, respectively. If Curry doesn't continue to average 20+ ppg and resumes the level of play he displayed for the first 80% of the season, will this get us by?


Ben's been struggling this entire month. I don't know how much his shooting struggles have to do with Kirk's absense, considering he was struggling with him on the team too. Duhon, on the other hand has been just horrible the entire year.....and has not so surprisingly gotten even worse the last 4 games(fg% wise). But THANK GOD, he's smart enough to NOT continue shooting when he's cold and get the big guyz involved. His average of 6 FGA per game hardly hurts us and its tough to get on his case with the way the towers have exploded under his floor leadership for the majority of the game lately.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm glad the Bulls are winning without Hinrich. Resting him up for the playoffs is blessing for a guy who just needed some rest. Curry has been playing out of his mind too, I hope this continues into the playoffs. I hope Chandler follows in line too. Hinrich coming back should do wonders for Gordon's shooting efficiency, he has really taken a hit since he has had to take on Hinrich's defensive responsibilities. That's probably why Hinrich's field goal percentage has been down. 

I hope we can get everyone at their best for the playoffs.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Good point. The rest that Kirk is getting could be a huge blessing - and the fact that we have been playing very well without him is gravy, big time.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> He was also playing limited minutes until last night. Are his attempts per 48 the same, or higher?


He is playing 28.7 minutes for the season, 27.8 the last 4 games.

He got more minutes last night (36), but he got a lot more shots last night as well.

Shots per minute are almost identical the last 4 games, if not I would have mentioned it. That's why I said he was getting the same touches, at least the same shot attempts. I posted the exact numbers somewhere, I forget where. I do remember it was 11.56 FGA with Kirk, and I think 4.88 FTA with Kirk. You can look at his profile on NBA.com and see his stats for each of the last 4 games.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

The Truth said:


> As long as k4e's paraphrasing is accurate, I don't understand why you find this so engraging.
> 
> This is what Boerr's said:
> "I've been covering and following the NBA for the long time.. .and the best skill that I think you can pick up is to learn. We may be learning something about this current bulls team over the last few games. Might be learning something important. Now... I'm not saying the Bulls are better off without him... but he may be able to help you land a big burly 6'5" guard. He just might."
> ...



just to be clear, and like i said to beale, i didn't mean to suggest shoot the messenger. tempting as that might be for some. j/k k4e :wink:

but where i am just dumbfounded lately, and ok, maybe a bit frazzled, is by the TIMING of some of this stuff. 

the bulls are making a playoff push for the first time in SEVEN years. the captain is out with an injury. the team has won without him, suggesting what? a well coached team. a team with guys who can step up. a team with a center who is finally playing like we only used to DREAM. and some guys on the radio, cause they can, suggest that maybe we should trade kirk cause hey, the bulls have won some games without him.and yes, they did apparently say that they wouldn't want to do that, but still. 

it's not about not wanting to improve the team. we should always want that. but do we have to talk about THAT RIGHT NOW???

sorry for the rant. i just think it was classless of these guys to even suggest that. i hope they had the radio tuned to a different station up in the training room at the berto. 

i know i am waaay too emotional about this. so i will just shut up about it. 
where i come from, you show loyalty to those who have put you in a position to succeed. which is why eddy and tyson will be resigned this summer and which is why kirk won't be traded, no matter how much some people may dream of that happening.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> So he agreed with the particularized complaints of Crawfords game by saying "what did they expect" and "Jamal does what Jamal does" and you consider that a defense of Crawford?
> 
> Uh, ok.



LOL, that's what I posted earlier, they "defended" Jamal by saying he's a chucker who plays no defense. Good thing OJ didn't have lawyers like that "defending" him.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bullsville said:


> He is playing 28.7 minutes for the season, 27.8 the last 4 games.
> 
> He got more minutes last night (36), but he got a lot more shots last night as well.
> 
> Shots per minute are almost identical the last 4 games, if not I would have mentioned it. That's why I said he was getting the same touches, at least the same shot attempts. I posted the exact numbers somewhere, I forget where. I do remember it was 11.56 FGA with Kirk, and I think 4.88 FTA with Kirk. You can look at his profile on NBA.com and see his stats for each of the last 4 games.


fair enough. until last night he averaged 25mpg while Kirk was out and was scoring in big bunches. It seems counterintuitive to think that he hasn't gotten the ball more, or more shots, in that time, but what do I know? (answer: a little more than nothing, but not much more  )

edit: I also didn't realize Eddy played 29 minutes vs. Indy. I thought it was more like 23. And until last night he got his points on shooting a very high percentage on an approximately standard number of shots. Doesn't change my view that he could get a few more touches, though.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> fair enough. until last night he averaged 25mpg while Kirk was out and was scoring in big bunches. It seems counterintuitive to think that he hasn't gotten the ball more, or more shots, in that time, but what do I know? (answer: a little more than nothing, but not much more  )
> 
> edit: I also didn't realize Eddy played 29 minutes vs. Indy. I thought it was more like 23. And until last night he got his points on shooting a very high percentage on an approximately standard number of shots. Doesn't change my view that he could get a few more touches, though.


I agree with you, if you just watched the last 4 games and didn't look at the stats, you would certainly think that Eddy was getting the ball a lot more than he was before. Hell, I thought the same thing before looking at the box score.

Eddy has just been so good over the last 4 that it seems as if he is getting the ball more, when he is really just doing a lot more with it when he gets it.

I'm sure if he keeps playing like he is, he'll keep getting the ball more. Like I said elsewhere, maybe if Eddy had been playing this well all year, Kirk wouldn't have to shoot so much?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

I think ..first KH is out of position at the 2. The decision should be made between KH and Duhon..then the other goes. I say KH is great trade bait. I love Hinrich, but Boers is right trade him for a big burly 2.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I'm sure if he keeps playing like he is, he'll keep getting the ball more. Like I said elsewhere, maybe if Eddy had been playing this well all year, Kirk wouldn't have to shoot so much?


You could be on to something there. My point is simply that this stretch of games without KH has shown that Eddy's interior scoring can keep us in games (and even create leads on good teams) when he's energized and despite bad shooting from the outside, and that we might improve a bit offensively if we redirected a couple of Kirk's nightly quick-trigger shots to Eddy down low when the opportunity is there. I still think we need Kirk back ASAP. Nothing too controversial.

Also, I firmly believe that Eddy is Shaq-like in the sense that the rest of his floor game sometimes feeds off his ability to get the ball down low and score. His occasional double-digit rebounding games almost always come in games where he scores a bunch, too.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

To put this whole thing into some kind of context, it might be worth noting that Terry Boers has been suggesting this ever since Gordon started playing consistently well back in December. It stems from his expressed belief that a starting backcourt comprised of Hinrich and Gordon is just too small. He's also a big fan of Ben Gordon and he believes that because of his size, Gordon will eventually have to become a full time PG. 

Whenever this topic has come up on their show, Boers has always couched his opinion with very complimentary remarks about Kirk. But if I've understood him correctly, he's always suggested a trade of Hinrich for a big 2 guard because he doesn't like a Hinrich/Gordon combination due to the lack of size and because he doesn't believe Ben can perform consistently at SG.

The fact that the Bulls have played well while Kirk has been out of the lineup did not spur Boers to draw his conclusions for the first time. What he said today by pointing to the Bulls recent success only served to reinforce the belief he's held since Gordon started playing like the 3rd pick in the draft.

It doesn't take a trained eye to see that Ben Gordon can be a very special player. Nor does it take much expertise to see that defensively he's seriously overmatched if he has to guard true swingmen. The obvious conclusion many people might draw is that eventually he'll have to be moved to PG on a permanent basis.

So where might that leave Kirk. Logic dictates that he might be an extremely valuable trade chip _if_ Paxson and Skiles decide to commit to Gordon long term.

But so far, between the two players, the only one that's been talked about by management as being part of the team's long term plans is Kirk Hinrich.

So maybe Boers is right in a way. Maybe Hinrich and Gordon can't pair up to form a championship calibur starting backcourt because of their combined lack of length. But maybe it won't be Hinrich who's ultimately traded. Maybe Gordon will be the guy. And if that's how things might turn out, I think it would be extremely wise for the Bulls to wait a while because Gordon's trade value is only going to increase over time. Right now, at this point of his career, Ben Gordon and his propensity to turn the ball over have a long way to go before he can be viewed as a competent NBA PG.

So lets chill on all this "trade Kirk" talk for the time being. Neither Hinrich or Gordon are going anywhere for the moment. And if the day ever arrives when the Bulls have to make a choice between one or the other, I don't see how anyone right now can predict who'll stay and who'll go.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Good post, Kismet. My only point is that Boers is wrong.

Kirk is guarding SG whether Duhon or Ben is in the game. And our SG defense has been by far the best of the 5 spots on the floor. And our overall defense is #1 in the NBA.

Those 3 things lead me to believe that we simply don't need to change our SG defense, it's pretty damn good right now. And since the SG defender we have can also play PG on offense next to Ben, I really see absolutely no reason to change our team and it's chemistry in any way. 

Period.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> fair enough. until last night he averaged 25mpg while Kirk was out and was scoring in big bunches. It seems counterintuitive to think that he hasn't gotten the ball more, or more shots, in that time, but what do I know? (answer: a little more than nothing, but not much more  )
> 
> edit: I also didn't realize Eddy played 29 minutes vs. Indy. I thought it was more like 23. And until last night he got his points on shooting a very high percentage on an approximately standard number of shots. Doesn't change my view that he could get a few more touches, though.


Hey, everyone, 

pretty good job on keeping things basketball related.

I'm no expert, and I live out of town, so I don't get to see many games as it is, but I did get a chance to catch the Indiana game on WGN. I was curious to see what K4E was so excited about with Duhon.

What I observed was a pretty complicated dynamic. 

1) Eddy really does seem energized. Judging from his quotes, I'd say he's consciously taking responsibility for the performance of the team. I just don't think we can emphasize how huge that transition is in Eddy's game. Something happened in Big Ed that really was only a dream in Krause's mind's eye. 

Kirk being out seems to have a direct correlation with that, as Eddy points out. He's aware of the leadership vacuum, and he is trying to do something about it. That's just cosmic, coming from Eddy! This is just a great thing for the team. Skiles had mentioned in the past that Eddy was growing as a man who can follow a game plan, but was lacking in spontaneous leadership and adjustments. Maybe this other side is clicking in, and Eddy can really take on an inspirational, "take the team on my back" leadership. 

As a side note, the change in offensive leadership has made the Bulls a different team to defend, and hence, harder to coach for, at least in the short term. 

2) From what I saw, Duhon does move the ball up the court fast, and he's got a good feeling on how and when and where to get the ball to Eddy. There was one beautiful snap pass right over the head of Duhon's defender into Eddy about 2 feet away from the basket. Indefensible. I don't think Kirk is that good in delivering the ball down low, but that was just a feeling, based on fuzzy memories. So, Duhon's ability to deliver the ball, added to Eddy's increased leadership, desire and determination have produced an, up until now, winning combination. I mean, its obvious when you look at the box score that the bulk of the scoring has totally shifted from the back court to the front court. And they're high percentage shots. 

3) There are arguments that Duhon is "smart" not to shoot when he's not making it. That's true...but, it does hurt the team's back court play. He's not a threat as a focus of the offense -- Kirk is. Ben, in fact, is not a threat either, especially when the other guy is Du. 

From the context of the debate about Duhon replacing Kirk, I just could see Duhon totally falling apart over any length of time as the main backcourt guy. I can't trust him as the team leader. Kirk can be a backcourt leader, both offensively and defensively. He's not Kobe....but he is a fighter who keeps the backcourt functioning as a defensive AND offensive unit. We don't have anyone who can replace him. We just don't.

So, to me, Kirk's injury has been a blessing in disguise, not because of Duhon, but because of Eddy. There is a potential for there to develop two poles of leadership, where Kirk operates and keeps the backcourt working, while Eddy runs the front court. It's an odd dynamic, because Duhon has shown the better ability to feed Eddy, but maybe there really isn't that much difference, and Eddy just didn't realize what he could be doing until he had to with Kirk's absence. 

Again, I think that we are still learning about this team, and what it really can and cannot do. Two leaders on the court, Kirk and Eddy, with two facilitators in Duhon and Chandler, and Deng the glue guy, and we have a nice team with a lot of potential to develop.

Let's see what comes of it for the remainder of the season!

Hope!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BTW, our team defends the SG position better than Miami, and much better than Detroit. Maybe we can steal Bowen from the Spurs, they defend the SG position much better than we do.

http://82games.com/0405SAS5.HTM

http://82games.com/0405DET5.HTM

http://82games.com/0405MIA5.HTM


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

bullsville said:


> BTW, our team defends the SG position better than Miami, and much better than Detroit. Maybe we can steal Bowen from the Spurs, they defend the SG position much better than we do.
> 
> http://82games.com/0405SAS5.HTM
> 
> ...


This is what I've been preaching the whole year. Hinrich is guarding shooting guards better than almost anyone in the league. I believe the Spurs and Grizzlies are the only teams that defend the shooting guard position better than we do.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is what I've been preaching the whole year. Hinrich is guarding shooting guards better than almost anyone in the league. I believe the Spurs and Grizzlies are the only teams that defend the shooting guard position better than we do.


Well I don't see how that could be, Kirk is too short to guard SG... :biggrin:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Hey, everyone,
> 
> pretty good job on keeping things basketball related.
> 
> ...


Excellent post! As usual!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Like I've said before, I'm all for trading Kirk if it makes this team better. But who is there? And moreover, how highly is Kirk regarded on the trade market? Kirk has been able to consistently play the point and serve as the steadying force on the floor as well as more than adequately defend the opposition's best guard (on most nights). And let's also not overlook Kirk's offensive contributions. Yes, he's shooting at a sub 40% clip, but he's had his share of 20+ ppg and 10+ apg nights and often manages to step it up when we really need it. Do we think our new SG and Duhon can cover all these areas?

So in light of all that, who can we trade for and not skip a beat? Label me a Kirk fanboy, but I think I'd be quicker to trade Ben than him. Afterall, Ben has received greater pub around the league, has the rep of an explosive scorer and will likely bring us an A level SG. Not to mention that he has trouble running an offense and trying to find a player to pair with Ben has proven to far more difficult than finding a backcourt mate for Kirk.

Ben for Maggs? Ben for Hughes? Ben and Curry for Kobe/KG? I consider these before I think about Kirk for Raja Bell + Snyder, Kirk for Pietrus or Kirk for Rickey Davis.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Kismet said:


> To put this whole thing into some kind of context, it might be worth noting that Terry Boers has been suggesting this ever since Gordon started playing consistently well back in December. It stems from his expressed belief that a starting backcourt comprised of Hinrich and Gordon is just too small. He's also a big fan of Ben Gordon and he believes that because of his size, Gordon will eventually have to become a full time PG.
> 
> Whenever this topic has come up on their show, Boers has always couched his opinion with very complimentary remarks about Kirk. But if I've understood him correctly, he's always suggested a trade of Hinrich for a big 2 guard because he doesn't like a Hinrich/Gordon combination due to the lack of size and because he doesn't believe Ben can perform consistently at SG.
> 
> ...


Wow, you just saved me a lot of typing and said it much better than I could have. As Kismet said, Boers has been advocating trading Hinrich since Gordon blew up earlier in the year. I respect their opinion on basketball even though they can be boobs from time to time. For those of you fired up about this topic, I don't see how this is any different than me putting a Vescey article or someone else putting the Mitch Lawrence article in the Crawford update thread. Mike North has taken a little more extreme view on the subject of how the Bulls are doing without Kirk. I believe he said something along the lines of "Kirk who?" North is a moron though and hasn't backed up his comments with any deep thought (is it possible for him to do?).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> So, to me, Kirk's injury has been a blessing in disguise, not because of Duhon, but because of Eddy. There is a potential for there to develop two poles of leadership, where Kirk operates and keeps the backcourt working, while Eddy runs the front court. It's an odd dynamic, because Duhon has shown the better ability to feed Eddy, but maybe there really isn't that much difference, and *Eddy just didn't realize what he could be doing until he had to with Kirk's absence.*


This whole post was great, but I was really struck by the bolded sentence. I think you might be on to something here. Eddy's been evolving this year. In the past, his remarks to the media didn't seem to have nearly the amount of self-responsibility and dedication to helping the team than they have this year, and especially with Kirk out. That's not to say Eddy used to be selfish or anything - more that he wasn't comfortable sounding like a leader, or was so wrapped up in developing his own game that he didn't see the bigger picture, or didn't fully understand that his performance was so strongly correlated to the team's ability to win games. He seems to get that now. He seems to want the responsibility of helping this team win. (hopefully he'll also realize that rebounding a little more can't hurt!)

I think everyone on the board, whatever their opinion on Eddy's accomplishments to this point, sees a player with a boatload of natural ability and talent when they see Eddy Curry. Big men with his athleticism and soft hands just don't fall from the sky. I hope his comments, and his play that has lately backed up his comments, are an indicator that he's ready to do the things that a player of his ability should be able to do.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I think you might be on to something here. Eddy's been evolving this year. In the past, his remarks to the media didn't seem to have nearly the amount of self-responsibility and dedication to helping the team than they have this year, and especially with Kirk out. That's not to say Eddy used to be selfish or anything - more that he wasn't comfortable sounding like a leader, or was so wrapped up in developing his own game that he didn't see the bigger picture, or didn't fully understand that his performance was so strongly correlated to the team's ability to win games. He seems to get that now. He seems to want the responsibility of helping this team win. *(hopefully he'll also realize that rebounding a little more can't hurt!)*


One step at a time, one step at a time (regarding the rebounding). 

But I am really excited about the possibility of Eddy being a leader for this team. That changes everything, literally.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The last 4 games, Eddy has given us 21.0 pts/game on 66.7% shooting in only 27.8 minutes (plus 1.0 blk and only 1.5 TO). If he can produce like that on offense all the time, I can live with the 5 rebounds/game he has given us.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> One step at a time, one step at a time (regarding the rebounding).
> 
> But I am really excited about the possibility of Eddy being a leader for this team. That changes everything, literally.


Adding a more confident, leader-like Eddy to Tyson, who seems to be a natural leader, at least emotionally, is a pretty exciting thing to ponder.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

K4 is the only person in the city who heard this? I'll re-read pages 1 and 2, but given the history of this board, everyone has to recognize that this is a tiny bit strange.


Well, since we're going into the playoffs, it must be assumed that this was just meaningless conjecture. A lot of which goes on on this board.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> "We understand what Kirk brings to this team," veteran forward Antonio Davis said. "Everybody ends up doing a little bit more [without him] than they usually do."


http://www.nwherald.com/SportsSection/294245954000779.php



> Skiles often refers to Hinrich as the engine who makes the Bulls go. With Hinrich out, rookie guard Chris Duhon takes on added importance.
> 
> ''This gives me the opportunity to be more of a leader,'' Duhon said. ''Make sure we execute the offense and play tough defense against one of the tougher guards. I have to be smarter and make sure I don't pick up any cheap fouls.''


http://www.suntimes.com/output/jackson/cst-spt-jax29.html


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> It is an intruguing thought! I think it's something that should be looked at, but I just have a bad feeling about trading Hinrich. The problem is getting a "team first" SG, since it is not the most unslefish of positions.
> 
> What are some good ones to look at? We need a Rip Hamilton type SG. Good team guy, good fundamentals, good defender, etc. If we're going to trade Hinrich then we need someone better than Raja Bell or Mickael Pietrus in return.


thats Joe Johnson


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

There is no question that Kirk missing has had a positive effect on Eddy. He has stepped up and taken a more of a leadership role. He had expended all his energy on the court and he became tired! He was so tired he asked to come out of the game. Skiles put him back in and he had trouble getting in position but he has come a long way since a couple a years ago when he was huffing and puffing. Listening to Eddy say with Kirk "the general" as he put it, everyone had to step up in his absence.

Kirk is our Obi Wan.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> So he agreed with the particularized complaints of Crawfords game by saying "what did they expect" and "Jamal does what Jamal does" and you consider that a defense of Crawford?
> 
> Uh, ok.


No... it was more the feel of the show... which was difficult to communicate in my post.

It was like when Bernsey was reading the article... Booers was becoming irritated... in a "what did they expect, a defensive powerhouse?" sort of way.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> Kirk is our Obi Wan.


"I'll become stronger than you ever imagined!"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> "I'll become stronger than you ever imagined!"


funny -- I was thinking of posting almost the exact same quote...with an "if you trade me" twist.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> funny -- I was thinking of posting almost the exact same quote...with an "if you trade me" twist.


Yours would have been funnier...I think that's what Spongy was thinking.

but I *was* hoping you would jump in with an image to bring it all the way home.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Yours would have been funnier...I think that's what Spongy was thinking.
> 
> but I *was* hoping you would jump in with an image to bring it all the way home.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> Kirk is our Obi Wan.


Assist GB.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

^^^^^thanks Mr T. very funny. I'll tribute your work as my avatar at realGM for awhile


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Some of these posts have really helped my thinking re: Kirk. Some random thoughts:

*1* *bullsville!* (sorry, you must spread some rep around) has *debunked the myth that Kirk cannot guard shooting guards* rather well with his links to 82games.com. Thanks for that, I'll admit that I did not realize that we were among the better teams in that department.

*2* Almost everyone on the board is in agreement that *Ben CANNOT effectively guard the bigger shooting guards* of the league (at least at this point) .

*3* Almost everyone is also in agreement that *Ben CANNOT effectively run the point guard position on offense* (at least at this point) .

*4* *In order to capitalize on Ben's offensive assets, we need to minimize his defensive deficits.* Best case scenario is to have him play SG on offense while playing PG on defense. Thus all the talk of a big guard who can run point.

*5* *If you like Ben, then, Kirk should be your second favorite player.* Because Kirk appears to be, in fact, the exact compliment to Ben Gordon on the court. As has been noted, he is no liability in guarding SGs, while he does a nice job being the "glue" on offense. Because Kirk is who he is, Ben is able to do what he does. This is the synergy that develops when players are able to sacrifice for the good of the team.

*6* It appears that the biggest (only?) knock on Kirk is FG%. I agree. Maybe his sitting out these games has allowed him to realize, also, that his shooting could be improved. The thing is, though, that *if the perimeter guys stop shooting altogether, Big Ed's job becomes that much harder.* Maybe Kirk will come back picking his spots more carefully.

*7* Every Bull as been quoted in saying something to the effect that *the team misses Kirk's leadership on the floor.* We can listen to posters on this board about how his leadership doesn't matter, or we can listen to his players, coaches, and GM. 

*8* These points have further solidified my position that *it would be very hard to replace everything Kirk brings to the ball club.* His combination of skills, flexibility, and leadership already displayed in *his second NBA season* are truly unique. He's simply one of those rare players who's value is much larger than the nightly boxscore. I'm still a strong advocate of going out this summer and getting a big SG to cover those minutes that are being covered by Pargo, Pike, Griff, and Williams, but I think it would be silly to think there'd be a guy out there who could get the job done better than Kirk is right now.

This is maybe the first time I've connected the dots, but *Kirk appears to be the Scottie Pippen of this version of the Bull.* He's the guy who will do whatever is necessary to allow the other players on the floor to use their strengths the best. The old Bull won plenty of games with Pip out, but I don't think you'd have found any of them trying to trade him, either.

Peace!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Some of these posts have really helped my thinking re: Kirk. Some random thoughts:
> 
> *1* *bullsville!* (sorry, you must spread some rep around) has *debunked the myth that Kirk cannot guard shooting guards* rather well with his links to 82games.com. Thanks for that, I'll admit that I did not realize that we were among the better teams in that department.
> 
> ...


Fantastic post.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Wynn said:


> *8* These points have further solidified my position that *it would be very hard to replace everything Kirk brings to the ball club.* His combination of skills, flexibility, and leadership already displayed in *his second NBA season* are truly unique. He's simply one of those rare players who's value is much larger than the nightly boxscore. I'm still a strong advocate of going out this summer and getting a big SG to cover those minutes that are being covered by Pargo, Pike, Griff, and Williams, but I think it would be silly to think there'd be a guy out there who could get the job done better than Kirk is right now.
> 
> This is maybe the first time I've connected the dots, but *Kirk appears to be the Scottie Pippen of this version of the Bull.* He's the guy who will do whatever is necessary to allow the other players on the floor to use their strengths the best. The old Bull won plenty of games with Pip out, but I don't think you'd have found any of them trying to trade him, either.
> 
> Peace!


Great summary, Wynn. Oh, sorry, *Wynn!* 

I can't agree more that replacing Kirk is a lot harder than just replacing numbers. 

On the other hand, certain people argued that another guard's numbers would be too hard to replace, when in fact, we got so much more than numbers from the ones who came afterward. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No... *it was more the feel of the show... which was difficult to communicate in my post.*
> 
> It was like when Bernsey was reading the article... Booers was becoming irritated... in a "what did they expect, a defensive powerhouse?" sort of way.


I have no doubt that it was extremely difficult to communicate that B&B were defending Crawford. Proving the existence of something that isn't there is quite a challenge.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Wynn said:


> This is maybe the first time I've connected the dots, but *Kirk appears to be the Scottie Pippen of this version of the Bull.* He's the guy who will do whatever is necessary to allow the other players on the floor to use their strengths the best. The old Bull won plenty of games with Pip out, but I don't think you'd have found any of them trying to trade him, either.
> 
> Peace!


Thats an interesting thought. I'd never considered it that way because of the difference in positions betweem Hinrich and Pip, but as guys contintue to develop and Hinrich takes a less aggressive shooting role on offense, I can see that dynamic developing.

Good stuff.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I have no doubt that it was extremely difficult to communicate that B&B were defending Crawford. Proving the existence of something that isn't there is quite a challenge.


Given that you clearly didn't listen to the segment, I don't know what you are basing your opinion on.



> At no point did either of them use the harsh language you describe... but granted, I don't listen to them every day. It certainly didn’t seem like Boeers hated Crawford at all. He was defending him. Bernstein was enjoying the contents of the article.


Note I only said Boeers was "defending" Crawford. Not Bernstein. Don't let that get in the way of your comments though. Then I clarified that Boeers was "defending" Crawford by asking "what were they expecting, an all-league defensive player?" Since the main point of the NY Post article revolved around the 2 guard being the Knicks weak spot this season.

But... once again... don't let what I write or what was said on the radio to get in the way of landing a few shots.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Great summary, Wynn. Oh, sorry, *Wynn!*
> 
> I can't agree more that replacing Kirk is a lot harder than just replacing numbers.
> 
> On the other hand, certain people argued that another guard's numbers would be too hard to replace, when in fact, we got so much more than numbers from the ones who came afterward. :biggrin:


The Bulls would not average even 80ppg this season. 

This is why I say no to Kirk trades:
1. We're not going to get a better fit for our team trading an equal talent level in terms of leadership.
2. I don't want anyone else on the team currently running the offense 35mpg. Even through we are 4-0 in the games without him, the last two should point to why we need him. We had problems closing out games due to silly turnovers. This is when the ball is in Kirk's hands.

We should not have to rely on Ben Gordon hitting big shot after big shot game after game. His clutch play has impressed me, no doubt, but we can't expect him to score 10 points in the fourth each and every game, especially when you figure he may be in a starting role (and increased minutes/much more tired legs in the fourth quarter) next season.


----------

