# It's Starting to Happen All Over Again



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*"I'd be lying to say this isn't frustrating,'' Crawford said. "But you have to ask the coach why.''*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull081.html

He really doesn't know why he's not playing? Really?

Haven't we heard this very same _"don't ask me, ask the coach"_ stuff every single year when his playing time has been cut? Nothing has really changed apparently. According to JC he thinks he's doing everything that's being asked of him. This is the third straight coach that in Jamal's mind seems to be benching him without justification.
:frenchy:


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

C Blizzy,

I am afraid you might be right. I was watching the Heat broadcast last night and couldn't believe Jamal's shot selection and neither could the heat announcers. In the 3rd quarter, you could see the writing on the wall. Jamal's play is really disappointing, his shot wasn't falling and he wasn't driving the lane. 

Jamal has to be an idiot, if he doesn't know why he sat again because he sat for the same reason he sat in the previous game.
Poor shot selection and non agression.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> *"I'd be lying to say this isn't frustrating,'' Crawford said. "But you have to ask the coach why.''*
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull081.html
> ...


It's disconcerting. It makes you ask will he ever understand?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

It is time to move on. I know a lot has been invested in Crawford but this is the third coach. And the old saying is 3 strikes and you are out. Well that applies here IMO. The question I ask is do you send Curry out as well? Crawford alone will not get you much but if you include Curry you might be able to get a stud SG/SF. Is it time to make the 3 C's the 1 C(Chandler)?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> It is time to move on. I know a lot has been invested in Crawford but this is the third coach. And the old saying is 3 strikes and you are out. Well that applies here IMO. The question I ask is do you send Curry out as well? Crawford alone will not get you much but if you include Curry you might be able to get a stud SG/SF. Is it time to make the 3 C's the 1 C(Chandler)?


I wouldn't move Curry yet. I would actually give Curry until the end of his 4th season because he has the skills and physical capabilities to dominant. However, if we are in a position to draft Okafor, Paxson may have to rush his decision.

With Crawford, I don't know. I'm willing to give him until the end of the season, unless a great deal comes along. If they don't plan on resigning him, they can always sign & trade him.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

It is obvious that what we truly need is for Crawford to play very well for the next 25 games in order to maximize his tade value.

It is equally as obvious that neither Curry, nor Crawford fit into the mold that is desired by Paxson and currently Skiles: a hard-nosed player that puts it all on the line.

So whats the solution?

Do we give Curry "more time?"

This WILL be the "next" turning point in the Bulls franchise among the long list of mistakes/decisions that we have witnessed since the Dynasty.

Can a package of Curry and Crawford get us a player like Rashard Lewis and change?

I cant say I would do it, because underneath my discontent and skepticism with Curry, there is a glimmer of hope that at some point he turns it on... yet at the same time, the more rational side of me tells me that what he needs cannot be learned, it is an innate quality that rarely "progresses with age," it is simply: passion, intensity, and pride.

You know what is actually quite scary? During Curry's first season, he went to set a pick on Kenyon Martin and almost got bulled over completely... at the time, I said to myself, whoa, hopefully he is just being shy/timid because he is an 18 year old, but felt as though a player (any player) with heart would have taken that disprectful act differently. Was that actually a microcosm foreshadowing what we seem to be witnessing now?

Time to make a decision on the direction of this franchise (AGAIN!) and STICK with it---who goes and who stays---or we will be perpetually lingering in this state of disgrace forever.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

I’m afraid that Jamal is a nut case. This is his 3rd coach who is benching him and Crawford still doesn’t know what is wrong with his game? Oh boy. Then we have a new “10-day’s” kid from NBDL and he plays much better then our star with potential. This is totally disappointing me…


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> I’m afraid that Jamal is a nut case. This is his 3rd coach who is benching him and Crawford still doesn’t know what is wrong with his game? Oh boy. Then we have a new “10-day’s” kid from NBDL and he plays much better then our star with potential. This is totally disappointing me…


I wouldn't say he's a nutcase, but he obviously doesn't understand what he needs to do to stay out on the court.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

you just now givein up?

i gave up last yr after he starting acting like a baby over j will,then i heard he was askin for a trade i knew right there he wasnt the kind of player we wanted on this team.

but as soon as i said anything on my old board about him becoming a prob for this team and that he was Way OverRated they all jumped my **** and said i didnt know what i was talkin about.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LuCane</b>!
> I cant say I would do it, because underneath my discontent and skepticism with Curry, there is a glimmer of hope that at some point he turns it on... yet at the same time, the more rational side of me tells me that what he needs cannot be learned, it is an innate quality that rarely "progresses with age," it is simply: passion, intensity, and pride.
> 
> You know what is actually quite scary? During Curry's first season, he went to set a pick on Kenyon Martin and almost got bulled over completely... at the time, I said to myself, whoa, hopefully he is just being shy/timid because he is an 18 year old, but felt as though a player (any player) with heart would have taken that disprectful act differently. Was that actually a microcosm foreshadowing what we seem to be witnessing now?
> ...


Most people's concern with Curry is his intensity, heart or pride, whatever you want to call it.

I ask this. Has there ever been an NBA player who came into the league as a soft, timid player, and ultimately become really aggressive? Anybody?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

What teams could be interested in a JC/Curry package and might have something we would be interested in(a stud SF scorer)? I would imagine someone would take a chance on Curry.


Dallas - Jamison?
Seattle - Lewis?
Magic - McGrady?
Boston - Pierce?
Phoenix - Marion?

Anyone else?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I wouldn't do JC/Curry for Jamison

If McGrady baulked at signing an extension, Orlando may be interested.

The thing is that all the teams listed by Basghetti probably would rather keep the player mentioned.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

any1 think we could get ricky davis for JC?

i would say we maybe could get jamison for curry..

what pree did lastnight says alot about these players and i think it killed their trade value...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

think you guys have lost your collective minds. Skiles benched JC because of the two turnovers and a bad shot. Kendall Gill had at least 5 turnovers! JC's defense didn't look as atrocious as some of you are making it sound and he did a nice job when he was guarding Alston. I've said it before and I will say it again. If you want Jamal performing at his peak then start him at the point and play him at the point the whole game. He gets involved and gets into his rhythm that way! He only played the point for part of the second quarter and lo and behold that was when he made those two nice drives and when he tried to feed the ball inside! He also got an assist and I think a rebound during this brief period. Heck, he practically got ALL of his production during this time. He hit a three, drove into the lane twice converting once, and fed the ball inside. Then Hinrich comes in and he gets moved back off of the ball and doesn't play well. And then he has the 2 turnovers (which is his entire turnover total for the game) and puts up that awful looking three. That was a horrible shot Skiles yanked Jamal on and even though I have seen Jamal make that exact shot umpteen times he definitley shouldn't have taken it and Skiles should have pulled him out and talked to him and calmed him down or whatever. But, Skiles yanked him and didn't bring him back in the game at all. The Bulls LOST this game when Skiles decided not to put JC back in the game. It is as simple as that. JC comes back, the Bulls have a chance at winning, with JC out the Bulls don't. Trade him for capspace...you guys are a laugh riot. If the Bulls do trade JC I'd be willing to bet that he plays pg on another team and suddenly turns into one of the star players in the league. Kind of like Miller, Brand, or Artest. Btw, Crawford shot like 38% last night!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

ACE I will give you one thing you are loyal.


----------



## NoJoke (May 28, 2003)

We all know the three C's still hasn't proven to be big time players yet. Chandler has only played 10 games so his season isn't any better then the JC and EC. I think the three C's needs to come off the bench to continue their development because they are to young to give up on, just look at O'Neal from Indiana or even Artest. If a big time trade is offered then that's a different story but I think we all are expecting to much to soon from these guys. Please don't compare any of the 3 C's to KH because I'm convinced that he is special and I wasn't even a fan of him at all earlier in the season. 

The one question I have is way wasn't JC on the floor to launch three's in the last minute of the game since he's the best shooter from that spot? And please don't say anything about defense because the whole team sucked last night.



:devil:


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> It is time to move on. I know a lot has been invested in Crawford but this is the third coach. And the old saying is 3 strikes and you are out. Well that applies here IMO. The question I ask is do you send Curry out as well? Crawford alone will not get you much but if you include Curry you might be able to get a stud SG/SF. Is it time to make the 3 C's the 1 C(Chandler)?


basghetti80, you suggest that with regards to Crawford it may be time to move on.

When it comes time to make that decision Paxson and Skiles are going to have to decide if Crawford is getting better, and how much more upside remains. 

A very simplistic review of his performance this season suggests that its possible that he's actually peaked, that what you're seeing is pretty much what you can expect from Jamal from this time forward. As an example...

*Under Cartwright:* 14 games, 30.6mpg, .418 FG Pct.(76-182).

*Under Skiles:* 19 games, 38.2mpg, .388 FG Pct. (137-353).

Believe me, I know there's much more to a player's overall game than just what kind of a shooter he is. But more than anything else Crawford hangs his hat on his offensive abilities when it comes to defining himself as an NBA player. And if indeed his future in this league is as a scorer then his offensive production should be considered a key measuring stick in terms of his value as a player.

With Cartwright, Crawford functioned in a very structured offensive system that didn't lend itself to too much creativity. Skiles' schemes however, seem to allow a lot of freedom and latitude when it comes to looking for scoring opportunities.

Two different systems, yet from his numbers one might conclude his productivity has remained pretty much the same. His scoring average has gone up under Skiles but that's really nothing more than a by-product of more playing time.

One thing seems pretty clear: no one can claim that under Skiles he hasn't been given an excellent opportunity to find a rhythm and show what he can do. Since 12/1 Jamal has averaged over 38 minutes per game.

What I'm suggesting is that its possible Jamal Crawford has peaked, that he's as good as he's going to get. He may be able to tweak various aspects of his overall game. But taken in its entirety, Crawford's game may not get much better than it is right now.

If so, is the player we're watching right now what Paxson and Skiles are looking for in a starting SG? Are they willing to invest long term in a 40% shooter with deficiencies in his defensive game? Or is it possible that Jamal might be better off in another system plaing for a different coach? I think Bulls management is coming very close to answering those questions.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> think you guys have lost your collective minds. Skiles benched JC because of the two turnovers and a bad shot. Kendall Gill had at least 5 turnovers! JC's defense didn't look as atrocious as some of you are making it sound and he did a nice job when he was guarding Alston. I've said it before and I will say it again. If you want Jamal performing at his peak then start him at the point and play him at the point the whole game. He gets involved and gets into his rhythm that way! He only played the point for part of the second quarter and lo and behold that was when he made those two nice drives and when he tried to feed the ball inside! He also got an assist and I think a rebound during this brief period. Heck, he practically got ALL of his production during this time. He hit a three, drove into the lane twice converting once, and fed the ball inside. Then Hinrich comes in and he gets moved back off of the ball and doesn't play well. And then he has the 2 turnovers (which is his entire turnover total for the game) and puts up that awful looking three. That was a horrible shot Skiles yanked Jamal on and even though I have seen Jamal make that exact shot umpteen times he definitley shouldn't have taken it and Skiles should have pulled him out and talked to him and calmed him down or whatever. But, Skiles yanked him and didn't bring him back in the game at all. The Bulls LOST this game when Skiles decided not to put JC back in the game. It is as simple as that. JC comes back, the Bulls have a chance at winning, with JC out the Bulls don't. Trade him for capspace...you guys are a laugh riot. If the Bulls do trade JC I'd be willing to bet that he plays pg on another team and suddenly turns into one of the star players in the league. Kind of like Miller, Brand, or Artest. Btw, Crawford shot like 38% last night!


ACE, I applaud your loyalty to Crawford. I can tell you with all assurances that the Bulls did not lose the game because Jamal Crawford sat the 4th quarter. The Bulls had a chance to win because Jamal sat the entire 4th quarter.

Why do you think Skiles sat him - again? You think Skiles should have sat him down, explained to him what he did wrong and send him back out - right? Don't you think Skiles has already done that probably a dozen times already during games and in practice? At what point does it end?

This is his third coach. All three coaches know far more about how the game is played than Jamal. All three coaches got fed up with his poor shot selection and breaking of the offense. All three coaches were tired of his lack of effort and improvement on the defensive side of things. At what point do you stop making excuses for the guy and hold him accountable for how the game is supposed to be played?

I'm sorry, but I really don't want our teams chances of winning hinged upon a guy who shows up big every fifth game and if that means trading him for whatever we can get for him - so be it. I, personally, am tired of getting excited for this team and for Jamal when he has his good game, then expect the same effort only to get crap the next night.

Jamal Crawford is a man now and it's time for him to be held accountable. Even the Heat commentators were shocked at his play and his poor shot selection. This isn't Rucker. It's the NBA. The guys he's playing against can actually defend. You can't get by with flash and an occasional great game. You've got to bring it night in and night out and Jamal simply doesn't do it. It's been 4 years and I've heard and read 4 years of excuses for the guy. My patience for the guy is done. He needs to become more consistant or he can go. Frankly, I don't think he'll develope into that star PG you envision him to be - not unless he quits playing his game and starts playing NBA ball.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Very good post C Blizzy. In regards to this quote by you I have only one thing to say.



> When it comes time to make that decision Paxson and Skiles are going to have to decide if Crawford is getting better, and how much more upside remains.



The time to make that decision is now. Something needs to be done before the deadline. I do not want to let JC walk for nothing and I do not think we will get much in a S & T.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> ACE I will give you one thing you are loyal.


yeah, and time will prove that I am right. I just hope that it happens with the Bulls.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

id say he has only maybe 2-5 more games,if he does well he'll stay on longer if he has more games like the past week he's gone 100%


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> ACE, I applaud your loyalty to Crawford. I can tell you with all assurances that the Bulls did not lose the game because Jamal Crawford sat the 4th quarter. The Bulls had a chance to win because Jamal sat the entire 4th quarter.
> ...


All three of those caoches are no longer with the Bulls. I WATCHED the game last night too. The Bulls lost this game when Crawford was forced to the bench. If you don't see that, thats on you. If Skiles and the Bulls want to see Jamal bring it night in and night out and consistently play with greatness at this point in his career there is only one way to do that and that is to start him at the point and play him heavy minutes there. It's not an ego trip or a "I should be the starting pg" BS either, Crawford simply gets more involved and makes beter decisions when he starts at the point and logs heavy minutes at the point. He played WELL last night for the few minutes he was playing the point. Frankly, I am amazed that you guys don't realize this. I'm a Bulls fan through and through and I would advocate trading JC, Curry, Chandler, or Hinrich if I thought that it was best for the team. I don't. Crawford made a couple of mistakes last night but he wasn't the only Bull that did, he was simply the only Bull that sat for his mistakes.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

:verysad: :verysad: :verysad: :verysad: 


Oh God enough already. It is this same garbage over and over again with this kid. The whining about not being treated fair and the coach benching me and nobody else, and I am not he only one making mistakes. How much do we have to listen to this from this kid? Floyd,Cartwright,Skiles, and even Paxson can not all be wrong about this kid. I am sorry but they have winning on their minds. If Crawford is not on board for that then leave already.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Chad Ford had an portion of his Insider article titled: Jamal Crawford back on the block in which he proposed the trade I have Trade Checkered below. We've talked about similar deals before on the board. He did not mention that this deal was happening, only that it made some sense for both teams. He also mentioned the sticking point being CB4's health, but to my eyes it appears he is regaining his explosiveness. He appears to be on the mend, at least in the short term.

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (5.3 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 1.1 apg in 17.9 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 14.2 minutes) 
SG Jamal Crawford (17.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 5.7 apg in 35.0 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SF Caron Butler (5.6 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.6 minutes) 
SG Eddie Jones (18.2 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 2.7 apg in 36.7 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -5.0 ppg, -2.3 rpg, and -3.3 apg. 

Miami trades: SF Caron Butler (5.6 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.6 minutes) 
SG Eddie Jones (18.2 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 2.7 apg in 36.7 minutes) 
Miami receives: SF Eddie Robinson (5.3 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 1.1 apg in 28 games) 
PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 20 games) 
SG Jamal Crawford (17.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 5.7 apg in 32 games) 
Change in team outlook: +5.0 ppg, +2.3 rpg, and +3.3 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Chicago and Miami being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Chicago and Miami had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> I ask this. Has there ever been an NBA player who came into the league as a soft, timid player, and ultimately become really aggressive? Anybody?


Scottie Pippen.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> ACE I will give you one thing you are loyal.


He's our ace silver lining finder.


----------



## NoJoke (May 28, 2003)

Is there any other teams in the league with a young core like the Bulls that's winning every other game? NOPE, matter a fact you have teams with legit superstars in the east that's not even .500

The Bulls are going to lose a lot of games but I perfer to see them lose with Crawford on the floor not the bench. How many games have we won with JC being benched? One game against the Sun's that had eight players dressed and they bearly won that. I'm starting to thing Coach Skiles is the one that needs to adjust his game plan because he's very close to being like Cartwright.



:devil:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> All three of those caoches are no longer with the Bulls. I WATCHED the game last night too. The Bulls lost this game when Crawford was forced to the bench. If you don't see that, thats on you. If Skiles and the Bulls want to see Jamal bring it night in and night out and consistently play with greatness at this point in his career there is only one way to do that and that is to start him at the point and play him heavy minutes there. It's not an ego trip or a "I should be the starting pg" BS either, Crawford simply gets more involved and makes beter decisions when he starts at the point and logs heavy minutes at the point. He played WELL last night for the few minutes he was playing the point. Frankly, I am amazed that you guys don't realize this. I'm a Bulls fan through and through and I would advocate trading JC, Curry, Chandler, or Hinrich if I thought that it was best for the team. I don't. Crawford made a couple of mistakes last night but he wasn't the only Bull that did, he was simply the only Bull that sat for his mistakes.


To Crawfords credit, I thought he was most excellent (and the Bulls too) with him running the point in the first hand. The team and the game was very fast with him pushing it upcourt, and it slowed down considerably when KH re-entered the game. Now maybe thats a good thing...if it leads to better decision making. But the Bulls WERE hitting open shots then--so I didn't see a big problem.

The bigger problem, and the one thats gonna get Jamal booted is that Dupree and KH form the cornerstone of Skiles new H'n'H (heart n hustle) movement. Crawford simply doesn't have the competitiveness and willl to win that we saw in the NBDL guy last night. That guy was fighting for something! And to stay on the floor, Jamal got to figure out a way to show some fight too. Curry also...but his upside is better than Jamals, and there isn't already someone solid at his position.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> All three of those caoches are no longer with the Bulls. I WATCHED the game last night too. The Bulls lost this game when Crawford was forced to the bench. If you don't see that, thats on you. If Skiles and the Bulls want to see Jamal bring it night in and night out and consistently play with greatness at this point in his career there is only one way to do that and that is to start him at the point and play him heavy minutes there. It's not an ego trip or a "I should be the starting pg" BS either, Crawford simply gets more involved and makes beter decisions when he starts at the point and logs heavy minutes at the point. He played WELL last night for the few minutes he was playing the point. Frankly, I am amazed that you guys don't realize this. I'm a Bulls fan through and through and I would advocate trading JC, Curry, Chandler, or Hinrich if I thought that it was best for the team. I don't. Crawford made a couple of mistakes last night but he wasn't the only Bull that did, he was simply the only Bull that sat for his mistakes.


Ace, I watched last nights game too. I saw very little from Jamal that made much of a difference. He made poor decisions. He missed shots, he made shots. He gets paid a boat load of money to be an NBA player.

Let me ask you this - doesn't it bother you that you say the only way Jamal can get "involved" in a game is when he's got the ball in his hands and running the point? Shouldn't a man who gets paid $3 or $4 million a year be able to get involved in the game regardless of whether he has the ball or not? As paying NBA fans of a particular franchise, shouldn't we expect more from players than an occasional "break out" game? After 4 years of time, shouldn't the player be held accountable for their shortcommings? Could it be that maybe the coaches and management have tried their best but just can't reach the guy?
Jamal Crawford is a career 40% shooter. At some point in time the law of averages is gonna enter into this and maybe you've got to say that's as good as it gets. Allen Iverson is a 40% shooter but at least he gets to the line. THAT is what Skiles, Cartwright, Pax and even Floyd were/are getting at and it's the same thing that Jamal doesn't get. IF YOUR SHOT IS NOT FALLING, EFFECT THE GAME IN OTHER WAYS. If Jamal's shot isn't falling, he checks himself out. You can see it. When he's "on" he does that silly half-hop when he brings the ball up the court. When he's not, he doens't move as much and doesn't try as hard. The point is there shouldn't be an "on" and a "not on". There should just be a player playing the games as well as he knows how and to the best of his ability.

I would like nothing more than for you to prove me (and anybody else) wrong. You have my permission to throw this back in my face if Jamal Crawford ever becomes a good, consistant NBA player. I, too, hope it's on the Bulls. I just don't see it and after 4 years of the same song and dance, maybe it's time to change partners.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I was there and I saw a turnover and one bad shot from Jamal...

I know this much, if the shot goes in, he stays in...

Like I said, last night was basically ERob, you take Jamal's shots..

Skiles has a rotating doghouse, and you all know that, right now EC and JC are sharing the house...

ERob was in JC's role last night, and where has he been the last couple games?

I thought he was great against Minnesota, then he was benched the next game...

Look I am a Bulls fan and I am a JC fan, I rather see him go somewhere else....

Same with EC.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

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


So there is hope for Curry then?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, I watched last nights game too. I saw very little from Jamal that made much of a difference. He made poor decisions. He missed shots, he made shots. He gets paid a boat load of money to be an NBA player.


Are you sure you watched the game?

First off, he didn't even play that much, what 28 mins?

He sat out most of the first because of fouls, he was 3-7 from the field (i think) and he turned the ball over 2 times...

Even Dupree took a bad shot and one real ugly one where he traveled in the lane, should he have been benched?

ERob was clanging J's...

Blount took a 3 I believe in the 2nd...

Antonio Davis shot everytime he got the ball...

Kirk Hinrich didn't really do anything, he couldn't take Bimbo Mold Coles off the dribble, he couldn't stop fouling...

Were they benched??

I feel like you guys look for "mistakes" by Jamal, and everyone else you just kind of turn away when they do something wrong.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, I watched last nights game too. I saw very little from Jamal that made much of a difference. He made poor decisions. He missed shots, he made shots. He gets paid a boat load of money to be an NBA player.
> ...


Let Me correct myself first before someone thinks I am an idiot (a little late for that with some of you I know lol). TWO of the three coaches are no longer with the Bulls.

Moving on.

I follow what your saying and I agree to a point. Yeah, Jamal should be able to get into the flow whatever position he is playing...as should any player. That doesn't really change the fact that he can't for some reason...whatever reason it may be. Does that mean we should keep trying to fit the square peg in the round hole? I don't think it does. I think if Skiles simply said "Ok JC, your the point tonight, your gonna play the point most of the night win lose or draw, show me what you've got" he would be pleasantly suyrprised. But Skiles isn't going to do that. As a result Jamal will look bad for a few more games, probably be traded, and then play like a prime time player once he is moved and is with a team that will play him at the point and show some confidence in him.

I don't know WHY Jamal has to be at the point all the time to succeed. I just know that he does. You saw it yourself when Jamal played a few minutes of point last night. Let me ask you this, you agree that Jamal was successful playing the point right? Then why was he only played there for like 4 or 5 minutes? 

Yes, Ideally Jamal would get in the flow of the game at whatever position. But thats not happening. We are seeing a "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde" thing when Jamal goes from point to off guard. Call it a shortcoming of Jamal's if you like, the fact remains that Jamal is best when playing heavy point minutes.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you sure you watched the game?
> ...


Jamal was actually 3-8 but your post is correct other than that. I did think Jamal took 2...maybe 3 bad shots. But one thing about Crawford is that he is not the prototypical shooter. He's not the guy to catch the ball with a toe behind the three point arc and swish the jumper. He actually shoots better from about a foot behind the three point arc! So some of his shots look even worse than they really are. Eddie Robinson took a three last night and he simply doesn't have that range, he wasn't pulled.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> So there is hope for Curry then?


Absolutely.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you sure you watched the game?
> ...


You really want to do this? OK - I'll oblige ya.

There's a reason Jamal played 28 mins. I'll let you figure that one out. Dupree may have taken a bad shot but he never, and I mean never stopped hustling and playing hard. Can you say the same for your boy Crawford? You're right - E-Rob was clanging some shots. Were they bad shots or good shots that just didn't go in? Think about that one. Blount did take a three. It's was because he got the ball out of position at the end of the shot clock and had to hoist the ball up. Would you rather he take a shot clock violation or at least make the attempt? By the way, you did say you were at the game - right? I'm pretty sure Davis didn't shoot the ball every time he touched it. Besides that, he was 7-12 from the field so I feel a helluva lot better about Davis shooting than the 3-8 from Crawford. Hinrich had an off offensive game. Let me ask you this, how many charges did Jamal Crawford take? I'll let you think about that one also. There more to the game of basketball than AND1 moves and ooh and ahhs from the crowd. (As you mentioned in a previous post in this thread about that pretty move that Jamal made that made the crowd ohhh and ahhh. What was the end result of that again? Right - a missed layup. But it sure looked good.)

You just don't get it, do you. Jamal Crawford had an off offensive game and he did absoulutely NOTHING to effect the game in any other way. He didn't attack the rim. He didn't take charges. He didn't harass his man on defense. Why do you keep making excuses for the guy? I'm not looking for rag on Crawford. I want nothing more than for him to realize his potential. Why do you keep making excuses for him? What, exactly does he do in a game when his shot isn't falling? How does he contribute to the team?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal was actually 3-8 but your post is correct other than that. I did think Jamal took 2...maybe 3 bad shots. But one thing about Crawford is that he is not the prototypical shooter. He's not the guy to catch the ball with a toe behind the three point arc and swish the jumper. He actually shoots better from about a foot behind the three point arc! So some of his shots look even worse than they really are. Eddie Robinson took a three last night and he simply doesn't have that range, he wasn't pulled.


Yes Ace, but can you admit that Crawford still shoots way too many 22-23 footers (the worst shot in basketball outside of a half or full courter), and he shoots off balance way too much. The balance issue makes me wonder if the guy might ever be a 45-46% shooter.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal was actually 3-8 but your post is correct other than that. I did think Jamal took 2...maybe 3 bad shots. But one thing about Crawford is that he is not the prototypical shooter. He's not the guy to catch the ball with a toe behind the three point arc and swish the jumper. He actually shoots better from about a foot behind the three point arc! So some of his shots look even worse than they really are. Eddie Robinson took a three last night and he simply doesn't have that range, he wasn't pulled.


Ok...let me see if I can remember...

the shots Jamal hit were a 3, a layup on Coles, and a jumper at the beginning of the 3rd.

The bad shots were... 

a 3 at the beginning of the game from the corner...

there was a 3 in the 3rd that was no good...

The missed shots were a jumper, his missed layup when he spun on Coles...

That's 6 shots right there...

He shot a total of 8...

Where are all these "bad" shots????


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

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


I actually may be in the minority but I wouldn't trade Curry. I'm willing to let him develop. I think people had false expectations for him at the beginning of the season, and since he hasn't reach them, people are disappointed. He is progressing.

My main concern is his attitude. If that changes for the better, then it should be all good.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok...let me see if I can remember...
> ...


I thought that Jamal took 3 bad three point attempts. One of them went in but it was also the type of shot Jamal is capable of drilling so it may or may not have been considered a "bad" shot depending on how you look at it. Thats why I say he took 2-3 bad shots and I don't consider that excessive. I don't understand all of this "Jamal didn't hustle" stuff. He looked to be hustling fine to me. He did miss a charge that he could have taken on Odom and I admit that. He did turn the ball over twice. The bottom line is he wasn't nearly as God awful as many people are trying to make out.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes Ace, but can you admit that Crawford still shoots way too many 22-23 footers (the worst shot in basketball outside of a half or full courter), and he shoots off balance way too much. The balance issue makes me wonder if the guy might ever be a 45-46% shooter.


You will get no arguments from me there. Jamal DOES need to improve his shot selection. Jamal DOES need to drive to the hole more. Jamal DOES need to improve defenmsively (which he appears to be slowly doing). I still believe that Jamal makes better decisions when he handles the ball more and is in the flow of the game.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> You really want to do this? OK - I'll oblige ya.
> ...


Ya let's do this...

Hinrich took 1 charge...what else did he do?

I'll mention that he did manage to commit 4 fouls, most of them dumb fouls like the one on the baseline on EJ...

There, saved you the trouble of ignoring it....

I didn't say JC had a great game, but its obvious when he's out there they want him to play perfect.

Please don't act like 3-8 is just OH GOD TERRIBLE...

Erob did FORCE some shots, don't give me this they were good shots he didn't make. ERob was basically out there taking Jamal's shots...plain and simple, if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

How does JC contribute to the team?

Please, YOU figure that one out.

The other night he had an off scoring game and still had 12 assists...he doesn't need to be a scorer to be effective, you guys just want him to be a scorer.

My whole ooh and ahh thing I believe I mentioned as one exciting play in a boring game, I didn't say because of that he should have been able to stay in or anything like that.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> You will get no arguments from me there. Jamal DOES need to improve his shot selection. Jamal DOES need to drive to the hole more. Jamal DOES need to improve defenmsively (which he appears to be slowly doing). I still believe that Jamal makes better decisions when he handles the ball more and is in the flow of the game.


Jamal needs to improve in these areas, my problem is wanting him to play perfect or he's going to sit the bench.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal needs to improve in these areas, my problem is wanting him to play perfect or he's going to sit the bench.


I think the real problem is that we aren't going to see him do those things unless he is handed the reigns at pg and has the backing of his coach. And I don't think it is anything he is doing on purpose, he just gets into the flow at the point better.

ANd Jamal is a player that can be deadly WHEN HE PLAYS WITH CONFIDENCE. We saw him play horribly when he had to look over his shoulder before and we are seeing it again.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the real problem is that we aren't going to see him do those things unless he is handed the reigns at pg and has the backing of his coach. And I don't think it is anything he is doing on purpose, he just gets into the flow at the point better.
> ...


Agreed...

but that's not going to happen here, it's going to happen somewhere else...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed...
> ...


Yep! and thats a pity because we are going to lose one hell of a player.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> You will get no arguments from me there. Jamal DOES need to improve his shot selection. Jamal DOES need to drive to the hole more. Jamal DOES need to improve defenmsively (which he appears to be slowly doing). I still believe that Jamal makes better decisions when he handles the ball more and is in the flow of the game.


Ace, if the Knicks game (which I was at) was a prototype of the perfect Hinrich/Crawford game, then I'm all for it. We got great scoring from both, good defense from both, and Jamal definitely alternated point guard with Hinrich. 

If we got starting guardplay like that every game, I would be very happy, as would the coach and the two players. It just hasn't been that way, and to my eyes it's Crawford who sometimes isn't holding up his end of the bargain. I'm not sure by his 6th or 7th year he'll be any more consistent, but I guess there's never a really good way to know that.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Ace isn't going to fight this hoard alone, as long as I post here at least.

A)Can anyone here let up for a second and re-read the quote? 

"Jamal why aren't you playing?"
"Ask the coach."

How is that the wrong answer? Who controls who plays and who doesn't? COACH SCOTT SKILES. Who DOESN'T CONTROL who plays and who sits? JAMAL CRAWFORD.

Why do you get on him for answering as such? It's an awful question as is, I never understood why you would ask a player about something which fundamentally is out of his control, and Jamal gave a perfect answer on top of it. If the media wants to know why Jamal isn't playing, they should ask the man in charge, Scott Skiles. 

If Skiles says "He isn't playing hard, he's taking bad shots, his defense is poor and so on." Then well, great. There's your answer, and Jamal deserves to sit and if he doesn't turn things around, maybe even be shipped out. But my goodness, you'll all just jump on him for nothing.

Or was it that he said "This is frustrating." Yes, I could see the problem with that. In fact, I'd prefer that everytime someone on our team is benched, they reply with "It's ok, I'm just relaxing and thinking about trades I'm going to make in my NBA Live dynasty, I'm perfectly content with sitting on the bench and collecting a paycheck."

In BBB.net land, I guess that makes sense, right? Because a player sure shouldn't admit frustration, and he sure shouldn't tell the media to ask the coach about playing time. In our world, he should have responder as such:

*Reporter:* "Jamal, what can you say on your lack of playing time?"
*Jamal Crawford:* "Well, I was reading the Bulls forum over at BBB.net and buried under the one millionth thread about how Kirk Hinrich is better than me, or that Ronald Dupree is already a bigger contributor to the Bulls than me, or that I am the one and only reason the Bulls aren't undefeated... there was a thread that said I should be traded for a 2nd round pick, and being as though those guys pretty much know everything about basketball, I'm going to say that would be fair value and Chicago should trade me."


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> ANd Jamal is a player that can be deadly WHEN HE PLAYS WITH CONFIDENCE. We saw him play horribly when he had to look over his shoulder before and we are seeing it again.


Well, I think he's directly responsable for that.

If I remember correctly--this whole new round of benchings started with him not running the right play out of the huddle.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> Ace isn't going to fight this hoard alone, as long as I post here at least.
> 
> A)Can anyone here let up for a second and re-read the quote?
> ...


Ok...I will:

Skiles, what was up with that lineup tonight?

"I was basically trying to find a lineup that could stop somebody," Skiles said. "That was the gist of it tonight. How many times are we going to let Miami dribble by us and lay the ball in?"


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, if the Knicks game (which I was at) was a prototype of the perfect Hinrich/Crawford game, then I'm all for it. We got great scoring from both, good defense from both, and Jamal definitely alternated point guard with Hinrich.
> ...


Thats an excellent example of what Jamal can do when he gets to split time with KH at the point. The funny thing is that Jamal can be even MORE successful if he plays the point all by his lonesome.

I don't think Crawford is holding up his end of the bargain either but I believe it is because he cannot get into the flow of the game unless he is playing heavy pg minutes. I don't think it is him being stubborn, I just think he can't do it.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

its crystal clear...there are only THREE players..well, now FOUR players i want to remain in bulls uni's

Kirk
JYD
Chandler

and now...

Dupree...how sad is this...WE JUST GOT HIM AND HE ALREADY GETS HOW BASKETBALL IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED

what do they all have in common?...HUSSLE!!!!...this is ALL Skiles wants..i've seen all these guys go balls out for a ball on the court..diving like mad men...i love it...

whats the problem with the rest of the roster?...ohhhhh, dont get me started

Crawford...this kid is blessed with great ball handling skills...WHY NOT GET TO THE FREAKING HOLE???...i dont think i can take another one of his dribble, dribble pull up jumpers just inside the 3 point arch again..

Gill...okay...he's alright..i'm sure he's only shooting cause of the lack of shooters we currently have, but sheesh...he's the epitomy of a role player..and he's in our STARTING LINE UP...ughh...that right there shows how badly we need a SF..

Antonio...if you take another college three pointer in crunch time...or at all...i'm going to hunt you down...he has no business shooting jumpers..none...if he didnt do that, i'd have no problem with him...another great role player that has been put in a tough position...

E. Rob...since when does this guy think he can just pull up for a jumper whenever he feels like it...another athletic player, that WILL NOT DRIVE TO THE FREAKING HOLE...i'm not into those quick jumpers if he makes them or not...we dont need that

E. Curry....mr. butterfingers in the flabby flesh...ohhh man..i'm done with this kid...he should be doing what Zack randolph is doing...i cant wait to see a game with him to see what he does that Curry doesnt..they have similar games, but what the heck is Eddy missing?...he's killing me...watching him lumber down the line is disgusting...and he doesnt dive on the floor for balls...he falls on the floor for balls..horrible...and who taught this kid to get in a post up position at the 3 point line?..he needs AGGRESSION..he needs to beat up the guy in the post..he's like baby huey...uggghhh..i dont care how old he is..this is basic stuff here..i learned to play aggressive when i was 7...its really discouraging


i know what Skiles wants...why the hell cant these guys see it?..stubbornness?...i hope Kirk comes into best buy again so i can give him a messege to relay to some of his teammates


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> Ace isn't going to fight this hoard alone, as long as I post here at least.
> 
> A)Can anyone here let up for a second and re-read the quote?
> ...



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Thanks for the assist! Your the man!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats an excellent example of what Jamal can do when he gets to split time with KH at the point.


"All around, top to bottom, all the things he does for the team, he's been our most consistent, best player. So *we need to keep him out there. We're a totally different team if Kirk sits down*."

*"That's not to sell anybody else short*," Skiles said. "*It's just that *he's made that kind of progress. *His defensive effort is there every minute of every game*, every minute of every day in practice. He leads our team in taking charges from the guard position. So he deserves it.

There's the biggest reason why he's not getting to split time with KH as much as you'd like. Skiles doesn't like the way the team looks with KH off the floor.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> "All around, top to bottom, all the things he does for the team, he's been our most consistent, best player. So *we need to keep him out there. We're a totally different team if Kirk sits down*."
> ...


Play Kirk off the ball then. Problem solved.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>smARTmouf</b>!
> its crystal clear...there are only THREE players..well, now FOUR players i want to remain in bulls uni's
> 
> Kirk
> ...


Please...

Yes Dupree had a good game, but its ridiculous for someone to say I want him in a Bulls uniform after ONE game.

You guys are amazing.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Play Kirk off the ball then. Problem solved.


Apparently not.



> Skiles also is *pushing Hinrich to be a more vocal leader*, a role most rookies are hesitant to pursue.
> 
> "We had a timeout in Minnesota where I felt Kirk was being too quiet," Skiles said. "And I simply said to the guys, *'Guys, do you trust this rookie point guard to run your team?' Every guy said yes.* And I said, 'There you go, Rook, run the team.'æ"
> 
> ...


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please...
> ...



dont you sense the desperation here???...i'm comparing him to the others on the roster that play the same position as him...he shows the type of intensity Skiles and i want to see on the bulls...i have no qualms about "jumping on his jock" so quickly..its clear this is what we need...cant u see that?

so no..its not ridiculous...i saw all i needed to see


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> Ace isn't going to fight this hoard alone, as long as I post here at least.
> 
> A)Can anyone here let up for a second and re-read the quote?
> ...


Oh, C'mon now. I'm only gonna look at this part of your post. Are you seriously advocating that a player has ABSOULUTELY NO CONTROL over whether he plays or not? That the coach, who's job is contingent upon whether his team wins or loses, is simply going to play players based upon whim? A player doesn't have the choice as to whether to do what the coach tells him or not? A player can't decide for himself to play hard and hustle?

This is getting old folks. What happens when Crawford gets his release papers in the form of a trade or RFA and he goes to his FOUTH coach and has problems there? Is it, yet again, the coach or the system or the fact that all these baskeball experts simply can't see how to utilize his immense talents or might it be that he simply isn't the player you all wish him to be?

Much as you might find this hard to belive, Crawford is my favorite player on the Bulls. I love this guy. He just frustrates the hell out of me. I'm also not so blindly loyal to ANY player not to be able to see past their faults and Jamal has plenty of them. What I see are some pretty astute basketball minds trying to make Jamal into the player he's capable of and I see Jamal tyring to make himself into the player he want's to be. Those two things look to be diametrically opposed to one another. I'll reluctantly side with the coaches on this one because they are right. I hope Jamal get it someday and I hope it's someday soon. With each passing game where he puts forth poor shooting and bad decisions and doesn't make up for it in any other way I lose a little bit more hope for the guy. But making up things like Jamal has no control over how he plays is simply wrong. Unless he's somehow been transformed into a mindless robot, he still has the right to choose how he conducts himself.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Apparently not.


And did we win that game against Minny? No. We lost. Craword was a very vocal leader against NY and he has been in several games.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> And did we win that game against Minny? No. We lost. Craword was a very vocal leader against NY and he has been in several games.


You're changing the subject.

We're talking about KH off the ball, but his teammates and coach recognizing him as PG and his relating several important responsabilities that he has---all related to the PG position.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

here is a question, why dont we just cut Jamal now? The Bulls are going to resign him this year, everyone thinks he is a cancer, and now the coach wont even play him. So whats the use. Just dump his ***. We need the roster spot for Penigar.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You're changing the subject.
> ...


Yeah and if you ask the players I am sure they would say the same thing about Jamal at the PG position.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Oh, C'mon now. I'm only gonna look at this part of your post. Are you seriously advocating that a player has ABSOULUTELY NO CONTROL over whether he plays or not?


If you continued to read, you'd find the rebuttal to that point in my post. But, I'll just recap it here for you.

I'm not saying Jamal is being unfairly benched. I'm not saying he's playing perfectly. I AM saying that it is unfair for everyone on this board to trounce all over him because he told a reporter to ask the coach about playing time issues. If you want a reason as to why he was benched, don't ask him. Ask the coach. And don't blame him for not sitting there and talking about how awful he's been playing, that's completely ridiculous.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> here is a question, why dont we just cut Jamal now? The Bulls are going to resign him this year, everyone thinks he is a cancer, and now the coach wont even play him. So whats the use. Just dump his ***. We need the roster spot for Penigar.


Are you saying that tongue in cheek or seriously? I'd be surprised if your serious, you seem a better evaluator of talent than that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you saying that tongue in cheek or seriously? I'd be surprised if your serious, you seem a better evaluator of talent than that.


There was heavy sarcasm intended. Of course it was kind of tongue in cheek


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok...I will:
> ...


Sorry GB, I wasn't trying to say Jamal didn't play kind of "ehhhh" against Miami. I was just saying that all of the posts on the first page of this thread screaming "Here we go again, it's not me it's the coach whine whine whine Jamal" were way out of line and completely wrong. 

Jamal didn't play great. To a degree, he did deserve to be benched. (I think the entire 4th quarter is a bit much, but it worked with Gilbert Arenas last year if any of you remember. Granted, Golden State WAS winning)

Jamal is no different than any other Bulls player. Don't play well, you should be benched. Play well, play more. I'm not going to say Jamal deserves a little more backing from his coach, or that he deserves more playing time. I'm going to simply say stop trashing the kid over inconsequential matters. There hasn't been a Bulls player this reviled since Dragan Tarlac, or maybe even Corey Benjamin. Oddly enough, the Corey Benjamin comparison has come up even though their games are nothing alike. Ronald Dupree is more like Corey Benjamin, plus a lot of hustle.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> here is a question, why dont we just cut Jamal now? The Bulls are going to resign him this year, everyone thinks he is a cancer, and now the coach wont even play him. So whats the use. Just dump his ***. We need the roster spot for Penigar.


He's not a cancer, and the coach is trying to play him. He's still a starter...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah and if you ask the players I am sure they would say the same thing about Jamal at the PG position.


But who does the coach (and the board  ) see as the best at the position?

In fact, given everything KH said he had to do--it would make sense that a four year college playing coaches son would have an edge over a guy who hadn't yet had much burn.

That position is more mental than physical ability.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> But who does the coach (and the board  ) see as the best at the position?
> ...


I'm not saying that Jamal is necessarily better than Kirk at the point. What I am saying is that if you want to get the kind of production we all want from JC it will have to be at the pg spot! I am guessing you would have no problem with JC playing the point if he could produce every game (or most every game) like he did in the NY game or the Cleveland game, right? I'm saying Jamal at the point is better for the team because thats the only position he is, at this point, able to excel and play to his potential at.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

You know, I'm not an over the top Jamal Crawford fan. When I think about it, I'm not a big over the top fan of any player on our team, and I don't want my points to be disregarded as that of a "Jamal fan."

If this thread had started as a criticism of Jamal's hustle of late, his shot selection in general, his consistency or his willingness to attack the basket TO SCORE (after the New York game I realized Jamal DOES attack the basket, but he almost always does it to pass off to one of the bigs) I probably wouldn't have bothered to post. These are all legitimate concerns, legitimate issues, and things Jamal really needs to work on to become a great player. 

Personally, I've seen the work he has put into his defense and I have hope. If you don't, it isn't a big deal. 

I only jumped into this thread because it started because of Jamal telling a reporter to ask the coach about playing time issues, and every reply was backlash stating Jamal is immature, this is a repeat of everything that has happened so far, and that basically he is a cancer.

Don't trash our players without basis due to your personal feelings about them. I'll defend them to the grave. You can trash Eddy for not hustling or being consistent, not dunking the ball but don't come in here whining because he says "Let the guards shoot 3s, not me."


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah, and time will prove that I am right. I just hope that it happens with the Bulls.


Three coaches Ace...Do you really think a 4th coach won't set him down as well? If he "becomes" an all-star, shouldn't you be mad at Jamal for not playing that way here? Three coaches, all three cannot be wrong. I refuse to believe that.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NoJoke</b>!
> We all know the three C's still hasn't proven to be big time players yet. Chandler has only played 10 games so his season isn't any better then the JC and EC. I think the three C's needs to come off the bench to continue their development because they are to young to give up on, just look at O'Neal from Indiana or even Artest. If a big time trade is offered then that's a different story but I think we all are expecting to much to soon from these guys. Please don't compare any of the 3 C's to KH because I'm convinced that he is special and I wasn't even a fan of him at all earlier in the season.
> 
> The one question I have is way wasn't JC on the floor to launch three's in the last minute of the game since he's the best shooter from that spot? And please don't say anything about defense because the whole team sucked last night.
> ...


You do know, Jamal is shooting 28% in threes don't you? That is the last 19 games. 

At the end of the game we shot 3 threes. We had taken only 7 threes until then.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that Jamal is necessarily better than Kirk at the point.



:jawdrop:






> What I am saying is that if you want to get the kind of production we all want from JC it will have to be at the pg spot! I am guessing you would have no problem with JC playing the point if he could produce every game (or most every game) like he did in the NY game or the Cleveland game, right? I'm saying Jamal at the point is better for the team because thats the only position he is, at this point, able to excel and play to his potential at.


Then KH needs to be moved, is that what you're saying?

I mean, after we get Jamal to consistently perform at that level. KH became the **** ****** ** *** **** at the PG spot. You think he should be switched midstream to another position?

How would this work?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nice posts TBF.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> But who does the coach (and the board  ) see as the best at the position?
> ...


Now, to be honest I've seen 3 Bulls games all year. The one against Philly, the ones against the NYK and Celtics last week.

In the NYK game, it really looked like Jamal and Kirk split PG duties throughout the game, and only dominated the ball when the other was on the bench. The NYK was also probably the most impressive game from our backcourt this season.

Either way, does Kirk dominate the ball usually? I simply assumed the Knicks game was the usual Scott Skiles coached game... depending on the play, Kirk or Jamal dominated the ball but it was almost 50/50. 

Oh well, looks like I gotta move to Chicago to become the ultimate armchair point guard. The radio and gametracker doesn't do my analysis justice.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> All three of those caoches are no longer with the Bulls. I WATCHED the game last night too. The Bulls lost this game when Crawford was forced to the bench. If you don't see that, thats on you. If Skiles and the Bulls want to see Jamal bring it night in and night out and consistently play with greatness at this point in his career there is only one way to do that and that is to start him at the point and play him heavy minutes there. It's not an ego trip or a "I should be the starting pg" BS either, Crawford simply gets more involved and makes beter decisions when he starts at the point and logs heavy minutes at the point. He played WELL last night for the few minutes he was playing the point. Frankly, I am amazed that you guys don't realize this. I'm a Bulls fan through and through and I would advocate trading JC, Curry, Chandler, or Hinrich if I thought that it was best for the team. I don't. Crawford made a couple of mistakes last night but he wasn't the only Bull that did, he was simply the only Bull that sat for his mistakes.


Really??? All three coaches are not here, so we rid ourselves of Skiles? He is a 4th problem and not Jamal??? Come on Ace! With Crawford on the bench we shot almost 50% for the game, including the 4th quarter. 

Ace it was more than just mistakes or else Gill would have been sat, Hinrich would have been sat for a hell of a lot of games.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Three coaches Ace...Do you really think a 4th coach won't set him down as well? If he "becomes" an all-star, shouldn't you be mad at Jamal for not playing that way here? Three coaches, all three cannot be wrong. I refuse to believe that.


He has played that way here...at the point. The point I keep making seems to be getting lost for some reason.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Really??? All three coaches are not here, so we rid ourselves of Skiles? He is a 4th problem and not Jamal??? Come on Ace! With Crawford on the bench we shot almost 50% for the game, including the 4th quarter.
> ...


If you read through the thread I already corrected myself on that minor point. 

I'm tired of defending Jamal, fine, trade him for a bag of magic beans, I don't care. But when he blows up on another team you will be sorry ya didn't listen to me.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> He has played that way here...at the point. The point I keep making seems to be getting lost for some reason.


But the coach doesn't feel that he's a pg and neither does THE TEAM.

Thus *HE* has to change.

HIM. JAMAL.

Not THE COACH. Not THE LINEUP.

JAMAL.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

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


No, not necessarily. It may come down to one of them being moved but maybe not. If your asking what I want to see happen it would be for Jamal to start the game at the point and be allowed to handle the majority of the pg duties for the game with Kirk handling the off guard spot and pg duties when Jamal gets a breather. This has been done before and it was very successful for both Jamal and the Bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> 
> Now, to be honest I've seen 3 Bulls games all year. The one against Philly, the ones against the NYK and Celtics last week.
> ...


They began the Scott Skiles era by Jamal playing the majority of the pg minutes and Kirk getting some too. There was a lot of talk about Jamal moving off of the ball but it really only happened in short stretches here and there. Then about 5 games into the Skiles era Skiles has been gradually reducing Jamals on the ball minutes and his game has suffered for it. Skiles seems intent on Hinrich playing almost all of the pg minutes.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Kirk is 6'3 190 lbs why in the world should he play off guard. Just because JC at 6'6 195 can't handle it? That makes no sense to me.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> But the coach doesn't feel that he's a pg and neither does THE TEAM.
> ...


Well what we are seeing so far is that Jamal isn't capable of playing off the ball successfully. So, I guess rather than the coach doing the smart thing he should just keep on trying to make Jamal into something he isn't. Keep forcing that square peg in a round hole and maybe one day it will fit. Maybe we should also start giving Fizer meaningful minutes at the three while we are at it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Kirk is 6'3 190 lbs why in the world should he play off guard. Just because JC at 6'6 195 can't handle it? That makes no sense to me.


I don't know what their size really has to do with anything. They can switch off defensively so I don't think it makes a lot of difference. Yeah, I think KH should play off guard because JC can't handle it. And because Jamal can put together some amazing games if he is allowed to play the point. If we decide that KH can't play the off guard too then I guess one of them would need to go and it would probably be Crawford.

Wouldn't you at least be willing to TRY this? It's not like we are in danger of ending our winning streak or anything.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you sure you watched the game?
> ...


But your missing one thing!! None of those players are franchise type players! To make excuses for Jamal and finger point is allowing him NOT to improve. I am sure there is much more involved in Jamals benching than we are talking about here. 

All of the players you mentioned are not at the skill level Jamal is or should be. 4 years of benching and every year, its the coaches fualt, he never benches so and so. 

Don't you want Jamal to be "the man?" Being the man requires him doing more than he is or is not doing now. We should expect more from him than we do Dupree, AD, blount, Robinson! If we are to be a playoff team anytime in the future, Jamal has to lead us. So far he is doing anything but that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Kirk is 6'3 190 lbs why in the world should he play off guard. Just because JC at 6'6 195 can't handle it? That makes no sense to me.


Iverson is 5-11 160. he plays the 2. I dont think size should matter, it should be where a guy is best suited. Though I do agree, I think Jamal is better off the ball. But neither guy is a prototypical PG or SG. Kirk has had some great moments working baseline screens for open looks, OFF THE BALL, and Jamal has done well in both situations. and they both have struggled some as well. But if the Bulls ever did get a starting caliber PG in a trade, Kirk could play the 2 very easily


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal was actually 3-8 but your post is correct other than that. I did think Jamal took 2...maybe 3 bad shots. But one thing about Crawford is that he is not the prototypical shooter. He's not the guy to catch the ball with a toe behind the three point arc and swish the jumper. He actually shoots better from about a foot behind the three point arc! So some of his shots look even worse than they really are. Eddie Robinson took a three last night and he simply doesn't have that range, he wasn't pulled.


8 shots, he takes three bad ones. What is wrong with that? You do know that is one thing, skiles has tried to tell him to stop doing 19 games ago. That is one reason why he is benched.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

My problem is on D. Kirk nor JC can guards SG's on a consistent basis. Kirk is an outstanding defender but on PG's not SG's.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Well what we are seeing so far is that Jamal isn't capable of playing off the ball successfully. So, I guess rather than the coach doing the smart thing he should just keep on trying to make Jamal into something he isn't. Keep forcing that square peg in a round hole and maybe one day it will fit.


Isn't that what you're suggesting he do for KH?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Iverson is 5-11 160. he plays the 2. I dont think size should matter


He's also quick as a bullet (KH isn't) and physically tough as nails (I doubt KH is).

There are few players in the league as tough as iverson.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*fl_flash

You just don't get it, do you. Jamal Crawford had an off offensive game and he did absoulutely NOTHING to effect the game in any other way. He didn't attack the rim. He didn't take charges. He didn't harass his man on defense. Why do you keep making excuses for the guy? I'm not looking for rag on Crawford. I want nothing more than for him to realize his potential. Why do you keep making excuses for him? What, exactly does he do in a game when his shot isn't falling? How does he contribute to the team?*

Very nice. My points exactly!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't that what you're suggesting he do for KH?



No. I am suggesting that we look at KH at the off guard for heavy minutes to SEE if he can do it and to SEE if Jamal's play improves given heavy minutes there and to see how that affects the team play. Try it for 3 or 4 games...I think you would be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ok David Wesley seems to be doing ok at the 2 guard spot. If you want I can probably dig up a handful of 2s smaller then Kirk


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am suggesting that we look at KH at the off guard for heavy minutes to SEE if he can do it and to SEE if Jamal's play improves given heavy minutes there and to see how that affects the team play. Try it for 3 or 4 games...I think you would be pleasantly surprised.


What kind of improvement are you ooking for from Jamal?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> What kind of improvement are you ooking for from Jamal?


Increased shooting percentage, getting his teamates involved on offense, better defense. As I have said repeatedly, I sound like a broken record. I'm not saying Jamal is a better "prototypical" pg than Kirk. What I am saying is that WHEN Jamal is given heavy minutes at the point he has an easier time getting into the flow of the game and makes good things happen. When he plays off the ball that simply isn't the case.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> ok David Wesley seems to be doing ok at the 2 guard spot. If you want I can probably dig up a handful of 2s smaller then Kirk


Wesley has 15 pounds on KH, and from the look of his chest...











maybe more than that. 


He's tough as nails too: Almost 300 consecutive starts.

But thats a good comparison for the future.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Wesley has 15 pounds on KH, and from the look of his chest...
> ...


I think Kirk has the heart to play that spot. And he has the footspeed. He isnt much smaller then ray allen. Other guys that are in the ballpark are kerry Kittles, NVE when they play him at the 2, John Barry and Veshon Lenard, Cassell when they play him at the 2, Cutino Mobley, Tony Delk. I think Kirk can bulk up.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Increased shooting percentage, getting his teamates involved on offense, better defense.


The only one of those things his coach needs right now is better defense.

From Bulls.com:

"*I felt like, overall, we had a fairly good offensive game*. We flat out couldn’t stop them. We were late. They put the ball on the floor and just drove it by us. We were late covering them. We took a couple of charges, but we could have taken 20 with the way they were flying in there. We went to the zone to try and cover it up. The zone worked pretty good for us, but on occasion, and inexplicably, we didn’t get our hands up. We didn’t challenge the shot. We need to become more reliable with the way we play. I was trying to find a lineup that could stop somebody. *I felt like we could score. Our ball movement was good and our activity on offense was good.*"

By the way---he's echoing the same things Cartwright said at the seasons beginning.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the real problem is that we aren't going to see him do those things unless he is handed the reigns at pg and has the backing of his coach. And I don't think it is anything he is doing on purpose, he just gets into the flow at the point better.
> ...


I disagree. He doesn't create for himself so how can he for the rest of the team? A shooting pg freezes the offense. He has done it before. 

When deadly yes. I don't argue with that, but I do agree with fl_flash, when he is not, and that is 90% of the time, what does he do to score more points? _he continues to jack threes and jumpers_ he does nothing to get the free throw line!! He doesn't get in closer to get a better shot. 

Ace, I am not picking you out on purpose. I just disagree on some of your points as you do mine, no doubt.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Kirk has the heart to play that spot. And he has the footspeed. He isnt much smaller then ray allen. Other guys that are in the ballpark are kerry Kittles, NVE when they play him at the 2, John Barry and Veshon Lenard, Cassell when they play him at the 2, Cutino Mobley, Tony Delk. I think Kirk can bulk up.


Like I said yesterday---following him in the offseason will be interesting.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said yesterday---following him in the offseason will be interesting.


I 100% agree. His offseason is going to be interesting. While I dont think he has the ceiling that many of you guys do, I still think he can get much better. And one place he could improve in is strength


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> If you read through the thread I already corrected myself on that minor point.
> ...


I did read through it. When i answered you, I was WAAAYYYYY back on page two or three, but yes,, I saw the correction


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. He doesn't create for himself so how can he for the rest of the team? A shooting pg freezes the offense. He has done it before.
> ...


I think Jamal is able to create for himself and for his teamates out of the point position just fine. He did for about the 4 minutes he was allowed to play the point last night. He did it in NY, he did in Cleveland and he did it the first few games when Skiles came on as coach.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> ok David Wesley seems to be doing ok at the 2 guard spot. If you want I can probably dig up a handful of 2s smaller then Kirk


Bingo! For all practical purposes N.O. has started two pt guards and it works for them


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Bingo! For all practical purposes N.O. has started two pt guards and it works for them


and Dallas played 2 pgs together for long stretches last year as does Sacramento with bibby and jackson. You can get away with it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> and Dallas played 2 pgs together for long stretches last year as does Sacramento with bibby and jackson. You can get away with it.


Jackson isn't a starter---and when he's in, it's to score, not direct the offense.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Jackson isn't a starter---and when he's in, it's to score, not direct the offense.


But he defends 2s and does a pretty good job at it. And he plays when it matters most, at the end of tight games. He and Bibby both


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Simple logic question.

If a guy isn't good enough to play in the 4th quarter, why is he good enough to play in the 1st thru 3rd quarters?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

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

Skiles has shown a preference for rookie Kirk Hinrich over Crawford, and Jamal's days of consistent, big fantasy numbers may be dwindling. Crawford definitely has talent, but Skiles is upset with his sloppy play. Hopefully Jamal can win over his coach soon, but for now, fantasy owners may need to bench Crawford.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Simple logic question.
> 
> If a guy isn't good enough to play in the 4th quarter, why is he good enough to play in the 1st thru 3rd quarters?


:meditate:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Simple logic question.
> 
> If a guy isn't good enough to play in the 4th quarter, why is he good enough to play in the 1st thru 3rd quarters?


Well...like I've been saying, when Jamal plays the poing he gets focused and gets into the flow and plays a more complete game. When he plays at the off guard he doesn't have any comfort level and Skiles yanks him every time he takes a bad shot. And I can't believe Jamal has gone from being a guy who can score 42pts and dish 8 assists (or whatever) to a guy who shouldn't be playing the 4th quarter.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Ace, I understand what you are saying about Jamal. Your contention is that he can have the greatest impact on the game from the PG position. In a vacuum, I believe this to be true also at this stage of the season. JC has been asked to change positions midstream. All throughout the summer Pax assured Crawford that the PG position was his. Perhaps, if we had the foresight to know that Craw would be getting burn at the SG spot, maybe Crawford would have approached the offseason a bit differently. He could have used that opportunity to work on things like spot up shooting and coming off screens. I think Crawford has the talent to improve in this area if he has the desire to work at it.

Now, I said in a "vacuum", because I'm not sure we have the right pieces in place to organize our lineup to accommodate this move. We may see better numbers from Crawford as PG but our overall team performance offensively and defensively may suffer as a result. I think KH can handle some of the SG duties but not full-time, at least not yet. Though, I'm willing to experiment with it now.

Fact is, I also believe Crawford is not doing enough with the cards that have been dealt to him. Where's the defensive intensity of the Cleveland game? I don't understand why he doesn't take it to the hole, even just to prove a point. There are things he SHOULD be doing despite not being in his "best" position, as you say.

I hate getting into this pigeon-holing of positions but I think we're talking about initiating the offense specifically. Like I said before, I'd be willing to give it a try with Craw as PG and Kirk as SG, especially because I think Kirk would FIND a way to be effective in that role despite some disadvantages. Unfortunately, that is a bit of a knock on Crawford.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Well...like I've been saying, when Jamal plays the poing he gets focused and gets into the flow and plays a more complete game.


You mean smokes the boing?

Maybe thats why his second half play suffers---he's lead-footed from eating to get rid of the munchies at halftime.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Simple logic question.
> 
> If a guy isn't good enough to play in the 4th quarter, why is he good enough to play in the 1st thru 3rd quarters?


Why do you always come with these riddles ?  

NOW I have to go find out why


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Simple logic question.
> 
> If a guy isn't good enough to play in the 4th quarter, why is he good enough to play in the 1st thru 3rd quarters?


are you suggesting the coach bench JC altogether?

or are you commenting on something else for instance bobby jax though a good player almost never closes close games for the kings ...even though he was an mvp candidate for most of last season


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> Ace, I understand what you are saying about Jamal. Your contention is that he can have the greatest impact on the game from the PG position. In a vacuum, I believe this to be true also at this stage of the season. JC has been asked to change positions midstream. All throughout the summer Pax assured Crawford that the PG position was his. Perhaps, if we had the foresight to know that Craw would be getting burn at the SG spot, maybe Crawford would have approached the offseason a bit differently. He could have used that opportunity to work on things like spot up shooting and coming off screens. I think Crawford has the talent to improve in this area if he has the desire to work at it.


badfish, I understand where you're coming from, but you're forgetting that Jamal came into this season knowing that the team was going to rely on the triangle offense. In order to be successful in that offense, you needed skills such as spot up shooting and cutting and attacking the basket. Regardless, these areas of deficiency are fundamentals. Jamal lacked these skills in years past and he should have been improving those skills for several years now. For Jamal to have shown such little progress in these specific areas after 4 years is rather unsettling. Point is, Jamal's lack of improvement in those areas can hardly be blamed on what notions he might have had this summer regarding his position on the team. And this doesn't even begin to touch on his sub-par defense and piss poor shot selection.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am suggesting that we look at KH at the off guard for heavy minutes to SEE if he can do it and to SEE if Jamal's play improves given heavy minutes there and to see how that affects the team play. Try it for 3 or 4 games...I think you would be pleasantly surprised.


This is an interesting idea because Kirk played SG during his later years in college. But the primary issues that arise with JC are his shot selection, which I don't see being rectified if he plays the point, and his lack of desire to drive, which is an absolutely essential trait in this offense now.

But I think further down the line the Bulls will need to find a legit 2 guard for defensive reasons. We only saw a glimpse in Boston when Welsch went to post Jamal. He could have done that all game long. For those that forget the Lakers championships, Kobe would punish the opposing guard down low when there was a clear mismatch. TMac can do it, and God knows that Pierce does it. Kidd will post you, and so will GP. In the playoffs you do what works, and I can promise that this team won't go far with Jamal and Kirk at the 1 and 2, simply due to that mismatch. Some like to throw out examples like AI and Snow or Mobley and Francis, but AI and Snow are tough and scrappy (which JC hasn't shown to be) and Mobley and Francis haven't gotten anywhere in the playoffs. Dumars and Zeke? Both all defensive team players. I guess I do hope the Bulls make the playoffs, if for nothing other than to prove that point.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

"It seems I've had a run-in with every coach I've played for, but I have so much respect for him (Skiles) that I'm going to take it and keep moving forward.'' 

Well at least he acknowledges the fact that he's had problems..."with every coach I've played for."

"I'd be lying to say this isn't frustrating,'' Crawford said. "But you have to ask the coach why.'' So why should things be any different this time around as well?

Is there a constant in all of this? Throughout Jamal's basketball career coaches come, coaches go, and by his own admission he's had trouble with all of them. That makes him...what's the word I'm looking for...oh yeah, uncoachable. Yet Skiles is willing to keep trying, though not for much longer, I'm afraid.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> badfish, I understand where you're coming from, but you're forgetting that Jamal came into this season knowing that the team was going to rely on the triangle offense. In order to be successful in that offense, you needed skills such as spot up shooting and cutting and attacking the basket. Regardless, these areas of deficiency are fundamentals. Jamal lacked these skills in years past and he should have been improving those skills for several years now. For Jamal to have shown such little progress in these specific areas after 4 years is rather unsettling. Point is, Jamal's lack of improvement in those areas can hardly be blamed on what notions he might have had this summer regarding his position on the team. And this doesn't even begin to touch on his sub-par defense and piss poor shot selection.


That's a good point and I agree with you. Frankly, I forgot about the triangle offense. Must be buried in my fragile bullsfan psyche.  

In no way was I trying to give Jamal a pass. All professionals should have the responsibility to try to be the most complete players they can be. No excuse not too. And I refuse to believe that that hasn't been explained time and again to Jamal and every other Bull. 

Still, right now regardless of whether it's Skiles best move as a coach, I believe Jamal would have more consistent production exclusively manning the point. I also happen to believe that is to our team's detriment given the current makeup of our squad. Something's gotta give.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> Ace, I understand what you are saying about Jamal. Your contention is that he can have the greatest impact on the game from the PG position. In a vacuum, I believe this to be true also at this stage of the season. JC has been asked to change positions midstream. All throughout the summer Pax assured Crawford that the PG position was his. Perhaps, if we had the foresight to know that Craw would be getting burn at the SG spot, maybe Crawford would have approached the offseason a bit differently. He could have used that opportunity to work on things like spot up shooting and coming off screens. I think Crawford has the talent to improve in this area if he has the desire to work at it.
> 
> Now, I said in a "vacuum", because I'm not sure we have the right pieces in place to organize our lineup to accommodate this move. We may see better numbers from Crawford as PG but our overall team performance offensively and defensively may suffer as a result. I think KH can handle some of the SG duties but not full-time, at least not yet. Though, I'm willing to experiment with it now.
> ...


I am glad to see someone at least understands what I am trying to say. I agree that Jamal hasn't mazimized the hand that he has been dealt. It IS a knock on Jamal. Still, for whatever reason he gets himself going when he is in the pg role for extended minutes. I don't know what the reason behind it is, I am assuming it is mental and when he is off the ball he just loses focus. He did play great defense in that Cleveland game and his defensive effort, IMO, has been better in general late although not on par with his Cleveland outing. Of course, when he was playing such great defense against Cleveland he also was playing heavy point minutes. There IS a correlation. Personally I think the Bulls would be better with Jamal running the point because Jamal isn't able to produce at a high level anywhere else and I think Kirk probably can.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> This is an interesting idea because Kirk played SG during his later years in college. But the primary issues that arise with JC are his shot selection, which I don't see being rectified if he plays the point, and his lack of desire to drive, which is an absolutely essential trait in this offense now.
> ...


It may not be the ultimate solution. Still, my contention is that when Jamal is "in the flow of the game" he makes better decisions on his shot, plays better defense, and drives the lane more. All things everyone wants him to do. So, I think they should give it a shot. What do the Bulls have to lose after all?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, I watched last nights game too. I saw very little from Jamal that made much of a difference. He made poor decisions. He missed shots, he made shots. He gets paid a boat load of money to be an NBA player.
> ...



Well Said, Well Said!
:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

In his defense, I think Jamal has improved defensively in regards to jumping in passing lanes for steals. No steals last night, but I just want to mention it. That's another improvement he has made that can help the team win.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> In his defense, I think Jamal has improved defensively in regards to jumping in passing lanes for steals. No steals last night, but I just want to mention it. That's another improvement he has made that can help the team win.


Yeah, he almost got one when he jumped up and tipped the ball that was being passed to one of the heat, came so close but didn't get it. Tip for ya, don't say anything in Jamal's defense unless you want to read 20 posts bashing him.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Good God. 9 pages. You guys really like to moan about Crawford. Don't we have other players on this team?

Anyhow. I hope Jamal gets traded. He's one of my favorite players in the league, and I think he is with a pretty bad organization...would like to see him be able to get his career going...and I think a change of scenery is the best way to do it. Too much negativity in Chicago. Everyone plays better when they leave the Bulls. There's a reason for that.

From Brent Barry to Trent Hassell, the rest of the league has a better idea of how to use our players than we do. And I'm sure Jamal is no exception. Isiah Thomas already thinks he is one of the top point guards in the league. And this is the guy who had the forsight to draft Tracy Mcgrady. And one of the best players in NBA history. The Pacers coach thinks Jamal is a guy you can build a team around. Jason Kidd thinks the sky is the limit for Jamal.

So I'm sure Jamal can find a much more supportive atmosphere, both from fans, and from the organization as a whole if he were to go elsewhere.

My preference is obviously that he go to the Sonics. But he'd be a good San Antonio Spur too. Kind of a point guard Stephen Jackson coming off the bench.

Jamal's agent needs to demand a trade.:yes: 

I'll still be a Bulls fan once he's gone. But I'll be a happier Basketball fan on the whole. I won't have to hear all of this about Crawford everyday here. And my boy can get his career going and get paid.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> are you suggesting the coach bench JC altogether?
> ...


I asked a simple question of logic. If Skiles thinks he's good enough to play Q1 thru Q3, then it seems to me he should think he's good enough to play Q4. Or it means that he probably shouldn't play at all (based upon Skiles' logic, not mine).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question of logic. If Skiles thinks he's good enough to play Q1 thru Q3, then it seems to me he should think he's good enough to play Q4. Or it means that he probably shouldn't play at all (based upon Skiles' logic, not mine).


if games were played in a vacuum its a simple question of logic but they aren't 

for one defenses bog down in the final quarter of a game ,most notably in the final 6 min.

JC is really the only player on the whole team who cant be stopped by the opposition from getting the shots he wants (whether thats good or bad has been the subject of much debate on these boards)

so when games bog down the bulls dont have the firepower to pull these games out with their proven hardworking players (JYD ,AD, Blount Kirk and gill)

thats where skiles doghouse comes in , curry and crawford for all their faults are players who should always be in crunch time because of their offensive ability to overcome the defensive tightening of the other team because 18 and half ft. jumpshots by corie blount and antonio davis are not getting the job done

just like in sactown when push comes to shove the kings cant play both bibby and bjax at the same time in the 4th quarter because the other teams will exploit it because jax is only 5'11 and kobe, finley sprewell and manu aren't the type to let that advantage miss their attention


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question of logic. If Skiles thinks he's good enough to play Q1 thru Q3, then it seems to me he should think he's good enough to play Q4. Or it means that he probably shouldn't play at all (based upon Skiles' logic, not mine).


It's not a simple question of logic but how about this as a possible answer...

Skiles wants to play Jamal in Q4 and he gives him Q1-Q3 to prove that he belongs in Q4. If he doesn't bring it for three quarters, he's gonna sit the 4th quarter. If he's got his game going and he's playing both ends of the floor - viola! He's in during cruch time. This really isn't all that difficult guys.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, he almost got one when he jumped up and tipped the ball that was being passed to one of the heat, came so close but didn't get it. Tip for ya, don't say anything in Jamal's defense unless you want to read 20 posts bashing him.


As you know, I'm more in the Jamal hater's crew then the Jamal lover's crew. :laugh: But I do see some improvement with his game, and the best thing for the team would be if he could fit into Skiles' future plans for the team. I have my doubts, but I would rather be wrong on this one. If they are doubtful they would want to resign him, I hope they trade him before the deadline this year. It's a tough call, and either way could work for us...but of course either way could blow up in our face too.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Having seen a game where Jamal struggled for 3 quarters only to set a United Center record for field goals in the 4th quarter...it's kind of dubious to sit Jamal at the end of a game where you need scoring.

This game and Utah are two winnable games that Skiles let go for the purposes of "sending a message". I'd say that's going to come back and bite us. But I don't see Skiles leading us anywhere but the lottery. But sadly. Not the low lottery. The high lottery.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not a simple question of logic but how about this as a possible answer...
> ...


flash do you think bobby jackson plays better than doug chritse on most nights ?

i do and yet he'll never play as much as christe in the 4th quarter no matter what happens barring a blowout in which the coach just doesn't care or is matching up to go small because the other coach did, which generally happens when there is a large margin to make in late in the game

i see the point that you want crawford to earn his time but history has shown JC generally plays better in the 4th quarter than any other and improves as the game goes along 

skiles method is costing us games and thats the bottom line


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Anyhow. I hope Jamal gets traded. He's one of my favorite players in the league


Based on what?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> i see the point that you want crawford to earn his time but history has shown JC generally plays better in the 4th quarter than any other and improves as the game goes along
> 
> skiles method is costing us games and thats the bottom line


there's not much to the game after the 4th quarter. should we just sit jamal until the 4th then? his current play in the 1st and 3rd quarters is liability.

it's not about earning pt, it's about making crawford a contributor over the course of the entire game. if his shots off he should be getting to the line. if he's getting double teamed he needs to set up players, not dump off to ad or jyd 20 ft from the hoop with that silly hook/lob pass - that's exactly what the defense wants.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm glad that Jamal is getting more steals, but FWIW, I have never been a big fan of using steals as some sort of justification for defensive ability and this is why:

Typically, the recording and crediting of steals is very ambiguous and subjective. Suppose Curry knocks a ball loose and Kirk picks it up. Who is credited with the steal? Now suppose Pippen is pressuring a guy and he dribbles it off his foot where Gill grabs it? And now let's suppose that JYD and AD have pressured a guy in the corner to throw it cross court, where he mistakenly throws it right at Jamal. Who should be credited and why? An agrument can be made for who is more deserving and who was responsible.

Number 2 reason why, a lot of steals are a sign of a player who plays defense with his hands, i.e. poking at balls rather than staying in front of their man. Sure, that's not always the case, as can be noted with MJ and Stockton, but it's a trend that can be said to be held fairly true. Stockton, MJ, and Pip forced a lot of TOs with their smothering D and occassionally gambling. The problem that I have with fully crediting Jamal in this area is that his steals come as a result of either gambling or simply being the recipient of someone else's good D.

I know I'll prolle take heat on this one, but so be it. Kinda like how interceptions don't necessarily translate to a great CB in football.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Having seen a game where Jamal struggled for 3 quarters only to set a United Center record for field goals in the 4th quarter...it's kind of dubious to sit Jamal at the end of a game where you need scoring.


You are so wrong.

We didn't need scoring, we needed defense.

Your attitude is whats wrong with the Bulls players. They have it too.


They want to play an all-star playground game based on one on one skills -- instead of knuckling down as _a team_ and getting stops. No one plays defense in the all-star game. Jamal doesn't want to play defense. His defensive philosophy is *"If they're good enough to get a bucket, then I'll go and get it back for us."*

NO NO NO


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not a simple question of logic but how about this as a possible answer...
> ...


But what player, especially one of your stars is supposed to play like that?

I HAVE to play good in 1-3 to earn the 4th?

That's STUPID logic...

Especially when you consider who is out there in crunch time...

I rather lose the game because Jamal didn't make a shot...

Not because Linton threw the ball off the backboard, or Kirk got stripped by Casper (first Miami game).


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Please...

We needed defense, who the hell was guarding Odom?

HE killed us...

YOUR problem is you have tunnel vision when it comes to Jamal, and can't see when anyone else messes up.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Based on what?


I don't know...watching him score 42 points in the United Center was easily one of the best performances I've seen by a Bulls player since Michael Jordan. And Jamal easily has one of the prettiest, smoothest games in the league. Everything looks effortless, even when he's breaking some guy's ankles with that crossover, which is one of the nastiest crossovers in the league. Up there with Iverson's from his rookie year. And Jamal's passing is a joy to watch. Because of his size he sees right over the top of the defense and can hit the open cutter with relative ease. He's a poor man's Lebron James in terms of passing.

He's really fun to watch. And I like watching him grow as a player. Even though it's been a struggle this year, he really has improved his game by leaps and bounds. He plays a more focused game now, plays the passing lanes on defense more, has shown flashes of being a very nice defender in this league...

But hey. Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. I lean towards stylized players in all of my sports. I like winners. But I also like to be entertained, and see something I've never seen before. People scoff too much at the "And1" type plays. But those things do take a lot of skill to do and they are an expression of creativity on the basketball court. Really turns the court into a canvas. And as an artist that's something I appreciate a great deal.

My favorite player is Iverson. Because he fuses perfectly the artistic creativity and the burning desire to win....hell, why do you think Jordan was so popular initially? It wasn't just because he won, it was because he looked good doing it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.
> ...


well skiles had the team that was supposed to get stops last night and it didn't happen.

who do you blame for that ?

kirk ,dupree blount davis gill?

aren't they all defensive players ...why couldn't they get the stops if all it is apparently is a mentality problem?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> flash do you think bobby jackson plays better than doug chritse on most nights ?
> ...


I think Bobby Jackson plays differently than Doug Cristie. Jackson is more offense, Christie is defense. When it's the 4th quarter and I've got guys like Brad Miller, Vlade Divac and Peja on the floor I'm gonna want a guy who can defend the permiter. Unfortunatly, the Bulls don't happen to have those weapons.

See, I don't see as benching Jamal in the 4th like in the last two games is causing us to lose. I think you folks are putting waaayyyy too much value on Jamals ability to carry a team. He's not that type of player. Let me ask this question. In all but, I believe, two games since skiles has taken over, the Bulls have had a lead or at least tied the game in the 4th quarter. For all of Jamal's supposed 4th quarter brilliance - why haven't we won more games? Now, I'm not placing the losses squarely on Jamals shoulders. There's plenty of blame to go around. What I question is just how much effect is Jamal having on the outcome of games - especially tight games? As far as I can tell, it really doesn't matter if he's in or out. We're gonna win about 3 or 4 out of every 10 games. He may shoot well in the 4th, but how many points does he give up from subpar defense or an ill-advised shot with nobody in position to rebound when each possesion is critical?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know...watching him score 42 points in the United Center was easily one of the best performances I've seen by a Bulls player since Michael Jordan. And Jamal easily has one of the prettiest, smoothest games in the league. Everything looks effortless, even when he's breaking some guy's ankles with that crossover, which is one of the nastiest crossovers in the league. Up there with Iverson's from his rookie year. And Jamal's passing is a joy to watch. Because of his size he sees right over the top of the defense and can hit the open cutter with relative ease. He's a poor man's Lebron James in terms of passing.
> ...


Hey Future, I went last night to see Jamal perform...

Too bad he was down by Chris Jefferies most of the damn game...

I was close enough to see it in his eyes he's lost confidence...

A lot of these guys don't understand the game...and you need to do that to understand Jamal's a guy who since he's been in the league has had to constantly look over his shoulder at another PG coming in, then he has to worry about playing perfect on the court so that he doesn't get taken out.

Players have to feel comfortable, we all know Jamal wants to win, and I've never him LOSE a game for us.

Someone is going to tell Jamal, YOU are our PG, run this show, and he will do it, he's a very vocal guy, gets everyone set up and he's a guy who obviously rather get everyone else going than just be some SG that comes off screens for jumpers and average 1 or 2 assists a game, and that someone will get the BEST Jamal Crawford.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know...watching him score 42 points in the United Center was easily one of the best performances I've seen by a Bulls player since Michael Jordan.


You do realize that Jamison scored 50 points in back to back games and is nothing near being a great player? A guard did it too, can't remember his name, but ditto.



> And Jamal easily has one of the prettiest, smoothest games in the league.
> --
> I lean towards stylized players in all of my sports. I like winners. But I *also* like to be entertained, and see something I've never seen before. People scoff too much at the "And1" type plays. But those things do take a lot of skill to do and they are an expression of creativity on the basketball court. Really turns the court into a canvas. And as an artist that's something I appreciate a great deal.


Sizzle and flash. Now I understand you. Says it all. Yup...diff strokes, diff folks.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> I'm glad that Jamal is getting more steals, but FWIW, I have never been a big fan of using steals as some sort of justification for defensive ability and this is why:
> 
> Typically, the recording and crediting of steals is very ambiguous and subjective. Suppose Curry knocks a ball loose and Kirk picks it up. Who is credited with the steal? Now suppose Pippen is pressuring a guy and he dribbles it off his foot where Gill grabs it? And now let's suppose that JYD and AD have pressured a guy in the corner to throw it cross court, where he mistakenly throws it right at Jamal. Who should be credited and why? An agrument can be made for who is more deserving and who was responsible.
> ...


I agree on one level. But I think the Steal has become vastly underrated for the reasons you sighted against it. Too many people undervalue the skills required to anticipate passes and all of that. Iverson is the league's leader in steals the last several years, but it's like a scarlet letter for him. Even though if you watch the Sixers you know that Iverson's steals are huge. When a team has as much problems scoring in the halfcourt as the Sixers, a steal can be a game breaker. And when you get 7 or 8 in a game it can really change a close game into a blowout.

Jamal's steals under Skiles, have been solid steals. He has good hands on defense. Rarely picks up reaching fouls. And his long arms are excellent for the passing lanes. You want a guy playing in a backcourt with a guy like Kirk. Kirk's defensive tenacity distracts them, and Jamal jumps in and does his thing. It's just like driving guys into your shotblocker.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> well skiles had the team that was supposed to get stops last night and it didn't happen.


But we came close...when Tyson returns...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Bobby Jackson plays differently than Doug Cristie. Jackson is more offense, Christie is defense. When it's the 4th quarter and I've got guys like Brad Miller, Vlade Divac and Peja on the floor I'm gonna want a guy who can defend the permiter. Unfortunatly, the Bulls don't happen to have those weapons.
> ...


i dont think if jamal plays those 2 game we automatically win 

but i know if he isn't out there we dont win because we dont have the horses to play with other teams

when crawford does shoot well in the 4th much more often then not the bulls win ,its a trend thats been proven time and time again

now ask yourself how many teams can the bulls beat without crawford even out there and instead you have gill ?

i bet the list is smaller with gill than with crawford and thats my point , you have to play the players who can win for you and that doesn't mean just crawford it means curry too and Tc when he;s healthy and pippen too


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Future, I went last night to see Jamal perform...
> ...


Exactly. You notice that Jamal realized his shot has been going the last couple of games, so you've been seeing him up his assist numbers?

I think all you need to know about the duality of Jamal's abilities you can see when in one game he sets his career high in points, and the very next game he sets his career high in assists.

You put him on a team like the Sonics with a bunch of other scorers, where they are all unselfish and feed the hot hand, I think you'd see him and the team flourish.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I think all you need to know about the duality of Jamal's abilities you can see when in one game he sets his career high in points, and the very next game he sets his career high in assists.


He dominates the ball instead of keeping it moving...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You do realize that Jamison scored 50 points in back to back games and is nothing near being a great player?


Not sure I said Jamal was a great player right now. Just that he was one of my favorite players to watch in the league. 

Glad you understand me now GB. Can we be friends now?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly. You notice that Jamal realized his shot has been going the last couple of games, so you've been seeing him up his assist numbers?
> ...


I think more often than not you see hand in hand...

Jamal's a guy that can score 25 and have 8 assists, 6 rebs, and 2 steals..

He's a guy that can play a complete game, but you have to let him be a complete player, not a 2 guard that comes off screens.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He dominates the ball instead of keeping it moving...


Yeah. In order to be most effective right now, Jamal needs the ball in his hands.

Needs to be ON THE BALL. Not off it. Maybe if you give him an offseason to adjust to playing off the ball, then you could expect some consistency in that role. But Jamal is a rhythm shooter. And he's not recieving the ball off the ball in a good rhythm.

Jamal could be more effective off the ball if he were on a better team where teams weren't keyed on him off the ball. But with the Bulls...well you see the results. So far he is at his best when he is running things. But it's not like ACE hasn't been saying this exact thing for 9 pages.

You say dominates the ball like it's a bad thing. On a team like the Bulls we aren't good enough to take advantage of good ball movement. You need a guy like Jamal to dominate the ball to be effective. Otherwise you end up with a lot of jumpers from Blount, Davis, and JYD. Which, trust me, is exactly what the defense is letting us have in every game we play.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> In his defense, I think Jamal has improved defensively in regards to jumping in passing lanes for steals. No steals last night, but I just want to mention it. That's another improvement he has made that can help the team win.


Yeah, big improvement. That's why he started out on Jones and ended up on Alston and Coles while the shorter Hinrich had to try to defend Jones the second half.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, big improvement. That's why he started out on Jones and ended up on Alston and Coles while the shorter Hinrich had to try to defend Jones the second half.


Hmm...

Too bad he didn't play most of the 2nd half...

No one's bashing whoever was guarding Odom...

Couldn't stop him last night, sure as hell didn't stop him in the game in Chicago.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think more often than not you see hand in hand...
> ...


That's the wrong mentality. If Jamal was a _complete_ player, he'd be able to come off screens. If he were complete, then he'd be able to play with and _without_ the ball. What great player stands around and does nothing if they're not dribbling the rock? Everyone knows Crawford can pass and can crossover and can throw the ball up from outside, but if that's all he ever learns to do, then he's _not_ a complete player.

I mean, c'mon, Hinrich clearly is a point, but he can still come off screens. That obviously doesn't make him just a 2 that has to receive the rock to jump shoot. And the fact that some suggest we let Jamal primarily handle the ball so Hinrich can move without the ball speaks more about what's missing in Jamal's game.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> If Jamal was a _complete_ player, he'd be able to come off screens. If he were complete, then he'd be able to play with and _without_ the ball. What great player stands around and does nothing if they're not dribbling the rock?


:clap:


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Having seen a game where Jamal struggled for 3 quarters only to set a United Center record for field goals in the 4th quarter...it's kind of dubious to sit Jamal at the end of a game where you need scoring.


This isn't RAGING BULL and Crawford isn't Robert De Niro or Jake La Motta! Good Lord! _Hang in there, Fellas! Ol Jamal'll come through in the end like he always does!!_ 
:laugh:  :laugh:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, big improvement. That's why he started out on Jones and ended up on Alston and Coles while the shorter Hinrich had to try to defend Jones the second half.


This does not mean I think Crawford is now a good man defender. Most of us think Hinrich is a better defender, but Crawford averages more steals. Still, those steals are each important and should be noted. This is not a comment on his play last night (he had no steals) but it is one aspect of Jamal's game that is considerably better this year than last year and should be noted.

Blizz, you know I'm not Jamal's biggest fan. But if I him improving at something, I want to note it.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm...
> ...


You're absolutely right about Odom...Williams wasn't the answer...and neither was Blount. Got any other suggestions as to who might try to slow Odom down? How about the Ginobili Killer, ERobb???


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think future or arenas means that Jamal is a guy who can fill upi the stat sheet with scoring, assists, rebounding, and steals. Clearly he isn't complete as a 2 guard, he is still learning to come off screens and isn't good at shooting out of rhythm. But if he plays the point he is much more complete than what we have seen from him lately. I don't even know why it is in debate, look back at the games jsut after Skiles took over at Jamal's production when he was playing mostly pg and Hinrich was playing mostly off the ball. Of course they DID more or less split time and Jamal's time started being reduced more and more as time passed.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right about Odom...Williams wasn't the answer...and neither was Blount. Got any other suggestions as to who might try to slow Odom down? How about the Ginobili Killer, ERobb???


My first guess would be Williams, which wasn't great. If everyone is healthy, I would put Chandler on him next time.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> That's the wrong mentality. If Jamal was a _complete_ player, he'd be able to come off screens. If he were complete, then he'd be able to play with and _without_ the ball. What great player stands around and does nothing if they're not dribbling the rock? Everyone knows Crawford can pass and can crossover and can throw the ball up from outside, but if that's all he ever learns to do, then he's _not_ a complete player.
> ...


Nice post!!!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right about Odom...Williams wasn't the answer...and neither was Blount. Got any other suggestions as to who might try to slow Odom down? How about the Ginobili Killer, ERobb???


Yeah, we don't have a starting sf with any length. He killed us last time we played Miami, so did Garnett. I even mentioned this in the game thread before the game. Any team with a scoring atheletic sf will kill the Bulls. I actually think Odom would look pretty good in a frontcourt with Curry & Chandler.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i dont think if jamal plays those 2 game we automatically win
> ...


It's a double-edge sword. Last night we actually got some good stops down the stretch but they couldn't convert (much to my wifes' chagrin. She hates when I talk at the TV and bemoan the fact that this team just can't get it done!). We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If Crawford is out there, he MIGHT make a good play and score some points but he's just as likely to take a shot out of the flow of the offense and lose a key possession. On the defensive side we lose a little permiter defense if Jamal is out there as opposed to Gill. This team just isn't the Sacramento Kings. It's the same with Curry. I think he scored like 10 points in the 4th but his post defense is terrible and he gave up quite bit also.

The thing that is gonna scare some folks is what happens when/if Chandler and Pip get back and we actually start closing out 4th quarters with Crawford on the bench? For what it's worth I'd rather see Chander and Pip on the floor in the fourth over Curry and Crawford. (Actually, I'd like to see all four guys playing with heart and fire!)


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Did I misss something? Why some of poster still insist that Jamal is PG?

Wasn't he still struggling to fight for the spot with JW last season long and yet coudn't win it clearly over him? (Even worse, I thought without JW's accident Jamal would has been the one being traded before the season in my mind.)

Didn't he pretty much lose the job to a rookie fair and clear just about Kirk's 20 games into NBA? (I think anybody who does't agree to this point is simply in denial.)

So how come Jamal is still better as PG?

Where is the logic behind that myth? Jamal has to play PG to be effective. For who's bebefit? For Jamal? Or for Bulls?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> This does not mean I think Crawford is now a good man defender. Most of us think Hinrich is a better defender, but Crawford averages more steals. Still, those steals are each important and should be noted. This is not a comment on his play last night (he had no steals) but it is one aspect of Jamal's game that is considerably better this year than last year and should be noted.
> ...


I know, DMD. It just frosted my arse once again to see Hinrich shifted over to try to guard the opponent's taller SG because you-know-who wasn't gettin' it done.

I'll tell you what else, too. The fact that Skiles flip-flopped Hinrich and Crawford defensively before finally sitting his butt down shows you how hard Skiles is actually trying to keep Crawford on the floor.Crawford's 6'5"...Hinrich is 6'3". Forcing Hinrich on Jones so that he can cover up Crawford's crappy defense isn't right. With all his quicks and length and athleticism, if Crawford can't at least stay between Jones and the basket, then he _doesn't_ deserve to play.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> Did I misss something? Why some of poster still insist that Jamal is PG?
> 
> Wasn't he still struggling to fight for the spot with JW last season long and yet coudn't win it clearly over him? (Even worse, I thought without JW's accident Jamal would has been the one being traded before the season in my mind.)
> ...


THE BOARD HAS SPOKEN

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71319&forumid=27


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Yea cuz see most coaches dont bench there best player (Craw in the Bullz case) when they are going through a tough stretch liek Crwa is


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that is gonna scare some folks is what happens when/if Chandler and Pip get back and we actually start closing out 4th quarters with Crawford on the bench? For what it's worth I'd rather see Chander and Pip on the floor in the fourth over Curry and Crawford. (Actually, I'd like to see all four guys playing with heart and fire!)


Yeah, I like this idea very much. We might actually win some games with Pip on the floor instead of Jamal in the fourth quarter. Besides C Blizzy, fl_flash is surely one of my favorite poster. Good job as always.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, we don't have a starting sf with any length. He killed us last time we played Miami, so did Garnett. I even mentioned this in the game thread before the game. Any team with a scoring atheletic sf will kill the Bulls. I actually think Odom would look pretty good in a frontcourt with Curry & Chandler.


People told me that as soon as Odom got away from the LA lifestyle you'd start to see just how good he can be. Boy were they right!!!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> THE BOARD HAS SPOKEN
> ...


Give me one person who is right over a million that are wrong any day. Popular opinion doesn't make it a fact.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Marcus13</b>!
> Yea cuz see most coaches dont bench there best player (Craw in the Bullz case) when they are going through a tough stretch liek Crwa is


But in the case of Jamal, it is not just a tough stretch! I cannot believe Skiles would bench Jamal for no reason. There is something Jamal is not doing that Skiles has told him to do. Obviously, Scott won't let him get by with it any longer.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Give me one person who is right over a million that are wrong any day. Popular opinion doesn't make it a fact.


You mean I am wrong? :sigh:  

Hang in there Ace2004u. Reminds me of your posting at Worldcrossing with phil23 and and was it swiftclick?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> Did I misss something? Why some of poster still insist that Jamal is PG?
> 
> Wasn't he still struggling to fight for the spot with JW last season long and yet coudn't win it clearly over him? (Even worse, I thought without JW's accident Jamal would has been the one being traded before the season in my mind.)
> ...


It sounds like you have missed a lot of things actually. No, JW did NOT beat JC out for the starting pg gig, it was handed to JW and JC outplayed him all season and reclaimed the spot. And no, he didn't lose the job "fair and clear" to a rookie. They slid Jamal over to the 2 guard because he appears to have the more physical attributes to play that spot, not because he lost the job. And I never said I thought Jamal "was the better pg". I said that he needs to start at the point and play heavy minutes that point to get into the flow and play his game. I would think this would be beneficial to BOTH Jamal and the Bulls. As far as logic goes, look at the games Jamal has played the point for 50%of the game or better. Now look at the games where he barely plays the point at all. There is your logic! Or, you could just watch a game where Jamal is playing the point most of the game and then watch a game where he plays off guard most of the game and tell me which player you want playing on the Bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> You mean I am wrong? :sigh:
> ...


I think your wrong but I hope you don't take it personally. I still hope that someday you guys will be able to see what I am talking about. At least I am not the ONLY one who thinks this way! 

Yeah, I still post at worldcrossing and yeah I had some monumental arguments with Phil and with Swiftslick both. The difference is that they made things personal and I never did. Actually both of those guys were banned from the Bulls worldcrossing site.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

But why would the Bulls want to keep Jamal comfortable at the point if they want to use him as a combo guard? The sooner he learns how to effectively play as a 2, the better -- assuming we keep him at all. Curry's comfortable not guarding and not dunking, too, but you don't see him stay in the game playing like that. I don't subscribe to the idea that Jamal has to have the ball to be effective. If that's the only way he can play, then he's going to be a liability when he can only pass the ball out; he'll never get himself open to receive the ball back, and thus he'll be afraid to lose control and give up the ball. 

Heh, worldcrossing. Swiftslick still posts at RealGM, I think. Haven't seen Phil in a while anywhere, maybe he's running his own board? And weren't you the one who banned them, Ace? :grinning:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> But why would the Bulls want to keep Jamal comfortable at the point if they want to use him as a combo guard? The sooner he learns how to effectively play as a 2, the better -- assuming we keep him at all. Curry's comfortable not guarding and not dunking, too, but you don't see him stay in the game playing like that.


He isn't getting it at the 2. If we move him back to the one we will get that good profuction out of him we all crave.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think your wrong but I hope you don't take it personally. I still hope that someday you guys will be able to see what I am talking about. At least I am not the ONLY one who thinks this way!
> ...


I know. No I don't take it personal. Nothing wrong with great discussion! And this has been great discussion! 

I was teasing you about me being wrong. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> you could just watch a game where Jamal is playing the point most of the game and then watch a game where he plays off guard most of the game and tell me which player you want playing on the Bulls.


To your surprise, in all honest I don't want either version of Jamal at this point. I think we have seen the best of Jamal and for the sake of Jamal, for the sake of Bulls and for the sake of fans, I do think it's time to move him. If I am proven wrong in the future, you can mock me in my face. But I can see the beginning of the end of 3C experiment starting with Jamal.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

From what we can see however the coaching staff wants Kirk as the fulltime starting PG and wants JC to learn how to play alongside him at SG. Now whether that is best for Crawford does not matter. They are putting the guy at PG that they feel gives us the best chance to win. Are they right? Doesn't matter they make the calls we don't and neither does Crawford. So either he gets with the Skiles program or he gets showed the door. Simple as that the ball is now in Crawfords court(so to speak).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Marcus13</b>!
> Yea cuz see most coaches dont bench there best player (Craw in the Bullz case) when they are going through a *tough stretch* liek Crwa is


You'd give him ANOTHER 4 years?


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

Well, to be fair, 3 years, really. Unless he tears his ACL again.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You'd give him ANOTHER 4 years?


what the hell?

I was talking about when they benched him for the second half


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> From what we can see however the coaching staff wants Kirk as the fulltime starting PG and wants JC to learn how to play alongside him at SG. Now whether that is best for Crawford does not matter. They are putting the guy at PG that they feel gives us the best chance to win. Are they right? Doesn't matter they make the calls we don't and neither does Crawford. So either he gets with the Skiles program or he gets showed the door. Simple as that the ball is now in Crawfords court(so to speak).


Well if management keeps trying to fit a square peg in a round hole then they shouldn't be surprised that it won't fit IMHO.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Well if management keeps trying to fit a square peg in a round hole then they shouldn't be surprised that it won't fit IMHO.


Doesn't the peg have any responsibility here??? Huh???


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you always come with these riddles ?
> ...


Why do closers only pitch at the end of a game? Why don't we start the backups and later bring in the starters? Why don't starting centers snap punts and kicks in football? Why don't we just match up players by position on defense?

Because it wins games.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Based on what?


Arguably best handles in the league, great passer, makes shots NOBODY else can.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Doesn't the peg have any responsibility here??? Huh???


So you really think pegs can just go from square to round because the person holding the peg wills it to be so?


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He dominates the ball instead of keeping it moving...


Do you watch the Bulls games?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> THE BOARD HAS SPOKEN
> ...


i'm pretty sure if a poll were taken last year at the same time which would be right after j will was rookie of the month

the board would be more on the side of williams than it is today for kirk

when all was said and done for the season would they have been right?

in fact i think there was a poll last year maybe i'll go find it


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Give me one person who is right over a million that are wrong any day. Popular opinion doesn't make it a fact.


The crowd would rather have Barrabus than Jesus.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Ok I just spent 20 minutes reading 4 pages of Jamal bashing and Jamal defending, and this thread really isn't saying anything anymore. As evidenced by the above posts by me with one line just trying to quickly rebuttle a few points. 

I think Jamal will come around. I don't think he's whining. I think Skiles has to do MORE than just sit him down, he needs to lay out exactly what he wants Jamal to do to get more time. He told Jamal to focus on defense, and he has really and truly. He says "Jamal you take bad shots" but on a team shooting 38% EVERYONE is taking bad shots. 

I'm seriously anticipating All-Star weekend because it gives Skiles 4 or 5 straight days to coach these guys. They really need it.

Anyways, Jamal will come around. And if not, the Bulls cast off since the rebuilding started are going to be a better team than the Bulls we have now.

PG-Jamal Crawford
SG-Ron Artest
SF-Brent Barry
PF-Elton Brand
C-Brad Miller

backups Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall, Travis Best, Ron Mercer

Is it surprising that these players leave the Bulls and form one of the better lineups in the league?

Not to me it isn't, just read these boards.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> 
> Arguably best handles in the league, great passer, makes shots NOBODY else can.


Great---now I've got Mountain Dew all over my monitor and everyone in the office wants to know what's so funny...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Great---now I've got Mountain Dew all over my monitor and everyone in the office wants to know what's so funny...


I'm not sure what is so funny about that every word of it is true.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Mountain Dew lowers your sperm count GB.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Come one ACE, best handles in the league. Having And1 moves does not make great handles.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> So you really think pegs can just go from square to round because the person holding the peg wills it to be so?


Then fine let Crawford come off the bench for Hinrich and see how the team suffers with him at PG.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> 
> Then fine let Crawford come off the bench for Hinrich and see how the team suffers with him at PG.


Thats not exactly starting him at the point and letting him log heavy minutes there like I am advocating.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Come one ACE, best handles in the league. Having And1 moves does not make great handles.


uh huh, it doesn't? What the hell do you think good handles are?

btw, KOBE played in EBC last year too and the EBC has been going on for 23 years now. I'm sick of Jamal getting flack because he did one fun thing this Summer relating to bball.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> uh huh, it doesn't? What the hell do you think good handles are?


Someone please explain to him what good handles are. I do not have the patience or the energy to do it.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats not exactly starting him at the point and letting him log heavy minutes there like I am advocating.


And why would SKiles even think about doing this when he already stated that Hinrich was the best player on the team? If you want Crawford to get minutes at PG it would be off the bench. You could see how he handles it and how the team plays with him there. Skiles could even bring Hinrich back in but not for Crawford and see how Crawford and Hinrich handle switching roles.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Come one ACE, best handles in the league. Having And1 moves does not make great handles.


I wouldn't say he has the best handles in the league. But he is among the best. He's in that class with Iverson, Nash ect. in terms of what he can do with his dribble.

I think he has the best crossover in the league. It's as good as Iverson's in his rookie year which was the best crossover in the modern era. Yes. Better than Tim Hardaway's. Never saw Hardaway bust Michael Jordan on his *** just by dribbling a basketball. Jamal is like that. He's made some guys look really bad this year with that crossover.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Wow, 

what a thread. Most has been said before....

Jamal Sucks or Jamal's close to getting it going for good.

Here is my question that only Chad Ford seemed to address with any potential reality:

If you want to trade Crawford and he is what you believe him to be, what are you getting in return? Are you getting another starter in return and will he be a force for us when the light goes on for our other C's.? 

To me it's simple, We only have one offensive threat and that is Crawford. Curry is bigger disappointment to me. So is Chandler, frankly. And let's not forget the ultimate waste, Jay Williams. 

Crawford has atleast given us some victories on his shoulders and produced numbers that are phenomenal regardless of your personal views.


Also, a few nuggets for those who pine for McGrady, et all...


Last Night McGrady's line was 28 point on 11-29 shooting, including 4-11 from 3pt range. 


Paul Pierce had 19 points on 6-17 shooting, 0-4 in threes, 7-7 Freethrows, 10 Rebounds, 9 Assists and 9 Turnovers!!!!

Steve Francis was 6 -16 in shooting

Shawn Marion 8-21 in shooting

Kobe Bryant 8 - 23

Carmello 8-17

LeBron 10 - 23 in shooting

Bottom line, shooters shoot. Sometimes it's lights out, sometimes it's cold and uuuuggggllllyyy.

Send a message, fine. Break his confidence, no. Trade him for a bag of peanuts, which is what most of you feel his worth....not a chance.

Pay him, then you can trade him for someone else's "potential" player.

As my father often said, don't just point out the problem, offer a solution.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

and the shot selectionability of Dragan Tarlac.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say he has the best handles in the league. But he is among the best. He's in that class with Iverson, Nash ect. in terms of what he can do with his dribble.
> ...


crossing a guy over to shot a jumpshot shouldn't even count. Really, what is the porpose having a great handle if you do not use it to get a better shot?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> 
> 
> And why would SKiles even think about doing this when he already stated that Hinrich was the best player on the team? If you want Crawford to get minutes at PG it would be off the bench. You could see how he handles it and how the team plays with him there. Skiles could even bring Hinrich back in but not for Crawford and see how Crawford and Hinrich handle switching roles.


You act like we've never seen Jamal at the PG slot? In his biggest games he's been playing big minutes at the PG. We don't have to experiment and radically change things to put Jamal at PG.

And he also played the end of last year as the starting pg getting big minutes.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> 
> 
> crossing a guy over to shot a jumpshot shouldn't even count. Really, what is the porpose having a great handle if you do not use it to get a better shot?


To get an And1 shoe contract.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> 
> 
> crossing a guy over to shot a jumpshot shouldn't even count. Really, what is the porpose having a great handle if you do not use it to get a better shot?


It does count. We're talking about handles, not shot selection. Most people are pissed because Jamal has the handles to go anywhere he wants on the court and he mainly uses it to set up his teammates or a jumper, not to go to the hole. This is probably because he doesn't finish at the basket very well.

His handles are such that he can get a shot on anyone in the league. He uses his crossover to create the space he needs to get his shot.

He actually creates more space with his dribbling than he does coming off of screens at this point in his career. which is why he is more effective as the PG with the ball in his hands.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> He actually creates more space with his dribbling than he does coming off of screens at this point in his career.




WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!:laugh:  :laugh: 

I can't take it!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

this is exactly the problem. teams would rather have you shoot a 20 ft jumpshot 10 times outta 10. it's not like he's moving in to take a midrange shot. it's a three or 1 to 2 steps inside it.

setting up jyd or ad at the 20 ft area isn't exactly setting up your teammates either.

like you said he's capable of doing better than this and this is exactly what skiles is looking for from crawford.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*Shooter or point guard*



> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Wow,
> 
> what a thread. Most has been said before....
> ...


The solution is for JC to stop taking schoolyard shots in the middle of a game with 10 seconds on the shot clock, and knuckle down on the Defensive end. Once he is forced to gothrough a few screens, he stops defending. Just watch him in games. He gets intimidated by the physical nature of defense. Other teams know this so they run multiple screens for their perimeter players. Hinrich (the rookie) never stops playing defense, NEVER. That is why he is getting the minutes. What is JCs excuse now. Do the same thing. JC is a superior athlete to KH. What is his excuse for not doing the same if he knows that will get him on the floor. Is it the coachs fault now? I thought JC loved Skiles b/c he let him shoot more? Well, time to pay Skiles back by playing some D and being smart as a shooter. Why is that so hard for JC to understand...It isnt. JC thinks he knows better.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

My stomach hurts from laughing.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Great---now I've got Mountain Dew all over my monitor and everyone in the office wants to know what's so funny...


Did you just tell them "I'm on the Bulls forum... it's a Jamal Crawford thread."


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> My stomach hurts from laughing.


I like you and I think your a great poster


But I DONT like your sarcasm


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> 
> 
> crossing a guy over to shot a jumpshot shouldn't even count. Really, what is the porpose having a great handle if you do not use it to get a better shot?


Open jumpers for players like Jamal are a 60% shot. Entire offenses are designed around getting players open jumpers.

Contested jumpers, yes, those are tough shots. Not necessarily bad, but tough. Open jumpers are great shots when they are in a players range (no 22 footers from Blount please.)


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Marcus13</b>!
> 
> 
> I like you and I think your a great poster
> ...


I'm going to support what Marcus13 is saying... you are one of the better posters on this board, GB, but you've degenerated into posting one insult after another during this thread at Jamal. 

I get the point. You hate Jamal as a player, but you could say your piece about why using basketball and not accusing Jamal of using his crossover to create his own jumpers so he can get a shoe contract.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm going to support what Marcus13 is saying... you are one of the better posters on this board, GB, but you've degenerated into posting one insult after another during this thread at Jamal.
> ...


First of all, thank you both. 

Secondly, please check the post that was made before both of you posted:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=885249#post885249

Thirdly, thats what the stars to the left of this post are for.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Oh...and I don't hate Jamal. I want him to get his act togather.

I posted that somewhere today too.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

I think people mistook a crossover here and there as his having a good handle. You guys are right. Jamal has a sick crossover and he broke couple of ankles in his NBA days.

But I don't agree with that he has one of the best handle. Other than crossover showoff and dribble to creat his own shot, when did he actually use his dribble to break down opponent's defense and creat a shot for teammates. IF you watch carefully, even when Jamal is playing as a PG, Jamal tends to stand on top of perimeter and wait till other Bulls find a open spot and dish the ball. It's not like je is actually creating the open shot for them. I personally rarely see Jamal using his so-called one of the best handle to break down to make a play.

Again, he has a sick crossover that's for sure. As for having one f the best handle I can't agree with you guys. Watch it next time opponents doubleteam him and look what happens. And then say he has great handle.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, thank you both.
> ...


I missed that post. And I wouldn't give anyone who makes damn good posts 95% of the time a bad star rating just because they are driving me insane. That's why I turned my stars off anyways, I felt like I wasn't being rated by my posts but by what players I liked.

In other news... the NFC East will be the best division in football next year with coaches like Tom Coughlin, Joe Gibbs, Bill Parcells and Andy Reid. Discuss.


----------



## Agent911 (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> I think people mistook a crossover here and there as his having a good handle. As for having one f the best handle I can't agree with you guys.


Excellent point, jsong. When Jamal is pounding the dribble at the top of the key, he puts his back to the hoop and looks over his left shoulder, just to keep from getting picked. Watch how Kirk faces the basket in the same situation so he can see the whole court and ACT AGGRESSIVELY if the defender reaches or the play breaks down. Jamal has skills, but Best Handles is an extreme overstatement.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Agent911</b>!
> 
> 
> Excellent point, jsong. When Jamal is pounding the dribble at the top of the key, he puts his back to the hoop and looks over his left shoulder, just to keep from getting picked. Watch how Kirk faces the basket in the same situation so he can see the whole court and ACT AGGRESSIVELY if the defender reaches or the play breaks down. Jamal has skills, but Best Handles is an extreme overstatement.


You know who else dribbles like that?

Every point guard over 6-5...EVER.

That's how Lebron does it. That's how Magic did it. Steve Smith. So on and so forth.

It's called protecting your dribble.

And Jamal is very adept at seeing the play from that position. He makes a lot of his passes from the top of the key with his back to the basket, throwing a bullet feed into the a cutting big man.

This is how things are done.:yes:

The point that Jsong makes that is the best one is that Jamal doesn't dribble through double-teams very well. He generally looks to beat the trap with the pass. That's a strength issue more than his handle. Lebron is strong enough to bulldoze through double teams, as well as JKidd. I admit. That's definitely one of his struggles.

Iverson has the same problem though.


----------



## Agent911 (Jul 11, 2002)

I simply believe that title of Best Handles does not belong to the man standing with his back to the hoop protecting his dribble. I believe it belongs to an attacker more along the lines of AI.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Agent911</b>!
> I simply believe that title of Best Handles does not belong to the man standing with his back to the hoop protecting his dribble. I believe it belongs to an attacker more along the lines of AI.


I agree. That's why I said he has some of the best handles in the league. He is in the upper level. But he isn't king of the hill.

To me the best are Iverson and Nash.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> It sounds like you have missed a lot of things actually. No, JW did NOT beat JC out for the starting pg gig, it was handed to JW and JC outplayed him all season and reclaimed the spot. And no, he didn't lose the job "fair and clear" to a rookie. They slid Jamal over to the 2 guard because he appears to have the more physical attributes to play that spot, not because he lost the job. And I never said I thought Jamal "was the better pg". I said that he needs to start at the point and play heavy minutes that point to get into the flow and play his game. I would think this would be beneficial to BOTH Jamal and the Bulls. As far as logic goes, look at the games Jamal has played the point for 50%of the game or better. Now look at the games where he barely plays the point at all. There is your logic! Or, you could just watch a game where Jamal is playing the point most of the game and then watch a game where he plays off guard most of the game and tell me which player you want playing on the Bulls.


JWill last season
75 games, 26.1 minutes/game
39.9% FG
32.2% 3pt
2.6 reb
4.7 ast
1.1 stl
9.5 PPG

Crawford this season
33 games, 34.7 minutes/game
39.8% FG
31.3% 3PT
3.2 reb
5.5 ast
1.6 stl
16.7 PPG (2x the FGA/game as JWill last year)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> JWill last season
> ...


I don't understand the point in comparing Crawford's #'s this year to JWill's last year but JC's #'s are clearly better. And I have maintained all along that JC's #'s would be much better if he were playing pg! He isn't doing much of that now and his #'s have suffered as a result.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> You know who else dribbles like that?
> ...


THANK YOU! It is so refreshing to see someone who really KNOWS the game. I hear so many complainst about "Jamal pounding the ball at the top of the key" and I just have to shake my head. Of course he is protecting the ball! That should be obvious to a damn monkey that follows basketball. When you are 6'5" and playing the point you had better make it a point to protect your dribble or you are a turnover waiting to happen.

And anyone who doesn't recognize that Jamal has at LEAST one of the top 10 handles in the league should really take up another sport or something. I mean Jamal DOES have his faults but damn if he IS really good at something lets give him credit for it! The way some of you guys talk about Jamal you would think that he stands at the halfcourt line on defense and shoots a 3 from 5ft behind the three point arc everytime he touches the ball before trotting back to midcourt to wave to the crowd. Jaml simply ISN'T THAT bad. He is a young developing player that needs to add strength and continue to work on his game..simple as that.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

On his worse nihgt, he is SIMPLY THAT BAD.

I am not questioning his offensive game per se. He already proved that he can be deadly weapons on SOME night. The problem here is that it is SOME night and it become more and more rare event lately.

As for the handle that you were keep referring, what is the point of having a good handle when he rarely use that so-called good handle to break down opponent let alone avoiding double teaming? Why did he keep picking up dribble at the wrong spot when doubleteaming is coming? I can give you that he has enough handle to creat his own shot but I disagree with you regarding his handle as PG to coordinate the offense and breakdown defense etc. I just didn't see him doing that engouh that change my opinion on his ball handleing.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point in comparing Crawford's #'s this year to JWill's last year but JC's #'s are clearly better. And I have maintained all along that JC's #'s would be much better if he were playing pg! He isn't doing much of that now and his #'s have suffered as a result.


Amazing. "Clearly better?" :rofl: 

JWill was pretty much a flop, considering all the hype and how he started at PG and so on. His stats were nearly identical to Crawford's this season. In no statistical category is Crawford better than JWill last season, except for steals, and that is only a slight edge.

Crawford takes 2x the shots JWill took last season and has less than 2x the scoring average. JWill was a superior shooter (FG% and 3PT%). Given Crawford's minutes, JWill would have outrebounded Crawford 4.1 to 3.2, out assisted him 6.1 to 5.5, and so on.

JWill hit the rookie wall and shot something like 30% for the month of December (or was it January?) to really stink up his stats. An excuse that can't be made for Jamal this year.


----------

