# Curry, Fizer in Bulls' Doghouse



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1bulls,1,5593842.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Whoo boy, Skiles wasn't kidding yesterday when he said "We're trying to set a standard in what we expect from all of our players, and the standard is going to be raised by me within the next couple of days again."

So guess what Skiles had to say today: "This is a man's business," he said. "When you go to somebody, you have to get results. That's the nature of pro sports.

"I've only been here a month, but I don't believe he (Curry) ever has been in proper NBA condition in his life," Skiles said. "Even when he has had some good stretches, he just hasn't been in the kind of shape he needs to be. I don't think it's his fault. I just don't think he knows. And I don't think it has been insisted upon. This time around, we're definitely going to move in that direction."

How do you think Eddy's momma reacted when she read that statement? :uhoh: :verysad: 

...and Eddy's reaction???









Well, guess what? It looks like Scott's going to make sure Eddy gets a chance to be all that he can be.

What really bothers me regarding this whole situation is that everything that Skiles has said since he got here has served as a not so subtle indictment of the Krause/Cartwright regime. And the really upsetting part is that he's right. For two seasons at least our young core has been coddled instead of being told straight out what was expected of them. Cartwight would deprive the kids of playing time, but he'd leave it to them to figure out why. Skiles isn't shy about defining his expectations to the players' faces and to the press as well. All I can say is its about time.

Well I'm off for some egg nog! Happy New Years, everybody! And lets hope Eddy's drinking lowfat egg nog tonight!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i had just read this article before I came into the site. You are right C Blizzy and yes, Skiles is right also! We all need to remember why Paxson brought in Skiles to begin with! He knew how to play and practice and execute. He expected the same from his plyers he played with! As a coach, the exact same thing! Besides the habit of losing, this younger core of players we have, do not have a clue on what to do. Exept Jamal and that was just within the last 15 games! And look at what he is doing! Except for his shooting, he is finally driving to the hope. He is taking less and less bad shots at the wrong time and he is hitting th open man more than not. He is playing better D. Not great yet, but hey, the D he is playing now beats what he did before which was nothing!! Skiles is getting to Jamal and in the long run, we will see a complete player! Judging by his learning curve now, he will work on his shooting and that will get better over time. 

As for Curry. :no: You watch this kid play and he oooozzzeeeessss with talent. Just oozes. Yet he doesn't have a clue on how to condition. He doesn't have a clue on taking it strong to the hoop or play great defense or how to use his 7' 300 lb body to get at least ten rebounds a game. Not a clue! Yet besides all of that, we see flashes of what kind of talent this kid has that has not been fully harnessed!!! Last two games in 39 minutes he went 12-16 and 12 rebounds. 39 minutes should be what he should be playing now!! He scored 29 pts, shot 75% and grabbed 12 rebounds in what should be one game!!! Despite the fact that he has never even been close to being in NBA shape to play this season! Imagine what we have if Scott gets to Eddy the way he has Jamal!! Mind boggling what Eddy might do! 

Don't get me started on Fizer. He seems to be a lost cause and is not as far along as Jamal and yes, even Eddy at this time. Complain about the fact he cannot prove himself without playing time on the court? Well it starts in practice! If Van Lier is to be believed he does not take practice seriously. And I am not even talking about his defense which is non existant!! 

The article was right on!!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

When Skiles got the job, Curry and Crawford had conversations about how good of a coach Skiles is and how amazing he is. I wonder what those conversations are about now? I hope Curry realizes Skiles is 100% correct and doesnt flop at the insult, but reacts to it strongly. If he doesnt, then he wont be in town much longer. 

I really like Skiles approach, I think he will be around awhile. Him and Pax seem to have the same approach in achieving the teams goals. They are on the same page.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Ahhh...can't wait for the paper to be delivered.

I'll read this in the morning...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Curry* shrugged at this opinion
...

Asked what *Fizer* is doing in terms of work ethic to earn playing time, Skiles was succinct.

"Nothing extra," he said. 

Yep, looks like they've got the message loud and clear :no:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Wow.. I think I'll read this link later.. Looks interesting


----------



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

"But I was the fourth pick in the 2000 draft.... " the past is for cowards and losers. Fizer better learn he was the fourth pick in the draft because what he did in college, he hasn't done anything at this level except contibute to losing basketball. 

Fizer is quickly becoming a putz of the highest order.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> *Curry* shrugged at this opinion
> ...




This is just what Skiles was talking about. Eddy has no idea about conditioning. I'm willing to give him a pass for being out a few weeks and losing his wind. However, I do agree with Skiles that he has never been in real NBA condition. The closest he has been to being in real NBA condition was at the end of last season when he was dominating. Basically he played himself into shape by that point. Do you guys remember Eddy's first game back, Skiles ignored him and left him in while Eddy was trying to get out because he was tired? I think this is what we may see more of so Skiles can get his point acrossc to Eddy. 

I'm not sure how many of you have ever heard Dan Bernstein talk about Eddy. He's a huge believer in Eddy's talent. He has said similar things about Curry. He really believes that Eddy thinks he's playing hard when in reality he can go harder. This is along the same lines of Skiles opinion on Eddy's conditioning. Hopefully Skiles can get through to Eddy, because as TBF said, he does ooz talent. Just look at what he has done in limited minutes since being back.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Skiles is doing everything right IMO.

If Skiles himself can't get through to Curry and get him motivated about his conditioning, our last resort is to hire a new asst. coach for the centers.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I thnk skiles has a plan for curry and curry will respond by being a better player.

Fizer is history. He makes one great play followed by two bad plays every games. The sad truth is he still does not know how to play the NBA games and if you watch him it is one defensive break down after another. Not to mention his need to dribble and bring up the ball on fast breaks whenever he gets the chance. How many times have we had to watch him lead the fast break only to throw the ball away for a TO? Skiles knows what wins games in the NBA.

defensive, rebounds, no TO, and aggressive play.

Fizer is asful in each of these catagories.

david


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Skiles is doing everything right IMO.
> 
> If Skiles himself can't get through to Curry and get him motivated about his conditioning, our last resort is to hire a new asst. coach for the centers.


you mean like bob thorton?

No. I mean like Sgt. Hartman/R. Lee Ermey.

"_'m gonna give you three seconds--exactly three [edit]ing seconds--to wipe that stupid lookin' grin off your face, or I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-[edit] you!"

Maybe THAT would wake Mr. curry from his slumber. TB#1_


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Very interesting remarks about Curry ! 

IMO, it is very clear that Skiles is questioning Curry’s physical condition, which been the second reason of his failure from the beginning of the season, up to now. Obviously, the first reason was that Curry has no clue in many aspects of basketball IQ, and the third one was his toughness.

Now questions are:

1. How long it will take him to overcome his physical problems? 
2. How good he will be able to maintain his physical condition? 
3. How many seasons he needs in order to learn a game?
4. Toughness will come during the process of his hard work, true
or false?


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

*"I don't think it's necessarily his fault because I don't think he knows. And I don't think it's been insisted upon. So this time around, we're going to definitely move in that direction.''

Curry wasn't sure how to respond when told about Skiles' comments, but Skiles wasn't singling out one player.*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-bull01.html

Skiles is absolutely right. You'll notice Curry didn't respond with indignation or indifference. According to Modrowski, Eddy really didn't know what to say, with the key words being *"...didn't know..."*.

This, I'm sure, has frustrated Paxson and Skiles to no end. And it should infuriate Bulls fans who patiently bought into Krause's five year rebuilding plan without knowing that at no time during their brief pro careers were players like Chandler, Curry and Crawford not only told what was expected of them but were shown _how_ to meet those expectations. 

Cartwright was often painted as this fatherly figure nurturing a group of young, extremely talented players along (refer to the Amex TV commercial as an example). Sure, we all saw his scowling expressions on the sidelines game after game, and we watched him deprive the kids of playing time when they failed to perform. But then we'd listen to him make up excuses for their lack of conditioning by claiming that young players tire quicker because they aren't physically mature yet. What we found out later was that Bill lacked the ability to communicate effectively with his players. He may have administered dicipline but he didn't do a very good job of teaching them _how_ to maximize their God given abilities. Coaching requires a lot more than just teaching mechanics and motivating by using the carrot/stick approach exclusively. The coach has to establish a psychological contract with each player so that they know _what's_ expected of them and _how_ they're expected to meet those mutually agreed upon goals. As well-meaning as Cartwright may have been, and no one doubts that he gave it everything he had, Bill didn't know how to cultivate all that young talent he was put in charge of. 

I blame all of this on Krause. Giving credit where credit is due, he did an excellent job of identifying talent. But when it came to managing the human side of a sports franchise he was a miserable failure. 

Its no coincidence that during his 18 year tenure as the team's GM his most successful teams were comprised of and led by individuals (players and coaches) who couldn't stand him. And it's no coincidence that players whose personalities were difficult to control during the rebuilding process, like Artest and Miller, were traded away. Even Elton Brand got shown the door just as he was becoming more vocal about how difficult it had become to deal with all the losing. 

On the coaching side he replaced the egomaniacal yet incredibly successful Phil Jackson, who he couldn't control, with fishing buddy Tim Floyd. And when Floyd's frustrations with losing and Krause's reluctance to add some veteran pieces turned him into a loose cannon, he walked out as well and was replaced by an assistant who was simply thrilled to be given the chance to become a head coach. 

After his experience with Jackson Krause would never consider hiring a high profile, successful coach who might be difficult to control, even if it was in the best interests of the team to do so. You would never have seen him hire a coach like Scott Skiles who might have had his own ideas of what needed to be done to turn this franchise around.

Well, those days are finally over, thank God. Reinsdorf has turned the franchise over to a couple of guys who achieved success by consistently setting the bar high for themselves, but who are at the same time in touch with the mindset of today's young players. The Bulls are now being run by a couple of guys who won't let self importance get in the way of team success.

The tough part about all of this for Bulls fans is that it's like starting over again. While the franchise isn't bankrupt of talent this time, the talent on hand is undiciplined and uncultivated. And its going to take a while longer for Paxson and Skiles to decide just how much of what's in place is salvageable and what needs to be discarded and replaced.

One big difference between this management team and Krause's regime is that Paxson and Skiles are driven, in part, by a sense of urgency. Unlike Krause they're not going to build job security by wrapping themselves in a blanket of justifications that demand fan patience due to the youth and inexperience if its players. Paxson's message of "no excuses" was the right one, though he'd have been better off keeping that philosophy in-house instead of allowing it to become the public battlecry of the organization.

For the first time since the 97/98 season I feel pretty good about the future of this team. In Paxson and Skiles we fans have a couple of guys who want exactly what we want: a winning ballclub. Sure, Krause wanted to build a winner too. But it was more a means to an end with the end being his personal legacy. I don't think we have to worry about egos getting in the way of success this time. Thank God for that!


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> *"I don't think it's necessarily his fault because I don't think he knows. And I don't think it's been insisted upon. So this time around, we're going to definitely move in that direction.''
> 
> Curry wasn't sure how to respond when told about Skiles' comments, but Skiles wasn't singling out one player.*
> ...


Very good post, my friend !

:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> When Skiles got the job, Curry and Crawford had conversations about how good of a coach Skiles is and how amazing he is. I wonder what those conversations are about now?


Well judging by Jamal's comments about Skiles, I would say if Curry was looking for Crawford to diss Skiles he'd be looking a lont time. Crawford may be Skiles biggest supporter. Crawford is playing the best all-around basketball of his short career under Skiles.

This may be no accident that Skiles went after Eddy's buddy first.

Who is Eddy going to play X-Box with when his buddy opts out to go shoot some extra jumpers in the gym?


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

With Skiles comments, what does that say about MJ's much heralded workout guru Tim Grover.

Grover, who worked with Curry before he was drafted and before
this season, apparantly could not make EC's aware of what it took to stay in condition at this level?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> *"I don't think it's necessarily his fault because I don't think he knows. And I don't think it's been insisted upon. So this time around, we're going to definitely move in that direction.''
> 
> Curry wasn't sure how to respond when told about Skiles' comments, but Skiles wasn't singling out one player.*
> ...



five star!! :clap: Very nice. 

Many well meaning and some not so well meaning fans tried to tell the whole Bulls community these very things you stated about JK, years ago when they were happening. In hind-sight. they were right. JK hurt this team in many ways that are still being felt today. When JC and Fizer were drafted who did they have as their mentor? Fizer had Brand, but wasn't Brand younger than fizer? Brand had no one to look to! JC had Drew at pg. :ekk: then the last almost two years had Rose as a mentor. No comment on that. :no: But i have said many times in the past here and at realgm that these young players were cheated of real role models, veterans who knew how to play and could be looked at as mentors!! Curry had Miller, who was trying to find his own way at that time!! then shipped out in February! Chandler had???? Oakley for a season, but other than that, who else? Marshall? He is a tweener. So even chandler has not had any classic pf to look to as to how to play the game!! All three C's and even Fizer have not had the luxury of having someone in front of them to learn from on how to approach and play the game the "correct way." Emphasis on correct. That includes practice and ones own time!! It seems that is changing. 

In reality we are just starting! Like it or not, this team is just starting after 6 years of rebuilding. This team is just now starting to learn what is needed, at both ends of the court to play in this league, night in and night out. How much longer will it take for this team to reach it's goal? I don't know. But I do like the fact that we play solid defense most nights. If you play hard every game, eventually good things will happen for you. Our defense gives us a chance to win, every night. 89pts a game in the month of December. How long has it been since you have seen a bulls team allow only 89 pts a game for a series of 15 games? That is a good sign!! 

I am not going to talk about JK. It is obvious, to me what damage he has done. But at the same time it is obvious to me that Paxson and Skiles can see it and is working together to correct it. Bill couldn't.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> *"I don't think it's necessarily his fault because I don't think he knows. And I don't think it's been insisted upon. So this time around, we're going to definitely move in that direction.''
> 
> Curry wasn't sure how to respond when told about Skiles' comments, but Skiles wasn't singling out one player.*
> ...


Thanks for one of the many great posts you have had recently. In short order you have become one of the very best posters on this board. I look forward to reading your posts.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks for one of the many great posts you have had recently. In short order you have become one of the very best posters on this board. I look forward to reading your posts.


Aw, shucks. Thanks. :bsmile:


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Thank God I'm not the only one who sees some of this squad as loafers.

Chandler is injured(back) you need to be very careful with a big guy's back he gets off. Effort guy. He will be a superstar if his health pans out.

Curry -- FAT and LAZY with potential.

ERob -- Dumb and LAZy with goods hops.

AD -- Steady professional

Pippen -- thought he could just glide through preseason and come in and play...missing preseason (lazy/unprofessional)

JC -- Not lazy..showed up strong at Berto in off season. Tries to bring it every game..still learning, but attitude has improved.

Fizer -- Fat and Lazy.

KH -- Closest thing to a leader this team has and its a shame he's a Rook. Effort Guy.

JYD -- Leader and scrapper. Definately not lazy...

Brunson -- seems to work hard..jury's still out

Jeffries -- ???? looks stoned

Gill -- steady professional

Blount -- steady vet


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

C Blizzy that was a downright awesome post.

This isn't meant in any way to detract from it, because I think it's 100% accurate, but I think there's a more important question. If Cartwright wanted docile but talented, and Skiles want no excuses and driven, that's definitely a step up in one regard. Bus do they have a fatal weakness too?

But in another, it leaves an opening for weakness. Just as Krause was prone to overlooking some faults if they could be masked by loyalty or giant hands on the mom's side of the family, I'm concerned they Pax/Skiles approach will overlook others like talent and the ability to be molded.

To me, the truly great talent of management doesn't rely in "having" a philosophy and sticking to it, it's recognizing 
1) Whether the strategy can be successful if you get the talent.
2) Talent that fits the system
3) If the talent doesn't fit, can it be made to fit (either by molding the player to fit the system or through your system being flexible enough to accomodate a given player who doesn't fit.

---------------------------

Along those lines, what would Pax and Skiles with their _driven_ and _work extra_ attitudes think about Allen Iverson? Driven, certainly. But practice? We're talking about practice!?!?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> C Blizzy that was a downright awesome post.


Well if I could, I would give him another 5 stars.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> With Skiles comments, what does that say about MJ's much heralded workout guru Tim Grover.
> 
> Grover, who worked with Curry before he was drafted and before
> this season, apparantly could not make EC's aware of what it took to stay in condition at this level?



SHAZZAM! 

The reaction of the two bigs to Skiles comments was more worrisome to me than his words.

You have to understand, there are huge vastly different schools of thoughts in the NBA coachinig circle about what proper conditioning truly is.

Pat Riley works his players to no end in a military style bootcamp. Phil Jackson sets weight limits and then expects his players to know their own bodies because they are professionals and it's part of that territory. And then there's everyone in between.

Bill Cartwright was a stud offensive center when he entered the league, and a stud defensive center when he exited the league. Are we really to expect that he _doesn't_ know what it takes for a young center to do to compete in this league?

I'll tell you why we're reading this in the paper, and it's one of two reasons:

1. The old Scott Skiles personality that got him run out of Phoenix is rising again. Don't think so... The article said he was teaching mode, not tyranny mode.

2. He's tired of Eddy telling him that he's "fine" and that he "knows what [he's] doing" and that "that's not the way we used to do things".

It 's number two. 

This, my friends, is step one in the Eddy Curry reconstruction project. The first step in the "Break him down and rebuild him" project.

Eddys is going to be Skiles type of center. Not a center of his own making, and not Cartwrights type of center.

Sadly, I think conditioning is only battleground number one for these two. Happily, I think Skiles will win the war.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

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


Neither one of these guys has been particularly nice on young players... it's one thing to expect a 30 year old man to know his body, and something else entirely when it's a 20 year old man.



> Bill Cartwright was a stud offensive center when he entered the league, and a stud defensive center when he exited the league. Are we really to expect that he _doesn't_ know what it takes for a young center to do to compete in this league?


I've been struggling with this for a while... I mean, Cartwright wasn't a fool. What did it mean that he was "too soft" or "too permissive" on guys like Curry?

I think what it meant was actually that he had very similar expectations to Jackson. That is, he expected these guys to keep themselves in shape, and saw his job as that of teaching them basketball. Obviously he did recognize they weren't in shape... and that's probably why he didn't play them the big minutes many wanted him too, but how much did he say to them? 

Agree with the rest 100% though... nice post.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Holy crap C Blizzy, that was the best post I've read here in weeks. 5 stars!!  100% agreed.

I was watching a replay of an interview on CLTV a couple nights ago of Jamal Crawford (from 2nd week of December) and it was interesting how he talked about Skiles. He basically said that most people thought he was a disciplinarian, but that he's been firm and direct with the players and that they respect that. Also, one of the bright spots of the interview was when Jamal said that Skiles' style is to teach.. and since he had been a guard in the L, he had a lot to teach Jamal. Jamal even said it was 'scary' to see how much Skiles knew about the game.

It seems that Jamal is listening and we've seen a great stretch of games from him, especially considering he's been the Alpha option on offense too. We just need Curry to listen up too now. I mean.. damn.. if you get Curry hitting on all cylinders in the paint, it'll only open up the game more for Jamal and Kirk.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Holy crap C Blizzy, that was the best post I've read here in weeks. 5 stars!!  100% agreed.
> 
> I was watching a replay of an interview on CLTV a couple nights ago of Jamal Crawford (from 2nd week of December) and it was interesting how he talked about Skiles. He basically said that most people thought he was a disciplinarian, but that he's been firm and direct with the players and that they respect that. Also, one of the bright spots of the interview was when Jamal said that Skiles' style is to teach.. and since he had been a guard in the L, he had a lot to teach Jamal. Jamal even said it was 'scary' to see how much Skiles knew about the game.
> ...



I liked that post too! 

But I have posted the same subject and analyses under the thread "JK is an evil man " and get a "zero" points. 

I guess English is a second language !


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I agree great post. I do have this to say. I know eddie was injured but think long and hard, who has had a better season so far JC or Curry?

Stat's wise eddie is shooting almost 50% and averages 13.6 pts per game on only 9.9 shoots. Just over 5 FT a game and 6.6 rebounds. His defensice is weak and he is out of shape but he missed six weeks preseason due to his eye injury and just missed 4 weeks due to his knee. But if you look at his last two games i looked very good shooting 75% from the field and averaging 13 pts a game on low minutes.

Now JC eddie is shooting 40% and averages 17.1 pts per game on only 16.5 shoots (1.036 efficency). Only 2.4 FT a game but a very respectful 5.6 assists with 2.3 TO. OK his defensive has improve but seriously he is still one of the worse defending guards in the nba thro i agree he is getting better.

So my point is this. Curry game this year is no different than JC, up and down but improving. Funny, the many people here are all over curry but going on about JC. I don't really see much difference.

david


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I agree great post. I do have this to say. I know eddie was injured but think long and hard, who has had a better season so far JC or Curry?
> 
> Stat's wise eddie is shooting almost 50% and averages 13.6 pts per game on only 9.9 shoots. Just over 5 FT a game and 6.6 rebounds. His defensice is weak and he is out of shape but he missed six weeks preseason due to his eye injury and just missed 4 weeks due to his knee. But if you look at his last two games i looked very good shooting 75% from the field and averaging 13 pts a game on low minutes.
> ...


The differences in their games is obvious Currys game has never been up this year.Stats dont tell anywhere near the entire story the last I checked we dint get new guards in the trade we got new bigmen and instantly became one of the best defensive teams in the league .That tells me the Crawfords defense was not as bad as everyone claims just inconsistent.

Curry would have to raise his game and then see it drop for him to be considered to be having anequal season to Crawford.Curry has yet to inflict his will upon any game this season.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> 
> Funny, the many people here are all over curry but going on about JC. I don't really see much difference.
> 
> david


Curry doesn't even get 1/10th of the scrutiny that Jamal gets on average, no matter how Jamal plays.

Curry like Chandler almost always gets a free pass because he is a big man and there aren't many in the league.

Of course of the two, Curry catches more flack than Chandler. But to say the recent criticism of Curry is anywhere near the 4 threads a day that we get about Crawford is laughable.

:grinning:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Curry doesn't even get 1/10th of the scrutiny that Jamal gets on average,


We don't have a Hinrich in the frontcourt to show him up...

:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

am i the only who is already sick of the "skiles doghouse". Its not like this guy is Phil Jackson, or Pat Riley, or Chuck Daly or Coach Pop. This guy is essentially an average coach with an average record who actually QUIT on his team midseason. This guy is not a God Send. And he ought to look in the mirror some rather then putting the onus on guys. Sure, our kids dont have a clue. But neither does he. And until everyone realizes this, then we are going nowhere.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> am i the only who is already sick of the "skiles doghouse". Its not like this guy is Phil Jackson, or Pat Riley, or Chuck Daly or Coach Pop. This guy is essentially an average coach with an average record who actually QUIT on his team midseason. This guy is not a God Send. And he ought to look in the mirror some rather then putting the onus on guys. Sure, our kids dont have a clue. But neither does he. And until everyone realizes this, then we are going nowhere.


I don't know, but I think you might be in a very, very small minority with this view. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it a bit lonely over in your corner.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know, but I think you might be in a very, very small minority with this view. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it a bit lonely over in your corner.


It maybe the minority, but time will prove me right. Here is a guy who isnt accomplished as a coach, who airs out his issues in the public (a big no no) and has no pedigree to back his issues up. if Riley were the coach then we know we have a guy who is a winner. Does anyone really know for sure that Skiles is a winner? he essentially is a rookie or near rookie coach who didnt do much at all in his last job, outside of QUITTING. Not the type of guy id be interested in. Sure, some of our players are dogs. But Im not so sure our coach is either. he wont finish his contract in Chicago. he will quit long before then


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> We don't have a Hinrich in the frontcourt to show him up...
> ...


yeah ...just a bunch of hardworking great rebounding forwards who are half his size but play twice as hard


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> It maybe the minority, but time will prove me right. Here is a guy who isnt accomplished as a coach, who airs out his issues in the public (a big no no) and has no pedigree to back his issues up. if Riley were the coach then we know we have a guy who is a winner. Does anyone really know for sure that Skiles is a winner? he essentially is a rookie or near rookie coach who didnt do much at all in his last job, outside of QUITTING. Not the type of guy id be interested in. Sure, some of our players are dogs. But Im not so sure our coach is either. he wont finish his contract in Chicago. he will quit long before then


in truth you do raise an interesting notion ...skiles really isn't accomplished and soon imo people will heap their problems that they had with cartwright on skiles just like they did with floyd and cartwright


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> It maybe the minority, but time will prove me right. Here is a guy who isnt accomplished as a coach, who airs out his issues in the public (a big no no) and has no pedigree to back his issues up. if Riley were the coach then we know we have a guy who is a winner. Does anyone really know for sure that Skiles is a winner? he essentially is a rookie or near rookie coach who didnt do much at all in his last job, outside of QUITTING. Not the type of guy id be interested in. Sure, some of our players are dogs. But Im not so sure our coach is either. he wont finish his contract in Chicago. he will quit long before then


It seems to me that every coach and GM try to use the press to their advantage. The good ones do it well, and the bad ones don't. It is way too early to tell how well Skiles is using the press.

The last four coaches the Bulls hired (Collins, Jackson, Floyd, and Cartwright) all had less NBA experience at the time they were hired (none) than did Skiles, so complaining about Skiles' pedigree seems a bit of a reach. He is the most experienced head coach we have hired in quite awhile.

Now the "quitting" issue is a serious one, but you seem to have a much stronger opinion (by a couple orders of magnitude) than any other poster or press person that has discussed it. People a lot more knowledgeable than me about these things seem not to make a big deal about it, so it is a mystery to me why you are going out on a limb to bring it up at every turn.

I know you have connections in the NBA. Your vehement dislike of Skiles this early in the game seems to be more than just a reaction to his coaching over the past few weeks. Do you have some connection to Skiles that makes you dislike him? Do you know something that is not public knowledge that gives you a special insight into why he will be a bad coach?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> It seems to me that every coach and GM try to use the press to their advantage. The good ones do it well, and the bad ones don't. It is way too early to tell how well Skiles is using the press.
> ...


I dont dislike Skiles. I just dont think he is the long term answer. And everyone loves the guy now. but what has he done. As for the quitting issue, he quit on a team over 500. How is he going to handle coaching a sub 30 win team? I doubt he makes it to the allstar game next year. He is not accomplished in the X and Os (Ask Jason Kidd), he has a hard time getting along with anyone, and so far, though its very early, he has done nothing extraordinary. So instead of licking his balls every chance we get, perhaps we should scrutinize him as well. There is no one in the NBA i dislike really. Though we arent hiring the best people. That much is very clear. Dont believe me. Look no further then Pax. Pax has been on the job for 7 months and the best score you can give him is a D. and it would be an F without Hinrich


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> This guy is essentially an average coach with an average record who...



...is being ragged on by...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> He is not accomplished in the X and Os (Ask Jason Kidd)



Kidd doesn't like ANYONES X's and O's.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Kidd doesn't like ANYONES X's and O's.


Does the name Eddie Jordan mean anything to you?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Does the name Eddie Jordan mean anything to you?


This one:



> "I did not do the right play calling," Wizards coach Eddie Jordan said.
> 
> "I did not call a good game tonight.
> 
> I didn't make the defensive changes that might have made a difference."


?

What's their record?


http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1203/115350.html


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

GB you wanted the name of a coach that he liked. Eddie Jordan is one. (not whether he was good or not) You want another? Don Nelson. And he never complained about playing for Danny Ainge as well. NCBullsFan: Don't take offense, but I edited GB's post, as well.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

My thoughts on Skiles are this: I think he is by far the best coach we've brought in since Phil left. He apprently is knowledgeable enough to have Jamal seemingly in awe about him.(Though this is probably more a bi-product of Floyd and Cartwright, who really did no coaching or development with Crawford).

So in that sense I like him. Because I do feel like he will make Crawford into a star. Which I think is in the Bulls interests.

But the reason I don't like him is because he isn't in the same range as some of the guys we could have gotten in the off-season if Paxson hadn't let his friendship with Cartwright get in the way of making what was ovciously the right move.

I think Charles Barkley made an interesting point about Skiles, that here was a guy who quit on his team, and then was basically out of basketball for however many years....was Skiles the most qualified guy for the job? Did Paxson exhaust his options? I wonder.

So I guess a lot of my problems are less with Skiles, and more with Paxson. I think Paxson has been inept as a GM so far. He got lucky with Hinrich. But all of the moves he has made so far, are suspect at the very least.

I just don't know that Skiles was the absolute best guy we could have gotten. He's not a Hubie Brown-Memphis type of hire.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> My thoughts on Skiles are this: I think he is by far the best coach we've brought in since Phil left. He apprently is knowledgeable enough to have Jamal seemingly in awe about him.(Though this is probably more a bi-product of Floyd and Cartwright, who really did no coaching or development with Crawford).
> 
> So in that sense I like him. Because I do feel like he will make Crawford into a star. Which I think is in the Bulls interests.
> ...


Bingo!

But be prepared for the criticism. The Rose Colored glasses havent worn off yet when it comes down to Skiles. It will soon enough


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> GB you wanted the name of a coach that he liked. Eddie Jordan is one.


Eddie wasn't his coach; he was an aide.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddie wasn't his coach; he was an aide.


Ask anyone in the NBA. He ran that NJ team. Byron might have had the title, but Eddie was the boss. Sorry to pee in your cheerios, but that is fact


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddie wasn't his coach; he was an aide.


wow.

No. Lord Byron is/was a figurehead in New Jersey. That offense they run...that's Eddie Jordan's baby. All Byron does is say flashy big talking things to the media. He doesn't know jack about coaching.

Jason Kidd demands excellence from his coaches. He expects a coach to give his best to the team, just like Kidd gives his best. And at the very least he expects the coach to get the team ready for games. Byron is a joke.

And if you've watched the bulls this year, look at the end of games, when you need a coach to design a play to get you a chance to win? Notice how we never have one? And add that to Kidd's problems with Skiles X's and O's? Hmmmmm.....that's interesting.

I think Skiles brings other things to the table. But clearly he doesn't always draw up the best plays. Whether we execute them or not.

But he still is better than Cartwright in that respect.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

the one thing i love about Skiles is that he isnt stuck to a lineup that consists of a 
1
2
3
4
5

He will play different lineups like 3 guards. or 3 4s. So he does it mix it up. Cartwright would never do that. And when the club gets more healthy, he might be more orginal with lineups. But other then that, there seems to be alot of soundbites with no to little results. he deserves time to try to right the ship, and yes, the players are more to blame. But there is absolutely no indication that this guy is the long term answer for our coaching needs


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> the one thing i love about Skiles is that he isnt stuck to a lineup that consists of a
> 1
> 2
> ...


And that's a good thing, too, because damn near all we have is 2s and 4s :yes:

I disagree with the rest though, Skiles looks like money to me. He seems to be doing the right things with Jamal, though it's too early to tell for sure. If he can teach Eddy the meaning of effort, he'll be a success in my book.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> And that's a good thing, too, because damn near all we have is 2s and 4s :yes:
> ...


If anything, Jamal has become more INCONSISTENT during the Skiles era. Its way too early to tell, but early indications arent that good. a weekend with nearly 80 pts and then a week where he struggles to get 40. And on terrible shooting. It doesnt look promising to me


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> When he was an assistant coach for the Nets, Eddie Jordan was always given credit for being the person who was really "coaching" the team.
> 
> That's one reason Jordan never aspired to become the Nets coach, and why he left over the off-season to coach the Wizards. In recalling his days working under Nets coach Byron Scott, who didn't allow Jordan or any of his other assistants to do interviews, Jordan said:
> 
> ...


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/basketball/7585044.htm



> That's the smaller mistake.
> 
> The bigger one is not firing Scott right after the season, unfair as that would have been. Scott gets less credit for taking a team to the Finals than any coach in league history, but if Kidd and his teammates were never going to play hard for Scott again, Scott had to go. Thorn needed to be as decisive as Joe Dumars and Larry Bird, who acted as soon as they saw the coaches they wanted, making stunning changes in the face of team success and loud protest.
> 
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=1690153


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/basketball/7585044.htm
> ...


and guess what, you can dig something up about anything and your still wrong


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Thats weak. I'll trust the pros.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Thats weak. I'll trust the pros.


the only thing that is weak is your feeble attempts to prove your argument by digging up obscure quotes from 8 months ago. the point is, Kidd wanted to go back to Dallas last year cause he liked playing for nelson. he has a good relationship with Ainge. AND YES, HE LOVED EDDIE JORDAN. Thats a fact. ANy attempts to prove otherwise is pretty much a waste of time.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> the point is



...that the insiders and professionals (you're an amateur) have a drastically different opinion.

They see and hear things we don't.

They are THERE.

You form your opinions from...?

I know, and I'm not interested. Dead subject.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


hmmm, i get some of my opinions from guys who have ACTUALLY have played with Jason Kidd. Hmmm, I would think they would know more then you, but then again, just about anyone does. And how do you know that I am an amateur?

By the way, nice job reaching for quotes, but if I dig hard enough, i probably can find some credible "insider" who thinks that Bob Petit was as good as Jordan. 

But nice try with your feeble attempts. Not bad for a 13 year old kid


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> am i the only who is already sick of the "skiles doghouse". Its not like this guy is Phil Jackson, or Pat Riley, or Chuck Daly or Coach Pop. This guy is essentially an average coach with an average record who actually QUIT on his team midseason. This guy is not a God Send. And he ought to look in the mirror some rather then putting the onus on guys. Sure, our kids dont have a clue. But neither does he. And until everyone realizes this, then we are going nowhere.


Just for the sake of clarification, Skiles, to my knowledge has never admitted to having a "doghouse." Now if I'm wrong then please set me straight. KC Johnson of the Trib wrote the article in question and titled it *"Curry, Fizer in Bulls' doghouse"*. Those were his words, not Skiles. So again, unless I'm mistaken, and SS has somewhere somehow stated that this player or that player is in his very own official doghouse, then guess what...you're a hypochondriac 'cause there wasn't anything to get sick about in the first place!

There now, don't you feel better already? :yes:


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1bulls,1,5593842.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
> 
> Whoo boy, Skiles wasn't kidding yesterday when he said "We're trying to set a standard in what we expect from all of our players, and the standard is going to be raised by me within the next couple of days again."
> ...


I agree with the exception, that I wouldn't necessarily indict Krause. The GM and VP of Ops responsibility is to acquire the right complement of players to give the coaching staff and the team the best chance to win. It is up to the coaching staff to get the most out of their players. The coaching staff works with the players day-in and day-out and would be the ones responsible for conditioning and on-court and off-court expectations. However, I am still convinced that prior to aquiring Brad Miller and Eddy Robinson, Krause specifically instructed Floyd to hold certain players back (i.e. Crawford) so as to ensure a high lottery pick.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> i had just read this article before I came into the site. You are right C Blizzy and yes, Skiles is right also! We all need to remember why Paxson brought in Skiles to begin with! He knew how to play and practice and execute. He expected the same from his plyers he played with! As a coach, the exact same thing! Besides the habit of losing, this younger core of players we have, do not have a clue on what to do. Exept Jamal and that was just within the last 15 games! And look at what he is doing! Except for his shooting, he is finally driving to the hope. He is taking less and less bad shots at the wrong time and he is hitting th open man more than not. He is playing better D. Not great yet, but hey, the D he is playing now beats what he did before which was nothing!! Skiles is getting to Jamal and in the long run, we will see a complete player! Judging by his learning curve now, he will work on his shooting and that will get better over time.
> 
> As for Curry. :no: You watch this kid play and he oooozzzeeeessss with talent. Just oozes. Yet he doesn't have a clue on how to condition. He doesn't have a clue on taking it strong to the hoop or play great defense or how to use his 7' 300 lb body to get at least ten rebounds a game. Not a clue! Yet besides all of that, we see flashes of what kind of talent this kid has that has not been fully harnessed!!! Last two games in 39 minutes he went 12-16 and 12 rebounds. 39 minutes should be what he should be playing now!! He scored 29 pts, shot 75% and grabbed 12 rebounds in what should be one game!!! Despite the fact that he has never even been close to being in NBA shape to play this season! Imagine what we have if Scott gets to Eddy the way he has Jamal!! Mind boggling what Eddy might do!
> ...


Good post. It's a shame that Fizer isn't just dominating in the post. He shows flashes of brillance one game and then doesn't show up the next.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Currys at it again  



> Upset that Eddy Curry hadn't taped his ankles for practice, Skiles made the entire team run laps as Curry slinked off to the trainer's table.
> 
> 
> "Imagine being a 14-year veteran and then some young kid doesn't have his tape on so we have to pay the penalty," veteran guard Kendall Gill said. "We didn't appreciate that. We have a lot of miles on our bodies and we've run our laps in this league. We don't need to run extra.
> ...



Oh eddy :naughty:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Jeez, that's downright crazy. I don't know what to think about that. Anyone ever heard of something like that happening in the pros before?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Man, that's nuts. I wonder if he'll toughen Curry up or incite a rebellion. Maybe I should ship him over a copy of Lord of the Flies. I was watching that last night and maybe I should remind Skiles of what happened to Eddy... er... Piggy.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Currys at it again
> 
> 
> ...



Read what I said about battlegrounds:

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=865607#post865607

He's gonna make the team push Eddy to do whats right. Good motivation tatic...

Eddy will respond or rebel and need to be moved...


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

*Eh*

...havent been posting very often because of the downright schizophrenia on the board, but this is a very crucial topic, and would like to chime in:

Skiles absolutely MUST walk a fine line in terms of making the team face "penalties," but when he forces the entire team to run because of Curry's irresponsibility he is using absolutely excellent psychology.

Why?

Is it not obvious to anyone else that Curry simply is apathetic as to what a "coach" or "authority-like figure" says about him? Is it also not absolutely transparent that this spark that we are all hoping for from him will not come from within, at least he has not shown it yet?

So this puts Skiles in a tough position, but one where he can do something like this, and basically sit back and hope:

Curry comes across as the type of person/player that responds to those that surround him, and while being benched or being singled out in the media might not have an effect on him, because ultimately it only effects himself, having people "mad" at him is usually something that a person like this responds to....

...the problem is that this tactic cannot be used forever, and the fact is that Curry will have to realize and accept his faults, as well as make a committment to change his obviously horrible habits.

Can he change? Sure. Should we expect it? I dont think any Bulls fan wants me to answer that.

However, if this "change/realization" ever comes to fruition it will be because of a combination of timing, perception, and luck... I think Skiles has come at the right time, I think his perception is still very much being molded to these specific Bulls players, and luck, well, that undoubtedly remains to be determined.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

This thread is very intriguing. Fizer, clearly, has lost all motivation. His injury last year probably ruined his career. He was scoring, reboudning, playing D, overall a solid player, but then it was just like a smack in the face. I strongly agree with LuCane in the sense that Curry isn't self-motivated. And his response to authority figures is less than encourageable. I don't know if Curry is just lazy or if he thinks that he doesn't need to go that extra mile. His potential is enormous and even if limited minutes he drops double digits. I think Skiles, by making the guys mad at him, is trying to let Eddy know its not him or Paxson, that this stuff won't be tolerated ANYWHERE in the league. I'd make Curry watch tapes of Stanley Roberts. A guy who coulda been what Curry could be, but just never had the motivation to take it anywhere. I made a post a while back about picking a set of players that will fit the system...I wanted to keep Hinrich/Chandler/E-Rob/JYD/Gill/Antonio/Scottie and ship out the rest, but maybe I'd rethink this if Curry shows he has the drive to become truly special and Crawford realizes he isn't Reggie Miller i.e. TAKE IT TO THE GOD DAMN HOLE JAMAL.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Curry didn't do anything out of the ordinary. He said he has never taped his ankle for practice and just recently started doing it in games. 

dailyherald


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

:sigh:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

This teams a nutcase :sigh:


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Curry didn't do anything out of the ordinary. He said he has never taped his ankle for practice and just recently started doing it in games.
> 
> dailyherald


I never taped for practice in college but did for games. Does Curry have ankle problems that merit needing taped?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I never taped for practice in college but did for games. Does Curry have ankle problems that merit needing taped?


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70347&forumid=27


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Make room in your lonely corner for one more, rlucas-- I'm with you on Skiles so far.

I'm surprised so many here are buying into his approach so far. I suppose optimism reigns eternal any time a new coach is brought in. I read where he made the team run laps because Curry didn't have his ankles taped-- I can't help ask, is this high school or the NBA? Surely there are other ways of disciplining Curry other than making veteran players run laps? Something tells me if Tim Floyd would have pulled the same thing, everyone here would be berating him for using tactics of a "college coach" and not knowing how to handle NBA players.

Granted, Skiles has had limited time, but from what I've seen so far, the Bulls offense shows no structure whatsoever. I see 5 individuals out there (Hinrich being an exception) who each seem to take turns making their move with the ball. It's only when they're thwarted that they look to pass. Crawford makes some really nice moves to shake his man on the perimeter and then settles for launching a 20 foot jump shot instead of penetrating for an easier shot or to draw help defenders and then dish off to an open teammate under the basket. There are no off the ball screens, no backdoor cuts (or cutting of any kind without the ball), very little movement by players who don't have the ball. It's not fun to watch.

C Blizzy sees fit to lump all the blame on Krause and Cartwright. Fine. Judging by all the pats on the back he got for his post, most here seem to be comfortable with that. Once again, let's blame everyone except the players themselves-- it has to all be Fat Jerry's fault. Fact is, none of us here truly know what the communication was between BC and the players. BC continually harped in the media about the need for players to "guard someone" and share the ball on offense. Do you truly believe that specific expectations weren't laid out on the practice floor? When BC did make a move to pull two of the most guilty players, most here were indignant, claiming JC and Rose were being made scapegoats.

BC is from the Phil Jackson school of coaching. Part of that is to let players figure some things out on their own. I believe that, in time, they would have. I believe if Pax had kept BC and still made the Rose trade, the Bulls would be ahead of the game right now. But BC is out and Skiles is in, so no point in dwelling on what it.

It will be interesting to see how the Skiles approach pans out. I firmly believe young players cannot be forced to work out. They have to have within themselves a certain amount of desire to improve and become the best players they possibly can. Previous Bulls players Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, B.J. Armstrong, Charles Oakley, and, perhaps most importantly, Michael Jordan, all had this, and dedicated themselves over each summer throughout the late 80's to strengthening their bodies and improving their games.

Did not Paxson (and Krause before him) make it perfectly clear what was expected this past summer? And yet it seems most of the team felt comfortable disregarding it. The back work Tyson Chandler is doing right now should have been done over this past summer. Curry should have some into camp 20-30 pounds lighter than he is now. Crawford should have spent more time playing structured ball in an effort to improve his defense and decision making instead of refining his playground skills at Rucker Park.

And what about veteran player leadership during the off season? In short, there was none. Jalen Rose to this day probably doesn't know where the weight room in the Berto Center is. Scottie Pippen, supposedly brought in to restore some of the championship work ethic, was a no show throughout the summer. Donyell Marshall? Don't recall reading about him being around either. Eddie Robinson? Please.

From everything I have read, the Bulls have one of the best weight training facilities in the league, and one of the best instructors in Al Vermeil. It's up to the players to take full advantage of this resource to make themselves into the best players they can be.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Does anybody think that the Skiles approach is sustainable without a blowup & or trade?

I don't.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong; I just don't think it can continue without something giving way.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Does anybody think that the Skiles approach is sustainable without a blowup & or trade?
> 
> I don't.
> ...


Blow-up, trade or...




DESIRED RESULTS!


Give him and Curry at least _some_ respect.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The fact that Skiles's system merits hard work, defense would have made him ideal to coach the Pistons. I think Skiles is similar to a Rick Carlisle type of guy. I mean many forget that under Skiles the Suns had a winning record 2 outta the 3 years. But instead of having young players like Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, and Crawford to yell at and mold into hard-workers he had disagreeable veterans like Jason Kidd, Penny, and Gugs. Shawn Marion had the most nice things to say about Skiles and that is because he was a young guy when Skiles was the coach. I'm sure Kendall Gill or Antonio aren't too found of Scott right now, but I'm sure the young guys i.e. the important guys are really buying into him. If Curry is the only one who doesn't buy in cause it seems like Kirk, JC, and Tyson are willing to do whatever it takes then Curry despite his potential might have to be traded.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Skiles is doing what he has to do. The Bulls will win as a team and lose as a team and if someone isn't putting 100% of his efforts into being a part of the team, the Coach must let the players know that THEY should hold the weak link accountable. 

















And no, I don't think Skiles is going to drive Eddy to something drastic, a la Private Pyle's major malfunction.:laugh:


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Does anybody think that the Skiles approach is sustainable without a blowup & or trade?
> 
> I don't.
> ...


I think that's the whoe idea.

You mentioned two alternatives: a blowup or a trade. There is always the possibility that the Bulls could actually start winning games. One of those things will happen. That's the point.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> Make room in your lonely corner for one more, rlucas-- I'm with you on Skiles so far.
> 
> I'm surprised so many here are buying into his approach so far. I suppose optimism reigns eternal any time a new coach is brought in. I read where he made the team run laps because Curry didn't have his ankles taped-- I can't help ask, is this high school or the NBA? Surely there are other ways of disciplining Curry other than making veteran players run laps? Something tells me if Tim Floyd would have pulled the same thing, everyone here would be berating him for using tactics of a "college coach" and not knowing how to handle NBA players.
> ...


Nice post, Kneepad. And nice to see you around. I think you have a good point about the players not meeting the expectations/desires of the organization the same way that the Bulls did on those championship teams. And the players on those teams probably didn't get much more direction as to what they needed to work on than what Cartwright & Krause/Paxson have provided to this group. I agree the players are to blame for much of their play. However, a major job of the coaching staff on a young team like ours is to help them become better players. This group is more difficult to motivate than the guys that played on all of the Bulls championship teams (as might be expected). If the Cartwright style of coaching is not getting them to do the right things and reach their potential, then maybe it's time to try a different approach. Skiles represents something else and I think his more 'in your face' approach of 'you are not doing X right and you/we are going to pay for it and/or hear about it in some way until you get it right' might reach this group of players better than a somewhat softer 'figure it out for yourself' approach with expectations yet few consequences. Time will tell, but I like what I see from Skiles so far. We can't keep coddling these guys (who you seem to say aren't doing the right thing despite good direction) forever and just hope they come around and do the right things. Some guys have that internal motivation and understanding to improve, but other guys need a drill sargent or they'd never get off the couch (or maybe they'd get off the couch and do the wrong thing). Unfortunately, I think some of our young players need a drill sargent. The drill sargent approach is a last ditch effort to save them. If he can't get them off the couch and working on the things he's pitching, then maybe we'll see some deals. I'm willing to cut the offense some slack for the time being with us being short players and adapting to something different, although I agree that off-the-ball player movement does need to improve.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

GB & Zeos: I hope it works to where the 3rd option you both mentioned happens. Of late it's almost too much to expect but it sure would be welcomed. 

I'm just not sure how much external force can be applied to players who aren't self starters. 
Here's hoping for a "conversion" for EC, JC etc.. :buddies:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Great posts by Kneepad and Fizer Fanatic.

Curry SHOULD get it on his own. Unfortunately, he didn't and hasn't. If he were a mediocre talent, you'd drop him like a bad habit and never look back. However, given his ability, you try every alternative you can think of to "fix him."

Artest had some problems (admittedly, not work ethic-related) and after trying several tactics, the Bulls eventually gave up on him. Depending on the day (and what "Whacko-Ron" has done), the Bulls' surrender was smart thinking or a tragic mistake.

Skiles latest move of running the other players because of Curry's tapeless ankles was admittedly a high school move. I suspect this was purposeful on Skiles part. He wants Curry's teammates to impress on him that this isn't high school and it isn't college...it's the god dang NBA, and it's about time he start demonstrating that he understands the difference.

Curry's teammates understand that Eddy has special talent. Still, if Eddy doesn't turn things around soon, the players will call for Eddy to be launched. If this comes to pass, I expect that Skiles will back his players and Paxson will back Skiles.

The Bulls' long-term strategy of everything being based on Curry and Chandler is approaching the proverbial fork in the road. Curry, much more so than Chandler, is the key. If Skiles/Paxson run out of tactics to make an impression on Curry, I'm convinced that Pax will abandon the strategy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> ... BC is from the Phil Jackson school of coaching. Part of that is to let players figure some things out on their own. I believe that, in time, they would have. I believe if Pax had kept BC and still made the Rose trade, the Bulls would be ahead of the game right now. But BC is out and Skiles is in, so no point in dwelling on what it.
> ...
> It will be interesting to see how the Skiles approach pans out. I firmly believe young players cannot be forced to work out. They have to have within themselves a certain amount of desire to improve and become the best players they possibly can. Previous Bulls players Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, B.J. Armstrong, Charles Oakley, and, perhaps most importantly, Michael Jordan, all had this, and dedicated themselves over each summer throughout the late 80's to strengthening their bodies and improving their games.
> ...


Well, that strategy didn't work out too well for Mr. Bill, now did it? He gave everyone the chance to figure it out on their own... and they didn't.

To me, what your theory seems to boil down to (and I'm only slightly simplifying here) is that players are going to get it or not get it on their own, and any interaction is going to have no (or judging by your negative reaction to it... negative) effect. The ONLY thing to do is to draft a guy and have blind faith that he just starts to "get it".

That doesn't make much sense to me on several levels. First, where does one draw the line and what do you do when it's clear a player isn't getting it on their own. It's all well and good to say "let them learn on their own", but if they don't learn, what then? Simply go from "hoping they get it on their own" to "cut bait" with no in between? That seems to be the implication.

Second, it says nothing for the folks, like Cartwright, who's job depends on these guys "getting it". They're supposed to stoically sit around on their hands and hope things turn out well. In the larger sense, this thought process seems to suggest coaches really don't amount to a whole lot either way... in which case, a Phil Jackson approach itself, compared to anyone else's approach, would be kind of irrelevant.

Third and most importantly, it transforms developing the right mentality into some magical, inscrutible process. Players are just supposed to "get it" on their own, but how it happens is up to the gods. Some get it from the start, some take time, some never get it, and the best we can do is throw our hands up in the air in wonder. I don't buy it. There might be an element of some natural "ability" to "get it", but generally speaking, people's behavior based on what they learn. You don't learn to work hard based on magic any more than you learn to read based on magic. You're given opportunities, and you face consequences. Skiles is making these guys face more consequences than they had before, which makes some sense given that the consequences they faced before weren't seeming to make any difference to anyone. At the very least, that's better than giving them no consequences up till the moment you dump them because you've decided they'll never get it on their own.




> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that's the whoe idea.
> ...


Pretty much.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Great posts by Kneepad and Fizer Fanatic.
> 
> Curry SHOULD get it on his own. Unfortunately, he didn't and hasn't. If he were a mediocre talent, you'd drop him like a bad habit and never look back. However, given his ability, you try every alternative you can think of to "fix him."
> ...


Nice post!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Kneepad basically said what I said. He was applauded, I was bashed :thand: but hey, its ok. If I am going to be a minority on this, it certainly means more having a quality poster like you see things like I do then 10 guys who dont know what they are talking about taking the opportunity to rip you (that was not directed at anyone).

Kneepad great post. Im with you. Either guys have it or dont. Very rarely do they just discover it later. Skiles job is to be a taskmaster, not to coach. He isnt that great a coach. Thats fairly obvious. AS Kneepad correctly pointed out, look at the Bulls offense. Zero movement, no imagination, just plain bad to watch. But I will say he needs atleast a fulltraining camp putting in his system before he is judged on it. But the early indications arent great. The point is, Pax needs to find players who have some heart, and then hire a coach who actually is accomplished and can COACH. In this case, we dont have players with heart (minus Kirk and Chandler, who I doubt will ever be effective as he might have been because of his back) and we dont have a coach who can actually outcoach a guy on the other end of the floor (I can see Phil scouting the Bulls just laughing to himself). Paxs decision to hire this guy was a wrong trying to right a wrong, only compounding the issue. Sure, there are disciplinarians out there who are good coaches, Sloan, Popovich (a much lesser degree unless your Parker), etc. But lets be honest, Skiles is not in their league at all in terms of outcoaching a guy. But he might be in their league in showing up a 21 year old who doesnt tape his ankles (and never has) and in the process, alienating him from his teammates. Even the beat writers thought that was stupid.

The point is, when you hire a guy as a coach, you want to have a guy who can potentially be around for 10 years. It rarely happens, but thats the goal. Can anyone say Skiles is that guy in all honesty? I hope I am wrong, but i doubt it. Like I said, he wasnt that great in Phoenix (he had them around 500 and then QUIT on them, something that Barkley mentions everytime his name comes up). So its fairly obvious he has no patience. And he wasnt that great with the X and Os. So he is here to be a bully and to teach some discipline to kids who will probably never have it. not the type of combination that says 10 years to me. In fact, ill bet 5 dollars to anyone that Bill Cartwrights reign will actually be longer then this guys. 

Dont take this as a Scott Skiles hate thread. I loved him as a player. But in this case, as a coach, he has done nothing to warrant the praise he recieves from the fans. 5-15 or whatever it is, with some serious screwups in terms of play calling at the end of games I might add, should reveal the truth. that truth that Skiles hiring didnt decrease our need for a coach. Do i blame skiles? No. I blame Pax


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> To me, what your theory seems to boil down to (and I'm only slightly simplifying here) is that players are going to get it or not get it on their own, and any interaction is going to have no (or judging by your negative reaction to it... negative) effect. The ONLY thing to do is to draft a guy and have blind faith that he just starts to "get it".
> 
> That doesn't make much sense to me on several levels. First, where does one draw the line and what do you do when it's clear a player isn't getting it on their own. It's all well and good to say "let them learn on their own", but if they don't learn, what then? Simply go from "hoping they get it on their own" to "cut bait" with no in between? That seems to be the implication.


I just don't think it's quite as black and white as you describe here. I didn't mean to imply that BC should have just sat back and wait for the players to "get it" on their own. Surely he and his staff spent a great deal of time coaching them on the skills of the game.

But I think one thing players have to "get" on their own is the amount of work and effort that is required to become a truly elite NBA player. It just doesn't happen for all but a select few. His first two years, Curry believed it would for him no matter what he did. I think now he's starting to realize that maybe he's falling behind the curve just a bit, and is going to have to get his *** in shape and continue to work on his game to become a truly great player.

And I think there's ample evidence to suggest that Curry, Chandler, and Crawford _were_ starting to get it to some degree at least. Not completely, obviously. But some (they are all still very young players). Surely Chandler is a much better player now than when he first game into the league. So is Crawford. Curry, not as much-- he's obviously the biggest project of the three at this point.



> Second, it says nothing for the folks, like Cartwright, who's job depends on these guys "getting it". They're supposed to stoically sit around on their hands and hope things turn out well. In the larger sense, this thought process seems to suggest coaches really don't amount to a whole lot either way... in which case, a Phil Jackson approach itself, compared to anyone else's approach, would be kind of irrelevant.


I think it's the coach's job to plant seeds and let the players take things from there. This is admittedly a more long-term approach. It's tough to come up with examples of this since so much of this type of thing takes place behind closed doors. But there is the well-documented story about when Phil was dissatisfied with the team's play at one point (don't recall when exactly it was). Did he yell and scream at the players about how they weren't playing smart and with effort? No. Instead he spliced scenes from the Wizard of Oz into the tape of the last game to illustrate how the Bulls were playing with no brains, no heart, and no courage. At first, the "slower" players thought it was just a big joke done for laughs. It was Paxson, as I recall, who first realized the point Phil was trying to get across. Maybe this isn't the best example, but it's the best one I could think of off the top of my head. I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. I just think at some point players-- even very young players like the Bulls have-- have to be treated as men and have to learn how to take on a certain level of responsibility for themselves. BC was trying to teach them that.

And I will admit that not all players respond this approach-- every player is different, after all. Stacey King is probably Exhibit A from the Phil Jackson era. He never quite "got" how much effort was required to become an NBA player, and eventually washed out of the league altogether.



> Third and most importantly, it transforms developing the right mentality into some magical, inscrutible process. Players are just supposed to "get it" on their own, but how it happens is up to the gods. Some get it from the start, some take time, some never get it, and the best we can do is throw our hands up in the air in wonder. I don't buy it. There might be an element of some natural "ability" to "get it", but generally speaking, people's behavior based on what they learn. You don't learn to work hard based on magic any more than you learn to read based on magic. You're given opportunities, and you face consequences. Skiles is making these guys face more consequences than they had before, which makes some sense given that the consequences they faced before weren't seeming to make any difference to anyone. At the very least, that's better than giving them no consequences up till the moment you dump them because you've decided they'll never get it on their own.


I don't think Skiles is handing down consequences any more dire than BC did. He may be making more of a public issue about it. But BC was far from a pushover. There have been stretches where all three C's (as well as Fizer and others) spent time in BC's doghouse due to their poor play or lack of effort. The most recent was BC's pulling JC out of the starting lineup.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> But I think one thing players have to "get" on their own is the amount of work and effort that is required to become a truly elite NBA player.


Well as we have always known .. as Eddy, Jamal amd Tyson go so go the Bulls 

You have two high schoolers and a 17 game college player coming into , as you state it , a Phil Jackson inspired Coaching/Management approach by Bill Cartwright

In a perfect world , yes , it would be brilliant if 18 and 19 year old boys could figure out the way of the world they are in and have the necessary maturity - mental and then physical ( if the mental application was there ) to have the subtle nuances of horse whispering man management all sorted

Worked for KG ( straight away ) 

Worked for Kobe ( more so his second year ) 

T Mac .. eventually ( more so his 2nd to 3rd year ) 

Amare ( straight away )

And now Lebron ( straight away ) 

And before these guys over the last 8 years there was Moses Malone ( did I miss anybody in between ) 

Meanwhile there is the 5 year story of Jermaine O'Neal... the 3 - 4 year story of Rashard Lewis.. the 3 - 4 year story of Al Harrington and the missing in action stories of Darius Miles, Jonathan Bender Kwame Brown with our own trio just marginally progressed from this 

And then you go further down the high school gene pool and there are a zillion DeAngelo Collins , Leon Smith types etc etc 

In the modern era of high school declarees - say since KG over an 8 - 9 year period ..with the guys that have been legit since day one or into their 2nd campaign , the talent pool has only thrown up a genuine superstar "top 10" NBA player once every two years

Unfortunately we took 3 in a period of 12 months ( from 2000 to 2001 ) and none of them have paid dividends yet 

The 3 in question have showed mental or physical fragility and that they are not up to the task ... yet 

The physical aspects I can live with ( Chandler ) if there is some belief that he can ultimately grow into his body 

Its the mental aspects .. the lack of mental toughness that has bothered me most about Curry and Crawford. The sense of entitlement .. being caught in the hoopla of the lifestyle and not having the maturity to understand that you have to constantly prove yourself and fight for everything 

Phil Jackson has always coached self driven teams out of very strong engine rooms , Jordan and Pippen , and Shaq and Kobe

Bill Cartwright hasn't had the luxury and perhaps he and Krause failed to recognise this. Maybe the organisation was too stubborn or proud to admit these young boys who were not mature or wordly and did need to be led by the nose . And that putting cavemen like Oakley in the locker room - and us and them kind of a guy was not going to cut it .

So yes I believe the management regime was wrong in the first place as given the low percentages of picking up a switched on stud from day - and we had 3 in the nucleus , none of these kids had a frame of reference

The liklihood was , was that they were going to be immature, projects, they were going to have to be worked with . And if you were prepared to accept that then you had to put the right structures in place that was commensurate with this probability to give them the best possible chance to develop as fast as they can 

And after you be pragmatic to build the right structures around what you got .. then let the accountability to the individual define them as men and as basketballers

We needed the boot camp seargent with a heart of gold who could provide both empathy and disclipine and in return receive unconditional respect 

I remember even Jay - a college veteran , referring ( in clandestine terms ) last year about what a poor direct communicator Bill was. Some players need more 





> I think it's the coach's job to plant seeds and let the players take things from there. This is admittedly a more long-term approach. It's tough to come up with examples of this since so much of this type of thing takes place behind closed doors. But there is the well-documented story about when Phil was dissatisfied with the team's play at one point (don't recall when exactly it was). Did he yell and scream at the players about how they weren't playing smart and with effort? No. Instead he spliced scenes from the Wizard of Oz into the tape of the last game to illustrate how the Bulls were playing with no brains, no heart, and no courage.


That's all fine and I personally love all the symbolic metaphorical representation stuff myself - very powerful .

For the right audience

And this one that we've had ain't it 

The young nucleus were/are not wordly and sophiticated .. so such clever dick communication would go right over their heads... and I think they dominate the overall feel / culture of this team . Guys like Kendall can mouth off and try and set a tone but guys like him , Jerome Williams and Antonio Davis will be role playing studs on good teams and will struggle on a struggling team .. until - the kids grow up and start delivering on their potential .

And because of this.. the young guys are responsible for the real culture of the team .. not all the rah rah rhetoric about eating your veges, going to bed early , getting in early and staying late lunch pail BS crapola that certain playing vets and management types like to sprout 

You get defined and find your identity by what you do not what you say

In essence, I think the young core of the team needed direct and explicit communication with liberal doses of empathy and disclipine in boundary setting.. until they grow up and mature as men

And I think they are getting that from Skiles ,who together with Paxson are setting the boundaries

I am happy with management much more than I was with the previous regime




> I don't think Skiles is handing down consequences any more dire than BC did. He may be making more of a public issue about it. But BC was far from a pushover. There have been stretches where all three C's (as well as Fizer and others) spent time in BC's doghouse due to their poor play or lack of effort. The most recent was BC's pulling JC out of the starting lineup.


I don't disagree with this .. but where you have more fragile less esoteric types.. you need explicit communication and not games of 2nd guessing which leads to confusion, getting demoralised and bad chemistry 

I think this is the difference between Skiles and Cartwright


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Nice post, FJ.

You missed Bill Willoughby.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 2. He's tired of Eddy telling him that he's "fine" and that he "knows what [he's] doing" and that "that's not the way we used to do things".
> -----
> Sadly, I think conditioning is only battleground number one for these two. Happily, I think Skiles will win the war.



After tonights game:



> Continuing a recent trend, Skiles made Curry stay for additional work after the team's morning shootaround.
> 
> Curry worked on post moves with assistant Pete Myers. He ran sprints and did situps with assistant strength and conditioning coach Jeff Macy. Then he did both again in pregame warmups.
> 
> "I thought I was working hard enough before," Curry said. "I wasn't doing anything extra, like I am now. *But I thought I was OK.* I don't really understand it.


Told ya!  

Happily he concluded:
"But I have to do it."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbrite,1,1664013.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I thought this quote says it all 




> "We have some good veterans now who lead by example with regard to those things. Some habits need to be changed. And we're going to go about changing them."


Youngs kids entering the nba especially ones with little to no college experience do what they see others do .

Eddy and Tyson had Donyell and Rose to look watch in the offseason .Crawford had no one he tore a knee came back and they dumped all the mentors he couldve had again (Ollie,Anthony,Best) its quite obvious we wasted 2 more years dealing with Bill Crapright and Jalen Rose.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Well as we have always known .. as Eddy, Jamal amd Tyson go so go the Bulls
> ...


Great post FJ, couldn't agree more.

Truth, what you just said is a major reason why Rose and Marshall were dealt. I don't think they are lazy. But they seem to be the type of players who do enough to get by. Paxson wants Chandler, Curry and Crawford to get the maximum out of their abilities. 

Guys like Gill, JYD and AD are all hard workers who have had to work really hard to get to where they are today. They are the guys Paxson knows will set the right example for our young players.

Sometimes there are more to trades than just the talent swapped.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Currently, Toronto is 5th seed in the East.

You know where the Bulls are in that regard.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Currently, Toronto is 5th seed in the East.
> 
> You know where the Bulls are in that regard.


I'm starting to question Toronto. They seem to be backsliding right now. They got waxed tonight by the Hornets.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm starting to question Toronto. They seem to be backsliding right now. They got waxed tonight by the Hornets.


Not exactly "waxed," assuming that implies a blowout. Hornets would be the 3rd seed, and have a considerably better record (21-12 .636 vs. 16-15 .516).

Care to predict when the Bulls will get their 16th win? (if at all ;-)


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm starting to question Toronto. They seem to be backsliding right now. They got waxed tonight by the Hornets.


Go ahead and call me an eternal optimist, but I think the Bulls are capable of catching Toronto in the standings. Obviously you can't ignore the impressive 5 game winning streak the Raptors enjoyed immediately after the trade. But since then, Toronto's record is 3-7.

Currently at 16-15, Toronto is lodged in the #5 playoff slot. The Bulls, with a 10-22 record trail them by 6 1/2 games. That's still a lot to overcome. However, the Raptors have pretty much been at full strength all season while Chicago's truly been crippled by injuries to key rotation personnel. If and when the day comes when the Bulls are able to replace Jefferies and Johnson with Pippen and Chandler on the active roster, we just might see that gap narrow quickly.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Go ahead and call me an eternal optimist, but I think the Bulls are capable of catching Toronto in the standings. Obviously you can't ignore the impressive 5 game winning streak the Raptors enjoyed immediately after the trade. But since then, Toronto's record is 3-7.
> ...


I agree.

It depends on TC coming back healthy,i hope for a big boost for us.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It also depends on catching teams like New York (14-20) when both their starting guards are out.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Kneepad basically said what I said. He was applauded, I was bashed :thand: but hey, its ok. If I am going to be a minority on this, it certainly means more having a quality poster like you see things like I do then 10 guys who dont know what they are talking about taking the opportunity to rip you (that was not directed at anyone).
> 
> Kneepad great post. Im with you. Either guys have it or dont. Very rarely do they just discover it later. Skiles job is to be a taskmaster, not to coach. He isnt that great a coach. Thats fairly obvious. AS Kneepad correctly pointed out, look at the Bulls offense. Zero movement, no imagination, just plain bad to watch. But I will say he needs atleast a fulltraining camp putting in his system before he is judged on it. But the early indications arent great. The point is, Pax needs to find players who have some heart, and then hire a coach who actually is accomplished and can COACH. In this case, we dont have players with heart (minus Kirk and Chandler, who I doubt will ever be effective as he might have been because of his back) and we dont have a coach who can actually outcoach a guy on the other end of the floor (I can see Phil scouting the Bulls just laughing to himself). Paxs decision to hire this guy was a wrong trying to right a wrong, only compounding the issue. Sure, there are disciplinarians out there who are good coaches, Sloan, Popovich (a much lesser degree unless your Parker), etc. But lets be honest, Skiles is not in their league at all in terms of outcoaching a guy. But he might be in their league in showing up a 21 year old who doesnt tape his ankles (and never has) and in the process, alienating him from his teammates. Even the beat writers thought that was stupid.
> ...


i see the demise of skiles wrapped up in one thing .

pet plays , the plays a team can always use to get their star player off if he's doing bad or not hitting his normal shots for some reason.

do the bulls have one for anyone on their roster other than curry?

i dont see it and the play they have for curry is the same pick and roll they used to have w/ rose just now its JC with the ball

the other one for curry is the alley oop 

but nothing for anyone else and the bulls desperately need one , if i have to watch the bulls run 5 times in a row a pick and pop w/ either AD or corie blount againg i'm going to hurt someone . 

its not a good play ,its 2 mediocre big men jump shooters, shooting at the end of their range because of a lack of something better to run ,personally i'd be inclined just to see if it could work run that same play with kirk and jc both of whom have 3 pt range and are better shooters


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> It also depends on catching teams like New York (14-20) when both their starting guards are out.


did you make excuses for the bulls when both curry and chandler were missing games.

those be the breaks


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> It also depends on catching teams like New York (14-20) when both their starting guards are out.


that can help too!


----------

