# Words fell Blazers in loss



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

_It was too good to be true for the Trail Blazers on Monday . . . a 14-point lead in the third quarter against Dallas . . . Rasheed Wallace playing like an All-Star . . . Zach Randolph putting up huge numbers . . . then this:

*Bonzi Wells cusses out coach Maurice Cheeks on the court.* 

The aftermath? 

Wells was done for the game, the Blazers' lead soon was done, and eventually the Blazers were done -- 105-98 -- despite remarkable performances from Wallace (31 points, eight rebounds) and Randolph (25 points, 19 rebounds). 

Wells was exiled to the bench for the final 16:17 of the game, but that might be just the start of the consequences, which certainly will result in a fine and could lead to a suspension by the team. 

*"I haven't decided what is going to happen, but something will happen," Cheeks said. "It's ridiculous. Just ridiculous." *

_ 

Sounds like Bonzi is in the dog house people. :whatever:

Oregonlive.com (Jason Quick)


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

For those of you that don't like to click on the link here is another big suprise on why Bonzi Wells was benched.

_While walking off the court to the bench, Wells said something to Cheeks, but it didn't stop there. He continued using profanity, essentially telling Cheeks it was messed up that the coach was taking him out of the game. As the game resumed, Wells continued to stand on the sideline about eight feet from Cheeks, while whipping his hand at Cheeks and using the word "jumper" and several cuss words. 

As Wells sat down, Cheeks darted out of his seat, walked down the sideline and pointed in Wells' face while speaking sharply._ 

Passion or Stupidity? :whatever:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Wells stirs more trouble in rift with Cheeks*

More reading for you enjoyment! 

*The Blazers coach acknowledges "friction" with his starting guard after a third-quarter incident * 


_"There is friction. You can write it," Cheeks said. "That incident happened and we have to deal with it. I don't have a concern with it. I'm going to deal with it, and then I'm going to put it aside." 

As he left the locker room Monday night, Cheeks wasn't sure how he would deal with his latest run-in with Wells, or how it could effect his starting lineup for Wednesday's game against the Miami Heat at the Rose Garden. 

"If it's him (Wells), I'll put him on the floor," Cheeks said. "If it's not, then I'll put someone else out there who I am confident will walk on the floor and play." _



Oregonlive.com (Jim Beseda) 

My guess is that Bonzi will not play Wednesday against Miami. :nonono:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I've been saying it for about 2 weeks (ever since news of the run-in with the Plaid Pantry clerk broke): Bonzi has GOT to go. Right now, he is the biggest single problem for this team.

This guy wants to be a team captain and an All-Star?

What a joke.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Stupid on Bonzi's part, but stupid on Cheeks's part to take him out just because he missed a jumper. If Mo knew what he was doing Bonzi wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake.

Of course, I don't know particulars of what was said, so maybe Bonzi was much more out of line than I envision him being...

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Well, it sounded like Bonzi needed to be reeled in a little bit, throwing what sounds like a crazy pass and taking an ill-advised shot two plays in a row...

Sometimes you pull a player out of the game to talk to them, get their head on straight and put them back in before too much damage is done.

Bonzi isn't exactly earning back any fans this year. He's combining poor play with even worse attitude. Getting in a shouting match with the coach obviously hurts the team. I don't really see how anyone can consider taking Bonzi's side on this without something coming out to the effect that Cheeks has been beating up Bonzi's grandma or something...

It's not like we're talking about Bobby Knight, Cheeks is supposedly a players coach. Bonzi is way out of line here, and I hope the team suspends him for a couple of games. 

I think it'd be worth it to lose a couple of games (if that's what would actually happen) if it meant that the players got a clear message to listen to their coach and give Bonzi some time to grow up like he pretended to over the offseason. 

Silver lining... Q would get some serious burn.

Cheers


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Stupid on Bonzi's part, but stupid on Cheeks's part to take him out just because he missed a jumper. If Mo knew what he was doing Bonzi wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake."


I hope you're kidding, Ed O.

Personally, I will trust the coach to make the decisions that are best for his team. And based on what we know already, Bonzi had thrown a careless pass downcourt that wasn't near any Blazer player. He may also have given other signs of carelessness, or showed that his head wasn't in the game, or he wasn't playing intelligently. The coach knows his players, knows their habits, their tendencies, and their personalities. He is with them every single day, in practice, on the plane, in the locker room, and during games. He KNOWS when a player is hurting his team, and he KNOWS when that player needs to take a seat on the bench. For you to suggest that Cheeks caused all of this by taking Bonzi out for no good reason is mind-boggling.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I agree Talkhard. To suggest this was Cheeks' fault is unfathomable. Bonzi HAS to go. The guy has ZERO self control.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> I'm going to save this quote from you, Ed O. Every time I think you don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to look at this quote and remind myself of how much you really know about basketball.


It's nice to be able to correct oneself. That's good that you keep an example to remind yourself that you're wrong.



> Personally, I will trust the coach to make the decisions that are best for his team. And based on what we know already, Bonzi had thrown a careless pass downcourt that wasn't near any Blazer player. He may also have given other signs of carelessness, or showed that his head wasn't in the game, or he wasn't playing intelligently.


Did you even watch the game? I had that question in the Sheed-bashing thread you started, but I took it out because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. But based on your comments of "what we know already" you sound like you haven't and you're just forming your opinions on what you've read rather than what actually happened.

Bonzi threw a long pass after taking the ball out from under the basket (after Nash scored on Damon). It was an aggressive play, but it wasn't a total bonehead move. 



> The coach knows his players, knows their habits, their tendencies, and their personalities. He is with them every single day, in practice, on the plane, in the locker room, and during games. He KNOWS when a player is hurting his team, and he KNOWS when that player needs to take a seat on the bench.


If he's a good coach, he does. I'm not convinced that Mo Cheeks is a good coach. When the team has a 7 point lead, Bonzi Wells is one of the reasons that the team is ahead, and your option to replace him is a guy that wasn't even in the NBA a couple of weeks ago, pulling Bonzi is stupid.



> For you to suggest that Cheeks caused all of this by taking Bonzi out for no good reason is mind-boggling.


Again: did you see the game? If so, then I guess you're entitled to your opinion. If not, while you can still have your opinion it's one that's based in ignorance because you haven't seen what happened.

Damon Stoudamire was being torched by Steve Nash. He was shooting terribly from the floor and he was getting nothing done. But he kept playing. Bonzi Wells made one poor pass and missed one jumper (he'd hit similar shots earlier in the game, and there was only 9 seconds on the shot clock, so it's not like he rushed it) and he was benched?

Cheeks had his reasons, but I'm not convinced they were good ones. And while Bonzi made a dumb move cursing at the coach, I think that Cheeks's initial move was just as stupid and ended up costing Portland a game it could have won.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Well, it sounded like Bonzi needed to be reeled in a little bit, throwing what sounds like a crazy pass and taking an ill-advised shot two plays in a row...


They didn't happen on consecutive plays. Bonzi threw the bad pass almost 2 minutes before he missed his jumper. Portland had scored two baskets in between the two occurences.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

well... reading the Oregonian will do that to you...

Regardless, we could argue all we want about whether Cheeks made the right call to pull him, but that's not really the issue.

The issue is Bonzi's reaction. I don't expect the players to agree with every call Cheeks makes or like being benched in the middle of a big game, but I do expect them to not throw a hissy fit and cuss out the coach in front of the rest of the team and in front of the fans.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Imagine that you and your boss are making a new business pitch. Halfway through the PowerPoint presentation, your boss does something that annoys you. You turn and swear at him loudly. You call him an idiot, a M-----F------, an A---hole. The audience is stunned. Your boss is red-faced embarrassed. He asks you to leave the room, but you refuse. Instead, you continue to make a scene and ridicule your boss for several minutes.

Do you think you would have a job the next day? Of course not.

But Bonzi Wells effectively did the same thing to Coach Cheeks last night in front of thousands of fans and a TV audience, and he has done so before. Will it cost him his job today, or tomorrow? It might, and it should. But he will just go on to some other NBA team and continue to make millions of dollars.

This is the NBA today, guys. It is dominated by street punks and hoods and thugs, and old-school guys like Mo Cheeks, who is respected throughout the league as a class act, has to put up with it every night.

That's the pro sports league we love, unfortunately. Except I'm having a hard time loving it as much as I used to.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> well... reading the Oregonian will do that to you...
> 
> ...The issue is Bonzi's reaction. I don't expect the players to agree with every call Cheeks makes or like being benched in the middle of a big game, but I do expect them to not throw a hissy fit and cuss out the coach in front of the rest of the team and in front of the fans.


That is EXACTLY the real issue and is a most recent example of why Bonzi has been labeled a punk. (even by those within the Blazer organization that have directly mentioned that to yours truly.)

He's had authority issues dating back to High School days and, obviously, has had troubles learning from his many mistakes in that area.

Cheeks isn't gonna take this crap and the chances of Bonzi getting *strongly* dealt with, or moved, have increased - exponentially.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> That is EXACTLY the real issue and is a most recent example of why Bonzi has been labeled a punk. (even by those within the Blazer organization that have directly mentioned that to yours truly.)
> ...


Okay, I just going to throw this out there, just for old times sake.............. *Jerry Stackhouse*. Okay, I feel better now! Hi Ed! :wave:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> 
> Okay, I just going to throw this out there, just for old times sake.............. *Jerry Stackhouse*. Okay, I feel better now! Hi Ed! :wave:


Isn't Stackhouse busy assaulting real estate agents and/or nursing a bum knee?

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

The guy needs to serve a 71 game suspension without pay. He's an idiot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

If I were a doctor I would say eliminate the cancer before it has a chance to spread. It is obvious that Bonzi is not happy here, and it could be that he wouldn't be happy anywhere. But, on a team that is trying to redeam themselves to fans and struggling with a league wide reputation for having bad attitudes it's time for him to go.

I thin Phil Jackson was right when he said any team can deal with on knucklehead, but 2, 3, or 4 is not gonna do it.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

maybe bonzi took the play into his own hands , neglecting (again) one that was called by coach - he really needs to make a stand on that , maybe this was it


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> .......any team can deal with one knucklehead, but 2, 3, or 4 is not gonna do it.


Heh, speaking of the _originals_. (Jail Blazers?)


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't Stackhouse busy assaulting real estate agents and/or nursing a bum knee?
> ...


Yeah, but atleast he wouldn't upset the flow of the game in his present condition. :laugh:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm really liking this new management...

First of all they didn't deal the whole team away for crap during the offseason, and now they're holding the players accountable for their actions. It's been a long time coming.

I'm especially glad to have Sheed and Zach on the same team, boy are they tearin' it up... if only there were a team to surround them. 

I hope Sheed gets resigned and moves are made to upgrade the guard play, hopefully guys with upside. Then the team will be good for a long time once more.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Stupid on Bonzi's part, but stupid on Cheeks's part to take him out just because he missed a jumper. If Mo knew what he was doing Bonzi wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake.


C'mon, Ed....haven't you ever seen "Hoosiers"?

You take a player out when he won't listen to your game plan. Then you lose that game. But in the end, you earn the respect of all your players and win the Championship!

It all makes sense. The fans who do nothing but complain during the first half of the season. The point guard who says, "I ain't no good, I'm too short." Even the part about regaining the player who's sitting out the year (am I the only one who thinks this sounds like Sabonis?) because he learns to admire the coach.

Of course, Rade didn't cuss out his coach......

I guess we'll see if the analogy fits when Bonzi returns to the team. Maybe he'll hit an opposing player in defense of Cheeks!


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> but stupid on Cheeks's part to take him out just because he missed a jumper. If Mo knew what he was doing Bonzi wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake.


I TOTALLY disagree. Cheeks had no choice but to remove Bonzi from the game. There is no way Bonzi could have stayed in the game after cussing out the coach-no way. The win is less important than dealing with insubordination. 

Punishment has to be levied on the spot. It simply has to. The suspension is personal for Bonzi and the loss of the co-captain status...allowing him to stay on the floor would not show who is running the ship. 

It's like if your pet has an accident. If you aren't there to instruct (note I did NOT say punish) immediately, then there is no use in doing so. You are wrong if you do and the pet learns nothing but fear of it's master. 

If Bonzi had played on, he would feel what he had done was acceptable and that any punishment he got would just make him angry at mangement. At least now he knows that Cheeks isn't going to take it anymore and if he doesn't get it...well..he will "accident" himself right off the team.

The only bad thing I can think of is that now Bonzi will feel that he is bigger than the team...that we can't win without him. It would have been much better and more a lesson to Bonzi had we won the game without him. But hey...I think Cheeks absolutely did the SMART thing. I like his no nonsense style.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

EdO likes to point to Pippen's insubordination towards coaching and management to discredit what he did for the team, then he goes on to say that Bonzi was right in questioning Mo. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> C'mon, Ed....haven't you ever seen "Hoosiers"?
> ...


We would still need a drunk (but trying to quit) gamer of an assistant coach to take over ocassionally for Moe.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

did anybody pick up Rod Strickland yet?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> did anybody pick up Rod Strickland yet?


I can hear them screaming now, "Thank God, for Rod!".


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> did anybody pick up Rod Strickland yet?


The police.

barfo


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*memo to Blazer brass*

Hope you watched the Pistons vs Lakers tonight.
See what happens when you have a team that can protect a lead,and step it up in the 4th.

Players who can score in the 4th quarter are terrific.
You know,it doesn't matter if you score 50 points,if you score
2-3 points in the 4th.

If you can put a team together like the Pistons,I guarantee fans
will be screaming their heads off again.
You're the new guys here,so you don't remember when Blazer
fans could mark it down for a win,they were that sure.
Now fans are biting their nails off,with a lead !!

And gee it was nice to see the Pistons play as a team,no bickering,no snarling,scowling,techs,cussing at the coach,etc..

Please unload Bonzi and Rasheed,and get the blueprint from the Pistons and the Grizz..

And give coach a raise for FINALLY speaking his mind..


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> EdO likes to point to Pippen's insubordination towards coaching and management to discredit what he did for the team, then he goes on to say that Bonzi was right in questioning Mo. You can't have it both ways.


You make at least two errors in this post, either because you're misunderstanding what I've said or you're intentionally distorting what I said.

I do NOT think Wells was right in questioning Mo. I DO think that Mo was stupid to take him out when he did.

They're entirely different points.

The second mistake is in regards to Pippen: I did question his willingness to undercut coaches and the front office (at all of his stops in his NBA career), but I question in in regards to his leadership. I don't think that I've ever argued that Bonzi is a leader and so I don't think that the mere fact that I raise the point in the context of Pippen but not in the context of Wells is "having it both ways".

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> I TOTALLY disagree. Cheeks had no choice but to remove Bonzi from the game. There is no way Bonzi could have stayed in the game after cussing out the coach-no way. The win is less important than dealing with insubordination.


You're mixing up two issues.

#1: Should Cheeks have pulled Bonzi out of the game?

#2: Should Cheeks have kept Bonzi on the bench for the remainder of the game?

I believe that Bonzi's cursing came after #1, and resulted in #2. With the facts as I currently understand them, I think that #2 was a good move but #1 was not. In fact, I think that #1 was a stupid move and it cost the Blazers the game just as much as Bonzi's swearing did.

Ed O.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: memo to Blazer brass*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Please unload Bonzi and Rasheed,and get the blueprint from the Pistons and the Grizz..


Better yet, why _not_ hop the wagon hit the road and follow those two teams.

_If I were a gambling man I would bet that the Blazers win the season series against both of those teams._


*...revised edition*


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You're mixing up two issues.
> ...


Exactly right Ed. The fact that Cheeks was right on the 2nd point should not cloud the 1st point. Cheeks had Bonzi on a short leash, while playing blind to Damon's more numerous mistakes. That kind of double standard is not wise.

And for my next trick, I will explain how it was really all Sheed's fault!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*The Enigma*

I dare not tell you what I think about your post.
Please apologize.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

_I do not typically do apologies however in light of your femininity failure to do so would be down right ungentlemanly of me.
With this in mined I respectfully decline (being a gentleman is overrated anyway)._

...That would have been my knee jerk response to such a request (in years past) however in an attempt to “clean up” my image... *I apologize*.

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

All things aside I truly do apologize if I offended you in any way (that truly is not my intent on this board).
_I revised my post in an attempt to make it a bit more Jackie friendly._


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

What exactly is a "femininity failure"?

And if you're trying to "clean up your image" why leave something so incredibly sexist sounding in your post?

You don't get to make a sexist comment and then back it off and say you're above that sort of thing and look like a good guy, just makes it sound sexist AND condescending.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> What exactly is a "femininity failure"?
> 
> And if you're trying to "clean up your image" why leave something so incredibly sexist sounding in your post?
> ...


heh heh. I think he meant to have a comma between femininity and failure.

barfo


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ha, thanks barfo, that makes way more sense... still pretty sexist though unfortunately.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HOWIE</b>!
> _It was too good to be true for the Trail Blazers on Monday . . . a 14-point lead in the third quarter against Dallas . . . Rasheed Wallace playing like an All-Star . . . Zach Randolph putting up huge numbers . . . then this:
> 
> *Bonzi Wells cusses out coach Maurice Cheeks on the court.*
> ...


When will Bonzi learn? Why can't he just be more mature and keep his actions appropriate.If he can't get it right, and respect his coaches, he needs to be dealt.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed,

I don't meant to be nit-picking, but this topic has greatly intruiged me and (as I know that you have a lot of insight and resources) I was wondering if you had become aware of more information between this comment..



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> ......Of course, I don't know particulars of what was said, so maybe Bonzi was much more out of line than I envision him being...


and this one....



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> #1: Should Cheeks have pulled Bonzi out of the game?
> 
> ........I think that #1 was a *stupid* move and it cost the Blazers the game just as much as Bonzi's swearing did.


I've just been wondering if there might have been a truly legitimate reason (Wells departing from called plays, unseen attititude, etc.) to warrant Cheeks pulling Bonzi.

Thanks.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> I don't meant to be nit-picking, but this topic has greatly intruiged me and (as I know that you have a lot of insight and resources) I was wondering if you had become aware of more information between this comment..
> 
> and this one....


I think the first came before the suspension, and I had it in my head that what was said to Cheeks, was something along the lines of, "I miss one blankety blank jumper and you take me out of the blankety blank game?"

I might have underestimated, though, the level of vitriol and invective aimed at Cheeks, and since the suspension came along while I don't know any more actual facts, I find it harder to believe Wells would be suspended for that, so I think he probably said something more personal to Cheeks.



> I've just been wondering if there might have been a truly legitimate reason (Wells departing from called plays, unseen attititude, etc.) to warrant Cheeks pulling Bonzi.


There MIGHT have been, but I've re-watched the game in that period several times and I don't see anything particularly bad. I think Cheeks was upset that the team was giving up the lead, and Bonzi had made two plays that hurt the team (Damon, of course, had made more than that with Steve Nash lighting him up).

As someone (The Enigma?) has stated, a TO would have been a good idea, but pulling Bonzi after he missed a jumper weakens Bonzi's confidence in the shot, and I don't think was a good idea.

Mo can do what he wants--he's the coach, after all--but I don't think second-guessing bringing in Matt Carroll for Bonzi Wells during a Mavs run is that hard to do.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> And gee it was nice to see the Pistons play as a team,no bickering,no snarling,scowling,techs,cussing at the coach,etc..


I don't think you have watched very many Piston games. Ben Wallace especially...how many techs has he got thus far...um, 3-same as Rasheed. As a team Pistons lead Portland with 6 (we have 5)

How about KG- 5 "T's" with one ejection already.

As for teams that are not bickering, snarling, scowling, cussing...you know this goes on at every game, with every team...if techs are a decent way to gauge a teams "maturity" (at least that is what is said of Portland)

Let's see...as of today:

Timberwolves 16 Techs 
Hawks 12
Celts 12
Mavs 12
Rockets 12
Sixers 12
Bulls 11
Nets 10

Blazers 5

I am with most everyone that we have a problem child in Bonzi but continually blaming the team as a whole is wrong. The behavior you describe that happens during games is not specific to Portland and not void of Detroit.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think you have watched very many Piston games. Ben Wallace especially...how many techs has he got thus far...um, 3-same as Rasheed. As a team Pistons lead Portland with 6 (we have 5)
> ...


*stands up and cheers*

to quote John Lucas...

"thats what I'm talking about!"


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Would Bonzi have remained benched if he had not blasted off at Cheeks? I don't think Bonzi remained benched because he missed the shot, nor do I believ Cheeks pulling him out at that time was reason for the loss. But Bonzi remaining out, may have been responsible and if that is the case the loss is squarely on Bonzi's shoulders. 

If you were the coach would you allow a player to disrespect you in that manor, and simply shrug it off and put him back in the game. I sure the heck wouldn't that would show a seious sign of weekness and vulnerability.

Cheeks pulling Bonzi didn't cost the game. Bonzi blasting off and by doing so relegating himself to the bench did.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Cheeks pulling Bonzi didn't cost the game. Bonzi blasting off and by doing so relegating himself to the bench did.


Actually, it took both people making decisions to have the situation happen.

Let's make a quick analogy.

Bonzi Wells is driving down the road. In excess of the posted speed limit. He's coming up to a crosswalk.

Mo Cheeks is at the corner, waiting to cross the road. He sees Bonzi coming. He knows that there's a pretty good chance that Wells won't stop. He knows that Bonzi would be the in the wrong if he hit him.

Mo Cheeks enters the crosswalk.

Bonzi doesn't slow down (for you Bonzi haters, let's say he flies into a rage and hits the accelerator) and hits him.[/analogy]

Was Mo stupid to choose that time to cross the street? In the sense that it caused an accident, yes. In the sense that it might cause Bonzi to slow down and/or stop next time, no.

I see this similarly here. Cheeks decided to pull Bonzi (for, IMO, sketchy reasons) and he had to know Wells wasn't going to be happy about it. Wells reacted explosively and wrongly. And it ended up costing the team the game.

It might work out better in the long run, but I put part of the blame for the loss on Cheeks in addition to Wells.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Would Bonzi have remained benched if he had not blasted off at Cheeks?


I agree with you Schilly-the benching is/was...in Cheek's own words:



> "When I addressed the team today, I told them I could have possibly put him back in the game and we could have won," Cheeks said. "But I think this goes deeper than trying to win a basketball game."


 (Ed O take note)LINK 

I also found this interesting:


> Wells and Cheeks did not talk after Monday's game and they did not speak to each other during the team's four-hour flight home Monday night. As several players went to the front of the Blazers' plane to console Cheeks, Wells stayed in the back and played cards.


It is creating a team rift...Bonzi is alienating himself with this behavior and I think more than just Cheeks is tired of it. This is not a good thing. I hate to see it happen but that doesn't change the fact that it has/is.....frankly-I don't have the answers...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Clearly the answer is to get rid of Bonzi. That is what will be done as well. I've said it before and I'll say it again....this team is going nowhere in its current configuration. Management is going to rebuild.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think that anyone's arguing Bonzi was benched for the remainder of the game because he made a bad pass and missed a jumper, and I don't think many people would argue that he ought not have been benched for cursing at Mo (although I would be interested to hear what was said... Jason Quick reported it was "not as personal or pointed" as previous situations, so it's probably in line with what I originally thought he'd said, rather than a personal attack).

Cheeks decided to bite the bullet and lose a game rather than put up with curses from Bonzi. He's the coach and it's his decision, but that loss goes on his record and the team's record irrespective of moral implications.

I'm not sure that a team rift can be seen based on the reports that I've read to this point... or at least not a new one as a result of the Dallas game. DA already dislikes Cheeks at some level, so it's not like the whole team loved Mo. Bonzi had already cursed at Cheeks (more personally and pointedly) in the past. One player has already broken the eye socket of another player.

This team has a lot of issues, and while this MAY be the one that breaks the camel's back, I'd tend to believe it's going to impact the team less than some think.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, it took both people making decisions to have the situation happen.
> ...


Umm ED? That is a horrible analogy. It is the coaches perogative to pull a player at any time. The Player does not possess the right to question that authority. In your analogy Cheeks waited for the walk sign and Bonzi ran the red light.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Umm ED? That is a horrible analogy. It is the coaches perogative to pull a player at any time. The Player does not possess the right to question that authority. In your analogy Cheeks waited for the walk sign and Bonzi ran the red light.


No doubt. But Cheeks got run over all the same. That's the whole point of my analogy.

Coaches get fired in the NBA for losing games. They don't get fired for not taking stands with players.

Cheeks knew that by removing Wells for missing a jumper he'd tick Bonzi off. He should have known that if he ticked Bonzi off he might curse at him, costing the team the game.

Does that mean Bonzi was right and Cheeks was wrong? Of course not. But "right" doesn't always mean "smart" and in the context of trying to win the basketball game in Dallas on Monday night, Cheeks was stupid for removing Wells.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

If coaches don't take stands with players they lose other players respect which leads to losing which ultimately leads to the coach getting fired.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> No doubt. But Cheeks got run over all the same. That's the whole point of my analogy.
> ...


But if he had put him back in the signal would have been sent to all the other players that he had lost control of the team. There is no deadlier dagger in coaching than losing control of a team. It is the quikest way out the door. I can think of a couple of younger players that quikly found their way out of the league by not acdcepting coaches authority.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

That analogy would support giving a child his way because you _know_ if you don't he'll throw a fit...ridiculous. Bonzi wants to act like a child send him to his room (or bench).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> But if he had put him back in the signal would have been sent to all the other players that he had lost control of the team.


I'm sorry if you missed it where I said it in my other 30 posts, but I *am not arguing that Bonzi should have been let back in the game after cursing at the coach*.

There's a lot to argue about without the confusion over what position I'm taking.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Do you really think Cheeks EXPECTED a reaction like that out of Bonzi? Players get pulled out of the game all the time.

How many times have players been pulled from a game and not liked it? Countless times.

How many times have players cussed out their coach in the middle of the game? Very few.

If Cheeks should have to expect that sort of reaction every time he pulls a player out of the game, then this team is in serious trouble.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> That analogy would support giving a child his way because you _know_ if you don't he'll throw a fit...ridiculous. Bonzi wants to act like a child send him to his room (or bench).


Parents don't get fired if their kids don't eat dinner.

Coaches DO get fired if their teams don't win games.

But my analogy's not "supporting" anything other than my opinion that Cheeks knew, or should have known, that pulling Wells out for missing a jumper could cost the team the game.

Tlong is right (as we all know) that coaches get fired if they lose control of their teams, but ask Doc Rivers if he'd rather have had control over his team or have not gone 1-10... if he wanted to keep his job with the Magic, he'd know that record is more important.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*firstly-not attacking-just enjoying the argument...*



> Cheeks knew that by removing Wells for missing a jumper he'd tick Bonzi off. He should have known that if he ticked Bonzi off he might curse at him, costing the team the game.


SO coach Cheeks is to be held prisoner by a player's bad behavior? The bad behavior should dicate what the coach does and doesn't do?

ARE YOU NUTS?




> Does that mean Bonzi was right and Cheeks was wrong? Of course not. But "right" doesn't always mean "smart" and in the context of trying to win the basketball game in Dallas on Monday night, Cheeks was stupid for removing Wells.


You are on another planet Ed O. 
I'd venture to say that Cheeks most definitely had winning in mind...FUTURE games. He has an entire season to consider. 
He has to have control or the Blazer "whole" will fall apart. It was very SMART and very RIGHT to park Bonzi on the bench for the rest of the game. Suspend him for 2, and most likely yank him from starting for more...



> Cheeks said Jeff McInnis probably will start in Wells' place, while adding that he does not know if Wells will retain his starting role for Sunday's game at Golden State.


I hope it is more.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

So Cheeks should not have pulled Bonzi as there was a chance that Bonzi may react? Who's the boss here? Mo or Bonzi?

I think a coach that loses control of their team is far more likely to loses more games than a coach that is in control. As you said before, losing is how a coach get's fired.

Dunleavy got fired, he was winning, but he had lost control of the players.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: firstly-not attacking-just enjoying the argument...*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> SO coach Cheeks is to be held prisoner by a player's bad behavior? The bad behavior should dicate what the coach does and doesn't do?
> 
> ARE YOU NUTS?


Some might think so.

I think that part of coaching in the NBA is knowing what players are capable of and how they're probably going to react in certain situations. It's a player's league, not a coach's.

Cheeks might be making a stand for the long run, which I certainly hope works out, but as Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."



> You are on another planet Ed O.


OK.



> I'd venture to say that Cheeks most definitely had winning in mind...FUTURE games. He has an entire season to consider.


So when he saw Bonzi miss that jumper he said, "I need to consider all the future game. I need to pull Bonzi out now even if it means losing this game."? I doubt it.

He probably said, "Dang. Bonzi shot a jumper when I want him to pound it inside. I gotta get him outta there." Which, as a coach, that's his decision to make, but just because he makes it doesn't mean it's a good one.

As I've stated numerous times the last 60-odd hours, I think that it was a bad mistake for two reasons:

-- that's too short of a leash for a player like Bonzi when a player like Damon is going 1-for-n from the field
-- he should have known that it would tick Bonzi off and that might lead to consequences



> He has to have control or the Blazer "whohle" will fall apart. It was very SAMRT and very RIGHT to park Bonzi on the bench for the rest of the game. Suspend him for 2, and most likely yank him from starting for more...


Again: Who's arguing that the benching after the cursing or the suspension are incorrect? It's a straw man.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Parents don't get fired if their kids don't eat dinner.
> ...


Given current and past Blazer atmosphere...do you REALLY think Cheeks faces firing if the team has a losing season?

No. 

Do you think he faces firing if he lets the guys walk all over him?

Yes.

In this instance-I'd say Cheeks was securing his job.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> So Cheeks should not have pulled Bonzi as there was a chance that Bonzi may react? Who's the boss here? Mo or Bonzi?


Mo is, but a boss is responsible for the actions of her/his workers. Coaching in the NBA involves massive ego massaging, and a time out would have been a better, wiser way to let Bonzi know that his long jumper wasn't appreciated. All of this is, of course, IMO.



> I think a coach that loses control of their team is far more likely to loses more games than a coach that is in control. As you said before, losing is how a coach get's fired.
> 
> Dunleavy got fired, he was winning, but he had lost control of the players.


I think we agree losing coaches get fired much more often than winning coaches (just like, generally, older people tend to die more often than younger people). Whether a coach loses control of his team and then loses games or loses games and then loses control of his team is unclear to me.

Dunleavy won but got fired. I don't know if it was because he didn't win big enough or because he lost contact with the team. 

Either way, if Cheeks loses he'll be fired whether he is buddies with the players, plays golf with Ron Tonkin or helps 100 national anthem singers.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: firstly-not attacking-just enjoying the argument...*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

So coaches should tolerate temper tantrums and pouting by players? If I were a player I would throw a fit everytime the coach wanted to take me out, just so he wouldn't. That just doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: firstly-not attacking-just enjoying the argument...*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> You are Ed.


No I am not. Please show me where I argued that. In fact, I've posted at least twice now in the last 30 minutes that that is NOT what I am arguing.

The only places I came CLOSE to arguing that are:

-- immediately after the game, where I said Cheeks better have had a good reason for benching him the entire game

-- wondering what Wells said to Cheeks and whether it was worse than what is said by players in the NBA all the time. I honestly don't know except (a) Cheeks feels like he was disrespected and (b) the comments were not as pointed or personal as those that Wells has made to Cheeks in the past.

I honestly do not mean to be arguing that Cheeks should not have benched him or that Wells didn't deserve the suspension. If my fingers got ahead of my brain and I posted something that is to the contrary, please let me know and I'll go back and either clarify or edit it so it's consistent with my true intent.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> So coaches should tolerate temper tantrums and pouting by players? If I were a player I would throw a fit everytime the coach wanted to take me out, just so he wouldn't. That just doesn't make any sense at all.


Sure it makes sense. Coaches massage egos all the time. The Lakers call plays for Shaq on the offensive end so he will contribute in other areas. Iverson's allowed to shoot any where and any time he wants, in spite of having a generally pathetic shooting percentage.

Why do they do it? To make the team better by allowing the players to play.

Is Wells on the level of those two players? Obviously not. But if Cheeks is going to use him as a piece to the puzzle, he's got to know how to use him and where he fits. If he's not going to use him, then put him on the bench or trade him.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok so should the Lakers tolerate that type of behavior from say Rick Fox? or the 76ers from Derrick Coleman?

That being said what star has cursed out a coach after being pulled, and hasn't been benched for the duration? Especially a player that has been under fire a bit for having an attitude problem.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

So then Bonzi should get 48 minutes a game and as many shotws as he wants, just so he won't curse at Mo.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> You're mixing up two issues.
> 
> #1: Should Cheeks have pulled Bonzi out of the game?
> 
> ...


Ed,

You are separating cause and effect. You can't do that. The facts are-Bonzi was pulled, and Bonzi reacted...hence Cheeks reacted...etc.

Arguing any of it is a mute point. By making action 1 separate from action 2 you change reality. It's too late-it's a done deal. 

All we can do is speculate on facts that don't exist. SO yeah...by continually speculating on what MIGHT have been-you are arguing the facts of what happened.


Goodness.... 


*can you tell I am bored today?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> So coaches should tolerate temper tantrums and pouting by players? If I were a player I would throw a fit everytime the coach wanted to take me out, just so he wouldn't. That just doesn't make any sense at all.



C'mon Schilly, we know you had a rough night, but FOCUS. (just teasing)

Everyone here agrees Bonzi deserves the suspension. That is a SEPARATE issue from whether or not Cheeks messed up by pulling him in the first place.

Cheeks is creating the impression that there is one standard for Damon, and a different one for Bonzi. Creating that kind of double standard almost always comes back to bite the coach.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

One more thing.

Maurice Cheeks has the right to pull players when he choses, that is part of his job.

Bonzi does not have the right to question that authority in a public venue. After the game in the coaches office, yes.

If you think of a team in a military sense, a soldier that has other perogatives to that of the authority figure can be detrimental to the success of what is the common goal.

They call that "Conduct Detrimental to the Team". And guess what it counts big time.

Back to the Orlando Magic. Why did Doc get fired? Was it because he had too much control and the team wasn't successful? No I don't think that was it. I think it had to do with the team losing, yes Ed you are right on that aspect. But why was the team losing? SImple answer. The team sucks. The whole team lives or dies on McGrady's shoulders, is that fair? Heck no. That was not Doc's fault in any way shape or form.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

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


What the heck does Damon have to do with this? He was benched half the season last year because of stupid play.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> What the heck does Damon have to do with this? He was benched half the season last year because of stupid play.


and he didn't whine about it or cuss out the coach either.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Ha, thanks barfo, that makes way more sense... still pretty sexist though unfortunately.


I missed a comma (unfortunately) however I do not see anything sexist in my post.

I was always told to be kind to and apologetic (if necessary) towards women. If you take this as sexist, oh well (I really could not give a flying Koala what you think of my attempted apology).


** Disclaimer:* If by some chance you happen to be a lady (as well) then I apologize for this post. If not then you could crank the old care less-o-meter a few notches past flying Koala.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Parents don't get fired if their kids don't eat dinner.
> ...


Ed,

You are missing the point when you compare the Bonzi/Mo situation with Doc Rivers. The Magic went 1-10 because their management made HORRIBLE moves in the off-season and they had injury problems early in the season. It has nothing to do with Doc's control, or lack thereof, of the team. They got no talent! (other than TMac of course)

I do recognize that you are correct when you say "Tlong is right" though.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> It has nothing to do with Doc's control, or lack thereof, of the team. They got no talent! (other than TMac of course)


I disagree. The Magic's management didn't help much in the summer but Doc had something to do with things as well. It's foolish to put all of the blame on management. River's needed to take control of the team or do something different...and he didn't.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> What the heck does Damon have to do with this? He was benched half the season last year because of stupid play.


And this season he has been playing at least as poorly as Bonzi. The issue is *this season*, not the past. If Cheeks wants to crack down - great. If he is inconsistent in the way he does it, he is going to fail!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> And this season he has been playing at least as poorly as Bonzi. The issue is *this season*, not the past. If Cheeks wants to crack down - great. If he is inconsistent in the way he does it, he is going to fail!


I would add that it was not only this season, but the game against Dallas. Damon couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and he was getting big minutes. Bonzi missed one jumper and he was pulled from the game.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

It is not all about whether you miss or make shots. The player must attempt to do what the coach is asking of him. If the player is trying to work within the confines of the offense, but misses the shots the coach will be more lenient. If the player is taking wild shots and missing (e.g. - Bonzi) the coach is going to have a serious problem with that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> It is not all about whether you miss or make shots. The player must attempt to do what the coach is asking of him. If the player is trying to work within the confines of the offense, but misses the shots the coach will be more lenient. If the player is taking wild shots and missing (e.g. - Bonzi) the coach is going to have a serious problem with that.


I think you're right. No question that execution of the scheme is almost as important as overall execution.

In Wells's case, though, it's not like he was going through a horrible streak when he got pulled out of the game. He'd missed ONE shot (and that shot was with 9 seconds on the shot clock where he was isolated to the left of the top of the circle, with Finley a step off of him and a big mess in the key as ZR and a couple of Mavs were pushing for position). There was no flurry of bad shots, or of him putting his head down and getting an offensive foul.

Cheeks might have seen something I did not, or he might have placed more importance on Bonzi's failure to make the shot and/or execute the play. Based on the info I have, and my general opinion of Cheeks as an X's and O's coach, I think he made a mistake of pulling Wells based on that play.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I would add that it was not only this season, but the game against Dallas. Damon couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and he was getting big minutes. Bonzi missed one jumper and he was pulled from the game.
> ...


Ok I see Damon was 1-11 shooting. were tehy ill advised shots? I don't know. But look at the rest of the box line.

Damon 7Rebounds 7 assists 1TO
Bonzi 2Rebounds 0 assists and 3TO

Bonzi was actually 7-13, so I seriously doubt he was actually pulled for missing the shot, but he may have been starting to play out of control which he can do at times.

I know Cheeks biggest complaint so far this year has been the teams inability to run the offense he draws up.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Damon 7Rebounds 7 assists 1TO
> Bonzi 2Rebounds 0 assists and 3TO
> ...


Bonzi's not the point guard and has long since proven he can't run an offense. It's up to Stouds or no one.

I can't fathom that Cheeks would pull Bonzi for having a couple more turnovers than the point guard. Bonzi's job is to score, and he was doing an excellent job of it.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Mo probably just pulled Bonzi so that he could get his head together after making a couple boneheaded plays, Mo didn't want him to make any more. I'm sure he planned on putting Bonzi back in the game very soon. But then Bonz blew up like a ten year old brat and that sealed his coffin.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Purely speculation on my part:

My guess is that Bonzi wasn't pulled for taking one shot. My guess is that Bonzi was supposed to run a play and decided to deviate and on top of that, forced an awful shot. The pull was probably a reaction of Cheeks to let Bonzi know he made a mistake. Cheeks was furious at first being ignored and the stupid shot compounding the situation at a time in which you know there has to be some considerable pressure to get some Blazer wins.

This is something a coach should do and it doesn't sound like something he's done in the past. I doubt that Cheeks pulled him thinking that he was going to sit Bonzi for the night. I bet that he wanted to pull Bonzi for a minute or two just to remind him to listen to the coach and fully intended to put him back in for the home stretch. It was Bonzi's reaction that caused Cheek's decision to look so costly - not the decision itself.

I feel like this was the scenario - or close to it and Cheeks made the right decision. Bonzi was the one who created the real problem.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> and he didn't whine about it or cuss out the coach either.


He whined a lot about it.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> 
> He whined a lot about it.


no he did not...there were many many many comments from media etc. that he did not complain about being benched for several weeks...

no-he did not.


----------

