# Do you believe me now?



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

> MM: I think it's been clear for awhile that Paxson sees Hinrich as the team's permanent starting point guard. So far, I wouldn't argue.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Crawford has until the end of this year to prove he can be permanent SG on this team or he is outta here.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

JC has already proven he can be a permanent SG. He has yet to prove that he can be a FRANCHISE SG, theres a big difference.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

Crawford outta here??? No...i don't see him leaving the bulls


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

I am not convinced that Crawford can play SG the way we are going to need him to from that position.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> I am not convinced that Crawford can play SG the way we are going to need him to from that position.


how are we going to need him to play at SG?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

outta here? Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Why all the animosity toward Crawdaddy? Seems like the two are playing well together. There doesn't seem to be any team controversy.

I don't understand.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

Wow, some of you never seems to amaze me.....

Trade Crawford, let him walk.. what is that?

You all are making me lean towards trade Hinrich... 

Trade him to New Orleans or Nets or Lakers!

So you all can argue on their boards of how much, Hinrich would be better PG than B.Davis, J.Kidd and G.Payton respectively.

The Future - Rookie of the Year "Kirk Hinrich"


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Why all the animosity toward Crawdaddy? Seems like the two are playing well together. There doesn't seem to be any team controversy.
> 
> I don't understand.


most rational people wouldn't ....but ol' kirky is afraid of crawford and wants him gone at all costs, its kind of sad really.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Ain't nobody afraid of Crawford. Nothing to be afraid of. What is sad is that after less than 20 games in the NBA Kirk has already surpassed JC as starting PG for now and the future and this is JC's 4th year in the league. Says a lot about what the kid can and can not do. As for JC at SG I am willing to give it a shot until the end of the year but unless I see drastic improvement in his defense and his catch and shoot ability then he has to go for a real SG.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Ain't nobody afraid of Crawford. Nothing to be afraid of. What is sad is that after less than 20 games in the NBA Kirk has already surpassed JC as starting PG for now and the future and this is JC's 4th year in the league. Says a lot about what the kid can and can not do. As for JC at SG I am willing to give it a shot until the end of the year but unless I see drastic improvement in his defense and his catch and shoot ability then he has to go for a real SG.


Blind faith! I like that,... I guess 

But please let me know once you pull your head out your namesake's cavity... so you can have a better grasp on what's going on in reality!


*Is there anything that Almighty Hinrich needs to improve on?* 

I got one.. he needs to improve on his Freethrow %


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

I can go along with that. His FT shooting does need work. He gets in foul trouble as well but that is just the rookie thing with the refs. He is very aggressive on defense and gets a lot of fouls because of it as well. I would also like for him to shoot more. He has begun to do that some as of late. I have never said he does not need to work on some things. He is just a rookie and has a long way to go but he has shown everyone a lot in the 18 or so games he has played in.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Ain't nobody afraid of Crawford. Nothing to be afraid of. What is sad is that after less than 20 games in the NBA Kirk has already surpassed JC as starting PG for now and the future and this is JC's 4th year in the league. Says a lot about what the kid can and can not do. As for JC at SG I am willing to give it a shot until the end of the year but unless I see drastic improvement in his defense and his catch and shoot ability then he has to go for a real SG.


yeah kirk's all world, his man dropped 20(on 13 shots) on him last night and ol KH had a mammoth 6 pt. night and as i mentioned in another thread even though billups actually avg. more points the "all nba defender " kirk was on hamilton and fared worse against him than jc did on billups 

its nice of the kirk fan to want to give crawford a shot at sg as if hinrich has had the pg job down for the last 5 years but um... last night was a pretty big test for kirk and he didn't fare too well 

they let hinrich play pg for most of the game and hinrich didn't play well ...which proves my point all along hinrich is not a true pg because he doesn't have the ball handling skills for it. he needs JC to relieve pressure for him and create open shots for him because he really cant create them for himself right now and maybe not ever 

and both kirk and JC are 5 years out of high school so unless you believe hinrich was wasting his time at kansas and should have left earlier (he would have been drafted much lower if he did however) i would if i were you let it go 

and fight your fear


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> 
> MM: I think it's been clear for awhile that Paxson sees Hinrich as the team's permanent starting point guard. So far, I wouldn't argue.


Uhh... who is "MM"... and when did his words become the law?

We are about 1/4 of the way through a, so far, pretty rough season.

I don't think _anything_ is "clear".... for this season or the future.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Ain't nobody afraid of Crawford. Nothing to be afraid of. What is sad is that after less than 20 games in the NBA Kirk has already surpassed JC as starting PG for now and the future and this is JC's 4th year in the league. Says a lot about what the kid can and can not do. As for JC at SG I am willing to give it a shot until the end of the year but unless I see drastic improvement in his defense and his catch and shoot ability then he has to go for a real SG.


Actually Crawford still starts games at PG. And nowadays the games Hinrich does start it's with Crawford. You've got issues. Deal with them somewhere else. Everyone else on this board can see that Crawford and Hinrich is the backcourt of the present and future. Why can't you? Where exactly are the bulls going to find this magical SG to replace Crawford? Call me crazy but I don't see a lot of guys who can score 25-30 on 2 nights out of 3 and throw up 6-8 assists on every other nights on the market. And when they are, they are definitely not going to be coming to Chicago for the opportunity to play with Eddy Curry and Kirk Hinrich.

We've got a good thing going with Hinrich and Crawford. Why can't you just enjoy it?

I've gotten over my hatred of Hinrich. Why can't you get over yours of Crawford?

G-g-g-r-r-r-o-w up homey. Exercise some of the maturity of your idol. It'll do you good. You'll be a happier more pleasant person to be around. Your co-workers will appreciate it.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

MM is Mike McGraw. I got the quote from his answer to our questions for December. This man is at every practice. For him to say Kirk has the PG locked up says more than what anyone of us says including myself.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

> Everyone else on this board can see that Crawford and Hinrich is the backcourt of the present and future.



I am sorry but that just is not true.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually Crawford still starts games at PG. And nowadays the games Hinrich does start it's with Crawford. You've got issues. Deal with them somewhere else. Everyone else on this board can see that Crawford and Hinrich is the backcourt of the present and future. Why can't you? Where exactly are the bulls going to find this magical SG to replace Crawford? Call me crazy but I don't see a lot of guys who can score 25-30 on 2 nights out of 3 and throw up 6-8 assists on every other nights on the market. And when they are, they are definitely not going to be coming to Chicago for the opportunity to play with Eddy Curry and Kirk Hinrich.
> ...


Careful!! 

*You've got issues. Deal with them somewhere else. Everyone else on this board can see that Crawford and Hinrich is the backcourt of the present and future.*

*G-g-g-r-r-r-o-w up homey.*

No, no no. Posts like this are discouraged. Disagree with the poster but don't make it personal and please don't belittle the poster because you don't agree with him. and pleaaassseee don't tell anyone to leave. We encourage opinions. That is what makes for a nice well rounded forum, board, site.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but that just is not true.


:sigh: This is not the first time you start a JC Vs Hinrich thread. You know what replies you have gotten in the past. I cannot protect you every time you start one. 

IMO and this is my opinion, the JC Vs. Hinrich is dead. JC is a two. You defend Hinrich being a rookie, JC is a rookie SG, is he not? And your willingness to ship him out at the end of the season is a different standard you hold for Hinrich, though you may not realize it. The way I see it, they are our starting guards and quite possibly our future. It is neither one or the other any more. And if you hold one player up to a stringent standard(JC) then it is only fair to do the same with Hinrich. See why some posters jump on your case? 

We do encourage opinions, though and replies should come without jabs at the other poster. But boy do you make it difficult for the moderators....


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

.....but the speculation that Crawdaddy is out of here is purely yours. It doesn't take a quote from the mighty *MM* for most of us to realize that Kirk has been playing point and Craw playing the 2. Why does this mean Crawford is out the door?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Ain't nobody afraid of Crawford. Nothing to be afraid of. What is sad is that after less than 20 games in the NBA Kirk has already surpassed JC as starting PG for now and the future and this is JC's 4th year in the league.


With Jalen gone we were left without a starter quality 2 guard. We do have two high quality point guards in JCraw and the young Mr. Hinrich.

Someone needed to play the off guard role. So there are actually two different ways you could look at the current situation:

One -- you can say that Kirk surpassed JC as atarting PG

or 

Two -- one of the two quality PGs needed to step up and play as a quality shooting guard and Kirk wasn't up to the task as well as Jamal was.

I believe the second scenario is more likely. And thats not a dig at Kirk.


Honestly, I am high on Kirk. Very high on Kirk. I think he's proving a lot of his critics wrong.

BUT

this constant broken-record cheerleading is making it increasingly difficult for me to root for Kirk.

You've hinted at some sort of relationship with or connection to Kirk. Why are you working so hard to turn the Bulls fan base against him?


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Another quote from McGraw, although I know you'll won't like it.



> MM:I do not think there will be a major trade before February. Like I said before, the Bulls just don't have much to offer in a trade right now and I don't think Pax is ready to give up on Curry or Chandler. If he could trade Crawford for someone like Ray Allen, he would do it. But that's not going to happen



JC,Erob,Fizer for Allen/Sesay works.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Another quote from McGraw, although I know you'll won't like it.
> 
> 
> ...


It may work, but Seattle needs to be willing to do it first. 

Would you get highly emotionally charged if another poster substituted hinrich in place of JC in that trade? If so, then maybe you can understand where some posters are coming from when they reply to you.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> With Jalen gone we were left without a starter quality 2 guard. We do have two high quality point guards in JCraw and the young Mr. Hinrich.
> ...



Couldn't agree with you more, TB#1. Great Post. Chicago fans, sportswriters, Announcers, and the masses are so desperate for a uber-star, they over-hype every pick the Bulls make. I saw it last year with Jay, and this year with Kirk. The "constant broken-record cheerleading" (as TB#1 so perfectly puts it) makes it hard for a lot of us. Contstantly giving credit to one piece of a puzzle just annoys the heck outta me. Give credit where credit is due, yes... but give credit to ALL who do, not just the newest rookie.


I'm high on Kirk as well, I think he's going to be a real soild Bull for a long time. He's doing his job out there, no doubt. But some of the things out there I hear people giving him 100% of the credit for.... simply amazing.


So you have to honestly ask yourself, without bias (inconceivable for some of you), if we had even 10 healthy players playing, would Jamal and Kirk both be starting? I don't think so, as doing so causes us to play Rick Brunson, a far lesser point then either Kirk or Jamal. With a healthy roster, they BOTH play the point more, and together slightly less, as we are just clearly a better team with either of them at the point as opposed to Rick.

I often wonder if Jamal was 6'2" and Kirk was 6'6"... what would this arguement look like? I think Jamal's height and greater scoring ability, along with his versitility and the depleted roster (especially in the backcourt) made sliding him to the SG for a while a VERY easy choice. But I'm not so sure it's a permenent one. Since I can't see that far into the future, I guess only time will tell...


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

No I would not get emotionally charged. If Kirk is ever traded so be it. That is the nature of the business. The teams have to do whatever is necessary to put a winning product and if some team(Bulls or whomever) feel the need to trade Kirk then so be it. He will move on and so will I. I personally feel that JC will not be here next year but I could most certainly we wrong.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Going to be fun when Heinrich has another off shooting night w/ TO's just so i can start this same post about Heinrich :grinning:


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> MM is Mike McGraw. I got the quote from his answer to our questions for December. This man is at every practice. For him to say Kirk has the PG locked up says more than what anyone of us says including myself.


Hinrich......it's a shame you don't show the same humility that your namesake does when it comes to the Crawford and Hinirch back court.

Also - Reporters are only allowed into practices the last 15 minutes of practice. Hardly enough time to judge anything.

Enjoy that Hinrich got the chance that Crawford and even Willaims never got in their first years.


Hinrich and Crawford - back court of the future.....I certainly hope so.


PS - since you've convinced yourself that Hinrich is sooooo much more valuable than Crawford, wouldn't teams want to trade for Hinrich instead?


keep drinking the Kansas Kool Aide......I can appreciate faithful support.

Go Crawford! Go Hinrich! Go Bulls....


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

The main reason I started this thread was because so many of you argued with me that Crawford would NOT get beaten out at PG by Kirk. Even I did not think it would happen this quick. I guess I underestimated Crawfords bad PG play. Now for the arguement that JC is playing SG because since the Rose trade we really have no one to play it. I dispute that. I say that the Rose trade was made because 1) Kirk had proven that he should be the starting PG, and 2) They needed to see if JC could be the starting SG here. JC is being given that opportunity now. The job is his long term if he takes advantage. It would not hurt my feelings at all if he does. I just have my doubts.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> The main reason I started this thread was because so many of you argued with me that Crawford would NOT get beaten out at PG by Kirk. Even I did not think it would happen this quick. I guess I underestimated Crawfords bad PG play. Now for the arguement that JC is playing SG because since the Rose trade we really have no one to play it. I dispute that. I say that the Rose trade was made because 1) Kirk had proven that he should be the starting PG, and 2) They needed to see if JC could be the starting SG here. JC is being given that opportunity now. The job is his long term if he takes advantage. It would not hurt my feelings at all if he does. I just have my doubts.



Most here wouldnt consider Jamal sliding to sg as him getting "beat out" but just a continuation of the end of last season when Jamal and Jay played together with much success.It was a move to get our 2 best guards on the floor you would know this if you followed the team prior to june 27th of this year


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Roman Mdrowski wrote a nice piece a few days ago that compliments both guards. 

The gist of it seems to agree with most of the posters on this thread -- Jamal was moved to two because he need a scorer and he can score. Kirk is playing well -- very well, for a rook PG -- but the fact that he's playing the point doesn't mean he's necessarily a _better_ point than Jamal. It means we needed a scorer at 2 and Jamal is the best man we have to fill that role.

Which, again, is not a knock on Kirk, who is doing a great job, especially on D.

Backcourt of Appeal

BTW -- sorry if this article has already been discussed. If it has, I missed the thread.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Careful!!
> ...


I appologize. I don't think it came out exactly how I meant. I certainly didn't mean that Kirk Hinrich shouldn't continue to post on this board. Only that I wished he didn't bring his intense dislike of Jamal Crawford into every post about Kirk Hinrich. I have to believe that he has more to contribute than that, and we'd all be better for it.

I was a little on the grouchy side of my thursday.

Rock on Kirk Hinrich. But take it from me, you'll be a lot happier once you decide to like both of our young talented guards instead of prefferring one at the expense of the other. It's a lot more fun to be a bulls fan than just putting it all on one guy. Because both guys are young and from game to game their production will go up and down. But if you put your money into the both of them, your chance for happiness doubles.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Kirk,

I understand that you may not have been a Bulls fan all these years so I'll cut you some slack. 

Crawford's PG play was not "That Bad" as you put it. The coaching stafs we had, combined with his injury, combined with a lack of fundamentals lead to less than stellar play.

However, he showed enough flashes of brilliance to make everyone excited about his potential. Please tone it down on the Crawford sucked or Hinrich is doing everything.......it's not true and it's just plain tiresome to read.

This is not a personal attack, it's just that you are so enamored with Hinrich I'd swear you were his agent, his best friend or on his payroll.

You're putting down the wrong player to try to pump up your guy.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> and both kirk and JC are 5 years out of high school so unless you believe hinrich was wasting his time at kansas and should have left earlier (he would have been drafted much lower if he did however) i would if i were you let it go
> 
> and fight your fear


More than a few scouts said that Hinrich would likely have gone lottery after his junior year had he decided to leave school early and declare for the draft.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> Going to be fun when Heinrich has another off shooting night w/ TO's just so i can start this same post about Heinrich :grinning:


Hinrich. 

Come on man, it's just German!:grinning:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

OH NO!!! IT'S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN!!!

Oh well, let's all do one more lap around the gym for old times sake.

I will agree with Kirk (the poster) that, as each game goes by, Kirk (the player) more firmly establishes himself as a key player in the Bulls' present and future. Please don't ask me to specify a position...I just don't want to go there.

I'm thrilled with the rapid development of Kirk (the player) and I think this view is shared by Paxson and Skiles. Why not? He's a coach's dream.

This said, I just can't get my mind around this "Love Kirk = Hate Jamal" thing. Right now, Skiles is experimenting with an offense that allows either Hinrich or Crawford (allright, mostly Hinrich) to initiate the offense. Defensively, which many believe is the true test of who's a PG and who's a SG, Skiles has mixed it up some (example: Hinrich on Rip).

Right now, the Bulls need a scorer and Crawford's it. He may not have a great shooting %, but in the great tradition of scorers, he's finding a way to get his. To Crawford's credit, in his last 8 games, he's not only averaging 21ppg, but he's also dishing out 6 apg...pretty sporty in my book.

Is this town big enough for both Jamal and Kirk? Don't know. It's clear that, defensively, it presents some problems. However, being as the Bulls' TEAM defense is much improved under Skiles, I'd say we ought to just let Paxson and Skiles continue to play out their little science experiment.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

> The gist of it seems to agree with most of the posters on this thread -- Jamal was moved to two because he need a scorer and he can score. Kirk is playing well -- very well, for a rook PG -- but the fact that he's playing the point doesn't mean he's necessarily a better point than Jamal. It means we needed a scorer at 2 and Jamal is the best man we have to fill that role.


As I stated earlier, the Rose trade was made so that JC would be in this position. They had to see if he could function as the primary perimeter scorer because it was not working out at PG. He has until the end of the season to prove he can handle it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Man these debates are getting tired. :sour: 

KH, are you even a Bulls fan? I'm not so sure. I love Frankie Williams, but you don't see me on the NY board screaming for him to be the starting PG over Ward/Eisley each and every waking moment. I would think Bulls fans, every single of them, should be happy with our guard play since Skiles has come aboard. Crawford's scoring ability has been unleashed, Hinrich is looking like a great two-way player.

Eh, alas for better or for worse, I will share my view on these two:

Kirk Hinrich - great complimentary player, not someone you build a franchise around but a Ginobili type who'll flat out help you win games, a PG and the Bulls PG of the future

Jamal Crawford - a SG who can flat out pass, he's been compared to so many players... why not offer another? Paul Pierce. Pierce is averaging 24ppg / 7.7rpg / <b>5.8ast</b> per game. Minus the rebounding, Crawford has been at that total since Skiles arrived. Crawford has an 'off game' scoring 22 pts?!  

Here's the key. They have been playing great together. This team would look 100% better with a bonafide 3 out there. Until then we have a couple bangers and two dynamic guards to stem the tide til Tyson and Eddy get healthy.

Bulls fan here. Go Bulls.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> Anyone who follows college hoops knows that more than a few scouts said that Hinrich would likely have gone lottery after his junior year had he decided to leave school early and declare for the draft.


Some scouts may have said that, but it was nonsense. Anyone who follows Kansas basketball knows that Kirk and Roy Williams checked his draft status after his junior year and didn't get sufficient assurance that _he would even be a first round pick_, so he came back. They also know that his running mate, Nick Collison, said that exact thing to a student group last Spring.

Nice try, Buckwheat.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Contrary to popular belief I am a bulls fan and have been since the late 1980's. I was very excited when the Bulls drafted Kirk. Surprised but happy. I knew then this JC/Kirk thing would be a problem unless JC moved to SG. Although it happened quicker than I though it would. Pierce is a BAD comparision by the way. I do wonder if a bonafide legit 3 would allow us to get away with JC at SG. But honestly we won't be able to address this until the summer and a decision will need to be made on JC by then. I hope we do the right thing.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Contrary to popular belief I am a bulls fan and have been since the late 1980's. I was very excited when the Bulls drafted Kirk. Surprised but happy. I knew then this JC/Kirk thing would be a problem unless JC moved to SG. Although it happened quicker than I though it would. Pierce is a BAD comparision by the way. I do wonder if a bonafide legit 3 would allow us to get away with JC at SG. But honestly we won't be able to address this until the summer and a decision will need to be made on JC by then. I hope we do the right thing.


Why is Pierce a bad comparison? Obviously Pierce is the superior player. But he's a money SG who can pass. Crawford could well turn out to be the same type of player.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Paul Pierce is having a monster year. Holy cow. That's the first time I've seen his stats.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Paul Pierce is having a monster year. Holy cow. That's the first time I've seen his stats.


Yes he is. Mike James is their starting PG. Whoa.

In case anyone forgot, Paul Pierce is a superstar.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this town big enough for both Jamal and Kirk?


Hell yeah it is.

Seriously, KirkHinrich, I'm as big a fan of the kid as you are, but man, oh man you dig yourself some enormously deep holes. I just hope the real Kirk Hinrich doesn't lose a few fans because of threads like this. I certainly don't mean any offense to you -- everyone has a right to voice their opinion, and you do this quite well -- but as has been stated before, I think you're making this into too much of a Jamal vs. Kirk issue, which it shouldn't be. I for one am hoping like hell that boty players improve and gain more synergy playing together so they can indeed be the Bulls backcourt of the future. That would be fantastic. Actually, that'd be super-fantastic. I think they're both tremendous talents that have a great energy on court because of their different styles of play, and they're both crowd-pleasers in their own ways. Fun to watch, fun to cheer for, fun to see develop.

Chicago is lucky enough to have two young guards of this caliber with the skill sets that these two possess. It's not often you get to start two guys who can play either SG or PG and play both positions at a high level. Look around, my man! Things look fine from my vantage point. If the team performs better with JC at the 2 and KH at the 1 or vice-versa, then the team should do whatever it needs to do to win. If one or both of them should come off the bench for the benefit of the team, then that should happen as well if it means the team is better off for it. But as it stands right now, they both appear to be our starters both now and in the future, and they appear to be steadily improving -- so why not cheer them on?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Hell yeah it is.
> ...


Here Here.
:cheers:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> 
> Some scouts may have said that, but it was nonsense. Anyone who follows Kansas basketball knows that Kirk and Roy Williams checked his draft status after his junior year and didn't get sufficient assurance that _he would even be a first round pick_, so he came back. They also know that his running mate, Nick Collison, said that exact thing to a student group last Spring.
> 
> Nice try, Buckwheat.


This is absolutely classic. Shake is wrong about this, of course, but this is of minor importance. What is of major importance is his entertainment value at this point in time.

ShakeTiller thinks that the opinion of professional scouts is "nonsense". This coming from the guy who was convinced Hinrich wouldn't even get drafted midway through his junior year, and who then conveniently changed his tune to that of "Hinrich has no chance at going lottery" -- because, according to our man Shake, he "hadn't been listed on any mock drafts". MOCK DRAFTS? Are you kidding me? ShakeTiller citing mock drafts as corroboration on the one hand...and now discrediting professional scouts on the other? Man, Shake, hate to tell you this, but you're cracking me up. You're like Steven Segal trying to do martial arts. Pure entertainment.

Where've you been hiding out since Skiles took over? Still think that Kirk is nothing but a "career backup" in the pros? What about the smokescreens being thrown about Kirk's stock during the predraft camps...and what about all those "stupid GM's"?

Game. Set. Match.

Get back to me when you find some credibility.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

I do think it is significant that Roy Williams, who checked his draft status, never said Kirk was a lottery pick after his junior season (and Roy is on record as saying he recommends that players leave if they are). And I do think it is significant that Nick Collison said he and Kirk weren't even assured they would go in the first round, so that is why they came back.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> The main reason I started this thread was because so many of you argued with me that Crawford would NOT get beaten out at PG by Kirk. Even I did not think it would happen this quick. I guess I underestimated Crawfords bad PG play. Now for the arguement that JC is playing SG because since the Rose trade we really have no one to play it. I dispute that. I say that the Rose trade was made because 1) Kirk had proven that he should be the starting PG, and 2) They needed to see if JC could be the starting SG here. JC is being given that opportunity now. The job is his long term if he takes advantage. It would not hurt my feelings at all if he does. I just have my doubts.


I respectfully disagree about the reasoning for the trade. If you remember, JC still started at PG AFTER the trade. And Pippen if healthy, was the pg over both Hinrich and JC! 

Before the trade, Hinrich had 75 pts in 11 games 6.8 pts. 3.5 assists a game. 1 rebound a game. 3.3 t/o a game. shooting 38% he did have 21 steals, so he was doing ok there. 21 steals in 11 game, Does that sound like someone ready to be given the helms of starting?

JC as pg was doing much, much better. 

But make no mistake. Rose was not traded because Hinrich was ready for the pg position, Pippen went down 1 game after the trade. Pippen and JC were starting ahead of him. Now that being said, he is doing a hell of a job and with all of the injuries that is great! But to put down JC in the process is wrong. IMO. 

the trade was made to add toughness in the ft court. It did.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Hell yeah it is.
> ...


:greatjob:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> I do think it is significant that Roy Williams, who checked his draft status, never said Kirk was a lottery pick after his junior season (and Roy is on record as saying he recommends that players leave if they are). And I do think it is significant that Nick Collison said he and Kirk weren't even assured they would go in the first round, so that is why they came back.
> 
> What about that is so hard for you to understand?


You were proven wrong on this issue in numerous threads on Phog.net. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> I do think it is significant that Roy Williams, who checked his draft status, never said Kirk was a lottery pick after his junior season (and Roy is on record as saying he recommends that players leave if they are). And I do think it is significant that Nick Collison said he and Kirk weren't even assured they would go in the first round, so that is why they came back.
> 
> What about that is so hard for you to understand?


I think either year Kirk would have ended up in the lottery. The reason he got into the lottery this year was the same reason he would have gotten in last year.

The workouts. Once teams could actually see him on a closer basis, and see his athleticism, I think that really sealed the deal.

It certainly suprised the heck out of me, and a lot of other people to see Hinrich taken as the first PG after James. But I think it was less of suprise to the people who have been watching kirk closely.

I mean, when Jamal left Michigan, he was less of a lock to be in the lottery than Hinrich has ever been. But like Hinrich he worked his *** off in the workouts and showed himself to be a real talent. He played himself into the middle first round, and then up into the lottery.

The thing that amazes me about Crawford is how little basketball he has played compared to Hinrich, and that they are basically the same age. Yet Hinrich is the rookie and Crawford is on his way to becoming a veteran. I think that's evident in that Hinrich KNOWS the game. And Crawford is still learning it. Yet Crawford makes up that diffrence just in raw talent right now. Which I think is somewhere near the point you were trying to get at by pointing at the draft positions.

The only really significant thing to say is that Hinrich will be great for Crawford's game, and both of them will be great for the Bulls. I think playing with Hinrich is already making Crawford better. And the better Jamal gets the easier Hinrich's job is and the better the Bulls are.

An excellent combo.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I think either year Kirk would have ended up in the lottery. The reason he got into the lottery this year was the same reason he would have gotten in last year.


Welcome to the general consensus, Shake.

A for effort.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> I think either year Kirk would have ended up in the lottery.


You may think that, and Vince may think that, but neither Roy Williams, Kirk Hinrich, or Nick Collison thought that. Somehow, I think they were in a better position to know.

I'm not disputing that some scouts may have made some comments along those lines. The simple fact is, however, the better weight of the evidence -- the statments and behavior of Roy Williams, the behavior of Kirk Hinrich, the statements of Nick Collison -- tell you those scouts were just blowing smoke.

Like I say, it's just not that complicated.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> 
> As I stated earlier, the Rose trade was made so that JC would be in this position. They had to see if he could function as the primary perimeter scorer because it was not working out at PG. He has until the end of the season to prove he can handle it.


The Rose trade was made because Rose is Rose.

The Rose trade was facilitated by the fact that Pax felt that Crawdaddy could play SG.

You don't trade a player like Rose to "make room" for a guy you're planning to ship out before the trade deadline. In fact, if a Crawdaddy trade was indeed imminent, you keep Rose.

There is a chance that Pax is planning to ditch both long-term, but make no mistake, he didn't make "the Rose trade so that JC would be in this position".

The internal logic (or lack thereof) in your posts is astonishing. Can you not notice this?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> 
> Somehow, I think they were in a better position to know.


The irony!



> those scouts were just blowing smoke.


Hmmm.....maybe they were the ones sending all those smokescreens over to Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, Golden State, Seattle, Boston and Orlando right before the 2003 NBA Draft.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> More than a few scouts said that Hinrich would likely have gone lottery after his junior year had he decided to leave school early and declare for the draft.


actually the concensus had him a mid 1st rounder around where jiri welsh was picked


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

after i posted that kirk hinrich was considered a mid 1st round pick futuristxen made a good point about how he played his way into the lottery with workouts ,which he did and may have done it if he had left the previous year , and that is all well and good the fact is he would have to play his way in he wasn't lock for it like lets say gooden was in kirk's jr. year 


he played his way on to the bulls and thats really all that matters


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> actually the concensus had him a mid 1st rounder around where jiri welsh was picked


Exactly. More than a few scouts pegged him in the lottery, while others had him later in the first. Regardless, the fact is he now makes $2 million a year. Not bad for a free fall.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> With Jalen gone we were left without a starter quality 2 guard. We do have two high quality point guards in JCraw and the young Mr. Hinrich.
> ...


Those are my exact sentiments :grinning:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Hell yeah it is.
> ...



:ghug: 


Word.

These debates were annoying when KH and JC were competing for time. THEY AREN'T ANYMORE.

So, any threads advocating one over the other now are just pointless and merely indicative of personal bias. Can we please put his debate to rest and root for the success of both of these players? Wanting them to succeed means wanting the team to succeed. Wanting one to succeed while the other fails, well...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Right after the trade the Bulls were still starting JC at the point, even with Hinrich starting alongside him JC was still "running the point"about 75%of the time. Then, right before the Brunson game against Orlando they started JC at the pg but he only ran the offense about 25% of the time and Kirk pretty much took over the point and has played well there. During the Pistons game Kirk ran the offense almost exclusively. Jamal only got to run a couple of plays. 

Personally, I think it seems clear right now that the team is making changes. There was a transition apparent in moving JC to permanent SG (I'm assuming thats what is being done) and letting Kirk take over at the point. Now that Brunson is here Kirk can play the point, Craw can play the 2 and Brunson and Gill can back them up respectively. 

Unfortunately, I think this is a bad idea. Jamal excels at the pg spot right now, not the off guard spot. Thats not to say that Jamal can never be a permanent solution at the 2. In fact, I suggested years ago that Jamal may EVENTUALLY be moved to the 2. However, Jamal lacks the strength neccessary to play SG on a full time basis. He cannot penetrate strongly like he needs to yet. I would have been much more comfortable with the Bulls continuing to allow Kirk and JC to split the pg duties and then maybe NEXT season try to move JC to the 2. In any case, don't be surprised if Jamal isn't as effective at the 2 as he ought to be this season. What this team REALLY needs and has needed for awhile now is a legitimate 3. That is why I was for drafting Hayes and not Hinrich. If we had Hayes we would probably have better floor balance right now. Still, I confess that I have been highly impressed with the play of Hinrich lately.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Right after the trade the Bulls were still starting JC at the point, even with Hinrich starting alongside him JC was still "running the point"about 75%of the time. Then, right before the Brunson game against Orlando they started JC at the pg but he only ran the offense about 25% of the time and Kirk pretty much took over the point and has played well there. During the Pistons game Kirk ran the offense almost exclusively. Jamal only got to run a couple of plays.
> 
> Personally, I think it seems clear right now that the team is making changes. There was a transition apparent in moving JC to permanent SG (I'm assuming thats what is being done) and letting Kirk take over at the point. Now that Brunson is here Kirk can play the point, Craw can play the 2 and Brunson and Gill can back them up respectively.
> ...


Ace, Jamal is a SG that can pass. JMO. If Jamal was such a gifted floor general, why has he never gotten more than 10 assists in a single game? We're talking about 4 seasons, 180+ games, and 60 starts in the NBA. There are probably 50 guards in the NBA that have put up over 10 dimes on a given night, something Crawford hasn't done yet.

This is not an insult to Jamal. His future as a Chicago Bull is as a scoring SG and a secondary ball handler. I've recently cited Paul Pierce as the example he should shoot for. Not bad company I presume.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, Jamal is a SG that can pass. JMO. If Jamal was such a gifted floor general, why has he never gotten more than 10 assists in a single game? We're talking about 4 seasons, 180+ games, and 60 starts in the NBA. There are probably 50 guards in the NBA that have put up over 10 dimes on a given night, something Crawford hasn't done yet.
> ...


Jamal did miss a year due to his torn ACL. And I think it's understandable that it is going to take a kid that didn't start playing organized ball until his junior year of high school and only played 17 college games a while to "get it" in the pros. And I wouldn't take that career high in assists with a grain of salt either, 10 assists is a pretty good effort from any pg. I think Jamal would probably average around 8apg if given free reign at the point spot and thats not bad at all. 

What Jamal is is a combo guard. A guy who can play at either the point of the 2. The problem is, IMO, that at this point in his career he really isn't strong enough to play the 2 night in and night out and, in fact, is barely strong enough to play the point night in and night out. If you want to look at Jamal and say he is "just a shooting guard" then you are entitled to do that. Unfortunately you would also be wrong.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Jamal did miss a year due to his torn ACL. And I think it's understandable that it is going to take a kid that didn't start playing organized ball until his junior year of high school and only played 17 college games a while to "get it" in the pros.


Hmm... here come more excuses for this kid. Crawford was granted an extra year of HS eligibility due to a transfer, so he's been playing organized basketball for a while now. My god, its not like we discovered him on some deserted island. He got a scholarship to Michigan and its his fourth season as a pro.



> And I wouldn't take that career high in assists with a grain of salt either, 10 assists is a pretty good effort from any pg. I think Jamal would probably average around 8apg if given free reign at the point spot and thats not bad at all.


You didn't really answer the question Ace. If Jamal is best suited for PG, should be playing PG, or has a future at PG.. why has he never gotten more than 10 dimes in a game after 4 seasons, 180+ games and 60 starts? I'm confused.

Respective career high in assists w/ same or less pro experience than Jamal: Arroyo-13, Alston-11, Arenas-15, Dickau-10, Ford-12, Hinrich-12, MJames-10, Parker-13, Tinsley-23, Watson-14




> What Jamal is is a combo guard. A guy who can play at either the point of the 2. The problem is, IMO, that at this point in his career he really isn't strong enough to play the 2 night in and night out and, in fact, is barely strong enough to play the point night in and night out. If you want to look at Jamal and say he is "just a shooting guard" then you are entitled to do that. Unfortunately you would also be wrong.


Okay we have a combo guard on our hands. Can't play the 2, barely strong enough to play the 1. What happened to his 'freakish athleticism... 7 foot wingspan.... 6'5" height' and that physical advantage over PGs? Well we know this much after year 4: Crawford doesn't play physical and he is an average defender. But the kid finds ways to score.

I guess I was the one giving too much credit to Crawford here. If he is, in fact, a combo guard... then we're looking at the Jason Terry, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, Dwayne Wade mold of player. Alas, I must bury the hopes of Paul Pierce. We have a Jason Terry on our hands!! :sigh:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Pick your combo guard... which line looks the best?

1)
18.5ppg / 5.1reb / 2.1ast / 1.1st / 41%FGp

2)
17.5ppg / 4.3reb / 5.0ast / 1.3stl / 45%FGp

3)
16.8ppg / 2.9reb / 5.4ast / 1.6stl / 41%FGp

4)
15.7ppg / 4.4reb / 4.2ast / 1.5stl / 44%FGp


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Pick your combo guard... which line looks the best?
> 
> 1)
> ...


1) Hughes
2) Terry
3) Crawford
4) Wade


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

If this were a court of law, this case might be closed..........


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

:laugh:


You are the man superdave, great series of posts. I have always looked at JC as a taller Jason Terry.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> Hmm... here come more excuses for this kid. Crawford was granted an extra year of HS eligibility due to a transfer, so he's been playing organized basketball for a while now. My god, its not like we discovered him on some deserted island. He got a scholarship to Michigan and its his fourth season as a pro.
> 
> ...


I don't think having a career high of 10 assists is a bad thing for a pg. Especially if you are capable of dropping 10 dimes almost every night. 

Uhhh, whats bad about having a 6'5" Jason Terry? You guys say that like it would be a curse or something.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Incidentally, freakish athleticism does not equal physical strength.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

Two bad shooting games and "KirkHinrich" is giving an ultimatum to Jamal? Please. Are we so in love with Kirk that we need him to be the undisputed "star" of the backcourt? LOL

Calm down. Jamal has a new role in combo-guard and so has new skills to acquire. Skiles has already said Jamal is getting better and learning. I love his steals (2.6 this month) and his man-to-man is in fact getting slowly better. He's a keeper. Skiles and the new identity on this team will get him to where he needs to get. And when Eddy is finally playing the way he should, Jamal's FG% will be better. (42% FG, 40% 3pt before the last two games this year). Jamal-Kirk backcourt will be dangerous as hell when Eddy and Tyson are in their prime. With Eddy and Tyson in the paint, I want as many ball-handlers as possible.

With the new system, more blocks, better rebounding and better overall defense, the Bulls will play free and run more -- a style tailor made for both Kirk and Jamal.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

They are actually both combo guards.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> They are actually both combo guards.


...says the guy who thinks that Hinrich is a career backup.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> You didn't really answer the question Ace. If Jamal is best suited for PG, should be playing PG, or has a future at PG.. why has he never gotten more than 10 dimes in a game after 4 seasons, 180+ games and 60 starts? I'm confused.
> 
> ...


What does this have to do with anything ?Is his career over at 23 because he hasnt gotten 11 assists yet ? If he gets 12 assists against the Cavs on Saturday will that make him the bets pg prospect in the league .Tinsley had 23 in game and the pacers have been trying to replace him forever.Asissts is only part of being a pg not the only thing .

How many on that list would we trade for Crawford straight up ?Arenas ,Parker again the situation plays a big part .Who did Hinrich get his 12 assists passing to. CRAWFORD who had 28 pts that game :laugh:
and that was due to Crawfoprd catching fire in the 4th quarter of that game .Now what player has Crawford had to feed on our team in the 4th when he has 7-8 asissts in a game that could get him to 12 and remeber passing to yourself dont count 



> Okay we have a combo guard on our hands. Can't play the 2, barely strong enough to play the 1. What happened to his 'freakish athleticism... 7 foot wingspan.... 6'5" height' and that physical advantage over PGs? Well we know this much after year 4: Crawford doesn't play physical and he is an average defender. But the kid finds ways to score.


Skiles is basically erasing 4 years of bad coaching or lack of coaching with Crawford its been 8 games and most can already see improvements .Hes basically a rookie sg with a new system and coach .



> I guess I was the one giving too much credit to Crawford here. If he is, in fact, a combo guard... then we're looking at the Jason Terry, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, Dwayne Wade mold of player. Alas, I must bury the hopes of Paul Pierce. We have a Jason Terry on our hands!! :sigh:


Crawford could play pg and still be ranked in the top ten by seasons end hes at like 13 right now but that would stop us from getting our 2 best guards on the floor together as much as possible.Right now its about whats best for the team and that means Craw and Kirk are better than Craw and Gill or Hinrich and Gill.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

I think the positions presented by the poster Kirk Hinrich are correct and that the positions taken by others are incorrect.

He's not alone.

"D" day is the trade deadline(not this summer). JC will be difficult to trade once he's signed(BYC/poison pill issues). Either he's deemed to be the 2 for good or he's gone.

The trade was indeed in part to give JC one last chance to be a Bull long term. This is a great point. 

To JC's credit he has apparently embraced this move despite the words of Paxson(see my signature) that indicated Kirk wouldn't start like "J" did. Continuity would be nice on a team that gets blown up annually too. 

If he wants to stay he must:
1. Lower his demands. He had a chance to sign an extension.
2. Increase his actual investment in his game/body. No more talk of gaining weight/strength. Less artist more competitor. Less And1/Rucker Park and more weight room and catch and shoot. No more excuses.

He must convince Paxson that he's committed to this BEFORE the trade deadline. No more excuses.

JC was the one that was to be traded before the rebel without a clause imploded. 

The ending of last season had JC at the 2.

The drafting of "J" wasn't because management was happy with JC at the 1.

JC at the 2 isn't a passive happening created by the trade, it's been a long time coming. The BULL don't want him at the 1.

In 2 months time we'll all know one way or the other.

In the mean time let's let it rest unless there's some new point to be made or clarification of an old one. You know where I stand and I know where you stand. Repeating points that are understood but rejected is not productive.
=================================
This is what I said to TrueBlueFan when we couldn't agree on whether to draft "J" or not and it's what I'm going to do about this difference of opinion as well. 

http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/w/we_just_disagree_dave_mason.html

Artist: Dave Mason
We Just Disagree
Dave Mason
# 12 in 1977
Words and Music by Jim Krueger

Chorus:
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye-to-eye
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys
There's only you and me and we just disagree


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, Jamal is a SG that can pass. JMO. If Jamal was such a gifted floor general, why has he never gotten more than 10 assists in a single game? We're talking about 4 seasons, 180+ games, and 60 starts in the NBA. There are probably 50 guards in the NBA that have put up over 10 dimes on a given night, something Crawford hasn't done yet.
> ...


you are right jamal has had something like 60 starts and yada yada ya...but most of it was done in the triangle(not an offense in which pg's throw up alot of assist) and in truth in those starts alot of them he was splitting minutes with another pg (he had a stretch w/ brunson splitting the previous yr. ,and t.best the year before that ) so its not like he has been starting playing 40 min. a game handling it and just not setting up players 

in truth the best the bulls have played over a 20 game stretch coincides with him starting every game at pg of which he tallied 10 assists 4 times during that stretch ...with that i find it hard to say he doesn't distribute well

this season depite being benched and playing quite a bit off the ball he is 16th in the league in assists better than a few people on that list you put up earlier of players who have single game highs that are hgher than jamal's...and better than more than half of the starting pgs in the league


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> 
> 
> If he wants to stay he must:
> 1. Lower his demands. He had a chance to sign an extension.


why should he right now ?hes the 2nd best young player we have a close second behind Tyson.



> 2. Increase his actual investment in his game/body. No more talk of gaining weight/strength. Less artist more competitor. Less And1/Rucker Park and more weight room and catch and shoot. No more excuses.


He spent the most time in the weight room out of all the Bulls.Paxson has said he loved his committment this summer again Pax already knows its not all talk which is why he was offered an extension.

Another innercity basketball hater I see Crawford plays everywhere not only Rucker but chicago pro summer league and other places .All nba players play pickup games during the summer or would rather him not work on his game at all.Believe it or not Mj,Isiah,Pip,VC,Matrix ,Tim hardaway,Finley,Howard,Big dog the list goes on and on have played summer league ball its not all Rucker park so to dwell on a tourney that he plays one game a wek in for a few weeks in ridiculous.



> He must convince Paxson that he's committed to this BEFORE the trade deadline. No more excuses.


Pax already has committed to Crawford he wouldnt have dealt Rose if he wasnt.If Crawford continues along his current developmental track that hes on he will be a Bull a long time .



> JC was the one that was to be traded before the rebel without a clause imploded.


If Jay stays healthy I can guarantee you that Toine and Delk are probably Bulls and ROSE and some filler are Celtics .



> The ending of last season had JC at the 2.


When we neded the year Crawford was the pg averaging almost 7 assists per game.Jay played sg and was actually pretty good during that stretch.



> The drafting of "J" wasn't because management was happy with JC at the 1.


Jay was a marketing dream and the best player on the baord and in the draft after Ming it was a no brainer.



> JC at the 2 isn't a passive happening created by the trade, it's been a long time coming. The BULL don't want him at the 1.


I think jc at the 2 shows that Pax had basically had enough of Bc placing the Hassells of the world on the floor for major minutes while sitting our lottery pick guards on the bench to watch.Crawford at the sg means we are gonna go down with our best players now and there is no more time for 2nd rd projects.(which is why RMJ is gone )


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> I am not convinced that Crawford can play SG the way we are going to need him to from that position.


Who cares if you're not convinced, its obvious in every post you find some way to hoist Kirk on a pedastal and kick dirt on Jamal.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Ain't nobody afraid of Crawford. Nothing to be afraid of. What is sad is that after less than 20 games in the NBA Kirk has already surpassed JC as starting PG for now and the future and this is JC's 4th year in the league. Says a lot about what the kid can and can not do. As for JC at SG I am willing to give it a shot until the end of the year but unless I see drastic improvement in his defense and his catch and shoot ability then he has to go for a real SG.


Ain't nobody afraid of KH either. Nothing to be afraid of. Both JC and KH can be deadly in the future, but right now, neither are a payton or a kobe. doh.

and why hate crawford when he's not even starting in front of KH anymore???

imo crawford should be playing 2 from here on out. he's a combo guard with some point and street skills, but 2 is his position. there have been smaller 2's in the past.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> JC was the one that was to be traded before the rebel without a clause imploded.


:rofl: 

Great line.

I think Jamal is safe at the moment, unless their is a great deal.

I think Paxson will take the view to work with what he has, not like Krause who was worried with what he didn't have, and traded away the good players.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> you are right jamal has had something like 60 starts and yada yada ya...but most of it was done in the triangle(not an offense in which pg's throw up alot of assist) and in truth in those starts alot of them he was splitting minutes with another pg (he had a stretch w/ brunson splitting the previous yr. ,and t.best the year before that ) so its not like he has been starting playing 40 min. a game handling it and just not setting up players
> 
> in truth the best the bulls have played over a 20 game stretch coincides with him starting every game at pg of which he tallied 10 assists 4 times during that stretch ...with that i find it hard to say he doesn't distribute well
> ...


happyG once again I have a problem following your reasoning and logic. You blame the triangle, yet you claim the best stretch of Jamal's games was indeed the 'magical 20 games to close out last season' with that same offense. Yes I remember those games and they were magical. So magical that it propelled the games of Jamal at PG and Eddy Curry at center <i>this season</i>. Oh wait, it didn't carry over. :no: 

Jamal is having a nice season as a combo guard. Good for him. Can you please tell me how he's better than Terry, Hughes, or Wade? Or are we blaming the coaches, the offense, his skinny frame, his lack of experience, the cold weather, and/or Travis Best and Rick Brunson. C'mon now. I am making a simple point that if Jamal was as great a PG or natural distributor as so many claim he is, he'd have over 10 assists in a game. So yes taking into the fact that he's in his 4th year, has started 60 games, averaged 25mpg and 33mpg the last two seasons, don't you think on his best passing night he could drop more than 10 dimes? Just asking the question. NO one has answered it yet.

So here's an answer. Jamal is a combo guard. A taller Jason Terry. And Kirk will be here for years as a PG. I guess that's the conclusion I come to after hearing everyone's opinions.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> happyG once again I have a problem following your reasoning and logic. You blame the triangle, yet you claim the best stretch of Jamal's games was indeed the 'magical 20 games to close out last season' with that same offense. Yes I remember those games and they were magical. So magical that it propelled the games of Jamal at PG and Eddy Curry at center <i>this season</i>. Oh wait, it didn't carry over. :no:
> ...


Score!

I think people are getting overly hung up on the assists, though. Some guys are extremely effective PGs and get 3-4 APG.

The key, for me, is whether the guy at PG runs the offense smoothly. If the rest of the team doesn't get off, then the ball is in the wrong guy's hands. 

One of the most effective passers on the Bulls is ERob. He just gets rid of it real quick when he gets it and doesn't have a shot. That leads to good ball movement and someone down the line should get a pretty good look. And ERob doesn't get many assists...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> happyG once again I have a problem following your reasoning and logic. You blame the triangle, yet you claim the best stretch of Jamal's games was indeed the 'magical 20 games to close out last season' with that same offense. Yes I remember those games and they were magical. So magical that it propelled the games of Jamal at PG and Eddy Curry at center <i>this season</i>. Oh wait, it didn't carry over. :no:
> ...


i find fault with your need for a pg to be justified by career highs in assists .

not all around effective play , not setting up teammates , but an arbitrary number 

you expect everyone to be an all-star right now i dont 

i never said curry would make the team , i have said his only chance is to get sportcentered on by virtue of powerful dunks meaning getting voted in by fans 

i never said crawford would make it either this year i just believe it will happen in time 

you say why hasn't he had a career high of assists higher than what it is, I give my reasons you dont accept it and then claim no one tried to answer you all in the same posts 

are you sure its me who isn't making sense?

you go one your diatribe about its because he's a combo guard thats why as if that could be it .

many claim steve francis is a combo guard but i'm positive his career is higher than many "pure pg's " in the league 

the same is true for many so called combo guards ...and why is that because a career high means little its what you do and how effectively you do it that matters ,using arbitrary stats such as career highs doen't make your point as you seem to believe.

so come with something with a little more substance and maybe i'll take you more seriously until then its my pleasure to have fun with this as long as i find it humorous.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Score!
> ...


you go score as if you agree ,but the rest of your post basically disputes him 

confusing to me


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Score!
> ...


exactly. A pg runs the offense. nice points!


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

HI all...I'm noob

FYI Sperdave and all.

I heard Jerry Krause on The Score(wscr) stating that the Bulls used the triangle only 8 - 10% for the last 2 years. I don't believe one can blame any player's inadequacies on the triangle offense.

Right now it seems that Jamal is content that his scoring avg. is rising and the Bulls are competitive. When he and Curry decide to give 100% ALL THE TIME like Chandler, JYD, and Hinrich do the Bulls will be a serious contender.

Jamal has all the physical abilities and should know the game by now. The key is his HEART. There are strategies and intricacies to every sport. The key to defense is desire. Do you think JYD is thinking about strategy when he's hustling down a loose ball? That's all heart.

The only thing I question about Jamal is his heart. There's no doutb he has the tools.

Peace


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i find fault with your need for a pg to be justified by career highs in assists .
> 
> not all around effective play , not setting up teammates , but an arbitrary number
> ...


Wow more than a 3 line response from happyG, now I must have started something.  

Here is the point I am addressing, that some think Jamal is still the best PG on this team. I disagree with this. Jamal is at his best when he is a scorer first, distributor second. Call it a SG or a combo guard or whatever. But it has become clear to me that I'd rather have Hinrich setting the table and tempo for the next 10 years than have Jamal run the point solely.

So it seems there is still a small contigent that isn't sold yet on Hinrich... huddled together in some corner thinking Jamal has all those 'physical tools' to be a better PG. 6'5" long arms, And1 handle, we've heard it before. My opinion is that those qualities help Crawford to be a damn good scorer, I just don't want him setting up the offense 100% of the time as a PG. That scares actually.

Lastly I think those magical 20 games that you love to refer to.. doesn't mean a whole lot right now. That was the point I was making. How you close a season doesn't always carry over into the next. Hence the point about Curry. Still Curry looks solid and I'd take him over Kwame anyday. How's your boy Kwame doing by the way?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow more than a 3 line response from happyG, now I must have started something.
> ...


as i mentioned on another thread you make reference to a magical 20 games yet you base your argument on 1 game as who is a better point guard 

yeah kirk has a higher career high in assists to which i say big deal if it doesn't happen alot what good is it ? a career high is usually 1 game (in JC's case its actually 4 by the way)

if that were the case lets trade crawford for tony delk JC's career high in points is 33 delk's is 51 according to your logic that makes delk a better scorer 

but of course thats stupid because one game doesn't make a career heck the 12 assist game kirk had didn't even produce a win (we lost to the hornets)...but what does winning games matter when we are talking about the incredibly important stat of career high in assists?

i'm of the belief that really both(kirk and JC) can play the position but its in the teams best interest if they share the responsibilities 

when JC had the ball more he produced more and conversly in the last game kirk had the ball more than in any game of his career as far as running the offense and the result was a bad game for him perssonally and the team scored 73 points and also JC didn't have the best game either as he was in the role of 2 guard almost exclusivly 

according to you we can base whole career's and potential on 1 game so there it is , and its this season , heck it was 2 days ago 

1 game no matter how good or bad doesn't make a career 

fyi that 12 assist game didn't even produce a good effort from the bulls offensively as the team scored 91 points which i believe is slightly _below_ their season avg.

as a basketball fan i like watching talented players but the last time i checked kwame was a wizard so i dont think i'm all that heartbroken over his slow start. i'm still pretty pleased with the players the bulls picked up that draft


----------

