# Chicago Bulls vs. Miami Heat: Who has the better jib?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

We all saw what happened in a best of seven series basketball wise.

What about the jib?

Whos is better?

Gary Payton, Walker and the Heat.... or Capn' Kirk, Polish Pistol, Captain Oh and the Bullies.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Bulls hands down. Although the Heat stuck a fork in us the last two games, we played with class, and they played like a bunch of thugs for the first 4 games. Not very "jibby," if you ask me. I'd say we would win this contest in a landslide.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Bulls.

I know what point you're trying to make, but it isn't working. The Heat's top 2 players are among the top 10 players in the game, IMO, and far better than anyone we have. They also both have very solid jib, and would fit marvelously on our own squad. The Heat's jib, as a whole, is brought down by bums like Payton, Walker, Posey, and Haslem. And none of those guys were the difference in this series. Not by a longshot.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If the heat has less jib than us, then jib has proven to be worthless. Not even worth a ride out of the 1st round.

The real story here is that the heat DO have a lot of jib and more than we do. And a better coach (one of the all-time greats).

Thing is, they were as good as us with Wade out and with Shaq on the bench with fouls. They had to play their jibbiest players.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> If the heat has less jib than us, then jib has proven to be worthless. Not even worth a ride out of the 1st round.
> 
> The real story here is that the heat DO have a lot of jib and more than we do. And a better coach (one of the all-time greats).
> 
> Thing is, they were as good as us with Wade out and with Shaq on the bench with fouls. They had to play their jibbiest players.


I agree that if "jib" was in the dictionnary, a picture of Wade would be right there alongside it. He is "jib!" He plays with intensity and heart, and he also hustles like anyone on our team. He's D-jib (The Jib). lol

Shaq has some jib too, but with him nowadays it's mostly just him using his elite status as a way to get refs to call fouls against him. That's about it, plus he's so damn huge that he can do whatever he wants in the paint, especially against our bigs. Sad to see, but I believe that this summer will fill up our holes in the paint and we won't have to be that worried about guarding Shaq anymore.

The Heat have jib, but not the way the Bulls do. It's more moxie than jib with the Heat. And they also have, like I said in my above post, some dirty players in Payton, Walker and Posey. I can't stand watching those guys. Hopefully Detroit will shut their mouths up. lol


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

there's no such thing as out jibbing someone in the playoffs. anyone with any sort of competitive streak is going to play hard. at this point it comes down to other factors aside from jib. coaching, in game and between games. players experience and composure to execute on the game plan, to recognize opportunities and capitalize. and players that have the ability to impact the game regardless of what types of offense and defenses are thrown at them.


----------



## Ventura (Aug 9, 2005)

clearly the bulls. noc alone beats the heat.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RoRo said:


> there's no such thing as out jibbing someone in the playoffs. anyone with any sort of competitive streak is going to play hard. at this point it comes down to other factors aside from jib. coaching, in game and between games. players experience and composure to execute on the game plan, to recognize opportunities and capitalize. and players that have the ability to impact the game regardless of what types of offense and defenses are thrown at them.


Alot of those qualities go along with "jib". The ability to execute and play on the same page as your coach requires "jib", because if you're not jibby enough to listen to your coach, then the team will go under. 

As I said above, the Heat have 2 outstanding talents, both of which have "jib". Wade in particular, and even though Shaq is a little more cocky, he's always been coachable, a team player, and a hard worker. Those other guys are just along for the ride, and IF they were jibbier then I could see the Heat winning it all this season. However, that almost surely will not happen. So the city of Miami can thank their role players once that happens.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

yodurk said:


> The Heat's jib, as a whole, is brought down by bums like *Payton, Walker, Posey, and Haslem*. And none of those guys were the difference in this series. Not by a longshot.


Bums? :laugh: Payton for the most part shut Ben down when it mattered most in this series. Walker and Posey sank dagger after dagger in Games 5 & 6. Haslem is still better then any C/PF on this team. To say they didn't make a BIG difference is just being bitter.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

SPMJ said:


> Bums? :laugh: Payton for the most part shut Ben down when it mattered most in this series. Walker and Posey sank dagger after dagger in Games 5 & 6. Haslem is still better then any C/PF on this team. To say they didn't make a BIG difference is just being bitter.


I'm not a fan of any of those guys, and I especially don't like their attitudes. That's not to say they didn't make their contributions to get the job done, but they all had their moments of implosion. It could have easily sunk them if the Bulls were just a bit more talented. Against the Nets or Pistons, they won't be so lucky.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If the heat has less jib than us, then jib has proven to be worthless. Not even worth a ride out of the 1st round.
> 
> The real story here is that the heat DO have a lot of jib and more than we do. And a better coach (one of the all-time greats).
> 
> Thing is, they were as good as us with Wade out and with Shaq on the bench with fouls. They had to play their jibbiest players.



Overall, the Heat don't have more jib than the Bulls. They have SOME jib, but it took a while for them to find it. And it showed.

What we saw in this series is a microcosm of the Glory of Jib.

The Heat CLEARLY have more talent,athleticism and most importantly, NBA seasoning and experience than the Bulls. Raised to the 5th power.

The Bulls stayed in games 1 and 2 on jib and jib alone. They lost the games, but they showed their team play, hustle, defense and tenacity was something to be reckoned with. These were not the young, wide-eyed creampuffs described by the Miami media.

In games 3 and 4, the somewhat average jib of the Heat crumbled. We took advantage of the fact that all talent/athleticism + NO jib = disaster. For further example, see the Knicks. Talented. Athletic. Gone fishing to the 10th power.

In games 5 and 6, the Heat regrouped and polished up their jib as best they can.

They cooked us. As you point out, their jib is there. When they struggled, it was when the jiblessness took over.

Jib is important. Jib is essential.

As Mr. Paxson has stated, the Bulls need more talent and athleticism. We have the jib by the bucketload. Now we need to add some more of the necessary parts to the rock solid foundation we have built, to take us to the next level. Not players that take away from the culture of jib, but players that are athletic and talented AND Borg.

Yes indeed, take a good look at the Heat in this series. It should really make you tingle in anticipation as a Bulls fan when you think where this franchise is headed. Not that we are heading to be the Heat -- I don't see the Bulls ever having the jib lapses, like chucking mouthpieces at Joey Crawford and on court arguments with teammates about who is not whose *****-- the kind of stuff, that if the Heat hadn't regrouped and found the jib, could well have cost them the series. Without the jib, it might very well have happened. It was headed in that direction. But even a talented, but knuckleheaded and selfish team of goods like the Heat will succeed, if they finally succumb to the jib. You MUST succumb to the jib. Or be forever Knicks.

Our current uber-jib, plus an upgrade in talent and athleticism will take us AT LEAST to the Heat's level, success-wise. We add the RIGHT talent and athleticism, through FA, trade and/or draft and we springboard past the Heat and contend as a top team in the East. Maybe as soon as next May. And I think, based on our foundation, our anticipated continued development and our opportunities, it continues to get better every year for the next several. I like it. I like it.

Good point, K4E. Thanks for pointing this out. Takes some of the sting out of the (expected) gone fishing day.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

great post.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Overall, the Heat don't have more jib than the Bulls. They have SOME jib, but it took a while for them to find it. And it showed.
> 
> What we saw in this series is a microcosm of the Glory of Jib.
> 
> ...


Probably the best post I've ever read about the Bulls and their current situation. Outstanding.

I tried to rep you, but I got that stupid "spread" message when I tried.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Jib has proven to be worthless, and I think Pax should be fired for not drafting Dwyane Wade and Shaq. 

This thread is brilliant.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Yeah, yeah.

We only got blown out of 3 games in the series. Maybe the Heat were nervous in the first game.

Game 2 was garbage time; the heat had a huge lead. Our starters came back against their scrubs and made it close. Impressive? Not really.

The heat won WITH Antoine Walker. How'd that happen? JWill's not known for his jib by Bulls' standards. Heck, Shaq isn't either - he's notoriously bad about his practice habits.

Sure the heat have veterans; which ones not past their prime? So "veteran" isn't "jib" or is it?

Wade? Same class as Hinrich, right? On an entirely different level of hoopsmanship from any of our guys.

If the Heat don't have the jib, then it was won on pure talent, and pure talent was much more fun to watch, and pure talent won. If "jib" wins ballgames, then the Heat clearly have more of it.

But we're bulls' fans. Our team is "better" than everyone else at everything but winning for some reason.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Yeah, yeah.
> 
> We only got blown out of 3 games in the series. Maybe the Heat were nervous in the first game.
> 
> ...


Evidently you didn't read Tom's outstanding post which illustrates the false polarity of jib vs. talent upon which every word of your post is premised. 

The Heat are clearly the more talented team. No one is disputing that. But until that team pulled it together with some jibby team play and defense, they were on the verge of becoming one of only 4 teams in the history of the NBA to get shown the door by a 7 seed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Evidently you didn't read Tom's outstanding post which illustrates the false polarity of jib vs. talent upon which every word of your post is premised.
> 
> The Heat are clearly the more talented team. No one is disputing that. But until that team pulled it together with some jibby team play and defense, they were on the verge of becoming one of only 4 teams in the history of the NBA to get shown the door by a 7 seed.


So you're saying the heat have more jib, right?

Good enough for me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> So you're saying the heat have more jib, right?
> 
> Good enough for me.


No. He's saying a talented team with no jib goes nowhere.


A talented team that finds a bit of jib can go far.


A jibby team that finds a bit of talent can go farther.

Go Bulls.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> But we're bulls' fans. Our team is "better" than everyone else at everything but winning for some reason.


"Some reason" is that we are still building a team after the worst six year run in league history. Everyone, including Paxson and Skiles, knows that we need to add more pieces. For two years in a row, this team has gone above and beyond what anyone expected from them on paper, it shows the pure power and joy of jib. Add some more athleticism and the sky is the limit.

I am happy with our jib and excited about where we take it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> So you're saying the heat have more jib, right?
> 
> Good enough for me.


Good grief.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> "Some reason" is that we are still building a team after the worst six year run in league history.


This is true. But it was actually worse than that. It is the worst six year winning percentage for any team in any major professional American sport (NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL) in the history of all of the leagues. At least I read that published somewhere once. I have no reason not to believe its accuracy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The Heat are clearly the more talented team. No one is disputing that. But until that team pulled it together with some jibby team play and defense, they were on the verge of becoming one of only 4 teams in the history of the NBA to get shown the door by a 7 seed.


I hate to quibble, but "on the verge" seems a tad overstated. 2-2 was nice and competitive, and probably not a lot of 2-7 series go to 2-2 to begin with, but we never had a series lead, we didn't win a road game, and we ended up not really having a shot at winning either games 5 or 6 (I'm not saying that we didn't try hard, I'm just talking about what happened on the scoreboard).

I mean, you wouldn't say that jibless Sacramento was "on the verge" of becoming only the second 8 to beat a 1, would you? And that series progressed exactly the same as Bulls-Heat, with the Kings even having a slightly better shot at winning their game 5.

The bottom line is that the Heat brought a diametrically different approach to this series than the Bulls. Their goal is winning the NBA Finals, and Riley has that in the back of his mind when game-planning. I'm sure games 1-4 didn't go exactly the way he wanted them to, but I don't believe games 5 and 6 represented a triumph of the jib for the Heat. It was just a veteran team, led by one of the greatest players of all time, understanding the situation and finishing off a pesky underdog.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> No. He's saying a talented team with no jib goes nowhere.
> 
> 
> A talented team that finds a bit of jib can go far.
> ...


No he's not.

The poll is who has the better jib.

They beat us, it's hard to argue that they don't beat us in EVERY way.

Reading all the posts during the series, our best hopes were wade's injury being more serious, Shaq getting worn our, and the Heat players getting suspensions.

Not us beating them on the merits of the best team on the court beating the lesser team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I hate to quibble, but "on the verge" seems a tad overstated. 2-2 was nice and competitive, and probably not a lot of 2-7 series go to 2-2 to begin with, but we never had a series lead, we didn't win a road game, and we ended up not really having a shot at winning either games 5 or 6 (I'm not saying that we didn't try hard, I'm just talking about what happened on the scoreboard).
> 
> I mean, you wouldn't say that jibless Sacramento was "on the verge" of becoming only the second 8 to beat a 1, would you? And that series progressed exactly the same as Bulls-Heat, with the Kings even having a slightly better shot at winning their game 5.
> 
> The bottom line is that the Heat brought a diametrically different approach to this series than the Bulls. Their goal is winning the NBA Finals, and Riley has that in the back of his mind when game-planning. I'm sure games 1-4 didn't go exactly the way he wanted them to, but I don't believe games 5 and 6 represented a triumph of the jib for the Heat. It was just a veteran team, led by one of the greatest players of all time, understanding the situation and finishing off a pesky underdog.


Exactly

:nod:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> No he's not.


Like you'd know. 



> The poll is who has the better jib.


It is. The answer is the Bulls. Miami has more talent though. But it took them playing like the Bulls to beat the Bulls. 

They have arguably 2 of the top 5 most dominant players in the game and, at best, they are one series away from the jibbiest team in the league mopping the floor with them. 



> They beat us, it's hard to argue that they don't beat us in EVERY way.


Thats ludicrous. They did beat us, though. 



> Reading all the posts during the series, our best hopes were wade's injury being more serious, Shaq getting worn our, and the Heat players getting suspensions.
> 
> Not us beating them on the merits of the best team on the court beating the lesser team.


You didn't read any of that from me. And since your post misguidedly attempts to state my meaning, I would think that is relevant. 

But, for what its worth, Shaq getting worn out and Heat players getting suspensions is part of the game. It can be, and was at times, *caused * by the opposition. Posey melted down because of the Bulls. Shaq got in foul trouble as part of a game plan that was properly executed. The Bulls pushed the ball to wear Shaq down so he couldn't change ends. This is part of the game as it is played "on the merits". 

The injury thing though clearly is not part of the game on the merits. 

Anyway, if your ultimate point is that the Heat is better, then you're right.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

talent>jib

too win a championship you need both. but talent>jib overall. jib can win the short term, but talent wins championships. There has never been a team to win a title without talent, but I can name a team or two that won championships, or appeared in championships, without any jib whatsoever.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I hate to quibble, but "on the verge" seems a tad overstated. 2-2 was nice and competitive, and probably not a lot of 2-7 series go to 2-2 to begin with, but we never had a series lead, we didn't win a road game, and we ended up not really having a shot at winning either games 5 or 6 (I'm not saying that we didn't try hard, I'm just talking about what happened on the scoreboard).
> 
> I mean, you wouldn't say that jibless Sacramento was "on the verge" of becoming only the second 8 to beat a 1, would you? And that series progressed exactly the same as Bulls-Heat, with the Kings even having a slightly better shot at winning their game 5.
> 
> The bottom line is that the Heat brought a diametrically different approach to this series than the Bulls. Their goal is winning the NBA Finals, and Riley has that in the back of his mind when game-planning. I'm sure games 1-4 didn't go exactly the way he wanted them to, but I don't believe games 5 and 6 represented a triumph of the jib for the Heat. It was just a veteran team, led by one of the greatest players of all time, understanding the situation and finishing off a pesky underdog.


I don't think thats a quibble. I basically agree with you. "On the verge" was an overstatement. But the point is that some posters, not you, seem to be trying to make a point (for a couple of years now) that talent simply trumps jib. Ridiculous. The examples proving the falsity of this assertion are too many to bother listing. But here's a couple: This year's Knicks and Shaq/Kobe getting drilled by the upstart Pistons in the only 5 game sweep in the history of 7 game contests. 

It takes both to compete at the highest level. And it took Miami putting both into play in games 5 and 6 to put the Bulls away. And they were able to do so because the Bulls are less talented. 

But even with less talent, the series was a standstill and arguably going the Bulls way until the Heat knuckled down and started playing disciplined team ball on both ends of the court. 

This is elementary stuff, in my opinion. And I think you basically agree with me. You call it a talented, veteran team "understanding the situation". I call it a talented, veteran team getting punched in the face and getting jibby by way of response. Its the same thing, using different words. 

Had the Heat not so jibbily responded, they may very well be fishing even though they are fortunate enough to trot out not 1 but 2 completely dominating players as compared to the Bulls, who have none.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> talent>jib
> 
> too win a championship you need both. but talent>jib overall. jib can win the short term, but talent wins championships. There has never been a team to win a title without talent, but I can name a team or two that won championships, or appeared in championships, without any jib whatsoever.



That about sums it up.
I love the attitude that is defining the team, and we do have talent, but as a whole, you can just compare them to teams like say the Heat, and it's not going to happen. They're going to play scrappy, and win two games out of 6.

Not that it's a bad core to start with, but some more talent is going to have be brought in to balance things out. Unless of course, some of the current player's game improves to where they can be that guy.
I see everyone in the core as still improving, so that's a good sign. But we would need 1 or 2 of them to keep improving to Star level if we didn't want to go looking for the next big piece somewhere else.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> talent>jib
> 
> too win a championship you need both. but talent>jib overall. jib can win the short term, but talent wins championships. There has never been a team to win a title without talent, but I can name a team or two that won championships, or appeared in championships, without any jib whatsoever.


The Knicks are a very talented team without any jib. They are in no danger of competing for a championship any time soon.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The Knicks are a very talented team without any jib. They are in no danger of competing for a championship any time soon.


TB, I think I made myself pretty clear, you need both. But you can have short term instances when talent can take you too a title with little to no jib, or atleast get you close. Detroit in the early 90s, The first Rockets team to make it the finals in the 80s, those Laker teams that 3 peated were not jibby, and my favorite, the Knicks team that made it the finals in 98-99. EDIT, That Portland team was a quarter away of beating the lakers with no jib at all. But I have yet to see jib with no talent win or get a team close. So in the end, you need it. Therefore talent > jib. The most used formula that has won is to have a core group with a ton of TALENT and a supporting cast with alot of JIB. That seems to the most often used formula.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

My friend, we don't disagree except in degree. We both agree you need both.

I think part of the problem is the somewhat ambiguous definition of jib.

For all their nastiness, I think the Bad Boys were a _very_ jibby team. No, they weren't apple polishers. However, I think that is a very minor aspect of what I think of as "jib."

I think that they were jibby because I think that if a Tim Thomas was dogging it in practice, or there was a bunch of pager throwing clowning around going on when it was time to be paying attention, a Bill Laimbeer or a James Edwards would rip someone's head off. Those guys busted their *** and took their job as serous as cancer. Nobody told the Worm that he had to get stronger. He worked out like a madman because he knew it made him better. They played with, as Norm used to say, "48 minutes of intensity." Every night. AND they had talent.

As we agree, we need both jib and talent to win. I think the way we have gone about getting both (an unfinished project) is absolutely the right way to do it. 

We have a solid base reeking of jib. We are in a good position now to add more talent to that jibby atmosphere and we are going somewhere.

Now take the Knicks. They built a team of talent. Do you think they can just add a piece or two of jib-heavy guys and change around the train wreck? No way.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Knicks are a rudderless team of overrated egomaniacs and some solid, but not all-star level at this time, young players. Hardly a "team of talent" although many would like them to represent a "talented team" in the talent v. jib debate. The Heat are a "team of talent."

The best (or one of the best, i think the bulls are the jibbest team, this is jib central after all) jib team in the league was dismissed in 6 by one of more dysfunctional yet successful groups I've seen in a while. This lack of cohesion is why they won't beat the Pistons, IMO. 

The Heat never "played like the Bulls"... they have enough superstar level talent to not need to play like the Bulls do. 

The Bulls clearly were the poorer team in the series, and had no real chance to defeat the Miami Heat in a 7 game series. Our jib with our current level of talent/experience, is meaningless when it comes to actually contending in the NBA. 

I hope Paxson has a trick or two up his sleeve. But, judging by Saturday's Tribune article, it looks like the same .500-ish, 1st round exit, Chicago Grizzlies, play-it-safe Paxson. 



> "We're not in a position to bring in questionable types for our system and our program. If people say that's conservative, that's the way it's going to be. There are a lot of talented guys who might not have gotten any further in the playoffs than we did. I'm going to try very hard not to make that mistake."


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i'm seeing some good arguements for jib. and some good defining lines for what jib is.

to me, part of jib is mental resilence. the ability to stay calm and focus under pressure. i'd also say mental strength is more of a jib factor than a talent factor. 

the bulls seem to have 1 kind of jib. it shows up when we have nothing to lose. at these kinds of games (down 0-2 to miami) we find the cahones to take crucial threes, or chase the ball on defense with purpose, or drive fearlessly into the paint. 

that kind of jib allowed us to play aggressive basketball that had announcers using words like relentless and engergetic. riles thought we gave them a good butt kicking.

then we tied up the series and miami realized they couldn't skate by on talent alone. 
they were going to turn up their intensity and effort. 

but this was coupled with another factor. pressure was now on the bulls and i think it effected us alot. we started to think to much out there instead of just playing ball. i've never seen kirk and ben play more passively or more scared than that opening half of game six. passing up layups just because shaq was standing there. 

after we tied up the series we bascially had a best of three and i think miami outhustled us in that three game series. nothing symbolizes this more than the way wade hustled after a lose ball while gordan casually went after it. 

i was waiting for the patented bull run in the 3rd or 4th quarter, the run usually sparked by a jibberific scramble on defense and a flurry of clutch three pointers. so yeah we're not as talented as the top teams in the nba, but our jib is supposed to keep us in a game, and personally i don't think our jib came thru when we needed it the most.

i dunno, i think the bulls probably have mroe jib than the avg team. probably more jib that some of the top teams. but i think it's the lack of jib (save noc) in the last 2 games that has me hesitant to admit it. i don't think we just need to add new talent to the mix, i think our jib needs to mature too


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Miami Heat vs San Antonio. The jib variable is more pronounced in this equation... and I think we all know the answer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Miami Heat vs San Antonio. The jib variable is more pronounced in this equation... and I think we all know the answer.


Brent Barry
Nick Van Exel
Robert Horry


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

I guess my point of the previous post was: Jib amplifies talent. The Bulls probably should have no business making the playoffs, let alone taking two teams off the Heat. The John Paxson rebuilding process (signified in its start by the Hinrich IMO) has been quicker than any other ball club relative to drafting, FA opportunities etc. 

So many teams are locked in purgatory, I can't see how you can fault the pursuit of jib. It didn't take skill to draft LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade et al.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Brent Barry
> Nick Van Exel
> Robert Horry


When they signed onto the Spurs, accepting their (bench) roles on the club, they submitted to the jib.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> When they signed onto the Spurs, accepting their (bench) roles on the club, they submitted to the jib.


I agree that quality organizations can work with unjibby players and still benefit from them, like the Spurs do.

Horry started today BTW.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Miami Heat vs San Antonio. The jib variable is more pronounced in this equation... and I think we all know the answer.


If you're just making a comparison between which team has the most talent-to-jib ratio, than I can see what you mean. But if you're predicting they meet in the Finals because of the jib factor, then you're sorely wrong.

Detroit outclasses Miami in every facet of the word jib, and every aspect of the game of basketball. They have every answer to every question Miami could throw at them. Remember, Detroit has been to the top and now that they have the determination to get back there, there isn't anything stopping them. Plus could you imagine what Detroit would do to a team that almost imploded playing a team with NO star or leader!!! C'mon, Miami had the better team against the Bulls, but when you face a team with just as much talent and experience and more hustle and heart than you, you're screwed. Detroit has everything Miami strives for, and then some.

If Detroit doesn't make easy work of Miami (maximum, six games), I'll be surprised.

I just don't see how Miami can get past Detroit, especially since the road to the Finals goes through the Palace of Auburn Hills. Miami has no chance whatsoever.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Heat never "played like the Bulls"... they have enough superstar level talent to not need to play like the Bulls do.


I disagree with this. Their energy and hustle definitely went up a notch in the final two games. Yeah, their star power and veteran know-how helped too, but they really showed that they were the better team when they started scrambling on defense, jumping our pick and rolls, and making the extra pass to open shooters. _That's how the Bulls play almost all the time. _ 

I see your points in this thread and in fact I think both "sides" have been pretty convincing. I'm not sure how much of a scare the Bulls really put into the Heat, but at the very least, the Bulls made an emphatic point that intensity and selfless basketball can compete with (if not defeat) simply having more talent on paper. As TB1 and the Penguin argued, the Heat didn't take control until they got both of those things working for them.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The best (or one of the best, i think the bulls are the jibbest team, this is jib central after all) jib team in the league was dismissed in 6 by one of more dysfunctional yet successful groups I've seen in a while.


But as I said on page 1 of this thread, look at who the Heat have as their nucleus! Dwayne Wade is not just a superstar, but he's one of the jibbiest players in the league. Of all star-level players in the NBA, Wade and Tim Duncan are probably my favorites; they are simply hard-working, no nonsense, get-it-done type players. Then there's Shaq, who is a little on the cocky side, but has always been a team-player and hard worker (and I don't buy this stuff about Shaq being lazy in the off-season, b/c it's gotta be the hardest thing to keep weight off of his frame). Bottom line, the Heat's best players BY FAR are very jibby. That's enough to overcome alot of crap from the role players. It won't be enough to win it all though.



> I hope Paxson has a trick or two up his sleeve. But, judging by Saturday's Tribune article, it looks like the same .500-ish, 1st round exit, Chicago Grizzlies, play-it-safe Paxson.


With 2 draft picks and cap room, we're in position to upgrade roughly 4 roster spots. That's in addition to our already strong core of guards and wings. We're a .500 team with no frontcourt. Even if Pax "plays it safe", I fully expect us to get out of the 1st round sooner rather than later just by making these "safe" additions.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Bulls.
> 
> I know what point you're trying to make, but it isn't working. The Heat's top 2 players are among the top 10 players in the game, IMO, and far better than anyone we have. They also both have very solid jib, and would fit marvelously on our own squad. The Heat's jib, as a whole, is brought down by bums like Payton, Walker, Posey, and Haslem. And none of those guys were the difference in this series. Not by a longshot.


The point... sparky... is this. Here are the scores:

Heat
Jib 85
Talent 85

Bulls 
Jib 100
Talent 45

Those numbers reflect my opinion, as there is no way to quantify it, but you can look at those and say "yeah, if that's true, a 4-2 Heat win sounds about right." This wasn't the Bulls jib v. the Heats' talent. This was a Heat team with talent AND pretty good jib, against a Bulls team with tons of jib and talent that is laughable when compared to that of the Heat. The "point" (and yes it does work when someone drops their Hoosiers ideology and LISTENS for ten seconds) is that a balanced team with both will always beat a team that goes for all of one and writes off players that bring the other without doing things "their way."

Think about it. How many Heat players would Paxson not acquire? You think Paxson could ever seen Walker, Williams or Haslem as "the right type of guy"..? Haslem threw his mouth piece for christ's sake. We don't need guys who do things that way.

News flash kid... the Chicago Bulls... weren't good enough to completely write off the talent of Tim Thomas when we'd have lost NOTHING by keeping him. But he didn't do things "our way." That's fine, when you win 50 games. When you streak to .500 at the end of the year while playing half your games against teams that no longer have nearly the incentive to win... you can't afford to say "oh Thomas? Yeah, he's signed, but we don't quite like his cut."

Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Ron Artest? Could you ever see Paxson signing any of them? I can't. Players like Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Duhon... getting them to perform is the EASY part. Getting something out of players with big talent and questionable jib separates average GMs like Paxson from the elite GMs in the league.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Talent is as obscure of a term as jib is.

The Bulls are still the second youngest team in the league. Talented? Yes. Inexperienced? A resounding yes. Hinrich has proven his value in relation to the 2003 draft class. He could arguably be the third most valuable player in that class. Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni are arguably three of the five most valuable players in the 2004 class. That in of itself makes them talented. But experienced they are not. And for that the Bulls needed a ton of jib in order to make up for that lack of experience (and playoff experience on top of that).

Elton Brand indeed was one of the most talented players in the 1999 class, as was Ron Artest. And in hindsight, they are probably two of the most valuable players in that draft class because they each have a great combination of talent and jib, but would you say that those two former Bulls lacked talent in 2000 and 2001?

Talent. Jib. AND experience. Those are the ingredients teams need in order to contend. Plus, last time I checked, the Grizzlies have yet to win a playoff game, while the Bulls have won four.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> You think Paxson could ever seen Walker, Williams or Haslem as "the right type of guy"..?


It depends if Pax already has Dwyane Wade and Shaq on his team. Blah blah blah blah balh blhugh blasd blasfjhapaks


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree that quality organizations can work with unjibby players and still benefit from them, like the Spurs do.
> 
> Horry started today BTW.


Put Horry on the Knicks and you have a championship team, IMO.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Who here would agree that the 1994 Nuggets beat the Sonics in the first round because they "had more talent?"


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Talent is as obscure of a term as jib is.
> 
> The Bulls are still the second youngest team in the league. Talented? Yes. Inexperienced? A resounding yes. Hinrich has proven his value in relation to the 2003 draft class. He could arguably be the third most valuable player in that class. Deng, Gordon, and Nocioni are arguably three of the five most valuable players in the 2004 class. That in of itself makes them talented. But experienced they are not. And for that the Bulls needed a ton of jib in order to make up for that lack of experience (and playoff experience on top of that).
> 
> ...


You're just a Paxson fan who will always have something to say. Admit it. Just say "no matter what ever happens, I will never admit that I'm wrong." 

You lay it out as if to say "ok, we're this age now, and this was the result, so that means that if you just increase the results as the years increase, imagine the possibilities." No. First of all.. if you could say that about this team, then why isn't that argument applied with even GREATER effectiveness to LAST year's team. I know, I know.. he's not a cagey "Pax-type" player. Second, look at the Cleveland Cavaliers in 1989. And then look at how they really weren't any better in 1992 and 1993, and the ride was over by 1994. The Bulls and the Cavaliers of Price, Nance, Daugherty, Harper and Ehlo are a perfect comparison. In fact, I don't see us ever being as good as that team. As teams with ultra-talented players like Jordan saw their results go through the roof.... a team like Cleveland with a bunch of "good" players with jib did what teams like that do. 

But I'll do it this way... and Pax fans never have answers for stuff like this. If you think we're less like Cleveland than we are like ANOTHER team you think we are like, who eventually won a championship... you just name me that team... and we'll talk. You won't do it because if you throw something out there you know how ridiculous it can be made to look. Admit it... you're reaching and dreaming and HOPING that Paxson somehow validates your agenda. 

*Brand and Artest are nice little stories. They do not defeat my examples. Wade and Lebron (both in our conference) are players that remind you of Jordan and Magic. That is TALENT.. that is talent that will always be better at the same age than our talent. Just as Jordan singularly demoralized Cleveland... Lebron and Wade will do the same to us. They will get better at a greater rate than we will. How much experience does Lebron James have? He's 21. What a joke. 

Players like Cowens, Russell, Robertson, Frazier, Wade, Abdul-Jabbar, Jo Jo White, Bird, and on and on and on... like Woolridge said about Jordan... "you just know from DAY ONE!" When Jordan was 26 and Pippen was 23 and the rest of the team was young you knew they were going to win CHAMPIONSHIPS. If you want to say that this team is a nice little competitive team that makes you happy just the way they are... SAY THAT. Don't sell me a load of crap.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> Who here would agree that the 1994 Nuggets beat the Sonics in the first round because they "had more talent?"


Actually, Dikembe Mutombo won 4 DPOYs and if you don't think Abdul-Rauf, Laphonso Ellis and Bryant Stith were very TALENTED, I don't know what team you were watching. Besides... did someone say "Talent always beats jib" or did someone say that the better team in a 7-gamer usually has a better combination of both.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> It depends if Pax already has Dwyane Wade and Shaq on his team. Blah blah blah blah balh blhugh blasd blasfjhapaks


Ahhh yes, because we all know that Paxson NEVER had the chance to GET Dwyane Wade. You're right. And we all know that after that fact (had he pulled the Marshall + 7 for the Murray + 4) Kupchak never would have examined any trade with Shaq. Yes... Paxson has made the best possible moves.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Actually, Dikembe Mutombo won 4 DPOYs and if you don't think Abdul-Rauf, Laphonso Ellis and Bryant Stith were very TALENTED, I don't know what team you were watching. Besides... did someone say "Talent always beats jib" or did someone say that the better team in a 7-gamer usually has a better combination of both.


Actually Mutombo didn't win any Defensive Player of the Year awards until 1995 at the age of 28 -- one year after the Nuggets upset the Sonics. 

Laphonso Ellis averaged 15.4 points, 8.6 rebounds, and 2.1 assists per game in 1994, his second year at 23 years old -- the "very TALENTED" power forward Laphonso Ellis. I guess a 20-year-old small forward Luol Deng in his second year averaging 14.3 points, 6.6 rebounds, and 1.9 assists per game isn't "very TALENTED" enough for you.

Bryant Stith averaged 12.5 points, 4.3 rebounds, and 2.4 assists per game in 1994, his second year at 23 years old -- the "very TALENTED" Bryant Stith. I guess a 22-year-old Ben Gordon in his second year averaging 16.9 points, 2.7 rebounds, and 3.0 assists per game isn't "very TALENTED" enough for you.

Chris Jackson averaged 18.0 points, 2.1 rebounds, and 4.5 assists per game in 1994, his fourth year at 24 years old -- the "very TALENTED" flag-saluting Chris Jackson. I guess a 25-year-old Kirk Hinrich in his third year averaging 15.9 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 6.3 assists isn't "very TALENTED" enough for you.

I don't know what Bulls team you were watching. In a five-game series the Bulls would have lost to the Heat in a Game 5 that was close until a few minutes into the fourth quarter.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Wade and Lebron (both in our conference) are players that remind you of Jordan and Magic. That is TALENT.. that is talent that will always be better at the same age than our talent. Just as Jordan singularly demoralized Cleveland... Lebron and Wade will do the same to us. They will get better at a greater rate than we will. How much experience does Lebron James have? He's 21. What a joke.


What a joke, because players like Lebron and Wade apparently come along as abundantly as your complaints about Paxson. If that is TALENT, then I guess everyone else belongs in the NBDL.

In hindsight, nobody knew that Riley was going to shake up the draft and select Wade. Almost every mock draft had the Heat taking either Chris Bosh or Chris Kaman, while Hinrich was actually going before #7 in some mocks. Riley played the feign game well, and that may or may not have been a rookie mistake by Paxson.

How is it physically possible that Lebron and Wade will "do the same" to the Bulls as Jordan "singularly demoralized" the Cavaliers unless Lebron and Wade suddenly become joined at the hip or are on the same team, God forbid? Last time I checked, it only takes one team to eliminate another in the playoffs.

Of course, the whole argument of this topic goes all the way back to the current Pistons. You know, those Pistons, whose starting lineup lacks a player who ever averaged more than 20.1 points per game in his career. Those Pistons, who wiped the floor with the Shaqobe Lakers, beat the Shawyane Heat, and recently manhandled the witness-less Lebron Cavs in Game 1. The player who is the closest to ever having "TALENT" like Lebron and Wade is a banged-up but serviceable Antonio McDyess. You can't tell me that you don't see that the only differences between the Pistons and the Bulls are experience and a swingman power forward. True, Tim Thomas could've been the Rasheed of this year's Bulls team, but that argument's for the other thread.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Actually Mutombo didn't win any Defensive Player of the Year awards until 1995 at the age of 28 -- one year after the Nuggets upset the Sonics.


He obviously had the skill period. He won four in his career. That he didn't win one until the year after is inconsequential. 



> Laphonso Ellis averaged 15.4 points, 8.6 rebounds, and 2.1 assists per game in 1994, his second year at 23 years old -- the "very TALENTED" power forward Laphonso Ellis. I guess a 20-year-old small forward Luol Deng in his second year averaging 14.3 points, 6.6 rebounds, and 1.9 assists per game isn't "very TALENTED" enough for you.
> 
> Bryant Stith averaged 12.5 points, 4.3 rebounds, and 2.4 assists per game in 1994, his second year at 23 years old -- the "very TALENTED" Bryant Stith. I guess a 22-year-old Ben Gordon in his second year averaging 16.9 points, 2.7 rebounds, and 3.0 assists per game isn't "very TALENTED" enough for you.


You mistook the point. Did they have the talent to be in the series. Of course. And in a 5 gamer anything can happen. Did they have the talent to every sustain anything over a course of years? Of course not. And that Seattle team wasn't as great as they were made out to be. So I'm glad you've proven Deng and Gordon to be better than Laphonso Ellis and Bryant Stith. Too bad Tyson is a bleeping bleep compared to Motumbo. Also I love Pax fans and "numbers" like players play in a vacuum. I seem to remember Deng's numbers making him far and away better than Tayshaun Prince to a bunch of Pax fans. That's a joke. 



> Chris Jackson averaged 18.0 points, 2.1 rebounds, and 4.5 assists per game in 1994, his fourth year at 24 years old -- the "very TALENTED" flag-saluting Chris Jackson. I guess a 25-year-old Kirk Hinrich in his third year averaging 15.9 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 6.3 assists isn't "very TALENTED" enough for you.


Again, congratulations. I don't seem to remember my point being that that team wouldn't beat the Bulls. I said they had enough TALENT to play with Seattle. They were not jibby enough, but I also seem to recall saying you need BOTH. 



> I don't know what Bulls team you were watching. In a five-game series the Bulls would have lost to the Heat in a Game 5 that was close until a few minutes into the fourth quarter.


And you seem to interpret a Bulls loss as a victory. Great. Maybe Pax's career can be littered with first round losses that are just BRILLIANT to you.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> What a joke, because players like Lebron and Wade apparently come along as abundantly as your complaints about Paxson. If that is TALENT, then I guess everyone else belongs in the NBDL.


Reality is reality. Are you denying how young and good the Cleveland Cavs were and what happened in the wake of Jordan? Look, players like that may be rare... how that has anything to do with changing REALITY, I don't know. Also... Wade is so rare and unattainable that Paxson had NO chance at acquiring him right? Oh that's right little girl... Donyell Marshall was simply too valuable.



> In hindsight, nobody knew that Riley was going to shake up the draft and select Wade. Almost every mock draft had the Heat taking either Chris Bosh or Chris Kaman, while Hinrich was actually going before #7 in some mocks. Riley played the feign game well, and that may or may not have been a rookie mistake by Paxson.


Just say it. "I will defend John Paxson no matter what he does and how those decisions turn out." Cause that's the truth. As a GM you make it your business to know. You want a guy? You make SURE you get him.



> How is it physically possible that Lebron and Wade will "do the same" to the Bulls as Jordan "singularly demoralized" the Cavaliers unless Lebron and Wade suddenly become joined at the hip or are on the same team, God forbid? Last time I checked, it only takes one team to eliminate another in the playoffs.


Are you serious? Lebron (and also Wade) will singularly demoralize Chicago. In comparison for what our "Talent" does, they will be enough to overcome, because when you have a player like that, you can be a lot more flexible in your building and go less for a star and more for role players. If you don't get that I can't help you. 



> Of course, the whole argument of this topic goes all the way back to the current Pistons. You know, those Pistons, whose starting lineup lacks a player who ever averaged more than 20.1 points per game in his career. Those Pistons, who wiped the floor with the Shaqobe Lakers, beat the Shawyane Heat, and recently manhandled the witness-less Lebron Cavs in Game 1. The player who is the closest to ever having "TALENT" like Lebron and Wade is a banged-up but serviceable Antonio McDyess. You can't tell me that you don't see that the only differences between the Pistons and the Bulls are experience and a swingman power forward. True, Tim Thomas could've been the Rasheed of this year's Bulls team, but that argument's for the other thread.


Yes, the Pistons.... in the mold of the 1970 Knicks, or the Celtics of the 1960s. One stud defensive/offensive post man surrounded by many fringe hall of famers. Cousy/Sharman-Havlicek, Sam Jones, Nelson, Heinsohn is to Frazier/Debusschere/Bradley is to Wallace/Hamilton/Billups and maybe even Prince one day. That we are not my friend. You can WISH we are. Tyson Chandler is not EVER EVER EVER going to be close to Ben or Rasheed, so you can get over that fantasy.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ahhh yes, because we all know that Paxson NEVER had the chance to GET Dwyane Wade. You're right. And we all know that after that fact (had he pulled the Marshall + 7 for the Murray + 4) Kupchak never would have examined any trade with Shaq. Yes... Paxson has made the best possible moves.


In hindsight, of course it's a no brainer. At the time, there was a lot of question about how Wade was going to translate his game to a NBA level. Paxson decided that using Donyell as a chip to trade Jalen away was worth more than trading up to ensure Wade. At the time, I didn't disagree with him either. Wade still could have fallen into our laps, and it was a surprise that Miami picked him (definately our loss). No one could have imagined he make an impact like this on the league so soon. If that was thought out, LeBron & Wade would have been the consensus #1 and #2 picks no matter what (much like the Yao & Jay Williams draft), and Carmello & Darko would have been fighting it out for #3.

Every GM makes mistakes every single year. Why did Detroit not select Wade with the #2, and instead traded that pick and Arroyo to Orlando for virtually nothing? Oh wait, no one is crucifying them (and LeBron and company got spanked in game 1). Would you still be saying the same things about the Bulls if they made it to the ECFs?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> In hindsight, of course it's a no brainer. At the time, there was a lot of question about how Wade was going to translate his game to a NBA level. Paxson decided that using Donyell as a chip to trade Jalen away was worth more than trading up to ensure Wade. At the time, I didn't disagree with him either. Wade still could have fallen into our laps, and it was a surprise that Miami picked him (definately our loss).


He could have but he didn't. I didn't come with the whole "this decision (or lackthereof) makes Paxson a god awful GM".. but at the same time I don't want the sales pitch of "Wade, James, those players are almost unattainable." When you're as close as we were it's not like Boston not having the balls to trade up 20 spots in 1984 to grab Jordan.



> Every GM makes mistakes every single year. Why did Detroit not select Wade with the #2, and instead traded that pick and Arroyo to Orlando for virtually nothing? Oh wait, no one is crucifying them (and LeBron and company got spanked in game 1). Would you still be saying the same things about the Bulls if they made it to the ECFs?


Yeah, hard to crucify someone when they win a CHAMPIONSHIP. That's the difference. See, Pax fans think he's actually done ANYTHING other than have one winning season in three. If the Bulls make the ECF, all the presumptions are different. I've said that. When you win enough anything you do is justified by the RESULTS. That's the difference between me and Pax fans. Pax fans want to gloat in their amazing effort, and I simply want results, HOWEVER they are achieved. When you have the job you get all the power and hence have all the burden for production of results.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> He could have but he didn't. I didn't come with the whole "this decision (or lackthereof) makes Paxson a god awful GM".. but at the same time I don't want the sales pitch of "Wade, James, those players are almost unattainable." When you're as close as we were it's not like Boston not having the balls to trade up 20 spots in 1984 to grab Jordan.


I wasn't trying to touch on Paxson's abilities as a GM. I can't speak for everyone, but I think what most people say "unattainable" it is from a how things are now viewpoint. The point I was trying to make that there was question then and he is unattainable now.

We all know Pax was high on the guy, but obviously not high enough or that trade would have been a no-brainer. His strategy appeared to be working until Miami spoiled the plans and drafted him. Of course not pulling the trigger was unfortunate.



> Yeah, hard to crucify someone when they win a CHAMPIONSHIP. That's the difference. See, Pax fans think he's actually done ANYTHING other than have one winning season in three. If the Bulls make the ECF, all the presumptions are different. I've said that. When you win enough anything you do is justified by the RESULTS. That's the difference between me and Pax fans. Pax fans want to gloat in their amazing effort, and I simply want results, HOWEVER they are achieved. When you have the job you get all the power and hence have all the burden for production of results.


I challenge anyone outside of landing a LeBron type player in the draft to build one of the worst teams in the league to a contender in three years. "Pax fans" appreciate the progress. I do understand your, "what have you done for me lately" stance (quoting the motif, not your words).

Outside of the potential trade for Wade, where has there been a lot of missed opportunity? Trading Eddy away sure, but this year's Eddy would have brought us no closer to a title this season in the contender sense of the word (meaning quite possibly a higher seed and first round victory, but not past the Pistons or the Heat). If we make a splash this year with NY's pick, in FA, or the pick swap next year that is better than Eddy, this Eddy debacle will end quickly.

While I haven't seen a lot of it out of you, Paxson is getting a lot of unfair criticism for not landing players last offseason to help us move closer. All we had was the MLE and UFA Duhon (not even a draft pick) that was going to eat into that MLE if we wanted to keep him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> As TB1 and the Penguin argued, the Heat didn't take control until they got both of those things working for them.


See, I disagree with this.

The Heat altered their defense in games 5 and 6 to counteract our drive n' dish and Hinrich/Gordon went ice cold. Also, our guard penetration/intensity and fast break play was not as effective, especially in game 6, which enabled SHAQ to not have as many fouls.

I didn't see any epic transformation in style of play. Wade was banged up, SHAQ stayed on the floor, Payton and Walker and Haslem were still barking at each other.

The Heat didn't transform into a practice as hard as you play, yessir, we play "the right way," jib central team that the Bulls are. They are a veteran bunch that made a slight change to their game plan and that's all it took to dispatch the Bulls. The Heat are still as slightly dysfunctional and headstrong a team as they were when the series started. They are just veteran NBA players who decided to get their **** together enough to advance to the next round.

Team chemistry certainly is important. But if anything, the Kobe/SHAQ team showed that a team can be brimming with selfish, "wrong way" vibes and still win the NBA title more than once. Even the year they lost to the Pistons they made it to the NBA finals (will PaxSkiles ever even get close?)... and I remember watching that series... the selfishness of the team isn't the reason they lost... it was the aging and ineffectiveness of the supporting cast. The Pistons won that series by being a better team at the 3-8 roster slots. The Lakers were a tired team. Still, SHAQ/Kobe, with all that drama have multiple O'Brien trophies and NBA Finals appearances to show for it.

Certainly chemistry/jib is important. But, this team is easily the jibbiest team I've ever seen in the NBA and all it amounted to was .500 and an early boot from the post season. I've seen the Portland Jailblazers and SHAQ/Kobe get much, much farther in the playoffs than the Bulls will.

I hope Paxson can strike gold in the lotto with these Knicks picks. That's really this teams only hope of taking it to the next level, IMO. Paxson is already laying the groundwork in the media for another season of inaction, save for the draft picks. And, raw, rookie-contract players are so much more receptive to the way Skiles does things. How many other NBA GMs refer to their organization as a "program?" This isn't college... but PaxSkiles want college style, rookie contract slave players. I don't see any headstrong NBA veterans joining this squad anytime soon.... Paxson won't undermine Skiles by bringing them in. As I look at the teams remaining the playoffs, they are filled with guys I can't see PaxSkiles working with unless they adapt. Tonight, in the 2nd round of the playoffs, if you choose to tune in you'll see several guys making key contributions that would not work under PaxSkiles. Jason Kidd. Vince Carter. Antoine Walker. Gary Payton. Tim Thomas. 

Its the harsh jib constraint that I have a problem with, not the idea of team chemistry. There won't ever be a Hoosiers team in the NBA. We're the closest thing I've ever seen to one... and its admirable to see... but it won't win the title long term, and that has to be the goal, not playing "the right way." "The right way" is doing what it takes to win the NBA title. Here's hoping to a major talent influx via the lottery. I hope there is a talented/jibby enough player out there that Paxson and Skiles can work with.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

As I pointed out earlier, the Bulls remain a work in progress, clawing their way back from the worst run in American pro sport history.

We have a solid foundation of jib, and Paxson is on record saying we need more talent and athleticism.

I again mention the Knicks. They are talented and jibless (you would call it rudderless -- same difference).

The Bulls have some talent, but yes, right now they are pretty much held together with jib.

The reason I'm ok with that is is is easier to take a jibby team and make it better with more talent and athleticism than it is to take a jibless team and make it better by adding a couple of "right way" guys.

And I still contend that tha Pax model has everything to do with taking your job seriously and nothing to do with saying "yessir," except to the extent that not saying "yessir" interferes with taking your job seriously.

As I said earlier, for all their faults, I consider the Bad Boy Pistons to have been plenty jibby, because their players wouldn't have put up with some guy jogging down the court on defense, in game or in practice. There would be a head slammed through a locker the first time that happened. Seriously, you think Rick Mahorn would have had patience for a Tim Thomas or an Eddie Robinson?

And Zeke might have managed a scowl at Chuck Daley every once in a while, but I guar-an-****ing-tee you he said "yessir" to him when it counted.

Anyay, that's what I'm talking about when I talk about jib.

Not apple polishing, short shorts and knee high sweat socks.

And yeah, the Heat have some of that jib. I think they take the game seriously, in practice, in games, in everywhere. Riley demands it. They also have serious jib lapses that could have ended up costing them the series. But they got back to business and once that happened, their veteran experience and talent led the better team to win. No huge surprise that hey beat one of the youngest teams in the league.

I think we are in good shape, and will be in good shape after this offseason even if there is no absolute blockbuster Garnett-level trade.

Will we win the championship next year? Probably not. If we did, Pax should be GM of the Century.

I will be disappointed if we are not at LEAST a quality second round team next year, though.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> See, I disagree with this.
> 
> The Heat altered their defense in games 5 and 6 to counteract our drive n' dish and Hinrich/Gordon went ice cold. Also, our guard penetration/intensity and fast break play was not as effective, especially in game 6, which enabled SHAQ to not have as many fouls.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying their locker room and franchise suddenly morphed into the Chicago one. I'm saying they adjusted their style of play and intensity to counter what the Bulls were doing. If you don't see that, I wonder if we were watching the same series. I saw Heat guys diving for balls in the last 2 games that they wouldn't have bothered with before. I saw Shaq coming further out to help on screen/rolls than I've seen him do in maybe 10 years. I saw Wade and Shaq, and even Payton and Toine, swing the ball to open shooters instead of taking contested shots. I saw them crash the boards more aggressively and get to loose balls that all went to the Bulls in games 3 and 4.

What you shrug off as "getting their **** together", I see as them realizing that they needed to up their focus and intensity if they wanted to get past the Bulls. 

Add those elements of hustle and unselfishness to their massive amount of talent and veteran savvy, and that explains why they were able to put the Bulls away with ease in the last two games. The Bulls need more size, more talent. They have good talent in the backcourt and at the swing, but those guys need help. The Heat have a balanced roster with two of the best players in the game - they have a few hotheads, but when the Bulls tied the series, those guys, to their credit, did what they had to do and followed Riley/Shaq/Wade's lead. Moved the ball, hit some shots, played much better defense.

While you have your crystal ball out (re: how the Bulls will never go further in the playoffs than the Jail Blazers), can you shoot me over some lottery numbers? Who's gonna win the next Triple Crown race? I could use some extra scratch! :biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

And I co-sign on Vicious Flogging's post, as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As I pointed out earlier, the Bulls remain a work in progress, clawing their way back from the worst run in American pro sport history.


Right, but that was a consious decision. They decided to become miserable to get high draft picks. They could have resigned Pip, kept Toni and filled in some blanks and probalby not win a title the first MJ year and then fade into average. The Bulls became bad on purpose. 




> We have a solid foundation of jib, and Paxson is on record saying we need more talent and athleticism.


Well, then he should stop trading away talented, athletic players for washed up veterans or rotund power forwards.




> I again mention the Knicks. They are talented and jibless (you would call it rudderless -- same difference).


The Knicks are not a very talented team. StarBury, Stevie Franchise and Rose think they are stars, but they are not. The best players on that team are the younger guys... Frye... Curry... JAMAL... there is not one star level player on the Knicks.





> And I still contend that tha Pax model has everything to do with taking your job seriously and nothing to do with saying "yessir," except to the extent that not saying "yessir" interferes with taking your job seriously.


I think there is more to it than that. Tim Thomas does not get banned from the Heat, IMO. He certainly does not get banned from a team like the Suns. Ask Lakers fans if Thomas takes his job seriously. 

You can say, great, another TT thread, but its a concrete example of how different the PaxSkiles philosophy is from the rest of the NBA.





> As I said earlier, for all their faults, I consider the Bad Boy Pistons to have been plenty jibby, because their players wouldn't have put up with some guy jogging down the court on defense, in game or in practice. There would be a head slammed through a locker the first time that happened. Seriously, you think Rick Mahorn would have had patience for a Tim Thomas or an Eddie Robinson?


First of all, TT <> EROB. TT is helping playoff teams win playoff series. EROB is out of the league and is a true mope. TT is closer to Hinrich, than EROB is to TT, IMO. TT should not be lumped in with EROB, nor should ex Bulls like JAMAL or Curry. 

I think TT would be able to play on any other team where the primary interest is winning, not player development, in the NBA.

The Bobcats would probably not be very interested in him. But, as we saw, there was much interest for him by many different playoff teams.



> Anyay, that's what I'm talking about when I talk about jib.
> 
> Not apple polishing, short shorts and knee high sweat socks.


I think Skiles is the Bulls greatest asset and also what will hold them back. The supply of players that the Bulls can acquire is limited by Skiles. 




> I think we are in good shape, and will be in good shape after this off season even if there is no absolute blockbuster Garnett-level trade.


I hope you are right. I only see us being set at the 1 and 3, and even then we don't have star level players. Our system and hustle should be good enough to claw into the playoffs, but the upside is limited, IMO. The lotto picks are key, since the Cap Space plan will likely not amount to anything. I hope it does.



> I will be disappointed if we are not at LEAST a quality second round team next year, though.


Well, thanks for at least saying that. I think that's a reasonable goal for next season and I agree with you. The rookie we acquire will have to be a damn good one in order to pull that off I fear…. Unless Paxson does decide to make a deal.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Overall, the Heat don't have more jib than the Bulls. They have SOME jib, but it took a while for them to find it. And it showed.
> 
> What we saw in this series is a microcosm of the Glory of Jib.
> 
> ...


 :clap:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but that was a consious decision. They decided to become miserable to get high draft picks. They could have resigned Pip, kept Toni and filled in some blanks and probalby not win a title the first MJ year and then fade into average. The Bulls became bad on purpose.


Ancient history. No doubt that Krause could've stayed competitive, but wanted to rebuild to a true contender quickly. He failed miserably, but it has little to do with today's Bulls.




> Well, then he should stop trading away talented, athletic players for washed up veterans or rotund power forwards.


Other than Brand, which was Krause's mistake, who are the uber-talented players the Bulls have given up? Curry? Thomas? Crawford? Rose?





> The Knicks are not a very talented team. StarBury, Stevie Franchise and Rose think they are stars, but they are not. The best players on that team are the younger guys... Frye... Curry... JAMAL... there is not one star level player on the Knicks.


Rose is through, but BEFORE coming to the Knicks, Marbury and Francis were most certainly considered NBA stars, and when healthy, they still have exceptional individual ability. What they're both doing on the same team is anybody's guess, but they're extremely talented, athletic players.




> I think there is more to it than that. Tim Thomas does not get banned from the Heat, IMO. He certainly does not get banned from a team like the Suns. Ask Lakers fans if Thomas takes his job seriously.
> 
> You can say, great, another TT thread, but its a concrete example of how different the PaxSkiles philosophy is from the rest of the NBA.


I believe we agree on this. No other NBA team would have banned TT. The Bulls did it and I'm glad they did. The message was clear - unlike most NBA team, playing for the Bulls means something with regard to what is expected. Talent is not enough. Like it or don't, Paxson and Skiles didn't just talk the talk, they walked the walk. IMO, this and what they did with ERob has, and will continue to pay dividends.





> First of all, TT <> EROB. TT is helping playoff teams win playoff series. EROB is out of the league and is a true mope. TT is closer to Hinrich, than EROB is to TT, IMO. TT should not be lumped in with EROB, nor should ex Bulls like JAMAL or Curry.
> 
> I think TT would be able to play on any other team where the primary interest is winning, not player development, in the NBA.
> 
> The Bobcats would probably not be very interested in him. But, as we saw, there was much interest for him by many different playoff teams.


ERob=Thomas. Both had many supporters that believed they were big-time talents. Both decided that they were more important than the team. Neither felt it was worthwhile to conform. TT clearly is the more accomplished player. However, if you can say that Marbury and Francis only think they are stars, then the same applies to Thomas, and Thomas doesn't have anywhere near the credentials of either of those players.

Thomas has been occasionally impressive in the playoffs. For $13.5MM, it's encouraging that he can play a month or so of good basketball.

Thomas is a dog.



> I think Skiles is the Bulls greatest asset and also what will hold them back. The supply of players that the Bulls can acquire is limited by Skiles.


Wonderful quote. Very profound. College is for coaches and the NBA is for players. In college, the coaches tend to stay and the players come and go. In the NBA it's reversed. Naturally, there are exceptions. Being a "players coach" is almost a necessity in the NBA, and admitedly, Skiles is not a prototypical players coach. The very best teams in the league (San Antonio and Detroit) have rosters filled with great team players who work their tails off in practice and in the games. Michael Jordan, the greatest player to ever lace 'em up, was also the greatest practice player ever...ask any of his teammates.

Skiles is an unreasonable S.O.B. He expects his players to work hard all the time. He expects them to approach the game (and practice) like Jordan, even if they don't have the talent he did (which of course, none of them do). If you don't practice balls-out or don't play defense the way it's supposed to be played, Skiles will sit your tail. Like I said, he's obviously unreasonable.

K4E, you're right about Skiles being a very important asset of the Bulls. You're also right about the fact that some very talented players won't come to the Bulls because they're not Skiles' kind of players. Where we disagree is that I think this is a good thing and you don't.

What Paxson is trying to do with the Bulls is no different than what the Pistons and the Spurs have done. The key difference is that those teams had the core kind of star players who could assimilate questionable characters and expect them to get in line with the team concept (R. Wallace on the Pistons is very similar to D. Rodman on the Bulls). The problem Paxson has is that they haven't had that kind of success and don't have that kind of core group of stars/superstars that can make that work. Despite this critical difference, Paxson is trying to build in the Spurs-Pistons mold. Given what he lacks, Paxson has decided to do a very un-NBA like thing - build around your coach.

It's "out-of-the-box" thinking and unquestionably a risk. I completely understand why those who follow the conventional wisdom see the Bulls' way of building a team as misguided and doomed to failure. You may be right. Only time will tell. However, unlike the Krause rebuilding plan, I hope you'll agree that Paxson's has shown more potential.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

This thread actually proves an important point.

Jib doesn't mean squat in this league.

I mean, just look at last years Spurs team who many consider to be full of jib. All they did was...

...wait a minute.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I wasn't trying to touch on Paxson's abilities as a GM. I can't speak for everyone, but I think what most people say "unattainable" it is from a how things are now viewpoint. The point I was trying to make that there was question then and he is unattainable now.
> 
> We all know Pax was high on the guy, but obviously not high enough or that trade would have been a no-brainer. His strategy appeared to be working until Miami spoiled the plans and drafted him. Of course not pulling the trigger was unfortunate.


Ok but realize the context of my comment. The context was Slim acting as if acquiring Wade was never an option for us. Practically framing it to be as hard for us to have got it as it would have been for the championship Celtics to get Jordan. 



> I challenge anyone outside of landing a LeBron type player in the draft to build one of the worst teams in the league to a contender in three years. "Pax fans" appreciate the progress. I do understand your, "what have you done for me lately" stance (quoting the motif, not your words).
> 
> Outside of the potential trade for Wade, where has there been a lot of missed opportunity? Trading Eddy away sure, but this year's Eddy would have brought us no closer to a title this season in the contender sense of the word (meaning quite possibly a higher seed and first round victory, but not past the Pistons or the Heat). If we make a splash this year with NY's pick, in FA, or the pick swap next year that is better than Eddy, this Eddy debacle will end quickly.
> 
> While I haven't seen a lot of it out of you, Paxson is getting a lot of unfair criticism for not landing players last offseason to help us move closer. All we had was the MLE and UFA Duhon (not even a draft pick) that was going to eat into that MLE if we wanted to keep him.


Yeah I understand the whole mentality of "look where we were." That's great for like a year. And JP got that free pass from me. While he has turned us around and made us competitive, I feel he has also put a ceiling on us. I've explained that many time. By only wanting a certain type of guy, I feel JP rules out many players that the really good organizations realize you HAVE to work with to get results. 

I am not going to be the guy to hammer Paxson for who he didn't get LAST offseason. Do I think that trading Curry was a mistake? Yes. Whatever Curry is in New York, he was something different here. If you can say that we would have been no better based on what he did stuck in a bball hellhole with "Starbury," Rose and Francis, then I can turn around and say that this team will be no better next year. *However, I'm not in the business of making up guys that Paxson could have gotten last summer. I just wanted him to leave the team how it was. ALSO, unlike a lot of Pax fans when speaking of non-Pax players, issues and decisions, I can give Paxson FULL credit for his GOOD moves.*

To me its frustrating because Paxson WAS doing a really good job, and then he broke the rule you DO NOT BREAK in the NBA. When you have a team that's young and a near 50 game winner, with BALANCE, almost uncanny symmetry between jib and talent... YOU DONT TRY TO FIX what isn't broken. And anyone who thinks that that is gonna work, we'll continue to wait out the results. 

Fact is, you already see people like "Well if this summer doesn't work out, then we have the 2007 offseason." Ok, say you get a good player then. That's TWO seasons before you even draft that player where we could have been building on a 47 game winner, plus how long for said new player to judge. In today's financial reality, you don't have 3 years to waste. That's my point. If you don't agree with all of that, then we have fundamental disagreements we'll NEVER see eye to eye on. And I'm fine with that cause at least you're reasonable.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok but realize the context of my comment. The context was Slim acting as if acquiring Wade was never an option for us. Practically framing it to be as hard for us to have got it as it would have been for the championship Celtics to get Jordan.
> 
> Yeah I understand the whole mentality of "look where we were." That's great for like a year. And JP got that free pass from me. While he has turned us around and made us competitive, I feel he has also put a ceiling on us. I've explained that many time. By only wanting a certain type of guy, I feel JP rules out many players that the really good organizations realize you HAVE to work with to get results.
> 
> ...


It's been an entire season since the Curry trade. I think it's time you got over it and joined the rest of us in thinking about the future of our team.

The topic of this thread is which team has the better "jib", Miami or Chicago. If jib means those players and teams who have better work ethic and dedication to teamwork, e.g., Ben Wallace, Nash & Iverson and the Pistons and Spurs scoring a 10 on a scale of 1-10, while EROB and the Knicks score more like a 1; then the answer is all too obvious.

The Bulls clearly have the better jib. 

Miami is conglomerate of stars and ex-stars who barely tried to play as a team until it became clear that a quick exit from the playoffs would be the price of continued disjointed play. This is not to say they didn't have a work ethic. I think the world of Wade and Mourning. But Payton and O'Neal are riding their fading talent and reputations, and falsely believe that they can re-awaken their competitiveness on the drop of a hat on demand. 

The Bulls, by comparison were outsized and out-talented. But they put the fear of God in the better team because many of the individual members (A back-injured Duhon seems to get little credit in this regard) and the team as a whole showed "jib".

The fact that the answer to the thread's question is obvious to most of us is not an excuse to rant endlessly like a troll about the shortcomings of the Bulls and to cling to an increasingly delusional explanation for the fact that the current Bulls team failed to win in the first round of the playoffs.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Transplant, you my main man.

:yes::cowboy:


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> What Paxson is trying to do with the Bulls is no different than what the Pistons and the Spurs have done. The key difference is that those teams had the core kind of star players who could assimilate questionable characters and expect them to get in line with the team concept (R. Wallace on the Pistons is very similar to D. Rodman on the Bulls). The problem Paxson has is that they haven't had that kind of success and don't have that kind of core group of stars/superstars that can make that work. Despite this critical difference, Paxson is trying to build in the Spurs-Pistons mold. Given what he lacks, Paxson has decided to do a very un-NBA like thing - build around your coach.


It is definitely true that one can probably count the number of jib-worthy superstars on one hand. If Paxson decides to keep the core intact this offseason, it becomes imperative that one of those core players, especially Hinrich or Nocioni, becomes an All-Star caliber player. That way, Paxson can bring in high-talent, questionable-jib players because Hinrich or Nocioni would have already become the established, unquestioned leader of the team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Man, there is an excess of soft-headed thinking going on in this thread. I tried to make this point a week or so ago when the series was going on, and I think it's quite obvious from how the series turned out that "jib" is a complete non-issue.

"Jib", whatever the **** it is, had nothing to do with this series. Everything can be well explained... actually better explained... by the talents and skills of the players and how they were able to adjust and play under pressure.

I mean come on. There's no need to make a pro wrestling soap opera out of this. The Heat have two superstars that played well. We played perhaps surprisingly well on Shaq, but we probably had the weakest frontcourt in the playoffs and we were going up against... aged or not, the single most dominant frontcourt player in the last 30 years.

Offensively, our strengths are, almost by definition, very streaky ones. And our players are young and subject to being gameplanned out of a game by a good coach (and the Heat have a good coach).

We came close, we gave it our best shot and IMO we blew a golden opportunity in Game 5. Perhaps if we'd had the ball bounce our way in a couple places there we'd have had our chance, but we lost what George Bush Sr. called The Big Mo', and we never recovered.

Put it all together, this just plain ain't rocket science and it had **** all to do with Kirk and Chris bouncing naked through Skiles' dreaming mind or Gary Payton or Antoine Walker being huge smack talkers. On the other hand, it had everything to do with our strengths and weaknesses on the court and those of the Heat. Maybe that's boring for all you little Hulkamaniacs out there, but that's life. :clown:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> It's been an entire season since the Curry trade. I think it's time you got over it and joined the rest of us in thinking about the future of our team.
> 
> The topic of this thread is which team has the better "jib", Miami or Chicago. If jib means those players and teams who have better work ethic and dedication to teamwork, e.g., Ben Wallace, Nash & Iverson and the Pistons and Spurs scoring a 10 on a scale of 1-10, while EROB and the Knicks score more like a 1; then the answer is all too obvious.
> 
> ...


I was replying to a poster who brought Curry up. If someone brings it up I'll comment on it. If you don't like it, read on.

You call it delusional, and yet you won't take it on head on. You'll throw troll on top of it in what I call the "snowball effort."


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TwinkieTowers said:


> It is definitely true that one can probably count the number of jib-worthy superstars on one hand. If Paxson decides to keep the core intact this offseason, it becomes imperative that one of those core players, especially Hinrich or Nocioni, becomes an All-Star caliber player. That way, Paxson can bring in high-talent, questionable-jib players because Hinrich or Nocioni would have already become the established, unquestioned leader of the team.


This is a good post. Solution oriented instead of "Pax can do no wrong, we're on the right track."


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

transplant said:


> I believe we agree on this. No other NBA team would have banned TT.


The Nets sent Jeff McInnis home before the playoffs. And he was under contract for another season.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> The Nets sent Jeff McInnis home before the playoffs. And he was under contract for another season.


That has as much to do with the giant fork stuck in McInnis's back as it does his horrible jib. 

Even with all the qualifiers about the Suns and playing with Nash and no defense and so on, Tim Thomas can still play the game. And at a pretty high level, at least according to Doug Collins.

Kenyon Martin might serve your point better, although again, you're talking about a guy who was limited in what he was able to give the team on a day-in, day-out basis.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> That has as much to do with the giant fork stuck in McInnis's back as it does his horrible jib.
> 
> Even with all the qualifiers about the Suns and playing with Nash and no defense and so on, Tim Thomas can still play the game. And at a pretty high level, at least according to Doug Collins.


Jeff McInnis wants to play. How dare the Nets deny his livelihood?!


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Anyway, I voted for the Bulls having more jib, because that's what a team as young as it is absolutely needs in order to even make the playoffs. I believe jib-factor is much more pronounced on the defensive end but shows up over the long term of a game on offense, such as being able to respond to run by the opponent. The Raptors had two 20-point scorers, with one as a dominant bigman and the other a shoot-first PG, a near 17-point scorer, and a very good rookie combo forward. Yet, they had only 27 wins because they lacked that jib-factor on defense.

The Bulls lost the series to the Heat, but they could very well have won the series in five games. I believe the wins by the Heat in Games 1 and 5 were more of a combination of talent and experience. Make a rematch of this next season with the same rosters, and I believe the Bulls would have enough experience to beat the Heat.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> Ancient history. No doubt that Krause could've stayed competitive, but wanted to rebuild to a true contender quickly. He failed miserably, but it has little to do with today's Bulls.


Paxson did the same his first year (conscious moves to make the team worse). The drop-off wasn't anywhere near as steep... but... IMO... Krause wasn't the one behind blowing up the MJ team anyway.




> Other than Brand, which was Krause's mistake, who are the uber-talented players the Bulls have given up? Curry? Thomas? Crawford? Rose?


Oh, uber-talented? Nope, no one uber-talented. Of course, we were just talking talented. Our team would be considerably better with Crawford and Curry than with Pargo and Sweetney, IMO. 





> Rose is through, but BEFORE coming to the Knicks, Marbury and Francis were most certainly considered NBA stars, and when healthy, they still have exceptional individual ability. What they're both doing on the same team is anybody's guess, but they're extremely talented, athletic players.


Francis was through on the Magic last season. He used to be a phenomenal player, but injuries, miles or loss of desire have caught up to him. He's a skunk. These guys are still considered by some to be NBA stars...but they are not. Francis does not even seem that athletic/explosive anymore when I see him play. 




> I believe we agree on this. No other NBA team would have banned TT. The Bulls did it and I'm glad they did. The message was clear - unlike most NBA team, playing for the Bulls means something with regard to what is expected. Talent is not enough. Like it or don't, Paxson and Skiles didn't just talk the talk, they walked the walk. IMO, this and what they did with ERob has, and will continue to pay dividends.


What dividends did banning TT pay? He’s currently paying tangible dividends for the Suns right now.





> ERob=Thomas.


I disagree.




> Both had many supporters that believed they were big-time talents. Both decided that they were more important than the team. Neither felt it was worthwhile to conform.


I disagree. EROB is a slacker that is happy to sit on the sidelines and collect his paycheck... even coming up with, IMO, fake injuries at times. TT wanted to play. He wanted to play for the Bulls.. .and is playing quite well with the better than the Bulls Phoenix Suns. EROB is out of basketball. TT is wining playoff games.



> TT clearly is the more accomplished player. However, if you can say that Marbury and Francis only think they are stars, then the same applies to Thomas, and Thomas doesn't have anywhere near the credentials of either of those players.


All three of those guys are overpaid, no doubt, and all three are headcases. But, as we've seen with Phoenix, guys like TT can be used effectively to win crucial NBA basketball games. 




> Thomas has been occasionally impressive in the playoffs. For $13.5MM, it's encouraging that he can play a month or so of good basketball.


No one disputes he's overpaid. So was AD. Does not mean they can't serve a valuable purpose.



> Thomas is a dog.


Tell that to the Lakers fans.



> K4E, you're right about Skiles being a very important asset of the Bulls. You're also right about the fact that some very talented players won't come to the Bulls because they're not Skiles' kind of players. Where we disagree is that I think this is a good thing and you don't.


Could Skiles coach the current Nets? Heat? Suns (TT)? I think Skiles is a great coach... I don't really care much about ideology as long as the Bulls are on the road to a title. It not doomed. The Bulls could land a future NBA MVP with these draft picks. Stranger things have happened. 





> The problem Paxson has is that they haven't had that kind of success and don't have that kind of core group of stars/superstars that can make that work. Despite this critical difference, Paxson is trying to build in the Spurs-Pistons mold. Given what he lacks, Paxson has decided to do a very un-NBA like thing - build around your coach.


I agree.



> It's "out-of-the-box" thinking and unquestionably a risk. I completely understand why those who follow the conventional wisdom see the Bulls' way of building a team as misguided and doomed to failure. You may be right. Only time will tell. However, unlike the Krause rebuilding plan, I hope you'll agree that Paxson's has shown more potential.


If it was not for the Knicks being so unexpectedly bad, we'd be stuck in Grizzlies hell IMO. Paxson has at least one more early lotto shot to get an impact player in here. I hope he can land one. I can't take much more .500ish, 1st round and out jib-ball. I hope 3 years from now we're not talking about this top5 draft pick being a great 6th man, instant offense type.

Potential? No. Quicker road to .500? Yes. More upside? I don’t think so.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Our team would be considerably better with Crawford and Curry than with Pargo and Sweetney, IMO.


I agree! Only problem is that Crawford costs over $6M per year and counting, and unless you're the Knicks, that's too much for your 4th guard in the team's rotation. And that's all JC would've been here. 

And yes, Curry is better than Sweetney, but you're leaving our top 5 draft pick out of the equation again, not to mention the swap rights next season which might be just as valuable given the strength of the '07 lottery. The chances of our team improving from that trade, long-term, are very high.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I agree! Only problem is that Crawford costs over $6M per year and counting, and unless you're the Knicks, that's too much for your 4th guard in the team's rotation. And that's all JC would've been here.
> 
> And yes, Curry is better than Sweetney, but you're leaving our top 5 draft pick out of the equation again, not to mention the swap rights next season which might be just as valuable given the strength of the '07 lottery. The chances of our team improving from that trade, long-term, are very high.


Not to mention Antonio Davis, not to mention the number of years we could have been adding to a 47 win team instead of taking a step back.\

Oh and don't confuse the Knicks being horrible with Michael Sweetney not being FAR worse than Eddy Curry. And 3-4 DECENT games by Sweetney isn't a whole season before you try to blow it up that way.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I agree! Only problem is that Crawford costs over $6M per year and counting, and unless you're the Knicks, that's too much for your 4th guard in the team's rotation. And that's all JC would've been here.
> 
> And yes, Curry is better than Sweetney, but you're leaving our top 5 draft pick out of the equation again, not to mention the swap rights next season which might be just as valuable given the strength of the '07 lottery. The chances of our team improving from that trade, long-term, are very high.


Right, I'm talking about the here and now. I am getting tingly with anticipation now that our Knicks pick and Cap Space are going to be utilized in the next couple months. Well, at least the Knicks pick.

Crawford is not overpaid. Who cares anyway? Cap Space looks like a loser of a plan. Crawford would be the 2nd best guard on the team, IMO. Easily the 3rd. Easily an asset and also perfect insurance for the required, IMO, Ben Gordon trade.

I'm not leaving out the draft pick. In my post I called it the Bulls savior. Its just funny that Paxson says he wants to add athletic players when he traded Crawford and Curry for Sweets, Pike, Othella draft picks and Cap Space. 3 of these 5 people are far from athletic. Cap Space of course is a hall of famer.

Actually, Paxson has pretty much botched the 3 Cs he inherited. The two that got away are good players and the one he locked up, after hoarding all that money for years, turned out to be a stiff.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

All C's from a basketball standpoint are flawed


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

unBULLievable said:


> All C's from a basketball standpoint are flawed


But at least Chandler and Curry can be incorporated into a winning concept.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I've never closed a thread for getting boring, but I'm getting close...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Well, its one of only 4 non sticky threads on page 1 with over 1000 views.

Lot$a ad view$ for all tho$e bb.net inve$tor$.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I know that I used to say how we should regret losing Curry, blah, blah, blah. But I've come to the realisation, like many of you, that he's gone! Just like Crawford, TT, and every other bad player we had to ship out of the town. I've come to the point where it's best to think about the draft and FA and our future than to think about bums on a 23-win team. Guess what, they won as many games as the 03-04 Bulls. Anyone think that's a coincidence, since three of the players on that team are ex-Bulls, except Jalen, who was traded ealier.

Still, they're gone, and now we're building for the future, and trying to get that big prize everyone dreams of winning. So until the Knicks beat us and win a title, why not stop *****ing about guys that aren't even on the team anymore.


Check out my sig. I'm sure I'm not the only one anticipating next year to be a great season, right?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> I know that I used to say how we should regret losing Curry, blah, blah, blah. But I've come to the realisation, like many of you, that he's gone! Just like Crawford, TT, and every other bad player we had to ship out of the town. I've come to the point where it's best to think about the draft and FA and our future than to think about bums on a 23-win team. Guess what, they won as many games as the 03-04 Bulls. Anyone think that's a coincidence, since three of the players on that team are ex-Bulls, except Jalen, who was traded ealier.
> 
> Still, they're gone, and now we're building for the future, and trying to get that big prize everyone dreams of winning. So until the Knicks beat us and win a title, why not stop *****ing about guys that aren't even on the team anymore.
> 
> ...


That's a nice feel good story. 

I'm holding off on joining your club until the draft and free agency have begun. Assuming things go well enough, I'll most likely join.

Edit: Does that make me a bandwagoner? :angel:


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

yodurk said:


> That's a nice feel good story.
> 
> I'm holding off on joining your club until the draft and free agency have begun. Assuming things go well enough, I'll most likely join.
> 
> Edit: Does that make me a bandwagoner? :angel:


It sure does.


----------

