# My analysis of tonight's game



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

First, it was a great win, and a win is what counts.

Crawford probably had his best game as a pro. He finally found a guy he could guard - TJ Ford - and he shut him down. 0-9 FG. The 5 boards Ford had do show that Jamal needs to box out. They guy must be the smallest player in the NBA.

Look at the line score:

Bucks 27-16-26-18 = 87
Bulls 19-30-19-29 = 97

Notice Q1 and Q3 for us. We got drubbed. Why? Curry and Crawford in the game at the same time. We played great in Q2 and Q4 with Hinrich and JYD and AD and Blount/ERob/Pippen on the floor to mask Jamal's defensive weakness.

Curry scored 22 points. We have to find a way to get him his points while minimizing his terrible defense. Yes it is terrible.

Jamal did play Ford well, as I said. But when we put him on Redd, he got torched. Torched so bad that Skiles played JYD at SF just so he could throw him at Redd. And JYD did make Redd miss a lot.

JYD scored 2x his season average. I don't think we can count on hiim to have this kind of game every night. I loved what I saw of him tonight, but I'm skeptical he's going to bring it at this level every night.

Hinrich is amazingly quick. His true contribution to the win didn't show up in the box score. I can't count the times there was a loose ball and Hinrich was so quick he got to it first. He didn't get the steal in the box score for it, but the previous Bulls teams we had wouldn't have gotten the ball, either.

In spite of the win and how good he played, Jamal Crawford was booed by the crowd when he took a really ill-advised 3 pt attempt and missed. It was 1 on 4 fast break and probably :04 into the :24 clock. Hinrich was in the same situation, almost, a 2-on-4 and he did the right thing by waiting for his teammates and running a play.

I don't want to make this into a negative thread/post about Crawford. But I have to say two things. He was simply terrific tonight and did it against the best the Bucks could throw at us. The key to watch for is for him to play well consistently, and not just once or twice in every 17 games we play.

AD, for his big paycheck, shot 5-12 and grabbed 5 rebounds. I wasn't very impressed with him. Though he did have a timely block late in the game to help stop the late Bucks run.

Gill has been our best player, so far. Tonight he was not a very good player. We're going to need him to be good all season, because I doubt we're going to play with this level of emotion once the honeymoon wears off.


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

Gill, our best player so far?  I strongly disagree with that. From closely watching all games I'd have to go with either Tyson or Crawford. Both have been major factors in many of the team's wins. Without them, the Bulls aren't compeletely as good as they can be. Without Gill, the Bulls can still be great.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

One of the bad things I picked up out of it was you can see the need for a good outside shooter besides Crawford.
Gill and Pippen have their flashes, but it doesn't really strike me as consistent.

Hinrich is a good shooter, but hasn't it showed much really.
So they're either going to need to pick up a good outside shooter, or help Hinrich find his shot.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

What about the Coach ?


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

For the record, Jamal was running on the break for transition just about every play. There was a O. board Ford got right in between AD and i think JYD that had nothing to do with Jamal. I cant remember all of his other boards, but i think your blaming Jamal unfairly for that. He played good D tonite. Although he slacked abit towards the end. 

Heinrich wasnt perfect either, he missed a few open jumpers. But he played a hell of a game, i'll give him that. One series in particular in the 2nd qtr i think it was was great effort on his part. Oh, and Redd torched Heinrich too, hence JYD :sigh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> What about the Coach ?


What about the coach?

The offense wasn't very good. We shot .424 FG% - and we've been shooting a lot better than that before he changed the offense.

And all of this is on top of all those fast break baskets we got (high % shots).

I didn't mention how great we looked running the fast break, and trying to fast break as much as possible. That is a real change.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Skiles gets alot of credit for a set play he called that worked perfectly. I thought the sub'ing was consistant with how well the players were playing. I cant criticize a thing Skiles did.

i dont agree about Gill either, but not saying him playing well wont help.


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

I still can't believe Gill is stated as being our best player so far. I have nothing against him or any Bulls player but give me a break.  He is so unconsistent and is hardly ever a major factor as Chandler and Crawford in most of our wins. Gill has just been a nice little weapon to have, which is expected.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*My two cents...*

I think the effort shown by the team is indicative of the future. The energy was brought by the players who are by their nature, hustle players, namely Williams, Davis, Hinrich and one hustle coach, Lex Luther (ie. Skiles). I believe they inspired Crawford, Curry and ERob into strong performances. You guys forgot to mention in your analysis that the Bulls are learning new offensive sets. They ran about half a dozen sets total. The difference was in the effort and second opportunities due to our rebounding. We had four more offensive rebounds and 10 more bounds overall I believe. We can and will improve once the guys get more comfortable with each other and the new offense.

As far as Gill and Pippen, chill out with the criticism. They will provide the stability we need on those nights when Crawford is ice cold from the field and looking confused on defense.

Bring on Philly and the Answer!


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What about the coach?
> ...


Thanks,

It is look like he managed to get something from ERob .


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> First, it was a great win, and a win is what counts.
> 
> Crawford probably had his best game as a pro. He finally found a guy he could guard - TJ Ford - and he shut him down. 0-9 FG. The 5 boards Ford had do show that Jamal needs to box out. They guy must be the smallest player in the NBA.
> ...


I respectfully disagee with a lot of what you said. How you can sit there and criticize a guy who scores 30pts, grabs 8 boards, and dishes out 8 assists, 3 steals, and one block? Of all of the things the Bulls did wrong, to single out Crawford is assanine. 

I don't know which game you were watching, but Crawford and Curry played very well together. Crawford needs to improve on D, but he was able to demonstrate his ability to put a contest shots. Overtime, his D will improve. 

Gill our best player? Please. Gill has been playing well, but he in no way shape or form our best player. He's not even one our top 3 best.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Gill since game 5 of this season, the last 12 games:

5-6 FG, 1 reb, 2 ast, 10 pts
1-5 FG, 2 reb, 4 ast, 2 pts
6-9 FG, 1 reb, 5 ast, 12 pts
8-11 FG, 3 reb, 3 ast, 16 pts
5-8 FG, 2 reb, 1 ast, 12 pts
4-7 FG, 2 reb, 1 ast, 9 pts
5-10 FG, 1 reb, 1 ast, 12 pts
10-16 FG, 7 reb, 1 ast, 23 pts
5-12 FG, 2 reb, 2 ast, 10 pts
2-7 FG, 1 reb, 8 ast, 4 pts
6-13 FG, 1 reb, 0 ast, 12 pts
3-8 FG, 3 reb, 2 ast, 6 pts

60-112 FG (.536 FG%)
26 reb (2.2/game)
30 ast (2.5/game)
128 pts (10.7/game)
17 steals (1.42/game)
All that in about 26 minutes/game. And from mostly the SG position.

He's simply been consistent and consistently good. Much moreso than any other Bulls player.


----------



## Goku (Aug 28, 2003)

Antonio's best skill is probably his defencive positioning. It won't show up on his stats, but he rotates real well, and rarely makes mental lapses. His offence kinda runs hot and cold, and he is slower than he used to be, but he can still make the 15 footer, and goes up strong in traffic (lately he's been getting blocked though, I don't think he realizes he can't elevate like he used to)

Those big blocks tonight are nothing unusual. He seems to get them when it matters. He also seems to elevate his play in the second half of the season....I have no idea why, but thats how he was with Toronto.

Hope you don't expect too much and get disappointed, cuz he is a usefull player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagee with a lot of what you said. How you can sit there and criticize a guy who scores 30pts, grabs 8 boards, and dishes out 8 assists, 3 steals, and one block? Of all of the things the Bulls did wrong, to single out Crawford is assanine.
> ...


Which part don't you agree with? The part about Jamal playing terrific and doing it against the best the bucks had to throw at us? My mistake, I thought that is a high form of praise, rather than some sort of criticism.

As for Curry+Crawford playing well together, look at the Q1 and Q3 scores and explain it to me. I'm sure you can find someone to blame for the 27-19 and 26-19 scores in those periods Curry+Crawford played together in. Which part is the good part - the 19 we scored or the 27/26 we gave up? 

I already posted about Gill, but here's some more.

He's shooting 45.7% for the season. 44.4% for 3-point shots.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Crawford looked great tonight. Lets hope he continues to do well because he can really help with the scoring load until Curry gets it together. 

JYD was easily the games MVP. What a selfless player. Lets hope this guys a great "practice" player as well. Could really help get the others to buy into what Skiles is selling.

Hinrich was teriffic. Talk about looking like an accomplished floor leader. As his comfort level grows so will his play. I had a good laugh at the posters still criticizing his game tonight. That'd be like criticizing Crawford for still falling asleep on defense during spells tonight or nitpicking his scoring total because he was the beneficiary of fast break after fast break. Will he be hitting buzzer beating threes every night too? You get the idea? Jamal played well. Hinrich played well. Let it go.

Davis looked a little rough tonight, but I think thats gonna be his game. I guess when you get that old you just can't "get it up" - even for a game. :laugh: 

Skiles? Hey, a win is a win and thats the objective. With very little time he got us organized enough to get the "W". The only thing that puzzled me is what happened with ERob. The guy looked great and "then he was gone".


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

If you watch all the game's, you'll see which player's have made a great impact on the team. Gill is somewhere below the list, Tyson and Crawford much higher. Their boxscores may not show it, but the game certainly does.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Athlon33.6</b>!
> If you watch all the game's, you'll see which player's have made a great impact on the team. Gill is somewhere below the list, Tyson and Crawford much higher. Their boxscores may not show it, but the game certainly does.


Not only have I watched the games, I've typed in just about every play in the game threads, including tonight's.

If you watched the games, you'd know that we've started out ahead in many of them, and that's very much because Gill was out there as a starter.

Why is chandler so important to this team? We won tonight, pretty convincingly, without him. JYD looked light years better than either Curry or Chandler, especially on defense. JYD looked to be Chandler's equal on O.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

no offense to you Dabullz but i see what hes saying. I either think your screwing with us and doing it on purpose, or you really dont know you do it. But you have Jamal under a microscope, a skewed microscope at that where you twist stats to portray him poorly. I dunno, your not nearly as critical of any other player like you are Jamal. To criticize him for Ford's 4 boards tonite is being silly. Like i said i dont remember all of them, but i cant recall one board where Ford went up over Crawford. I can recall one where he went up over AD and JYD i think. Balls do tend to hit the back rim and come out deep into open space as well. Not to mention they were very uptemp tonite, think of how many times they threw the inbound ball up to Crawford running transition on the break(where he leaves Ford, and you cant fault him for it). 

Anyhow, i dont care i've gotten used to it at this point. This board wouldnt be fun if we didnt take sides :grinning:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Not only have I watched the games, I've typed in just about every play in the game threads, including tonight's.
> ...


Chandler brings a length to the game that JYD can't match.
JYD is a freaking thug pimp. I love that man. Where's my alpo? Sign me up for the dawg pound. I can't wait to see Chander and JYD in the game at the same time. 

I don't know if it will work for long periods of time, but a lineup with a motivated EROB, Chandler and JYD on the floor (along with Kirk and Jamal of course) would be fun to watch.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> no offense to you Dabullz but i see what hes saying. I either think your screwing with us and doing it on purpose, or you really dont know you do it. But you have Jamal under a microscope, a skewed microscope at that where you twist stats to portray him poorly. I dunno, your not nearly as critical of any other player like you are Jamal.


I have noticed this too..


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> no offense to you Dabullz but i see what hes saying. I either think your screwing with us and doing it on purpose, or you really dont know you do it. But you have Jamal under a microscope, a skewed microscope at that where you twist stats to portray him poorly. I dunno, your not nearly as critical of any other player like you are Jamal. To criticize him for Ford's 4 boards tonite is being silly. Like i said i dont remember all of them, but i cant recall one board where Ford went up over Crawford. I can recall one where he went up over AD and JYD i think. Balls do tend to hit the back rim and come out deep into open space as well. Not to mention they were very uptemp tonite, think of how many times they threw the inbound ball up to Crawford running transition on the break(where he leaves Ford, and you cant fault him for it).
> 
> Anyhow, i dont care i've gotten used to it at this point. This board wouldnt be fun if we didnt take sides :grinning:


The reason Ford got rebounds over any Bulls player but Crawford is because those players were busy boxing out their men and Crawford wasn't boxing out his. It is basic basketball to box out your man after the shot goes up.

As for the rest of the post, I was more critical of Curry than any other Bulls player. But I think I was critical of JYD and AD, too. If you choose to read it again, I think you will find this to be true.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

C'mon Dabullz, u basically ripped JC apart in more then half of ur post.....and then had a good one liner so that everybody wouldn't jump on u. That "one line" doesn't really mean much after u unfairly nitpicked him in the first 2 paragraphs. U seem to have an agenda against him. Turning almost every positive into a negative. 

Anyway, Jamal has proven time and again that when he's given the minutes and allowed to play his game, he usually does pretty darn well. He's been our best player this season and will only continue to prove so as the seaosn goes on. 

Gill our best player? Give me a break. He is a streaky player at best with above average defending skills.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*jamal*

DaBullz....why U hatin on Jamal!?!?!?!? 

OK, I had to say it. Sorry. 

Anyway, Jamal played a phenomenal game tonight. To even bring up his couple of bad decisions is to place him under a microscope. He almost dropped a triple double for the love of god!!!!!!! What does he have to do to get some real love????

Thank you John Paxson for making this trade. The sickening, cancerous attitude has been replaced by some hustle and grit. JYD and Davis were just what this team needed. 

LET JAMAL PLAY, play some D, grab some boards... and we will make the playoffs. Oh yah... I'm saying it. 

Still sticking with the 15 wins DaBullz?  I was looking for that mushroom cloud you were talking about... but I was too busy cheering with 20K other apostles of the church of Jamal.

Jamal is the goodness and the light.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Chandler brings a length to the game that JYD can't match.
> ...


Like I said, we won without Chandler, and convincingly.

It seems like either Chandler or Curry is expendable, if tonight's game is an indication. I never felt like this before about the two, but AD and JYD seem to be able to carry the load.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> DaBullz....why U hatin on Jamal!?!?!?!?
> 
> OK, I had to say it. Sorry.
> ...


Maybe 20 wins. But 15 is still a good prediction.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The reason Ford got rebounds over any Bulls player but Crawford is because those players were busy boxing out their men and Crawford wasn't boxing out his. It is basic basketball to box out your man after the shot goes up.
> ...



no its not if your running transition and your guarding a little guy. Either you account for him or he accounts for you, whats the likelihood the little guy is going to get the offensive board? Whats the likelihood the big guys going to get it and pass it up to you for the break, and hopefully easy basket? Did you notice in all them JYD scraps, Jamal was up near halfcourt during every transition which is why he had so many of those easy dunks on to's? 

I'm just curious but can you specifically recall all 3 of those boards he takes blame for not boxing Ford out?


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

Why is Tyson so important to the team? He is possibly our best rebounder on the team. Rebounding is extremely important for the Bulls, almost crucial. Tyson provides some of the best rebounding. Not only that, but his immensley long frame distracts the opposing team. His defense I believe, is even underated. It's improved alot this season. 

Sure the Bulls won without Chandler, but also, we could of have done even better with him. Maybe not, maybe so. It doesn't matter however, since we got the win. :yes:

Kendall Gill may of have clearly put up the best numbers so far this season, but no way in my opinion has he been our best player just because he's put up the best numbers or has been the most consistent. Numbers do not mean everything. It's all about effectivness.


This is just my opinion and, I know I can't change your's.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said, we won without Chandler, and convincingly.
> ...


man..if we keep all four..by the end of the season..we'll be monsters....just get rid of blount and we'll be fine....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> C'mon Dabullz, u basically ripped JC apart in more then half of ur post.....and then had a good one liner so that everybody wouldn't jump on u. That "one line" doesn't really mean much after u unfairly nitpicked him in the first 2 paragraphs. U seem to have an agenda against him. Turning almost every positive into a negative.
> 
> Anyway, Jamal has proven time and again that when he's given the minutes and allowed to play his game, he usually does pretty darn well. He's been our best player this season and will only continue to prove so as the seaosn goes on.
> ...


You got it backwards. I've shown how consistent Gill is.

Crawford when he gets minutes:

38 minutes, 5-18 FG, 3 reb, 4 ast, 12 points
35 minutes, 6-15 FG, 3 reb, 5 ast, 17 points
37 minutes, 6-18 FG, 2 reb, 3 ast, 19 points

Consistent?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> As for Curry+Crawford playing well together, look at the Q1 and Q3 scores and explain it to me. I'm sure you can find someone to blame for the 27-19 and 26-19 scores in those periods Curry+Crawford played together in. Which part is the good part - the 19 we scored or the 27/26 we gave up?


What is it about Curry and Crawford that forces you to pin the blame in Q1 and Q3 on them? Gill and Blount were a combined 0-11 from the field and that surely contributed to us struggling in Q1 and Q3. That doesn't mean they are worthless players, but tonight they just weren't putting the ball in the hoop and that made it tough for us when both of them were out there at the same time.

I don't know why, but it really does seem that you have an axe to grind with Crawford. It is amazing how many posters have tried to point that out to you in a respectful manner. But as was mentioned earlier, that isn't a problem. If we all saw the world the same way, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun to post.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Ughhh, how do you expect people to take your commentary or opinions seriously with this stuff? Gill the Bulls best player? JC is worse if hes given more minutes?

:no:


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

My 2 cents: 

I saw "a team" tonight. I haven't seen "a team" for awhile. It was nice to see "a team". I missed seeing "a team". I want to see "a team" more often. I am optimistic that I will see "a team" more often. This makes me happy!  Sorry I can't quantify this but I think it's real.

The Buck were missing Pryzbilla, Thomas and Skinner and the Bull Chandler & Fizer.

At present: Chandler, JYD, and Hinrich are the only players who are young enough and "bring it" "full court" every night. Gill has played far above my expectations but I don't count him, Pippen, Davis, Blount as being "keepers". Perhaps ER can be salvaged or perhaps I'm being chump for considering it will last. I don't trust that others will be converted full time but JC looked good in an easy assignment tonight.

5's are special if only because they're so rare relative to the smaller positions. 

Yes Chandler has no real go to move and looks bad on offense(other than a jumper which still isn't good but it's passable and improving). It's uncomfortable for me to watch him on offense. He lowers the ball and then gathers his strength and goes up with both hands and trys to power past the opponents hands. It's painful to watch.

Curry needs another gear and still doesn't rebound the way he should. I don't want him helping on the perimeter. Just stay within foot range of the paint and stay in the game. Let Chandler roam if need be.

It may not seem fair and they may not be the world beaters hoped for but I keep them both. I would listen to the Warrior if the Bull could get both Murphy and Foyle for one of them however. I'm curious, didn't Curry have more actual post moves last year? I see alot of dunks off of passes this year but not many moves on his part that defeat the defender. Maybe I'm blind.

I'm still open to JC & MF moving on and think that's what's going to happen. I still don't think the Bull will make the playoffs this year.

BUT still I'm happy tonight because I saw "a team".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> What is it about Curry and Crawford that forces you to pin the blame in Q1 and Q3 on them? Gill and Blount were a combined 0-11 from the field and that surely contributed to us struggling in Q1 and Q3. That doesn't mean they are worthless players, but tonight they just weren't putting the ball in the hoop and that made it tough for us when both of them were out there at the same time.
> ...


No doubt about it. My post-count would be around 10-15 without DaBullz.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> First, it was a great win, and a win is what counts.
> 
> Crawford probably had his best game as a pro. He finally found a guy he could guard - TJ Ford - and he shut him down. 0-9 FG. The 5 boards Ford had do show that Jamal needs to box out. They guy must be the smallest player in the NBA.
> ...


I'm not real clear on why you guys are jumping all over DaBullz' comments. Sure, it may seem that Jamal is placed under a microscope, but alot of posters place him on a pedestal and seemingly make every excuse in the world for him. Jamal had a great offensive game tonite and his defense was bearable. I questioned some of his decisions with the ball at times, but I'm coming to terms that that is Jamal's game. I think he'll calm down enough, similar to how Cassell has.

I loved seeing Skiles go with Hinrich and Jamal and I think it worked out great. A glaring flaw I did see with this lineup however is it creates a defensive liability. Sure, we're not gonna face 2 guards of Redd's caliber every night, but what does it say when Jamal is only able to cover a PG that he has 6-7" on?? Hinrich was solid, minus his shooting. And I believe it's 2 consectutive games now that he has had *0 turnovers* .  

JYD's energy is simply incredible. I actually liked what AD brought tonite. He filled the paint and went after boards. If only some of that would rub off on Eddy, I think we would be set. And yes, tonite it looked like maybe Tyson was expendable.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Redd made shots over Heinrich too. And what exactly do you propose, bench Jamal? They didnt even purposely go at Jamal but one play this game that i saw, where he had the spin move. What game are some of you watching? I didnt see Jamal as a defensive liability nearly as some of you are making out :sigh: 

Am i crazy or did Jamal have a pretty good defensive game?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

I just thought I'd mention that the Bulls are only two games out of the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference. Playoffs are still a very real possibility, especially with that brutal West Coast trip behind us now.

As poorly as we've played so up until now, the season's far from a wash.


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said, we won without Chandler, and convincingly.



It doesn't mean a thing to me. The team simply just played some really good basketball. Sure we can win games without one of our most effective players. Tyson is definitely needed however in many crucial situations. He does alot of important things for the team which doesn't always show up in the boxscore.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I just thought I'd mention that the Bulls are only two games out of the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference. Playoffs are still a very real possibility, especially with that brutal West Coast trip behind us now.
> 
> As poorly as we've played so up until now, the season's far from a wash.


I think the playoffs are right there for the taking. Curry and Crawford bring the offense. Everyone else brings the scrap. If they keep fighting like they did tonight, we'll get it done.

We are only 2 games further out of the playoffs then when the season began. There's a whole lot of ball to be played!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The reson Dabullz criticizes is because it is so easy. Jamal consistently makes about 10 completely unacceptable decisions per game--It's not like you have to search with a micro-scope.

Tonight was a perfect case study. There was beautiful passes, good team ball, and some real nice shots but mixed in you had these gems:

1) Forth quarter: KH was the teams designated pg. Jamal takes the ball up the court and tries to initiate the offense even though he was the 2 guard. Skiles has to walk to half court and talk to JC before he gives up the ball and KH starts the offense. The team doesn't need KH playing the two anymore then it needs JC playing the one. This is just bad ball. Most coaches would have benched him for that BS.

2) Third and Forth: Jamal takes two fast break threes with no one under the basket and numbers against him. One of them goes in, one of them misses--both were two of the worst shots in the game.

3) End of third (i think), Jamal keeps the ball iso and instead of finding a teammate, or breaking his man of the dribble. He ends up throwing up a prayer push shots from the corner. I don't care if it went in--bad shots are bad shots.

4) 2nd quarter: Jamal throws a stupid alley oop atempt to Curry that goes out of bounds. 

5) 1st quarter. Jamal comes around a good screen for a short jumper and he forces the shot before he squares. How many years has he been running around a screen? Why hasn't he figured this out yet?

You see what makes me so frustrated... Jamal has a gift and still, so many unacceptable mistakes. He just doesn't get it, and for as much amazing stuff he brings to the court, there is a flashbulb image in mind of a lapse every game. Four years and three pro coaches later and JC is still a basketball moran.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> Four years and three pro coaches later and JC is still a basketball moran.


30 points.
8 rebounds.
8 assists.
3 steals.
1 block.
3 turnovers.
Bulls win.
Hope.

If that's the line of a basketball moron, I'll take 5 of them and see you in Grant Park this summer.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 30 points.
> ...


you completely missed the whole point of my post. I wonder if it is even worthwhile to try again...

My point is that Jamal has tons of talent, but he makes crappy, unacceptable decisions every game. I am not arguing about whether he can hit shots or has ball skills. This is why so many posters get frustrated with him. Even in his best game (a game in which he was probably responsible for the win) he had periods of absolutely horrific decisions.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> The reson Dabullz criticizes is because it is so easy. Jamal consistently makes about 10 completely unacceptable decisions per game--It's not like you have to search with a micro-scope.
> 
> Tonight was a perfect case study. There was beautiful passes, good team ball, and some real nice shots but mixed in you had these gems:
> ...



So not squaring his body is an unacceptable mistake :laugh: you are only proving what others have said in this and other threads .

That ally-oop was a good pass they showed skiles expression after it and hewas clapping it was a pass he expects Kirk and Jaml to look for as teams are tryin gto front curry.


Tonight wasnt an easy case study it was just you letting a little more pf your bias towards jamml in favor of Kirk seep out .

The moron flirted with a triple double .Good Grief do you guys ever get enough


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> you completely missed the whole point of my post. I wonder if it is even worthwhile to try again...
> ...


Excellent points. And please, let's keep in mind that Jamal had a career game tonite. If he averages 30, 8, 8, 1 block every game, he would be annointed the greatest basketball player to ever play the game. Jamal has loads of talent, but lacks the ability to make good decisions at times. This was the argument against Cassell for years. I hope that he will soon settle down and I wholeheartedly feel that moving him to the 2 and taking the ball out of his hands will do that for him. Hinrich and Jamal obviously work well together. JWill and Jamal worked well together. I think there's a reason for that.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

You make fun of my comment about coming around the screen, but really that is such a basic basketball skill. This is classic Highschool JV material. JC is such a dead eye when he actually squares to the hoop. People must have told him a million times...why hasn't he figured this out? 

You guys watch the games--you see what I see.

Why is he still making these mistakes? 
Doesn't it just piss you off?
You know he knows better....he has to be one of the most frustrating players I have ever had to support.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 30 points.
> ...


I honestly cannot believe you said that...did you read his post? Even though I did not see the game, he gives good examples that are backed up in the Game Thread. You can have a great line of stats, but that doesn't show what dumb mistakes you might have made on the court.

I think DaBullz is right in that JC and Curry on the floor at the same really hurt the defense in Q1 and Q3, but NCBullsFan brings up a great point...Gill and Blount went 0-11...so that hurt our offense.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> The reson Dabullz criticizes is because it is so easy. Jamal consistently makes about 10 completely unacceptable decisions per game--It's not like you have to search with a micro-scope.
> 
> Tonight was a perfect case study. There was beautiful passes, good team ball, and some real nice shots but mixed in you had these gems:
> ...


Just like some players are better shooters than others, some players are better defenders than others, some players are better rebounders than others, . . . , some players make better decisions than others.

Crawford simply is not a good decision-maker, but he makes up for that with being able to do other things, such as create shots and make some fabulous passes. We all see the potential in Crawford to be a very good player if he made better decisions and we assume that all it takes is him trying harder. But just like becoming a better shooter is not easy, neither is becoming a better decision-maker. But if someone is a poor shooter, we don't treat it as a mortal sin, but God help anyone who makes poor decisions from time to time, because Hell hath no fury like a Bulls fan who has seen Crawford make another poor decision.

It looks like Skiles has realized that he needs to give Crawford a little more room to make mistakes, and this may be the best way to get him to become a better decision-maker. My impression is that Crawford's struggles are not due to selfishness, but simply due to bad habits and poor decision-making, so this extra leeway may do wonders for Crawford, especially since it appears that Skiles will be giving him constant in-game feedback about his decision-making.

But the bigger point is this. Why are we greatly offended at players who make poor decisions, but we give a pass to players who can't make shots or can't pass very well? There may be many of us who are better decision-makers than Crawford is, just as there are many of us who are better shooters than Antonio Davis. Both players are being paid millions of dollars, so why do we tend to be personally offended by a lack of decision-making skills, but not at a lack of shooting skills. It takes hard work to become good at both sets of skills. Why do we assume that becoming a better decision-maker is so easy?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> This was the argument against Cassell for years.


I love the Cassell comparison, because he is also a player who was instrumental to his teams success. Its not that I am arguing that JC is bad, i am arguing that at times he is painful for me to watch.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> you completely missed the whole point of my post. I wonder if it is even worthwhile to try again...
> ...


CCCP, unless you write it in Russian, I think I can follow what you post.

I understand your point. Players make mistakes every game. I posted the 3 turnovers stat for a reason. They don't keep track of questionable shots, so I didn't post that. But, when he's shooting 50%+, I can't find many reasons to complain.

To focus on those 5 bad things, on a night where he dominated an NBA basketball game and led the Bulls to a win, is silly IMO. 

The good dwarfed the bad tonight. 

To place the phrase "basketball idiot" in the same post as "Jamal Crawford" on a night like tonight is criminal IMO.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Just like some players are better shooters than others, some players are better defenders than others, some players are better rebounders than others, . . . , some players make better decisions than others.
> ...


I'll accept this--perhaps this all goes back to the aesthetic reasons why I enjoy watching basketball. Its hard to argue tastes...

Let's just all be happy he is going to primarily be a 2; a position that margenalizes his weaknesses.

My favorite moment of the game was watching KH run off the ball in a play in the forth. He was using oponents as picks and ran his man all over the court--real ****** Miller type material.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> I love the Cassell comparison, because is also a player who was instrumental to his teams success. Its not that I am arguing that JC is bad, i am arguing that at times he is painful for me to watch.


That's cool man, I agree. I hated those 5 plays as well. But they were quickly followed by another 3 or an assist or a steal, so it did not bother me enough to take it home with me.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Jamal had a great game tonight. He was a key contributor in the win.

Did you notice though that he was the only player roundly booed by the fans in attendance? I mean - thats unheard of, right?

Were all the fans in attendance "JAMAL HATERS"? Or do you think they're just tired of watching Jamal do some stupid things? 

Do you think they weren't cheering when he hit the buzzer beating three or any other shot that he made? 

Gimme a break.

Too bad people like "FACE" just don't get it. They're all wrapped up in the Jamal worship and can't see that what Bulls fans really want is for Jamal to "get it". To do what is necessary to help the team win. To understand that what may appear to be best for Jamal won't always be best for the team. 

People like "FACE" seem to want to play an "I TOLD YOU SO" game. Not sure, what exactly he'd be crowing about just yet, but maybe he should start with Cartwright and Paxson. I'm sure they're Jamal haters too, right FACE? And while we're at it FACE, you think Skiles is gonna put up with Jamal if he doesn't play defense any better than he has in the past? Do you think Skiles is gonna give the guy free license to start jacking up shots all over the place? You might want to think about that FACE. Clearly, you're getting a little ahead of yourself here.

I mean its clear that people like FACE understand the game better than Bulls management so fire away FACE. You go!

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Jamal had a great game tonight. He was a key contributor in the win.
> 
> Did you notice though that he was the only player roundly booed by the fans in attendance? I mean - thats unheard of, right?
> ...



Well, I was at the game, and I can tell you that the Bulls, not Jamal were getting booed. Yeah, Jamal made a stupid play in that big Bucks 4th quarter run, but there were a lot of bad plays in that Bucks run that lead to the booing.

The Bulls were getting booed.

I agree with NCBulls fan that the best prescription to cure Jamal's decision making ills is to LET HIM PLAY but coach him to play better. The decision making will get better. He has not played a lot of organized basketball. You have to remember this. He's learning how to play for the 1st time in the NBA. He didn't start playing hoops until he was 16 and was playing NBA ball at 20. Let him learn.

Skiles said this after the game (or to this effect)...
"Jamal played phenomenal. He was outstanding. We need to work on a couple of plays."

Notice the words basketball moron don't appear anywhere. To chide a player that scored 30 on 50% shooting, helped lock down the other 1, and almost dropped a triple double would be ridiculous.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> But the bigger point is this. Why are we greatly offended at players who make poor decisions, but we give a pass to players who can't make shots or can't pass very well? There may be many of us who are better decision-makers than Crawford is, just as there are many of us who are better shooters than Antonio Davis. Both players are being paid millions of dollars, so why do we tend to be personally offended by a lack of decision-making skills, but not at a lack of shooting skills. It takes hard work to become good at both sets of skills. Why do we assume that becoming a better decision-maker is so easy?


Absolutely nifty viewpoint.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll accept this--perhaps this all goes back to the aesthetic reasons why I enjoy watching basketball. Its hard to argue tastes...
> ...


So youre arguing that because jamal didnt play mistake free basketball that hes a moron ?Again he played just as much one tonight as he did two.

How many mistakes did you see Kirk make tonight ?

Its hard to argue that you dont just dislike Crawford over Kirk ?

And some of these others who claim its all "jamal worshippers" who dont "get it 'when they honestly just dont like Crawford .

Sometimes you just have to give credit where credit is due Jaml played a helluva game and the Bulls won and that should be all that matters .But some people have to drag this infantile nitpicking into every discussion .


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> But the bigger point is this. Why are we greatly offended at players who make poor decisions, but we give a pass to players who can't make shots or can't pass very well? There may be many of us who are better decision-makers than Crawford is, just as there are many of us who are better shooters than Antonio Davis. Both players are being paid millions of dollars, so why do we tend to be personally offended by a lack of decision-making skills, but not at a lack of shooting skills. It takes hard work to become good at both sets of skills. Why do we assume that becoming a better decision-maker is so easy?


I think you are on to something. Why does Shaq get ripped so hard for his FT shooting when he's IMO the most dominant NBA force I've seen in my lifetime (yes, even MJ). Because many people can do it. There are millions of people in the world that can shoot FTs better than Shaq. It seems so basic. WHY CAN'T HE DO IT!?!?!?!?! But to let that cloud the magnificent basketball player that Shaq is is asinine IMO.

I feel the same way about Crawford. People see him make an odd choice and they think they could do better. But, they don't realize that there are a very limited number of people in the world that can drop 30-8-8 with 50% shooting on an NBA team.

Free throw shooting, decision making, not running back on defense..... everyone can do that. Why can't this guy that's being paid millions of dollars do it!?!??!?! So, I'll rip him.

I never heard anybody rip John Stockton for not being able to dunk a basketball or rip down 10 rebounds a game. Why not? Did that negate the good he did? Would it make sense to rip him for it?

EDIT: After reading this, the Stockton argument does not make much sense. Stockton can’t physically do these things. My bad.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Hinrich and Jamal obviously work well together. JWill and Jamal worked well together. I think there's a reason for that.


This is one of the more interesting points I have read in a while....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FanOfAll8472</b>!
> 
> 
> I honestly cannot believe you said that...did you read his post? Even though I did not see the game, he gives good examples that are backed up in the Game Thread. You can have a great line of stats, but that doesn't show what dumb mistakes you might have made on the court.
> ...


Right, but to focus on those 5 bad plays is just looking for a reason to nit-pick, IMO, when there is so much good to choose from. I did watch the game... I was there.... so I have not looked at the "game thread."

You could take MJ, watch a game, find a few things he did wrong, and focus on those. But why would you? Crawford is no MJ, and he needs to improve, but why would 5 bad plays be what you focus on when he played so well?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Right, but to focus on those 5 bad plays is just looking for a reason to nit-pick, IMO, when there is so much good to choose from. I did watch the game... I was there.... so I have not looked at the "game thread."
> ...



Thats why they are called "haters" Name another Bull who even when he plays well will get 5 "so called" mistakes pointed out like this .

They just cant accept that hes not perfect and that he will make mistakes but that he also does some good things too.Its all of nothing but it only applies to him not the rest of the team .


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

lol. I just skipped to the last page on this thread. Please tell me this isn't 3 and a half pages on arguing about Jamal Crawford?

For chrissakes. We won. Jamal played fantastically. End of story. There's nothing negative that needs to be harped on right now. Nothing you can dig up negates the WIN or Jamal's contribution to that win. So just stop it.

I like the Skiles seems to be giving him a chance to make mistakes. That's so important with young players. I never understood why Floyd and Cartwright could never understand that.

Kobe Bryant had to shoot an embarrassing airball against the Jazz in the playoffs before he went off in the summer and became a top 5 player in this league. Sometimes you have to fail before you can succeed. In fact, usually you do.

I guarantee playing under a guy who actually knows a thing or two about playing guard in the NBA is going to do wonders for Jamal. I think he'll learn more in the next two weeks from Skiles than he ever learned from BC or Tim Floyd.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First off, I didn't chide Jamal nor did I refer to him as a basketball moron. Where do you get this stuff? Second, I guess the game on TV had different audio than you experienced there because it sure sounded like Jamal got booed roundly for jacking up that shot as he led the 1 on 4 break. 

I'll take Jamal's stat line from tonight every night if the Lord's willing, so calm down.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> lol. I just skipped to the last page on this thread. Please tell me this isn't 3 and a half pages on arguing about Jamal Crawford?


Yes, the stupidity is back in vogue at bbb.net. 

People like FACE and Kirkhinrich start talking crap coupled with a good game out of Jamal and the boards run amok again. Talk about posters with nothing better to do than stir the pot. 

Can't just be a Bulls fan here. You are either a Jamal worshipper or a Jamal Hater. So be it.

Time is better served doing other things than posting about this retarded stuff anymore.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Both Hinrich and Crawford have great games, the Bulls win, and what is the result?

Arguing back and forth.

Relax and re-read NCBulls' post from page 4.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Just like some players are better shooters than others, some players are better defenders than others, some players are better rebounders than others, . . . , some players make better decisions than others.
> ...


Bad decision-making is a mental mistake, whereas missing a shot (assuming it's a good shot) is a physical mistake. Physical mistakes will happen throughout the course of a game, but mental mistakes should try to be avoided at all costs, and could hypothetically be controlled if you're mentally in the game. For example, Erob may be a bad passer... fine.. just don't throw a stupid pass! I can't fault a player for missing a shot, but if someone takes a shot with 20 seconds left in the half, I realize that that's a bad mental decision and the other team will probably get another shot. That being said, I thought Jamal played a GREAT game tonight, and I only saw one or MAYBE 2 questionably shots he took all night. I have NO complaints about Jamal tonight, but I do think there's a difference between mental mistakes and physical mistakes throughout the game.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you are on to something. Why does Shaq get ripped so hard for his FT shooting when he's IMO the most dominant NBA force I've seen in my lifetime (yes, even MJ). Because many people can do it. There are millions of people in the world that can shoot FTs better than Shaq. It seems so basic. WHY CAN'T HE DO IT!?!?!?!?! But to let that cloud the magnificent basketball player that Shaq is is asinine IMO.
> ...


Kinda off topic, but I place a strong emphasis on details such as running back on D, goign after loose balls, hitting FTs, etc. Why? Because there is no physical reason why someone can't do that. It's one of the beauties of this game where everyone is pretty much on a level playing field. Anyone can play defense. Anyone can hit a FT. Anyone can run after a losse ball. So what excuse does a player who is getting paid millions have when he doesn't do these things? None. It's frustrating when you have one star player getting outhustled by a career bench warmer.

BTW, none of the above is an attack at JC. Hence the off topic label.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

I was at the game tonight, and here are some of my thoughts (copied from my post in the game thread).

1) This was the best basketball game I've attended since Christmas Day 1997, when MJ, Pip, Rodman, and Co. demolished the Miami Heat. This game had intensity, suspense, great team play, great individual play, and pretty much everything you could want in a game. I was so nervous that I fidgeted with a napkin during the entire second half. I yelled so much that I was very hoarse (not Larry Horse) by the end of the game.

2) Somebody needs to get the +/- stats for this game. I believe that JYD's impact upon this game will be prominently displayed in those numbers.
edit: I consulted the GameLog on ESPN to calculate these numbers. 
First half - Bulls trail by 10 when JYD enters the game, and lead by 6 at the half. 
Second half- Bulls trail by 1 when JYD enters the game, and win by 10.
Conclusion - Bulls are +27 with JYD, and -17 without him. Wow.

3) Before this game, I was somewhat on the fence regarding the trade. In the first thread about the rumored trade, I said that I'd support it if it meant that Jamal could see more time at SG. Obviously, this paid big dividends this game. But the effect on the entire team of the added enthusiasm and intensity by Williams and Davis was simply unbelievable. For this reason, the Phil Jackson quote, which found its home in my signature when he said it last season, will now be displayed in a bold typeface. 

4) Jamal Crawford was marvelous. In my opinion, he played his finest all-around game tonight. His shooting, his passing, his defense, his leadership... he had it all going tonight. 

5) I was very pleased by some of the plays run by the Bulls tonight. A couple of them resulted in alley-oops to Eddy Curry. It seems to me that Coach Skiles wants to continue featuring Curry in the offense, but to cut down on his turnovers and offensive fouls. Keeping the ball out of Curry's hands until he's at the rim does the trick. Curry needing to 'create' less for himelf = less opportunities for flops by the man guarding him!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> First, it was a great win, and a win is what counts.
> 
> <FONT COLOR=ff0000>Crawford probably had his best game as a pro.</FONT> He finally found a guy he could guard - TJ Ford - and <FONT COLOR=ff0000>he shut him down</FONT>. 0-9 FG. The 5 boards Ford had do show that Jamal needs to box out. They guy must be the smallest player in the NBA.
> ...


Look at the boldfaced text in the above quote and then tell me why I'm not an AD hater, a Gill hater, and so on.

Notice the text I put in red, too.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at the boldfaced text in the above quote and then tell me why I'm not an AD hater, a Gill hater, and so on.
> ...


Man, don't worry about it. People will see what they want to see...


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at the boldfaced text in the above quote and then tell me why I'm not an AD hater, a Gill hater, and so on.
> ...


OMG DaBullz, why do you also hate AD, Curry, and Gill?!?!?!?!


:jump:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>Nater</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, don't worry about it. People will see what they want to see...


Well, I'm not worried about it. I tried to be even handed and talk about the good and the bad that I saw in the game, and about each player.

I should have mentioned I was disappointed with Hinrich missing a lot of open shots.

But most of all, it's a win and beyond that, I don't care who led the team in scoring or rebounds or really who even played. Though it was nice to see the new guys for the first time.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at the boldfaced text in the above quote and then tell me why I'm not an AD hater, a Gill hater, and so on.
> ...


OK, you're an AD-Hater and a Gill-Hater too!  For the record, saying that Jamal could handle TJ Ford but got "torched" by Redd is like saying Daniel Santiago could stop Corie Blount, but got torched by Eddy Curry. It shouldn't really be an indictment of the defender, but more of a compliment to the offensive player. Outside of Artest, I wouldn't expect Jamal (or Gill or Pip) to "stop" Redd, just like I wouldn't expect TJ Ford to "torch" anyone on our team. Jamal did play great, period. A few idiots booed early in the game... WHILE WE WERE STILL WINNING! That shows the intelligence of those people who booed!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said, we won without Chandler, and convincingly.
> ...


So we should trade one of our two young bigmen for a chance at repeating the tremendous feat of beating a mediocre team by 10 at home for another several years until AD retires? 

You have got to be devils advocating here. Do you realize that our hopes at dominance rest upon the two C towers coming close to maximizing their potential? If you think that Chandler does not have more potential than AD or JYD have ability, and furthermore, if you conclude that it is not worth having Chandler for 10 + years at a conservatively projected level of 14/11/2 because we have AD at 9/9/1 for two more years and JYD at 5/9 for four years, then I question your commitment to long term ultimate success.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The game log bears out what I wrote about Q1 and Q3

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/gamelog?gameId=231201004

Q1
6:45 13-6 Scottie Pippen enters the game for Kendall Gill. 
6:45 13-6 Antonio Davis enters the game for Eddy Curry. 
<B>We lose 13-6 with Curry+Crawford (-7)</B>
0:00 27-19 Chicago Offensive Rebound. 
<B>We lose 14-13 the time Curry is out (-1)</B>

In Q2, the guys did better together:
5:39 37-33 Jamal Crawford enters the game for Kirk Hinrich. 
<B>We won 14-10 with Crawford out (+4)</B>
0:38 42-46 Corie Blount enters the game for Eddy Curry. 
<FONT COLOR=ff0000><B>We won 13-5 with them both in the game (+8)</B></FONT>
0:00 43-49 Jamal Crawford made 27 ft Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Antonio Davis. 
<B>We won the last :38 due to Jamal's last second 3 by a 3-1 score (+2)</B>

Q3
0:00 End of the 3rd Quarter. 
0:00 Milwaukee Offensive Rebound. 69-68 
<B>We lost 26-19 with Curry+Crawford playing the whole Q3 (-7)</B>

Q4
0:00 End of the 3rd Quarter. 
0:00 Milwaukee Offensive Rebound. 69-68 
6:07 73-84 Eddy Curry enters the game for Corie Blount. 
<B>We win 16-4 with Curry on the bench (+12)</B>
0:10 Dan Gadzuric Offensive Rebound. 87-97 
0:00 End Game 
<B>We lose 14-13 with both in the game (-1)</B>

Unless my math is wrong, we were -7 with both in the game at the same time. We were +17 with one or the other in the game.

I'll leave it up to NCBullsFan to give his spin on the game log or the data I presented here. He may see some correlation of the data for when JYD or AD was playing that may have had more of an effect than playing JC+EC together.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> So we should trade one of our two young bigmen for a chance at repeating the tremendous feat of beating a mediocre team by 10 at home for another several years until AD retires?
> 
> You have got to be devils advocating here. Do you realize that our hopes at dominance rest upon the two C towers coming close to maximizing their potential? If you think that Chandler does not have more potential than AD or JYD have ability, and furthermore, if you conclude that it is not worth having Chandler for 10 + years at a conservatively projected level of 14/11/2 because we have AD at 9/9/1 for two more years and JYD at 5/9 for four years, then I question your commitment to long term ultimate success.


I think that one game isn't enough to come to a solid conclusion. But if we win the next four games in the same manner as we did tonight, it might make more sense to us all.

I look at the rosters, league-wide, and see guys like Jahidi White or Calvin Booth that can fill the roles that AD and JYD seemed to fill tonight. Tough minded, energetic, defensive oriented, rebounding focused big men. Guys we can probably get for MLE (hey we could have had Harpring!).

Think about this:

Bulls trade Chandler (or Curry) to Indy for Ron Artest (plus whatever filler to solve the CBA issues)

In fact, I think this is such a good trade, I'm going to start a thread about it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> My 2 cents:
> 
> I saw "a team" tonight. I haven't seen "a team" for awhile. It was nice to see "a team". I missed seeing "a team". I want to see "a team" more often. I am optimistic that I will see "a team" more often. This makes me happy!  Sorry I can't quantify this but I think it's real.
> ...


I did too! Team.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> The reson Dabullz criticizes is because it is so easy. Jamal consistently makes about 10 completely unacceptable decisions per game--It's not like you have to search with a micro-scope.
> 
> Tonight was a perfect case study. There was beautiful passes, good team ball, and some real nice shots but mixed in you had these gems:
> ...


Those points are exactly what Bill; and neil Mentioned as the game was being played. But you know what? Skiles will team him! Rose is gone. Jamal will learn, the right way. 

Jamal was outstanding other than those points. 

As for dabullz, he is a big boy. Handles himself well and is respectful to people even when some may be a little hard on him. I may not agree with him 100% of the time. No one does anybody, but its called DISCUSSION! It's all good. Makes people search deep inside themselves as to the way we might feel. 

We all want the same thing. Bulls victories. Thats the bottom line.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, the stupidity is back in vogue at bbb.net.
> ...


Yes you can. You can bve critical without hating. 

I have been very hard on Crawford, but i am pleased with his game tonight. Mistakes and all. But Skiles settled him down! A coach does that.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

New coach, new players, Rose “cancer” gone and Bulls won! You need more? How about Crawford and Hinrich playing together their best game of the season? How about my man “Junk Yard Dog”. And how about the TEAM? Wow, I’m amazed! Finally Bulls are fun to watch! I love it! Bravo!


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Lets see...hmmmmmmmmmm*



> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Crawford looked great tonight. Lets hope he continues to do well because he can really help with the scoring load until Curry gets it together.
> 
> JYD was easily the games MVP. What a selfless player. Lets hope this guys a great "practice" player as well. Could really help get the others to buy into what Skiles is selling.


I LOVE the enthusiasm and intensity that JYD brings to the BULLS!! WELCOME JYD!


> Hinrich was teriffic. Talk about looking like an accomplished floor leader. As his comfort level grows so will his play. I had a good laugh at the posters still criticizing his game tonight. That'd be like criticizing Crawford for still falling asleep on defense during spells tonight or nitpicking his scoring total because he was the beneficiary of fast break after fast break. Will he be hitting buzzer beating threes every night too? You get the idea? Jamal played well. Hinrich played well. Let it go.


 Hinrich, This guy reminds ME(that means it IS my opinion) of a John Stockton in his youth. However, This guy needs to spend some time in the gym practicing his jump shot and set shot.



> Davis looked a little rough tonight, but I think thats gonna be his game. I guess when you get that old you just can't "get it up" - even for a game. :laugh:


I think because of the "style" Davis plays, he was OUTSTANDING for not having been in ONE single practice with this team. Ya think?




> Skiles? Hey, a win is a win and thats the objective. With very little time he got us organized enough to get the "W". The only thing that puzzled me is what happened with ERob. The guy looked great and "then he was gone".


I love how Skiles "appeared" to be in "tune" to the flow of the game....ALL GAME LONG! His timeouts and substitutions should have been what Cartwright saw, but did not. I also noticed that Skiles did a LOT of congratulating and "encouraging" type motions to his players while on the sidelines. He IS a source of fire that IF the Bulls players do not catch on to it, will be subjected to IT. EROB I think lost his composure. During one stint where he was called for a foul and then just after that he made a bullet pass to eddie curry driving the lane and after the ball went thru curry's hands, EROB was yelling something and then shortly afterwards, I noticed he was sitting ...sitting for the remainder of the game. not sure what happened tho. As far as Jamal Crawford goes, maybe he WILL grow more...maybe he WILL be the shooting guard of this team. I have never really liked his mechanics while shooting, but you just cannot argue with his totals. Look at IVerson and he too is the recipient of fast breaks, however, he has a sweet jumper..far better than Crawfords.....and also, yes, Crawford has been VERY good lofting those buzzer beaters this season. There have also been a few times he HAS missed, and sometimes he JUST BARELY missed! lol The kid has game, I hope he continues to improve to meet up to my standards! lmao.

I am very happy with the win. Is it a "honeymoon" type victory? Like Skiles says, "it could be, but I don't think so!" I agree!:grinning:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Notice Q1 and Q3 for us. We got drubbed. Why? Curry and Crawford in the game at the same time. We played great in Q2 and Q4 with Hinrich and JYD and AD and Blount/ERob/Pippen on the floor to mask Jamal's defensive weakness.


You're straining to make a point (again). They shared significant time in the 2nd and 4th too.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Thank you John Paxson for making this trade. The sickening, cancerous attitude has been replaced by some hustle and grit. JYD and Davis were just what this team needed.


In fairness, remember how good everything looked in that first game after we acquired Jalen when he went off for like a million points against the Knicks?

I think everyone needs to calm down about it... even if we do win more (which is a real possibility), warts are still gonna reappear.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You're straining to make a point (again). They shared significant time in the 2nd and 4th too.


See this post, regarding 2nd and 4th too.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The game log bears out what I wrote about Q1 and Q3
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/gamelog?gameId=231201004
> ...


<FONT SIZE=+2>Unless my math is wrong, we were -7 with both in the game at the same time. We were +17 with one or the other in the game.</FONT>


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> But the bigger point is this. Why are we greatly offended at players who make poor decisions, but we give a pass to players who can't make shots or can't pass very well? There may be many of us who are better decision-makers than Crawford is, just as there are many of us who are better shooters than Antonio Davis. Both players are being paid millions of dollars, so why do we tend to be personally offended by a lack of decision-making skills, but not at a lack of shooting skills. It takes hard work to become good at both sets of skills. Why do we assume that becoming a better decision-maker is so easy?


How many times did you (any anyone else- I know I did) totally get pissed watching MJ play?

He was good for several ill-advised, totally stupid plays a night where he'd pass up open guys, needlessly turn the ball over, take bad shots, etc.

I'm not talking about this to in any way compare the skill level of MJ and Jamal, but rather the style of play. MJ made his mistakes, probably more than his fair share.

But after a 30 point, 8 assist game where he made plenty of needless mistakes, there must be some recognition that needless mistakes might be part of the package. While they weren't good parts, they weren't enough to say at the end of the game that MJ was not as good a player as John Paxson or Steve Kerr because of them.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> What about the Coach ?


While the halfcourt offense may not have been pretty, I was impressed with what he drew up during our timeouts. For once we looked like we had a clue offensively coming out of a TO. He drew up some nice plays during breaks, something BC never could do.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> See this post, regarding 2nd and 4th too.
> ...


That's true, and I don't disagree with the general scope of the argument.

What I do disagree with was your emphatic statement that *Notice Q1 and Q3 for us. We got drubbed. Why? Curry and Crawford in the game at the same time.* Which was made even more emphatic by the next sentence being *We played great in Q2 and Q4 with Hinrich and JYD and AD and Blount/ERob/Pippen on the floor to mask Jamal's defensive weakness*

First, it's an overstatement because it ignores that a couple of our other guys were pretty awful shooting the ball in Q1 and Q3. That seems just as likely a cause, and at least must contribute some of the blame.

Second, it's an overstatement because if having those two on the court were the reason, one would also expect us to have been "drubbed" in Q2, but instead we were +8 with both on the court.

Third, it would seem to me that singleing out "Jamal's defensive weakness" is an overstatement when you praised his defensive performance elsewhere in your post. To me, the much bigger problem was masking Curry's weaknesses, something that AD seemed to do pretty well. JYD played good defense on both the interior and the perimeter.

So put all of that together, and you're overstating the case, even if it's generally true that we'll do better when we've got guys out there that can clean up Jamal and Eddy's mistakes.

That's part of the equation, yes. But it's not the whole thing. If the other guys we have out there hit a couple shots, it looks a lot different. The play in together in Q2 also makes things look a lot different. Simultaneously, I thought this was a pretty good match up for our team. When we play bigger stronger teams, we're gonna face quite a bit more difficulty.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Jamal had a great game tonight. He was a key contributor in the win.
> 
> Did you notice though that he was the only player roundly booed by the fans in attendance? I mean - thats unheard of, right?
> ...


Face man! Yeah, I remember that guy! He was the dude on the A-team that could always manage to find what the team needed. I was always a Murdock fan myself "howling mad Murdock coming at ya!"

Ok pal, not sure where all the hatin on me comes from. And I can't believe I'm gonna debate basketball with a guy who has delusions of being a gladiator (have you played Gladius on PS2 btw, great game, I'm hooked). So, basically your saying Jamal had a great game but he jacked up that one really ill advised shot, gets booed loudly and that guy from the A-Team just "doesn't get it?" Well, I called up the Faceman today and asked him about what your talking about and he said "you know what, that was a HORRIBLE shot by Jamal and he deserved to be booed for it" and I totally agree with him. Of course, The applause when Jamal delivered that oop to Curry seemed louder than the boos, the applause when he nailed that buzzer beater...seemed louder than the boos...even the applause when he blocked a shot seemed louder than the boos. Face also told me that he doesn't give a hoot about all of this labeling of "Jamal Haters" and "Jamal Worshippers". He further went on to let me know that he does not worship Jamal. He accepts the lord Jesus christ as his personal saviour and suggessts that you do the same (unless you happen to be Jewish or Islamic, or whatever). 

SOme interesting comments you may have missed prior to the game. Probably pounding down a couple of beers instead of sitting with notebook and pen in hand as I have it on good authority that "Face man" does. Before the game Tom Dore commented that Skiles said that "they have to get Jamal Crawford MORE shots". Further, an article in the paper today said something to the effect that Skiles thinks that Jamal is "an incredibly gifted young player". And I think that Jamal played VERY good defense last night and he is clearly trying to get better. He did have 3 steals and 1 block which isn't too shabby. Oh, and Face man said to tell you that he actually DOES think he knows more than Bulls management. Yeah, I know, he IS an arrogant snot isn't he? But, I guess trusting your OWN opinion and observations rather than being spoon fed your opinion from someone else isn't something you would be familiar with.

Oh, "Face Man" said if ya bad mouth him anymore he's sending BA Baracus over to compete in some gladiator sport with ya so ya might want to watch it!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> The reson Dabullz criticizes is because it is so easy. Jamal consistently makes about 10 completely unacceptable decisions per game--It's not like you have to search with a micro-scope.
> 
> Tonight was a perfect case study. There was beautiful passes, good team ball, and some real nice shots but mixed in you had these gems:
> ...


I bet if you managed my business you would be mad at me for not dotting my i's properly or crossing my t's. Your points are somewhat valid but please allow me to address them. 

1.) Crawford, Hinirch, Pippen, Rose, and even Gill have ALL shared time at the pg spot this season (which is truly insane IMO.) Sometimes even when Crawford and Hinrich are on the court together Crawford is called on to run the point. Excuse the guy for being just a tad bit confused. I believe Skiles will clearly define roles better and we will see less and less of things like this in the future. 

2.) One of those three's was in rhythm and I liked it. The other wasn't in rhtyhm but it still almost went in. The latter was a VERY ill advised shot as there were 4 blus shirts standing under the basket and Jamal was booed heartily for it as he should be (if this is the one your talking about it). IMO, this was Jamal's biggest and only real glaring mistake all game.

3.) end of quarter plays are almost ALWAYS isolation plays. Thats JUST the way it is in the NBA. 

4.) Curry missed the oop attempt. The pass had a little too much mustard on it butCrawford clearly had teh right idea. 

5.) I remember this play vividly. Jamal simply didn't have the time to get his feet set properly before the pass was delivered. It happens, Jamal knows how to square up just fine he just didn't have the time to. 


Anyway, pretty nitpicky on a guy who had 30,8,8,3 & 1. But I guess I should get used to nitpicky when it comes to Jamal. He could play a flawless game except for one mistake and many folks here would JUST harp on his mistake. I'm convinced Jamal could score 50pts on perfect shooting, dish out 10 assists, pull down 10 boards and someone would STILL find something to criticize.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

You could watch a Lakers game and point out 5 nitpicky mistakes Kobe makes (trust me on this - it's easy to do). That doesn't mean he's not a good shooting guard. Why is Jamal held at such a high standard? He took one clearly bad shot. I would argue that E-Rob, Davis, Gill, Blount and Hinrich all took at least one clearly bad shot as well. Blount took about 4 horrible shots. 

Jamal had a wicked game. Even the poster KirkHinrich thinks so. I can't believe people would still find faults with it. Mistake free basketball is an impossibility.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> You could watch a Lakers game and point out 5 nitpicky mistakes Kobe makes (trust me on this - it's easy to do). That doesn't mean he's not a good shooting guard. Why is Jamal held at such a high standard? He took one clearly bad shot. I would argue that E-Rob, Davis, Gill, Blount and Hinrich all took at least one clearly bad shot as well. Blount took about 4 horrible shots.


Given how much longer he has been in the league, Kobe is a much worse decision-maker than Crawford. But I find Kobe much, much more frustrating, because I think his poor decision-making stems from selfishness and a lack of respect for anyone but himself, whereas Crawford's poor decision-making is mostly a function of bad habits, a lack of fundamentals, and indecisiveness stemming from a lack of self-confidence. I doubt that he will ever be a top-notch decision-maker, but I suspect he could become much better than Kobe.

That said, Kobe is far more talented than Crawford, so even with his selfish play, Kobe does more to help his team win than Crawford ever will.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Face man! Yeah, I remember that guy! He was the dude on the A-team that could always manage to find what the team needed. I was always a Murdock fan myself "howling mad Murdock coming at ya!"
> ...



Ok, SPartacus. We who are about to apologize salute you! I read another post where you were saying that I wouldn't "stick it in peoples faces" when Jamal has a good game. And a post where you refer to "FACE" now I realize you were talking about HappyFace and I feel like a blithering idiot for my witty but unwarranted response. Hope you will see your way clear to forgive me. If not, I guess we could fight to the death if you can find an arena if we have to. I'll need to sharpen my trident and stitch my net up first so be sure to give me advance notice!


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I to watched the game and IMO the reason we had weak beginings to the 1st and 3rd quarters had nothing to do with either the play of JC or curry. Even thro i will say everyone on the court was a little nervous in the 1st quarter.

It was the play of Gill and blount. Now Gill's game just looked a little off but he still was 0-4 and was beat several times on D. But Blount just played really awful. He was 0-7 but even wosre all his shots were jump shots of at least 16-18 feet. And Joe Smith was just eatting him up. While not evident in the box score is how A Davis completely shut down Smith when he came in and blount went out.

Look for davis to start at PF along with curry soon. I like that lineup because it matches a tough vet who plays great D with a younger offensive minded player who will benefit from Davis experience.

david


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> First, it was a great win, and a win is what counts.
> 
> Crawford probably had his best game as a pro. He finally found a guy he could guard - TJ Ford - and he shut him down. 0-9 FG. The 5 boards Ford had do show that Jamal needs to box out. They guy must be the smallest player in the NBA.
> ...


i'll just make a small point to critc crawford for ford getting 5 rebounds when ford averages 4.1 is a weak point to make ...especially when crawford gets 8 boards...it seems to me you have a need to slight him 

also i find it odd that he has to play this well for you to be as well i cant really say positive on his play lets call it even handed at best ...even though he played great , as you mentioned he has only had in your words only 1 or 2 good games ...I assume you are refering to the orlando game

dont you think you are being a little harsh that crawford in the 2 games you give him credit is avg 29.5 pts 8 rebs. and 7.5 assists?

you might want to rethink how you think when you are being objective because it doesn't seem like you are


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

the question is...if Jalen Rose was still here and just dropped 30-8-8 on the Bucks in a win, would DaBullz make a point of mentioning the very few things he did wrong?


:grinning:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That's true, and I don't disagree with the general scope of the argument.
> ...


The new look Bulls won yesterday with a stifling defense that resulted in fast break opportunties. We scored easily when we ran the fast break, and when we ran the offense, as in through Curry, we did not.

Curry missed half his shots, committed 5 turnovers, and grabbed just one more rebound than guys like Hinrich and Gill and Pippen. Yep, Crawford looked terrific, but only one of his assists went to Curry, and that was 3 minutes into Q1. And the +/- numbers do not suggest that Curry and Crawford played well together.

As gaudy as Curry's offensive numbers might appear on the surface, his PPI for the game was 12 and ERob's was 11. Erob played 2/3 of the minutes Curry did, too.

I am not overstating this argument. Not in the least.

The truth is Crawford and JYD played great together.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> the question is...if Jalen Rose was still here and just dropped 30-8-8 on the Bucks in a win, would DaBullz make a point of mentioning the very few things he did wrong?
> 
> 
> :grinning:


I'm sold on the trade. The defense made a huge difference by triggering easy baskets on the fast break. 

The odd thing is how people like to point out how Jamal almost gets triple doubles, yet they ignore the several times Rose came close too.

Pot. Kettle. Black.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> The reson Dabullz criticizes is because it is so easy. Jamal consistently makes about 10 completely unacceptable decisions per game--It's not like you have to search with a micro-scope.
> 
> Tonight was a perfect case study. There was beautiful passes, good team ball, and some real nice shots but mixed in you had these gems:
> ...


every young player makes mistakes and many of them a game heck did you even watch jalen rose play when he was a bull I doubt very much you could have agreed with every shot, pass or defensive effort he game in roughly 150 or so games and exibitions he was here in fact if go ang look at game thread i would wager that 10 year vet had at least an avg 10 mistakes a game pointed out by posters alone in game threads in just those 3 categories 

and he was during his tenure as a bull our best player

but you expect crawford to be perfect 

kobe bryant almost destroyed his team 3 or 4 years ago with his decision making ....and the lakers were defending champs and he made the all nba team 

all talented players make mistakes do you think T-mac is playing perfect games right now and still losing?

you watch a young team that features young player you are going to see more mistakes than usual , thats just a fact ,in the games in where their talent clearly covers that up people should be haappy but all that happens on this board is more nitpicking ,which is ridiculous

people laugh when you mention JC and MJ in the same sentence but by the way people complain about crawford's game its obvious they expect a jordanlike standard ...or they are just idiots ...i'll let each individual make their own decision on that one


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, the stupidity is back in vogue at bbb.net.
> ...



No, there are clearly people in the middle who arent haters and who dont worship a player. If you want to label yourself in those extremes, be my guest. There are also clearly haters and worshippers, if you hate the labels then quit whining about them.

btw, i'm from the DC area, i grew up as a Bullets fan. I LOVED MJ, and cheered the Bulls on, gradually becoming somewhat a Bulls fan during that era mostly because of cheering for MJ. I'm sure many people fit in this boat. BUt what i am most of all is an NBA fan, which is why i watch alot of different teams play, particularly players i enjoy watching. I wouldnt call myself a hardcore Bulls fan, i dont really cheer for organizations anymore, i like the Bulls these days mainly because their the underdogs, young, and i grew to like Jamal from watching him play towards the end of last year. Right now i'd say i cheer for the Bulls to win, i cheer for Jamal to be the player he can be, but make no mistake i'm not JUST a Bulls fan


----------



## TysEdyKirkrthefuture. (Nov 19, 2003)

Last nights game

Showed us why Hinrich is better than Ford
1 Ford is a horrible shooter, so bad improving won't help
2. Hinrich is a way better defender

Ford is a great penetrator and passer but does nothing else

We are obviously going to run a lot more 
this should make Hinrich, Crawford, E-Rob, Tyson and JYD more effective.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> 
> No, there are clearly people in the middle who arent haters and who dont worship a player. If you want to label yourself in those extremes, be my guest. There are also clearly haters and worshippers, if you hate the labels then quit whining about them.
> 
> btw, i'm from the DC area, i grew up as a Bullets fan. I LOVED MJ, and cheered the Bulls on, gradually becoming somewhat a Bulls fan during that era mostly because of cheering for MJ. I'm sure many people fit in this boat. BUt what i am most of all is an NBA fan, which is why i watch alot of different teams play, particularly players i enjoy watching. I wouldnt call myself a hardcore Bulls fan, i dont really cheer for organizations anymore, i like the Bulls these days mainly because their the underdogs, young, and i grew to like Jamal from watching him play towards the end of last year. Right now i'd say i cheer for the Bulls to win, i cheer for Jamal to be the player he can be, but make no mistake i'm not JUST a Bulls fan


Nice post. One of the good things is that there's no rule requiring anyone to be exactly one kind of fan. More importantly, what kind of fan a person is often changes over time. So if it were me, I'd hold off on criticizing people because they're a fan of some player or some team or the other, or because they've not been here long enough to suit some folks.

Just sit back and enjoy... there's room for everyone.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> i'll just make a small point to critc crawford for ford getting 5 rebounds when ford averages 4.1 is a weak point to make ...especially when crawford gets 8 boards...it seems to me you have a need to slight him
> 
> ...


The most stupid and annoying argument I constantly hear is how he's not allowed to play HIS game. Last night was the first time I saw Jamal Crawford play a TEAM game and help the team win a game that really mattered. His stats mattered less than the victory and how he contributed. And most importantly, I believe that when the crowd booed him, he may have finally figured out how not to take his team out of the game with it on the line.

There's no pleasing you, unless I say JC walked on water and fed the crowd with a single fish.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> 
> Bad decision-making is a mental mistake, whereas missing a shot (assuming it's a good shot) is a physical mistake. Physical mistakes will happen throughout the course of a game, but mental mistakes should try to be avoided at all costs, and could hypothetically be controlled if you're mentally in the game. For example, Erob may be a bad passer... fine.. just don't throw a stupid pass! I can't fault a player for missing a shot, but if someone takes a shot with 20 seconds left in the half, I realize that that's a bad mental decision and the other team will probably get another shot. That being said, I thought Jamal played a GREAT game tonight, and I only saw one or MAYBE 2 questionably shots he took all night. I have NO complaints about Jamal tonight, but I do think there's a difference between mental mistakes and physical mistakes throughout the game.


if you are bad passer ...its because you make bad passes

if you are a bad shooter its because when you shoot you miss alot more than others would 

if e-rob were to say to himself "I'm a bad passer but a decent shooter so to minimize my flaw i'll pass less and shoot more"

how would you feel about that ?

would that be good idea?

you have to play the game and do your best you cant play to your flaws to get the best out of yourself you have to play the best you can and hopefully you can improve your flaws along the way

you dont like all of tthe decisions JC makes ...well i assure you it would be worse if he never had to make one and just removed himself from play and just did a programmed thing every time he touched the ball

i only have a problem when i see players do things they know they couldn't possibly succeed at 

every shot I see crawford nowadays take he has at some time or another hit with regularity 

so i generally dont have a problem with it unless its a bad time but most of his "mistakes " come when the shot clock is dwindling in which case the ball is aalmost always in his hands because his teammates wanted him to have the ball and in my opinion with good reason


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The most stupid and annoying argument I constantly hear is how he's not allowed to play HIS game. Last night was the first time I saw Jamal Crawford play a TEAM game and help the team win a game that really mattered. His stats mattered less than the victory and how he contributed. And most importantly, I believe that when the crowd booed him, he may have finally figured out how not to take his team out of the game with it on the line.
> ...


Last night was HIS game. That's how he played at the end of last season. That was it. He's been allowed a couple times this season to do this. Let's hope it continues. Skiles seems smart enough to do this.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Last nights game
> 
> Showed us why Hinrich is better than Ford


I agree. The Bucks forum had a thread discussing this topic, but it is strangely silent after the game last night.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

"With coach Skiles' system and the new guys, it fits our team so much better," Crawford said. "That's the most comfortable I've been in four years here. I feel very comfortable off the ball. Kirk takes a lot of pressure off me, and he's fun to play with."

Yes. A serious 2 guard of the future.

More and more, we're beginning to look like the team that JK envisioned: bulk and size to boot, with solid guard play that can occasionally step up and win games on their own.

Crawford is not the star of the team, but he is someone worth paying attention to and someone that will make you pay if you double down to Curry (if he can ever pass it out of the double-teams).

Now he's settled in as "comfortable off the ball" and finding Kirk's pure PG mentality "fun to play with". I think Crawford is going to get 35 mpg, with Hinrich getting more like 28-30. There will be a lot of times when Crawford or Pippen brings the ball up the floor, but JC seems to have discovered a sense of freedom playing off-guard. This is EXACTLY what is necessary to recompense the loss of Jalen Rose.

I hated the trade because it made no sense on paper, and I'm going to wait a few more games to make an objective judgment on how much it worked for our favor (especially after watching tonight's Raptors v. Sixers game). But from the way it looks, although we had more talent and more cap flexibility with Rose and Marshall, sometimes a change needs to be made for the greater good.

DaBullz is definitely a little bit harsh on his analysis. That makes him kind of a hard fan, but it would probably make him a very decent coach. Watching the game with accuracy and scrutiny is better than just celebrating the fact that after it was all over, our score was higher than theirs.

The win IS what matters, but that doesn't mean we got the win in a flawless effort.

The other side of the line is to give some leeway to young players making mistakes... players are human and they are bound to make mistakes, especially after a huge make-over of the team. One might say it's overly harsh to jump on those little errors when the overall play was good, and that the stupid mistakes will get ironed out with some time.

I think the mistakes don't iron themselves out; they need to be noticed and the correction needs to be actively learned. I think Skiles is that kind of coach, so I don't have any worries... I'm excited that our players may actually LEARN a thing or two this season.

On a tangent, it's kind of a thrill that we're going to basically be starting a dual-point guard backcourt (it's very irrelevant who brings the ball up), like Payton/Cassell or even like Snow/Iverson, and that we've got a true point guard coach. And he was a GOOD point guard, an efficient one, an intelligent one, one that they can actually look up to. That's pretty exciting.

AD and JYD can lead by example for the big men; Skiles can be the new tutor for the little men (although he shows no fear of working with the bigs). Pippen can continue to be the guy on the sides, playing when he's called to play and being the quiet leader. And guys like ERob, Fizer, and Blount are going to get a shot at just being free to play.

So far, so good. Let's see where this takes us. One blowout is all it takes to change my mind.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: My analysis of tonight's game*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The most stupid and annoying argument I constantly hear is how he's not allowed to play HIS game. Last night was the first time I saw Jamal Crawford play a TEAM game and help the team win a game that really mattered. His stats mattered less than the victory and how he contributed. And most importantly, I believe that when the crowd booed him, he may have finally figured out how not to take his team out of the game with it on the line.
> ...


did I say anything about whether or not JC is allowed to play his game ?

I believe you have made yet another mistake that is kukoc4ever 

also you are the only one who said the crowd booed him and given you lack of objectivity i'll wait before believing especially since the aforementioned kukoc4ever said it wasn't so and that it was directed at the whole bulls team

so quit whinning to me because you cant be counted on to make objective opinions 

its not just me saying it and its not just the so called jamal worshippers its other people on this thread too such as NCbullsfan whom i believe no one has ever labeled a crawford fan 

I cant be held accountable for your mistakes they belong to you and while I have tried to point it out sometimes very nicely and sometimes not so nice 

there is no secret campaign to discredit you if you really want to know why people are telling you what you are reading simply re-read some of your 5000 posts and the answer will come to you 

and you wont need a burning bush just some 5th grade reading comprehension skills


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Jamal had a great game tonight. He was a key contributor in the win.
> 
> Did you notice though that he was the only player roundly booed by the fans in attendance? I mean - thats unheard of, right?
> ...



Too bad i went to bed before reading this, or i guess i missed it. How the hell can you criticize Jamal after last nights game. and yet you find a way to? You ARE a hater, deal with the label :laugh: Normal people dont pick out every little problem that didnt even occur when someone just scored 30 and almost had a triple double. I mean your going to criticize him for one play where the fans booed? Haha stop hating :laugh: 

Thing about it is alot of you didnt have the faith that Jamal would 'get it'. Alot of you wanted to get rid of him saying how awful he is, overeacting to the first 4 games and justifying Cartwright's benching of him, and his continued limited time. You should be the ones eating Crow right now considering Skiles made him the focal point of the offense, and he responded with a game you cant criticize, but amazingly some of you find a way to. Alot of you are overeacting idiots that want to give your best players away just because of a poor start or because they frustrate you. Alot of you overeact to everything, from saying Jamal sucks and will get exploited every game just because he got exploited against Dallas, to saying Gill is our best player because he was shooting well earlier on in the season. Thank god your not running the team because every other teams GM would love to take advantage of your short-sightedness.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Dabullz, if we had it your way Jamal would've either been traded for Alvin Williams or Othella Harrington, or he would've been sitting on the bench last night, point being his development or what he could contribute would never have occured. This whole year would've been another wasted year of development with your idea of playing veterans like Gill and Pippen and sitting the young plyaers. You along with alot of others supported him getting benched, even going so far to say hed be a good 6th man :laugh: 

Eat Crow  Thanks


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sold on the trade. The defense made a huge difference by triggering easy baskets on the fast break.
> ...


fwiw, I'm not one of those "people" and I think the "people" who overexaggerate Jamal's mistakes while giving him very little credit for his successes severely outnumber (or speak more loudly than) the people who ignored Jalen's numerous great games. Many of us thought Jalen simply became a lead weight on this team this year and needed to be moved for both the Bulls' sake and his. He had plenty of good, even great, games as a Bull, but only one game that came close to Crawford's performance last night (vs NO), not to mention plenty of games where he was misfiring and insisted on continuing to misfire. Different views, I guess.

Jamal's supporters (argh I hate that dynamic, but oh well) feel the need to get him the credit he deserves for having spectacular games like last night because he's constantly being criticized.

Would Jamal have gotten out on the break like that with Jalen still here? Tough to say. Would we have gotten stops and forced turnovers if Jalen had been guarding Redd instead of JYD and co? Who knows, but I doubt it.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sold on the trade. The defense made a huge difference by triggering easy baskets on the fast break.
> ...


Rose has gotten his share of free passes as well. For example, during the five game West Coast trip he "produced" a total of 13 assists and 14 turnovers.

I seem to recall a certain _rookie_ point guard who got raked over the coals on this board for having a 1:1 assist/turnover ratio earlier in the season.

To coin another popular saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Based on your pot/kettle equasion, I'm sure you'd agree.

Somehow things always have a way of evening out, don't they?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

DaBullz is trying to take hg's job and steal Christmas. Do you hate on everyone? Do you hate me?

:laugh:

I've come to respect DB more and more simply because I find my own view of the game beginning to adhere to his. I'm still a huge optimist and I think a die-hard fan is mostly irrational and totally biased... that's what makes a great fan.

But inside, I'm a rationalist too. Chandler and Curry really aren't looking like a lot, and if they do come on strong, it will have to be in the next few weeks, otherwise they'll be branded as the "post-AS-break" guys that give too little too late. Chandler, to his credit, has worked within his game and excelled. Curry needs some more time, and I think that bringing him along slowly would work well. That may be the one thing Cartwright did right: keep Curry on the bench until he felt like he had to prove himself every day. Same with Crawford, one might suspect, if it weren't for the visible Jay/Jamal controversy.

Crawford is more ready to handle full out games because his lack of defense is less noticeable, and his fairly limited offense is actually serviceable already. Craw can shoot the lights out, if he's feeling it, and he can pass fairly well, making him about as good as Dana Barros in year 5 (13.3, 5.5, 1.32 spg, 38.1% from the arc is the stat line on Dana in 93-94). If he makes the next step, the Dana Barros of 94-95 (20.6, 7.5, 1.8 shooting a blazing 46% from the arc), I'd be extremely satisfied. Our team is not totally disparate from that Sixers team, either, with Shawn Bradley, the tenacious rebounder/shot-blocking youngster (Tyson), and Clarence Weatherspoon, the tough and strong bodied post player (Eddy except with better rebounding). When they picked up Sharone Wright and Scott Williams (JYD and AD?) the next season, Barros went to work. 

Maybe I'm stretching it, and I'm obviously on a tangent. The whole point is, the realism of DaBullz, compared to my unchecked optimism in the summer, was pretty offensive and a little too harsh. It remains so today, but as I stated often through the summer, we had to just see for ourselves what would happen. I analyzed on the assumption of improvement; he did not. The season proved him to be righter than I, and I think it's a more reasonable way to look at things.

Overnegativity is like adjusting the aim of a jump shot to compensate for the wind of fan-bias that consistently makes our shots brick off the back iron.

That makes sense to me, and that's all that matters. :laugh:

:topic: = me.

Gosh I hate finals time.


----------

