# No Excuses?



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

LOL

Bulls get whacked and the excuses pour forth. "We didn't have our best 3 players." "They had their whole team, intact." And so on. "It's only the first game of exhibition."

Bulls had 2 of the 3 key young guys and they got major minutes and produced minor numbers (except for blocked shots for Chandler). No excuses.

Many people think Rose is a cancer, a bad player, a distraction from getting our young players shots, or otherwise think we should dump him just because of his paycheck. Well, no excuses - we got to see how bad a team we are without him. No excuses.

Indiana lost a key player in Brad Miller. He's a guy that gave them a young and strong and tall backcourt. Scott Pollard isn't half the player Brad Miller is, sheesh. Intact - no way. In fact, wasn't that an NBDL player who lit us up in just 19 minutes? Tell me our guys are better than NBDL players! No excuses.

It was their first game of exhibition season, too. No excuses.

Looked to me like without Rose or Pippen out there, Kendall Gill is our next best player. If this continues, it's going to be a VERY long season.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

omigod. it's the first game of PRESEASON. PRESEASON. Cleveland went undefeated in preseason last year. Preseason does not matter. Preseason is about getting ready for the regular season and even then the first week or so in the NBA is generally pretty wild(remember last year how we blew out the celtics).

This isn't about excuses. It's about reality. Reality is, it's preseason. It doesn't matter. Our team wasn't there and I'm sure the guys who were there did learn some things.

I was looking at the box scores for some of the games today. Jerry Stackhouse had 5 points on 1-9 shooting. Does that mean washington's season is a wash and Stackhouse needs to retire? I think Iverson shot 1-11 or some godawful number the other night. Preseason is just something you do. They could lose every preseason game for all I care(and actually I think Philly may have done that last season--and still made it as the 4th seed in the playoffs). It's the regular season that matters. They don't give out trophies for best preseason record, last I knew.

And did Curry play in the game? because you say how it looks like without Rose and Pippen we are lost, but you don't mention the guy who we are supposedly running the offense through?

You come off very biased against the bulls when you post like this. And I don't really understand why.

Can't you at least wait until the regular season to start this type of thing?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

A VERY long season? Is it me, or doesn't it seem like you're jumping the gun a bit getting on the nay-sayer bandwagon after the first preseason game? Geez.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I like the fact your trying to be realistic, but I think your leaning a bit too far. 

I never was REALLY high on Crawford, because hes never shown me that he can be the type of PG I want him to be on the Bulls. I actually like Heinrich better, hes still developing so Crawford will start for now, but I think Kirks style fits better. 

Curry was out, who is our future leading scorer. And Rose was out, who is our current leading scorer. Pippen was out, who is our veteran leader. 

Thats 3 of 5 starters gone. Thats a huge gap. 

Preseason stats dont tell a whole lot, but preseason play does...I think Chandler has made some positive progress this offseason and it showed. I'm happy about that. If Curry has done the same thing with his weakness, we should be pretty happy with this upcoming season. 

But this was a TERRIBLE way to start off on the road, hopefully we can turn that around 180 on the first official road game. 

Preseason finals dont matter, Boston beat Detriot by 15, doesnt mean their that much better. We were up the whole game even without 3 of 5 starters and lost it in the end to a better team.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> LOL
> 
> Bulls had 2 of the 3 key young guys and they got major minutes and produced minor numbers (except for blocked shots for Chandler). No excuses.


Crawford did get 14, 6, 5 in under 30 minutes of play. That's not too bad. If he averaged that for the entire season you couldn't really complain too loudly.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Its important to be realistic by looking at the negatives as well as the positives. I've noticed most people on this forum like to pinpoint only the positives of young players, DaBullz dares to look at the negatives, I'll say that in his defense. Just try and look at the positives more mister. I liked Chandlers offensive production, his rebounding wasnt as dominant but I wouldnt worry about that until it happens more frequently. The real plus was his blocked shots, and THE FACT THAT THE BULLS FELL APART WHEN HE LEFT THE GAME. That shows the impact hes having.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Don't give me excuses.

Winning cures many ills. Win is not what we did.

No excuses.

I haven't written the season off as a wash, but I also haven't annointed this to be a winning (playoff) team, either. The team showed me virtually nothing to change my conclusions to date.

For example, with Rose and Curry out, it was time for Crawford and Chandler to step it up. I am not encouraged by a 14 pt performance by Crawford on 33% shooting. No, I don't think we're going to be happy with that all season. Chandler put up many games last season with better numbers in fewer minutes. I don't think we'll be happy with 10 pts, 4 boards and 4 turnovers in 30 minutes per game from him. And who did he guard? O'Neal 7-12 FG with 8 boards in just 23 minutes? Where's his so-called defense?

I only look at the negatives? I gave Gill his proper props, as he was the only real bright spot (along with Johnson - who?) for us last night.

Who's making excuses for Dwane Wade? Hmmm?

I'll repeat. Winning cures many ills. Excuses cures nothing.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Don't give me excuses.
> 
> Winning cures many ills. Win is not what we did.
> ...


From what I heard, Oneal couldnt be stopped once Chandler LEFT the game. 

And by not even mentioning Chandlers 8 blocks, kinda shows you tend to forget the positives. 

Warriors beat the Lakers tonight, guess the Lakers will be in the lottery next year. Oh well.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

not sure who to believe. but the suntimes seems to hit on the good and the bad...

here's the good



> Though the Pacers opened with their projected starting lineup of O'Neal, Miller, Artest, Jamaal Tinsley and Scot Pollard, *the Bulls were the more cohesive unit with projected reserves Gill, Hassell and Marshall joining Crawford and Chandler in the starting unit.* Fueled by Johnson's nine points, the Bulls led the Pacers 29-17 after one period. Gill and O'Neal each had eight.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull09.html

the bad is that the game was up and down in the third, until the pacers blew the game open with a big run.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

I want to support DaBullz. I was watching the entire game and here are my observations: Crawford still has no ball handling skills. I’m telling you people he is not a point guard! He can play as a shooting guard, but not at the point. For real, this season we will see more and more frontcourt pressure against the Bulls and it’s going to be sad…Mark my words. On the other hand we got Hinrich with 1 for 3 shots 0 assist and 5 turnovers…Oh my GOD!!! Speaking about turnovers Bulls got 24 of them last night! Nothing new…Ok, lets go to my kid, Tyson Chandler. Like always nice performance on defense, but I have a serious doubt about any free throws improvements. 1 for 5 same old Tyson…Biggest disappointments from last night: Marcus Fizer. 1 for 5 (FG) and 2 turnovers…Ooopss…Ok, I know that was just a first preseason game and Curry, Rose and Pippen did not play, but please folks, it should be no more excuses right?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Same ole same ole. In a way, Dabullz is right in a way he isn't. 

Offensive rebounding and ft shooting should be no excuses. They have had all summer to work on those two things. The guys who missed the game, wouldn't have made that much difference in offensive rebounding. 13-3!! No escuse for that. 

Want to make the playoffs? 60% ft shooting won't get you there. These guys make millions of dollars a year and can't make a ft. 

As for Crawford? No comment, yet. 

I liked Chandlers 8 blocks. I liked Baxters hustle. Linton Johnson had a monster game. Gill was solid. 

Of course it's preseason. But Dabullz is right in a way. We need to stop making excuses. Five years is long enough. 

Kwame Brown has put together two solid games in a row. Anyone seen that? I know chandler is playing out of position, but not really. He was a center in HS. 

So now the only thing to decide is, is Dabullz too quick on his remarks or are some of us still giving excuses after five years? That is the point in this thread.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

My god, people! First preseason game and apparently, the season is a wash. Start the official thread now! Man, this thread is ridiculous. No point.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> LOL
> 
> Bulls get whacked and the excuses pour forth. "We didn't have our best 3 players." "They had their whole team, intact." And so on. "It's only the first game of exhibition."
> ...


So if we had won by 15, would you have said that you were wrong all summer and we definitely look like championship material?

No, of course not. Just because a team adopts a slogan of "no excuses," doesn't mean we have to suspend common sense. I know you are just trying to make a point, but when you repeatedly take such absurd, extreme positions such as "the results from one game are strong evidence that the Bulls are going to struggle this year" or "Kendall Gill is the third best player on the team," it just makes you look silly.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I missed the comment about Gill being our third best player. Marshall was ok. Curry will be there too. 

Crawford had 14-5 -6 Gill had 12 and 4 and he is our third best player? Crawford had 5 t/o, yes but Gill had 4. Gill is not our third best player by any stretch.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

To claim the No excuse applies to this team without 3 starters is just stupid and is not based in reality.Bc is already on record as saying the focus in preseason was on defense and as such the Bulls showed some much improved defense.

The Bulls playing with only 2 starters they forced the Pacers to shoot 42% the only drawback is we didnt rebound the Ball well defensively but who doesnt expect that to improve once we get our big body(curry) back out there along with Pip and rose who are always good for 4-6 boards a piece.

Its outrageous threads like these that lead to crazy arguments 2-3 months from now because just as some of the comments in this thread are extreme posters will take callin him on them later to the extreme just as well.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> To claim the No excuse applies to this team without 3 starters is just stupid and is not based in reality.Bc is already on record as saying the focus in preseason was on defense and as such the Bulls showed some much improved defense.
> 
> The Bulls playing with only 2 starters they forced the Pacers to shoot 42% the only drawback is we didnt rebound the Ball well defensively but who doesnt expect that to improve once we get our big body(curry) back out there along with Pip and rose who are always good for 4-6 boards a piece.
> ...


That may be true, but you have to admit, it is a talking point. It takes both sides of the issue to talk, don't you agree? If all of us agreed on everything, it would be a dull board.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, there are excuses and then there are excuses. Not having 3 starters falls into the latter category for me 

Shooting 1-5 free throws and fouling out at Corey Benjamin speed... that falls into the former. 

That's what I like about this team... there's something for everyone to come away happy about :yes:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: No Excuses?*



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!... but when you repeatedly take such absurd, extreme positions such as "the results from one game are strong evidence that the Bulls are going to struggle this year" or "Kendall Gill is the third best player on the team," it just makes you look silly.


LOL. Give DaBullz some credit. All summer he claimed Gill was washed up.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Other than the TO's I did not have a problem with the game last night. We basically had no bench. I know Rose or Erob wont play Friday but I hope Pip and Curry do. I would like to see how this lineup would perform. A lot more depth here.



Crawford,Hinrich
Gill,Hassell
Pippen,Marshall
Chandler,Fizer
Curry,Baxter


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

In the defense of DaBullz…No one is saying that the whole season is a wash, but yesterday’s performance of our players was very suspicious. Crawford completely trips me off. He just couldn’t handle the ball! He’s shooting touch looks nice, but man he is in the middle ages with dribbling…any kind of front court pressure will cost us a turnover for sure! Hinrich wasn’t a big help either! And he’s shooting is far from acceptable. This is an NBA people! Not the HS, not the collage and not the NBDL! DaBullz is ringing the wake up bell! And it is a time to wake up call for our players! But everyone who was watching the game can say that Bulls are making the same old mistakes: poor free throw shooting, problems with frontcourt pressure, turnovers and questionable defense against guys like Scott Pollard, who was 7 for 9 if I’m correct…


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'm guessing that by DaBullz extremist position that if this team isn't 8-0 during the preseason and 82-0 during the regular season that we've made excuses.

I'll give you certain things that have already been pointed out in this thread - such as turnovers and poor free-throw shooting - there are no excuses for these. What I wonder about with you, not so much with excuses but with expectations. What, exactly, did you expect to see last night? What were your expected results? I watched a team who played mostly their bench players keep up with a team who was basically at full health. Their mistakes caught up to them. I fully expected the Bulls to lose last night. The Pacers are a better team. Period.

I suppose I am making excuses for certain aspects of last nights game - primarily that Curry, Rose and Pippen weren't playing. I fully expect the mistakes like turnovers, excessive stupid fouls and free throw shooting to improve.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

LOL!!! The Contrarian is at it again. DaBullz, weren't you the guy who used to sit behind the visitor's bench at Wizards games during the 90's harrassing players and coaches all game long? You were a master heckler back then! I especially like the way you used to read exerpts of Sam Smith's _Jordan Rules_ out loud to the Bulls bench during their games in DC! That was classic!

If you're ever in need of a job, I would suggest you avoid Fox News...if you had to listen to the phrase "fair and balanced" all day long, you might end up jumping off a cliff!

C'mon, DaBullz, I understand you love to play the role of the straw that stirs the drink of controversy. And jousting with the Bulls faithful can be fun. But you're in a rut, my man. It seems that's all you do these days. And frankly, all this one-sidedness is diminishing the impact of your message. I wonder how many people think "here we go again" everytime they spot your handle on a thread?

Hey, but whatever floats your boat! Have a good time taking shots at the Bulls if that's your thing. Keep breakin' out the old fishin' pole whenever you like There'll always be fish who'll bite. Just don't expect most people to take the same, tired old message you keep throwing out there very seriously.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

Kismet you are getting too personal with your last post. DaBullz has a right to say what he thinks! On the other hand, do you want to hear only good news?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm not surre what all of these claims are about Crawford not being able to dribble. Heck, the defenders pushed up on Crawford because they KNOW he can handle the ball like nobodys business. Jamal can practically break down most defenders at will with his crossover. Jamal didn't have an especially good game last night and he still managed to post 14, 6 & 5! And he also made acouple of nice passes that were bobbled by Chandler that would have resulted in another couple of assists. Seems like I watched a different game than some of you guys. You need to pay attention to the way the defender gets in Jamal's shirt and doesn't give him any room to operate. They do that because they don't want Jamal getting heated up.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Linton Johnson?! Josh Davis? The preseason belongs to dreamers such as these. I remember Jerry Krizause singing the praises of Steve Goodrich after a couple nice preseasons. Yet preseasons always leave me underwhelmed... and I am convinced it means nothing. Nada. Nilch. Nunca. Its an all-out battle for the last roster spot.

I remember people telling me 'Eddie Robinson averaged 17ppg in Bulls preseason games' and having to hear that over and over when people would defend the guy. C'mon now. ERob is garbage, and he remains so until he can put together a decent stretch for the regular season.

Who cares about excuses, let them flow. Its a message board y'all and we're not getting paid to be here. Its not like John Paxson is going to call us up and chew us out for spewing a little selfish verbiage on BB.net. Just because a team follows a certain philosophy, doesn't mean all its fans have to blindly follow like lemmings to a cliff. Its just a game fellas, let's enjoy the ride.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

btw, based on last nights game and what I have heard about Johnson I would not be surprised if he supplants Mason Jr on the Bulls regular season roster.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I'm not surre what all of these claims are about Crawford not being able to dribble. Heck, the defenders pushed up on Crawford because they KNOW he can handle the ball like nobodys business. Jamal can practically break down most defenders at will with his crossover. Jamal didn't have an especially good game last night and he still managed to post 14, 6 & 5! And he also made acouple of nice passes that were bobbled by Chandler that would have resulted in another couple of assists. Seems like I watched a different game than some of you guys. You need to pay attention to the way the defender gets in Jamal's shirt and doesn't give him any room to operate. They do that because they don't want Jamal getting heated up.


Ok, I give up. Yesterday’s game was a big success for the Bulls. Crawford was amazing, his 5 turnovers were fabricated by Pacers press stuff and his high quality passes (a specially one for Chandler closed behind two defenders) were outstanding. Jamal’s legendary dribbling skills just knocked socks off from defenders. He was never in any danger, because they all now how good he is, so they just decide to back off. Tyson Chandler free throw accuracy was unbelievable! He almost dunks them! And 1 for 5 statistics is just another lie from press stuff. Marcus Fizer come back was a punch right in to the Indiana nose. His 1 for 5 (FG) shooting, 1 for 4 free throw shooting and 2 turnovers mentally destroyed Pacers players. They weren’t ready for his impact on the game. And our black (white) horse, Kirk Hinrich with his fabricated 5 turnovers and 1 for 3 shooting was just too much for Indiana. The Pacers just lost their hope and they won the game…Ace20004u you are absolutely right we watched different games…


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> Kismet you are getting too personal with your last post. DaBullz has a right to say what he thinks! On the other hand, do you want to hear only good news?


Lighten up, Bob! I'm really not the sensitive guy you think I am. This is all fun and games, give and take...

Oh, and as far as "good news" is concerned, DaBullz isn't _reporting_, its all conjecture on his part. And I'd never want to deprive him of his right to view the Bulls' mug as perpetually half-empty! That's his shtick and he's welcome to it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, I give up. Yesterday’s game was a big success for the Bulls. Crawford was amazing, his 5 turnovers were fabricated by Pacers press stuff and his high quality passes (a specially one for Chandler closed behind two defenders) were outstanding. Jamal’s legendary dribbling skills just knocked socks off from defenders. He was never in any danger, because they all now how good he is, so they just decide to back off. Tyson Chandler free throw accuracy was unbelievable! He almost dunks them! And 1 for 5 statistics is just another lie from press stuff. Marcus Fizer come back was a punch right in to the Indiana nose. His 1 for 5 (FG) shooting, 1 for 4 free throw shooting and 2 turnovers mentally destroyed Pacers players. They weren’t ready for his impact on the game. And our black (white) horse, Kirk Hinrich with his fabricated 5 turnovers and 1 for 3 shooting was just too much for Indiana. The Pacers just lost their hope and they won the game…Ace20004u you are absolutely right we watched different games…


thanks for the dose of sarcasm! Always appreciated. Sounds like your stressing a little too much over the first preseason game of the year dude.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

Any time Crawford has an average game we will be sure to hear it. I don't know what is going to happen if he has a bad one.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> Any time Crawford has an average game we will be sure to hear it. I don't know what is going to happen if he has a bad one.


We will hear it even more. Jamal DID have 6 assts last night to the more "prototypical" pg Hinrich's ZERO. It was the first preseason game of teh year and the Bulls only had 2 of 5 starters playing. Nothing to get bent out of shape about. Everybody had a lot of rust to shake off and they will.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It strikes me as interesting that there are so many wildly varying accounts of the game. 

Kirk played good despite the stats vs. Kirk is a wild monkey.

Jamal is a star vs. Jamal can't dribble.

Tyson carried the team vs. Tyson can't hit a free throw.

We miss Corie Blount in the lineup... well that's just funny :laugh:


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

It is a situation where people see what they want to see. Crawford fans stick with their guy, Hinrich fans with theirs, and so on. What we forget is they all are bulls and we are supposed to support each player the same. But human nature gives us our personal bias towards certain players. I am just as guilty as most on this.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> It is a situation where people see what they want to see. Crawford fans stick with their guy, Hinrich fans with theirs, and so on. What we forget is they all are bulls and we are supposed to support each player the same. But human nature gives us our personal bias towards certain players. I am just as guilty as most on this.


I think Kirk and Jamal both played decent. Neither one of them was a worldbeater last night. But they both play ok. Hinrich's stat sheet looks a lot worse than his game looked. Crawford's stat sheet prolly looks a little better than he actually looked. Nevertheless, I can't believe anyone can accuse Jamal of not having handles...the guy has sick handles.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You guys can beef about me being a contrarian all you want.

However, I'm not the contrary one, the Bulls are the contrary ones. I am simply focused on the W, something that has been sorely lacking in the last 5+ years, and something that didn't happen last night.

If some people have a problem reading a compound sentence, let me parse it for you.

"<B>If this continues, </B> it's going to be a VERY long season." Ignore the "if" clause at your own peril.

Let me add, that if this continues, there's going to be a lot of excuses from now on. So much for "no excuses." And when the excuses stop, people will realize that Bulls management has failed to put a winning team on the floor and has been blowing sunshine up our butts for years.

johnston797:

Can you produce a single quote where I said Gill was washed up? I may think he's too old to play full-time minutes or to build a winning team around, but I don't think he's washed up.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

all I'm saying is wait until the regular season to start with the "if this continues" stuff. It's the first game of the preseason. No one really knows what they're looking at yet. 

Also. I don't think Linton Johnson is going to even make the team. This is one of those preseason situations I was talking about. It doesn't mean anything. The fact that Linton was playing big minutes last night should be your first tipoff to the fact that we didn't see the same bulls team we'll see on opening night, let alone for the brunt of the season.

And as far as the "no excuses" deal. That's a team motto. Not exactly a fan motto. Fans inherently make excuses. When they win or lose there's nearly always a qualifier. I guarantee if you go over to the lakers forum you'll see people making excuses for getting stomped by the warriors last night, and that's a championship contending team.

To me "no excuses" refers more to the ol' "well their young, so we don't have to expect much out of them" excuse. Which is not what I am hearing. The excuse is from fans, and rightly so, "it's preseason, it doesn't matter, and we were missing 3 of our most important players against a team that was second place in the division last year".


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> all I'm saying is wait until the regular season to start with the "if this continues" stuff. It's the first game of the preseason. No one really knows what they're looking at yet.


I heard the same about the Bears and look where we are now!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

We played without our two most important veterans, Jalen and Pippen, as well as our most dominant offensive player, Eddy Curry, the future of the franchise.

No excuses, we lost. It's true, there should have been a chance to win that game.

But if you shoot the foot off of Emmitt Smith, and you stare him down screaming "NO EXCUSES! EMMITT! NO EXCUSES MAN!", I don't think it's exactly sane.

I understand the point, but they played their starting lineup, and we played without three of our best players.

Take Jermaine and Artest out of the game and you'll see a different outcome.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> thanks for the dose of sarcasm! Always appreciated. Sounds like your stressing a little too much over the first preseason game of the year dude.


Yes, because I love Bulls! Because I love basketball, because I think so this is our year! Because I believe in “our” kids and I want to see their success! If i somehow insulted you, I want to apologize. I just want to see my team working like a Swiss watch (almost perfect).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, because I love Bulls! Because I love basketball, because I think so this is our year! Because I believe in “our” kids and I want to see their success! If i somehow insulted you, I want to apologize. I just want to see my team working like a Swiss watch (almost perfect).


I feel the exact same way! I just know that this is the preseason and the Bulls aren't all playing and a lot of times the preseason is used to try out things. I know there have been certain players who were told they should "only score with their left hand" or only shoot jumpers...or all kinds of different added tests just to develop players skills during the preseason. Did I want the Bulls to win last night? Yes. Definitley. But, I am not going to lose any sleep over it until it counts...

Btw, I'm not insulted, we're cool and all and I can see that your just a fan that is showing their frustration and venting.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> omigod. it's the first game of PRESEASON. PRESEASON. Cleveland went undefeated in preseason last year. Preseason does not matter. Preseason is about getting ready for the regular season and even then the first week or so in the NBA is generally pretty wild(remember last year how we blew out the celtics).
> 
> This isn't about excuses. It's about reality. Reality is, it's preseason. It doesn't matter. Our team wasn't there and I'm sure the guys who were there did learn some things.
> ...


I agree, preseason is meaningless. Especially, the first game. Not having Curry and Rose is huge and would completely change the chemistry of the team.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> I don't know what is going to happen if he has a bad one.


Shush ..... the standing offer of $45M for 6 years will get yanked. Shushety Shush Shush Shat


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Heck, the defenders pushed up on Crawford because they KNOW he can handle the ball like nobodys business.


Well he didn't take care of business last night

In fact FatTin and Cookie Monster launched a hostile takeover on he and Herr Hinrich


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I know it's too early to feel this way. I can't help it...

Miami got our guy in Wayde and we are stuck with the leftovers once again.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I don't know that I necessarily agree with us getting leftovers since we missed out on Wade but I do wonder what role Wade would have had? Would he be just a bench guy like Kirk is going to be? I don't think so this kid has star power written all over him. And suprisingly to me he will be a star at PG which I did not think he could do going into the draft.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> I know it's too early to feel this way. I can't help it...
> 
> Miami got our guy in Wayde and we are stuck with the leftovers once again.


Its never too early


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Well he didn't take care of business last night
> ...


I knew it!


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Don't give me excuses.
> 
> Winning cures many ills. Win is not what we did.
> ...


you are really this dumb or are u just acting? it's the PRE-SEASON...LMAO! wtf

the jordan led bulls used to damn near lose ALL their pre-season games..WHY? cuz no-one gave a FUGG.......

the year we went 72-10..we went 2-4 in the preseason.......


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> 
> 
> you are really this dumb or are u just acting? it's the PRE-SEASON...LMAO! wtf
> ...


i find it silly to overscrutinize a game that by definition means it doesn't count

if this were nov. i could understand but even then one game doesn't make a career

but c'mon kirk and jc had a combined 10 t/o's 

who honestly thinks that will happen when the games counts?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A loser is a loser is a loser no matter what excuse you attach to it.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> A loser is a loser is a loser no matter what excuse you attach to it.


Out of morbid curiosity to which player is this directed?


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

He isnt directing it at a player. In his warped mind apparently he thinks this team is a bunch of losers because of one preseason loss without 3 starters. Go figure.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz,

I'm guessing that you're a motivational speaker.

I'm hoping that you don't have any children.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> A loser is a loser is a loser no matter what excuse you attach to it.


Ok then, what does the following statement make JC?

In Crawford's three years, the Bulls are 66-180. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ct09,1,2980141.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

And while you're at it, apply the same logic to this statement from the same article:

But since they've been with the Bulls, Curry and Chandler are 51-113 

Stripping away all the excuses, reasons, etc, whatever you want to call them, these indisputable facts should earn all three players the prestigious label of _Losers_ in a big, big way, right?

Or should we qualify the application of the term "Loser?" You know what I mean...should we put those won/lost records into some kind of context (which could be construed as offering excuses I suppose)? Or, should we keep everything simple and direct and apply your statement above to all three players: 
*"A loser is a loser is a loser no matter what excuse you attach to it."*


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

DaBullz is all about-

1. past record and 
2. present performance.

He is NOT about-

1. future potential, or 
2. present improvement outside of performance.

In other words, they've lost so far. They've lost, and it is their fault. (past record) And they are losing still; that is also their fault. (present performance) So what if it's preseason? Would we be equally ready to dismiss the game if we had WON it? 

They may win in the future, but at that point, they will go from losers to winners. They didn't start out as winners, even while losing. That is a contradiction in terms, even if they are very likely to do so (future potential).

It also doesn't matter if they've bulked up, increased their skill sets, improved their understanding and feel for the game, or are moving in a direction that looks like it will one day be successful. Because if they don't win on the court, then the end of the story is the same, regardless of how much less they lost by or how much better they put up a fight (present improvement outside of actual performance). It's with this that I have the most gripe; on the other three counts, DB is certainly pessimistic in tone but a realist in observation.

But if they show good things, good skills that one day may contribute to winning... improvement counts for something in my book.

Most of us are a little deluded, thinking that this is the season, that it's all going to rain down and that it's going to happen from the get-go. Honestly, I think the Bulls are going to go from a 37% winning team to a 55% winning team OVER THE SPAN of this season. That means that in November, they may start off winning only 35% of their games. But in April, they'll be winning 55% of their games. I think it should put us NEAR .500, but I'm not sure by how much.

I am not pro-"this season is a wash" threads, and I am not counting the Bulls out of anything this season (since it hasn't even started), but I think that we're going to see a lot more security and firmness in their play at the end of this year, enough consistency after the All-Star break to really guarantee that the 04-05 season is going to be one where the Bulls are an established force, not a dark horse. We ARE moving in that direction.

But I would agree with DB that a loser is a loser. There is only one loser, and one winner, when it comes down to specific performance.

I believe that the direction and the rate at which we are improving as a team give us hope for the future, but let's not kid ourselves about the PRESENT status of the players. They certainly seemed rusty at the preseason game. Maybe it's just a matter of taking some time and meshing together. Maybe having Pippen on the floor would help. 

The preseason is meaningless, in that sense.

All this being said, I do want to reiterate that this is NOT a measure of what the team may look like with Curry, Rose, and Pippen available. The preseason game against Indy simply showed us that a lineup of Crawford, Hassell, Gill, Marshall, and Chandler can't keep up with the starting lineup of Tinsley, Artest, Jermaine, Reggie Miller, and Pollard...

THOSE guys were the losers. But by the same stringent standard of what you see is what you have, Curry, Rose, and Pippen are not yet losers this season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme and Kismet got it 100% right.

Winning breeds winning. I don't care if it's a preseason game, RMR game or whatever.

Luc Longley might not have been the greatest athlete in the world, but he could say something that Patrick Ewing couldn't:

"I have three NBA championship rings."

And Ewing was one hellova player.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Showtyme and Kismet got it 100% right.
> 
> Winning breeds winning. I don't care if it's a preseason game, RMR game or whatever.
> ...


MJ was 1-9 in playoffs his 1st 3 years with a below .500 record in the regular season over the same stretch

was he a loser?

he also had a below .500 record his last 2 years as a player and didn't make the playoffs either year

is the considered greatest winner in our era a loser?

doesn't say a whole heap about anyone else 

you are way too simplistic in your comments of winning and losing sometimes its beyond your control by your estimation it seems you are saying just because you dont win you are a loser and that you cannot win 

p.s. a team where luc longley is the best player on it doesn't win 10 games in the nba so i doubt very much pat ewing loses much sleep over his place in the league compared to longley


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Showtyme and Kismet got it 100% right.
> 
> Winning breeds winning. I don't care if it's a preseason game, RMR game or whatever.
> ...


I'm going to have to call you on this one chief. Luc Longely was one-tenth the player and "winner" that Patrick Ewing was. If your stating that Luc Longely is a winner because he has three rings and Ewing is a loser because he has none, then you seriously need to rethink your logic. 

Luc Longely (as well as countless other ROLE PLAYERS) rode the coattails of the greatest winner ever to play the game. One Michael Jordan. Patrick Ewing didn't have the supporting cast that Longley did. Patrick Ewing had a far more positive impact for the Knicks winning games than Longely did for the Bulls. In my book, that makes Ewing a winner orders of magnitude greater than Luc Longely.

Also, please answer me this: How many rings did the consumate winner Luc Longely garner after he left the Bulls?

So, now, which is it DaBullz? Is it winning games or championships that makes a player a "winner"? Please, educate us. What is the definition of a winner? When does someone become a "winner". Can a "winner" become a "loser"? Can a "loser" become a "winner"? If so, when and what are the criteria to evaluate a players "winning".


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

speaking of longley, are the knicks still paying his salary?:laugh:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

....everything can change in the blink of any eye....








....everything can change in the blink of any eye....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

When Jordan was losing the playoffs, people did call him a loser.

However, I'd point out that he did win at all levels of competition: College, Olympics, and NBA.

The definition of winner and loser is context sensitive. In the context of last night game, we're losers. In the context of the last 5+ seasons, we're losers. In the context of that one Boston game early last season, we were winners. 

In the context of championships, it's winning championships. In that context, Longley is the winner and Ewing is the loser. In the context of regular season games, Ewing is the winner, and the 3 Cs are among the worst losers in the history of the NBA.

The indication of being a winner is actually winning. Not whining (excuses).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> In the context of regular season games, Ewing is the winner, *and the 3 Cs are among the worst losers in the history of the NBA.*


So is your boy Brand. :yes: But he's a great player we never should have traded, right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Brand is a rare player.

But he's not among the worse losers in the history of the NBA. The Clips' 39 win season two years ago took care of that. Note the emphasis on "win" instead of "whine."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Brand is a rare player.
> 
> But he's not among the worse losers in the history of the NBA. The Clips' 39 win season two years ago took care of that. Note the emphasis on "win" instead of "whine."


right, and his 15 and 17 win campaigns his 1st 2 years, plus his 27-win campaign last year, make his win percentage pretty much on par with the 3Cs (worse by 1% actually).

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I don't particularly consider the Cs to be whiners. Compared to Brand, almost every NBA player is a whiner (to Brand's credit. he's a golden boy in that sense).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't consider many of the Bulls whiners. JWill had that issue with his folks doing his whining for him last year. ERob has whined a bit about lack of PT. Crawford got kicked out of practice and has complained about "looking over his shoulder" a bit much for my liking.

But that's pretty minor stuff. 

Brand actually whined a LOT about playing for a losing organization. Maybe that puts him a cut above the rest of our losers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> right, and his 15 and 17 win campaigns his 1st 2 years, plus his 27-win campaign last year, make his win percentage pretty much on par with the 3Cs (worse by 1% actually).
> ...


Ridiculous.

Brand is 27 wins plus 39 wins the last two seasons, which are the only two the three C's played together. That's 66 wins. The Bulls have 51 wins. Not even close.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

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


That seriously doesn't make Brand a winner.

I'd say that Brand is probably a potential winner, but if you hold our guys to the specific performance standard, then you have to stick it to Brand too: he's a loser.

Lots of guys are losers. Zydrunas Ilgauskas, particularly, considered among the top 4 centers in the league or so, is a loser. Andre Miller has also always been a loser.

The strict definition is simply that until a player can help a team start winning games, he's still a loser. It is NOT a spectrum; there is only winning and losing.

If DB means it in any other way, as far as qualitative measure of intangibles and of good basketball play, then I have to disagree. But from the standpoint of defining winners by their wins and losers by their losses, I have to say that Brand is a loser. He may be underrated; he may be in a run of bad luck. But either way you have it, he has to start proving himself a "winner".

As for Ewing and Longley, it's true that Luc Longley can say that he has won more championships. But I think Ewing can say he is a better player.

Make sense? Being a winner isn't totally contingent on quality of play.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

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


Hey, this is taking losing to a whole new level!!! I thought "a loser is a loser is a loser..." Now we're going to start quantifying losing?!?

WTF??? :sour: 

I didn't think the theme of this thread could get any more absurd. But now we've reached the point of designating one player a _bigger loser_ than another player?
:buddies:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> When Jordan was losing the playoffs, people did call him a loser.
> 
> However, I'd point out that he did win at all levels of competition: College, Olympics, and NBA.
> ...


but according to your simplictic views expressed on the subject ...it makes him a loser... right now go ahead and say it instead of saying what other people called him 

i'm talking about you not what other people say 

you are basically saying nothing in regards to ewing and longley ...because if ewing were worth a stacy king in the 90s in trade value i'm sure krause would have chosen to aquire him instead 

instead ewing was a player good enough to build around in the hopes of winning a title which longley definitly was not


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I don't consider many of the Bulls whiners. JWill had that issue with his folks doing his whining for him last year. ERob has whined a bit about lack of PT. Crawford got kicked out of practice and has complained about "looking over his shoulder" a bit much for my liking.
> 
> But that's pretty minor stuff.
> ...


i thought you were about winning not whining but now you are praising brand for whinning ?

c'mon this lil' anti-bull persona has gone a little far when you are reaching so far as on the same PAGE you condemn bulls players for whinning at all but applaud another player for whinning alot 

a player who over the course of his career has won an avg. of 24.5 per season games compared to C & C 25.5 which puts your lil' brand is a bigger winner thing in place it should be 

the garbage


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

For showtyme:

We're getting down to quantifying winners and losers. As I said, it's in context, but there's also the "quantity." For example, when talking about winners, Phil Jackson is a winner of course. But he's also the WINNINGEST winner, which is why pundits like to talk about his winning %, his playoff winning %, his number of titles with two teams, etc. The quantity effect works for losing, too, as pundits use the same measure to talk about our ex-coach, Pink Floyd.

Regarding Ewing vs. Longley, I think you get the point. I'm not at all saying Longley is the better player, but rather, he's the winner. You might think of Ewing as a winner because of all his playoff teams, but it is pretty obvious that people don't remember the losers as much as they do the winners. See the Bills and their 4 straight losses in the superbowl (what a WINNING achievement and losing achievement at the same time!).

I didn't say Brand was a winner (yet). He's a loser, just not as much of one since leaving the Bulls.

For happygrinch:

Jordan retired from the Bulls a winner. The ultimate and consumate winner. He retired from the Wizards a loser. So much so, that his team fired him and few other teams want him involved.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

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


you cant have it both ways if you are going to say its what you last did that matters most ...but then flip it to say to add the clips record from 2 years ago 

elton was an nba player 3 and 4 years ago as well 

last year all 3 Cs won more than elton 


over the corse of thier careers 2 of the Cs have a won more than elton

so by that logic they are less losers than elton 

i dont agree with your warped perception on the subject 

but according to your what have you done lately way of thinking 30 beats 27 so the 3C's are more winners than elton


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

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


As others have already pointed out, this post is far more ridiculous than merely pointing out that OVER THEIR CAREERS, BRAND IS A BIGGER LOSER THAN THE 3Cs.

How can you possibly say it's ridiculous? The 3Cs have had 2 seasons. Their win pct. in those 2 seasons is MUCH MUCH better than Brand's 1st 2 seasons, and better than his whole career. 

Not to mention that Curry and Chandler came straight out of high school. I know you don't care about that stuff, though  

Face it, your point is bunk if you are gonna argue to the death that Brand is a great player vs. the Bulls. He's a bigger loser than anyone on the roster, end of story.


You can't choose to ignore the information that doesn't support your argument and expect people to agree with it or respect it. You basically said "if you ignore the seasons when Brand was a HUGE loser, he's not nearly the loser that these players that I (seem to) have a vendetta against are." Doesn't work that way.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The indication of being a winner is actually winning. Not whining (excuses).





> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Brand actually whined a LOT about playing for a losing organization. Maybe that puts him a cut above the rest of our losers.


This is funny, no more excuses!


----------



## dabullz2004 (Oct 13, 2003)

*WINNER*

With no excuses this season as their theme the bulls big three say if their all there, there will be no excuses for a loss. Last years excuse well he was missing and things like that.

:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------

