# The lets trade jamal crawford thread



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Psych!

Alot of you guys tried to ride this "cancer" and "bum" out of town. You guys know who you are. Where do you stand now? Apologies excepted here

:yes:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Yeah lets still trade him..


----------



## WestHighHawk (Jun 28, 2003)

Trade? 
ain't no way... 
Jamal needs to stay a Bull


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Hey, you beat to this thread....

But that aside, (sarcasm) I still think that the Jamal Crawford for Brent Barry trade makes a lot of sense, that is if Seattle won't laugh at this proposition, seing that Jamal has no trade value.


Heck with all the points that Hinrich is putting up and Chris Jeffries hitting his 3's, the Bulls don't need JC's scoring that much..

Or maybe we can get a mid first round pick for Jamal instead.
(More sarcasm).


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Psych!
> 
> Alot of you guys tried to ride this "cancer" and "bum" out of town. You guys know who you are. Where do you stand now? Apologies excepted here
> ...


I wouldn't expect appologies. I would expect a nice wave of silence though.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Boy I'm glad I put "if he keeps shooting poorly" on the end of my trade proposals. 

I wonder where KirkHinrich/Wolverine is right about now? In hiding perhaps?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

5 star performance in every facet of the game. Easily the best individual Bull effort this season. Brilliant display all around.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I wonder where KirkHinrich/Wolverine is right about now? In hiding perhaps?


Spider hole most likely.:laugh:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Speaking of Kirk, he needs to start shooting the ball better. ASAP.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Speaking of Kirk, he needs to start shooting the ball better. ASAP.


He was tired today. He looked comfortable coming off off the ball screens in circle cuts. But his shot off the dribble was flat. He will be ready to go on Monday for his first encounter against Bulls number one option, Dwayne Wade


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

standing ovation from truebluefan. He deserves the credit this game.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> He was tired today. He looked comfortable coming off off the ball screens in circle cuts. But his shot off the dribble was flat. He will be ready to go on Monday for his first encounter against Bulls number one option, Dwayne Wade


I think Wade is injured :sigh: 

He didnt play tonight.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Yeah, Wade hurt his wrist in the fourth quarter last night. Hope it isn't serious. That kid is fun as hell to watch.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: The lets trade jamal crawford thread*

I owe some degree of an apology. 

First off, when Jamal was drafted, and I saw what he looked like in that preseason, I never in a million years thought he would be capable of a 42 point game. Kudos to scouts and to Krause in particular. Crumbs, you won some and you lost some, but you saw potential in Crawford that he has clearly realized to a very large extent.

Secondly, I give Jamal his biggest props for playing good defense of late. When you throw out a slightly undersized player at the 2 (mostly in terms of bulk), you worry about the defense at that spot. If Jamal plays D like he has this last few games, I will excuse him many more ill advised shots. He seems to make a lot of them anyway. But if you play good D, you get into my good graces quickly.

Jamal has played two fantastic all around games in two nights, one at home, one on the road. He has played D, scored like mad, and dished out some dimes too. I am apologizing here because I didn't think he had one game in him like this.

But I'm glad I was wrong. I only want what's best for the Bulls, and if Jamal is in the process of proving that he really, really is the future star of this team, and his play is leading to wins, then play on, Jamal, and let Pax pay you well.

That being said, I am NOT SOLD on Jamal yet. I will remain skepticial for a while. Consistency is the key, and he has played some dog games this month. That being said, raising the bar is a good, good thing. Congrats to you, Jamal. You made Bulls fans everywhere happy this weekend.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

It was one game. Yes, it was great. I am glad for Crawford, and more glad for the Bulls(we finally win).

Lets see if he can get into a rythym and become more consistent. Then we can begin the "Lets extend Crawford thread."


----------



## ChiTownFan (Jul 16, 2002)

Seriously guys, tonight was amazing. But what happens when Jamal goes 5-20 again? I'm still undecided on how good he really is. If he gains some consistency he could command Arenas type money, but until then call me a "fair weather Crawford fan." Meaning I like him when he plays like this, hate him the rest of the time.


----------



## ChiTownFan (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> It was one game. Yes, it was great. I am glad for Crawford, and more glad for the Bulls(we finally win).
> 
> Lets see if he can get into a rythym and become more consistent. Then we can begin the "Lets extend Crawford thread."


As far as extending him, didn't the Bulls miss that opportunity?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiTownFan</b>!
> 
> 
> As far as extending him, didn't the Bulls miss that opportunity?



I meant in the offseason..........

But we started the "Official Season is a wash thread" early on last year........

before the season was out.

So I was predicting we'd see the "official extend Crawford thread" pretty soon....


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: The lets trade jamal crawford thread*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> ...Jamal has played two fantastic all around games in two nights, one at home, one on the road. He has played D, scored like mad, and dished out some dimes too. I am apologizing here because I didn't think he had one game in him like this...
> 
> ...That being said, I am NOT SOLD on Jamal yet. I will remain skepticial for a while. Consistency is the key, and he has played some dog games this month. That being said, raising the bar is a good, good thing. Congrats to you, Jamal. You made Bulls fans everywhere happy this weekend.



Yep, extremly happy :yes:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm not apologizing for anything yet. I want to see consistency before I jump on the latest Jamal is great bandwagon.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i will give credit when it is due!! Tonight it was due. I will give criticism when due. So far JC has had two good games in row. Props


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> i will give credit when it is due!! Tonight it was due. I will give criticism when due. So far JC has had two good games in row. Props


dont you mean, you will give credit when its due, but when a guy has a bad game, lets kick his *** out of town?  

BTW, This thread wasnt directed at you. There are about 5-8 guys I have kept quotes on. I didnt see your name on it. So dont take anything personal trueblue


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> dont you mean, you will give credit when its due, but when a guy has a bad game, lets kick his *** out of town?
> ...



 me? nope. I have always said JC has the talent to be one of the elite. The past two games he has shown some of that. 

I know it wasn't directed at me. So I will back off. But I have been hard on him, when due. So sorry. Go after them . LOL.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


Lets just put it this way, one guy is conspicuous by his absence tonight. Im sure JAF would like to say somethings to this mystery poster as well


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiTownFan</b>!
> Seriously guys, tonight was amazing. But what happens when Jamal goes 5-20 again? I'm still undecided on how good he really is. If he gains some consistency he could command Arenas type money, but until then call me a "fair weather Crawford fan." Meaning I like him when he plays like this, hate him the rest of the time.


5-20 won't be bad, if he goes 5-20 playing like he did tonight. Tonight was about more than the 42 points. It was about defense and running the offense. Of the some odd 27 shots he took, I'd say 24 of them were within the offensive scheme. And when he took a bad shot he knew it immediately and looked over to Skiles and appologized. That is VERY signifcant.

As far as I knew the critics here, at least the semi-sane ones were critical about two things consistently: Decision making and defensive effort. And that's really what he did tonight, more than the 42 points.

And that's what you should be looking at more than the shooting numbers. Becaues I'm pretty sure he's not going to average 42 points for the rest of the season. He might. But I don't think we should crucify him if he doesn't.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> 5-20 won't be bad, if he goes 5-20 playing like he did tonight. Tonight was about more than the 42 points. It was about defense and running the offense. Of the some odd 27 shots he took, I'd say 24 of them were within the offensive scheme. And when he took a bad shot he knew it immediately and looked over to Skiles and appologized. That is VERY signifcant.
> ...



No one wants to crucify him. What we want is consistancy. I am not pro or anti- Crawford. I am neutral. 

But what I want from him is more nights like this. Not necessarily 42 points a night(although, that would be nice), but taking shots within the offense and converting at a good percentage.

No more of these Jalen Rose-esque 7/24 nights. I want Crawford consistently around 45%. 

Consistancy. Thats what we are begging for.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

First let me say

LET'S EXTEND CRAWFORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


OK, had to do that....

I am a Pro-Crawford guy as most know. I just think that he has rare and special qualities that he has yet to consistently show. I also think he has been in a horribull system that was not meant to showcase anyone. I also believe the organization has been in Shambulls since MJ left and Floyd was hired. 

He is right were many people expect Curry and CHandler to be. Remember that he was out an entire season with the torn ACL and last year didn't really get in to a groove till the end of the season.

This year, more turmoil for the team and the Rose factor didn't help anyone's situation. We now have a real coach, real scrappy self-less players (lead by Hinrich) and Crawford (and I hope hte other two C's) are responding. I don't htink we can judge Crawford, Chandler or Curry by what they have done, which is only show glimpses of greatness followed by frustrating lapses.

One more note - Hinrich was so quite tonite he was stellar and I think people are missing what he did. Before Wolverich gets on-line and ruins the harmony, let me say that you have to also give credit to Hinrich. His assists, defense, hustle and heady play have made the entire team better. He and Crawford can be a lethal duo for many years. 

So please....love Da Bullz :devil: .....I mean Da Bulls and root for them to suceed together. We're not going to the championship this year but we need to make the step of beating teams we should beat and growing together as a team. One more off-season with Skiles and everyone healthy and we will be in the playoffs for 10 years.

Go Bulls

Wolverich and Da Bullz...it's ok, we still love ya...every family has to have some like you.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Yeah, Crawford played like a stud tonight. I still say that Hinrich has been the better player for us this season, but Jamal looks like he's out to change that. Good for him (and for us ).


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

how about some game-to-game consistency before we restore JC's status as the Annointed One? 

as futuristexn pointed out, it was refreshing to see JC play within the offense (most of the time) and giving defensive effort.

there were a handful of shots that looked like they came too quick and didn't look like they were within the system...but they went in, and at any rate Skiles didn't yank him, so i would suppose they were better decisions than i originally thought.

no one's asking for 30-40 points a night -- though i doubt we'd gripe too much -- but for some sign that he's getting the game, that the light bulb is going on, that he's harnessing his wonderful talent and playing the way his coach wants him to play.

my standard refrain in the JC debate has been twofold: i get tired of reading that he's the Second Coming[tm], but i certainly see no point in trading him away unless it improves the Bulls.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Kirk's a solid rookie, but he's NOT in any shape or form a better player then Jamal Crawford. The bulls offense looks downright pathetic when JC is on the bench. That Utah game and the beginning of the 2nd qtr tonight r perfect examples. As soon as Jamal started the 3rd qtr of that Utah game, bulls went on a run after looking disgraceful with him on the bench. As soon as JC entered the 2nd qtr tonight, Bulls stopped lookin' horrible. Kirk's usually the one directing things with JC on the bench.....and very rarely does he or the Bulls look impressive. Kirk quite simply cannot do what JC can: Carrying a team offensively. And with JC now starting to play D....haters will have nothin' to nitpick on anymore.

The Bulls go as JC goes. He has undoubtebly been our best player this season. And JC is FAR more valuble to Kirk's success then vice versa.

This will be Jamal's team unless Curry or Chandler really take huge steps after the all star break(very unlikely).

42 pts, 6 assists, 4 stls, 2 blks 

It will be good to see JC haters(tons of em' here) shut their trap up for a couple more days.

The sad thing though is all it'll take is one poor shooting night for all the stupid trade suggestions to come back again. Haters will always hate i guess.....but for the 2nd straight tonight....its good to see em' quiet


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> And JC is FAR more valuble to Kirk's success then vice versa.


I disagree. Both reciprocate each other equally well, IMO. Kirk's presence smooths out the offense, and JC's presence creates opportunities for Kirk because the defense keys on him. Remember when Kirk was on IR and the Bulls were getting blown out by 30?

Anyways, this is beside the main point, which is team success > individual success.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I disagree. Both reciprocate each other equally well, IMO. Kirk's presence smooths out the offense, and JC's presence creates opportunities for Kirk because the defense keys on him. Remember when Kirk was on IR and the Bulls were getting blown out by 30?
> 
> Anyways, this is beside the main point, which is team success > individual success.


:yes: :yes: :yes:


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Kirk's a solid rookie, but he's NOT in any shape or form a better player then Jamal Crawford. The bulls offense looks downright pathetic when JC is on the bench. That Utah game and the beginning of the 2nd qtr tonight r perfect examples. As soon as Jamal started the 3rd qtr of that Utah game, bulls went on a run after looking disgraceful with him on the bench. As soon as JC entered the 2nd qtr tonight, Bulls stopped lookin' horrible. Kirk's usually the one directing things with JC on the bench.....and very rarely does he or the Bulls look impressive. Kirk quite simply cannot do what JC can: Carrying a team offensively. And with JC now starting to play D....haters will have nothin' to nitpick on anymore.
> 
> The Bulls go as JC goes. He has undoubtebly been our best player this season. And JC is FAR more valuble to Kirk's success then vice versa.
> 
> ...


So I guess that anyone who criticizes Crawford's game is instantly labeled a "hater" then, huh? 

Many of you know that I have been pro-Jamal for some time now, but not to the point to where I can't see past his faults as a player. He is undoubtedly more talented than Kirk and can do things on the floor that Kirk can't, but I still say that Kirk has been more instrumental to our success so far this season than Crawford. Why? It's not because of how these guys play when they're at their best, but because of how they play when they're at their worst. Crawford at his best is about twice the player Kirk is at his best, but when Crawford's at his worst, his presence on the floor actually hurts us. Take the New Jersey game last week- Crawford was having an off night, which in itself is totally understandable. But rather than trying to compensate by distibuting the ball and playing tough defense, he just continued to launch shots, and finished the game on 2 for 14 shooting. Tonight, Kirk struggled offensively and finished with only five points. But the difference is that he compensated for this by playing his usual tough defense, handing out 11 assissts, and knowing when *not* to shoot. This is how it's been all season- Kirk has simply been good on a more consistent basis- *that's* why he is currently the better player.

That being said, Crawford can and certainly should be the better player when all is said and done. As he and Curry go, so goes the fortune of the Bulls- there's no doubt about that- they are our most talented players and the future of this franchise, for better or for worse. But the fact is that they have yet to step up on a consistent basis the way Kirk has, and for that reason I still say that Kirk has been our best player so far this season.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Does anyone else see a resemblence between Tyson/Hinrich, and Eddy/Jamal? 

Seems like Eddy and Jamal are players that have games where they look like the next superstars, a couple of the best guys in the league. 

Seems like Hinrich and Chandler are more consistent players, are based around hustle, defense, unselfishness and doing the dirty work, and play more to their ability than JC and Eddy although JC and Eddy undoubtedly have more talent. 

Theres a lot of similarities if you ask me !


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

and i'm glad all 4 of them are on our team.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Does anyone else see a resemblence between Tyson/Hinrich, and Eddy/Jamal?
> 
> Seems like Eddy and Jamal are players that have games where they look like the next superstars, a couple of the best guys in the league.
> ...


You can take it a step farther. Do you see a similarity between the all time greats and those who had long fruitful careers in the NBA with Kirk and Tyson? And do you see a similarity with all those who have come and gone in the NBA where you always said "that guy should've have been so much better" with Eddy and Jamal? In order to be a star in this league you need to do the "little things" like play defense, hustle, and play unselfish ball. Countless guys have come and gone through the NBA that had talent and potential up the ***, but they lacked the hustle and/or drive to really take it to the next level and become a starter or solid contributor. Isaiah Rider and Harold Miner come to mind immediately. 

And I'm glad Jamal has had a couple great games. Never did I ever think he would be capable of dropping 40+ in a game, esp. not this week. Kudos. But now it's time for me to be the lone dissenter in this thread. Let's hope he keeps it up so we can then trade his ***. Jamal's D has been solid the last two nights and his shot has been dropping, but I don't see it as a permanent change. This hot streak of his only reaffirms what most people know already: he's a talented, skinny SG that can dribble who is capable of lighting it up, but is also extremely streaky. The Bulls need a legit 2 guard that's gonna show up every night and that will be capable of playing D on the bigger guards. And please, don't feed me this mess that Jamal D'd up Lebron, the 18 year old rookie phenom PG. Did Lebron post up Jamal once? I was only able to see bits and pieces of the game, but I don't recall one time where Lebron muscled Jamal. 

But I hope Jamal proves me wrong. I was once the biggest of Jamal supporters, but this year really made me rethink that. :no:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> So I guess that anyone who criticizes Crawford's game is instantly labeled a "hater" then, huh?
> 
> Many of you know that I have been pro-Jamal for some time now, but not to the point to where I can't see past his faults as a player. He is undoubtedly more talented than Kirk and can do things on the floor that Kirk can't, but I still say that Kirk has been more instrumental to our success so far this season than Crawford. Why? It's not because of how these guys play when they're at their best, but because of how they play when they're at their worst. Crawford at his best is about twice the player Kirk is at his best, but when Crawford's at his worst, his presence on the floor actually hurts us.


I don't understand that logic really. Hinrich at his worst needs Crawford at his best for us to win. Hinrich at his best can't win with Crawford at his worst. To me, of the two, Crawford seems most able to overcome a lackluster game by the other(if Crawford is sucking it up, our team sucks it up, unless Gill has a career quarter or two.) I simply don't think Kirk is good enough right now as a rookie to be going around and saying that this is clearly his team and that he has been the best on our team. His shot isn't good enough yet. He's not assertive with his shot at the right times. He still has a tendency to get in the occasional foul trouble by not adjusting to the referees on defense. And sometimes I really question his court vision and decision making as a point guard. His instincts to pass away from Crawford in situations like tonight where Jamal was clearly on fire, give me pause. Gill got off too many shots tonight for how he was shooting. I would expect my point guard to at least make an attempt to milk the hot hand. But it ended up the only way Jamal could get the ball in his hands was by going back to the point guard position and running plays with Antonio Davis.

I don't think it's personal. Though I wouldn't put it past a rookie to be intimidated by a vet like Gill who no doubt feels that he is still the man out there. It's kind of like how Tyron Lue caddyied for Michael in Washington last year, except Kendall Gill only thinks he is MJ. I also notice that Crawford is much better at getting the ball into our big men directly some nights. Tonight especially, where Kirk was running plays for Kendall, I saw Jamal dribbling over to the wing and making sure Antonio was getting touches in the post. Those touches saved our *** in the 3rd quarter when our team was ice cold. That type of thing is going to mean a lot when we get Eddy back, and I'd like to see Kirk recognize better the game situations as far as who is hot and where to go with the ball for a basket. He's still a rookie out there. And I think threads like this do little to diminish some of the advanced expectations around here on him. He is not the bulls franchise player right now. He is a good solid rookie.

I think the Kirk bandwagon needs to slow it's roll down a little bit. Things are getting a little out of control. Our backcourt at it's best is both guys rolling. But I don't think either guy can consistently be "the man" right now. Though when Jamal is hot like this, he looks like he can do it. But he still needs Curry back to take some pressure off of him.

Enh. It's late and I'm rambling. Jist o' point: Kirk Hinrich looks a scary lot like a young Jerry Sloan. And I don't just mean playing style. He's got the same hair cut. It's crazy. Wonder if it's deliberate? Someone should ask.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Why not trade him? Can his value get any higher than it is tonight? :whoknows:


----------



## Knicks Junkie (Aug 21, 2003)

I am not a Bulls fan, but I happened to catch the game, and I loved the way Jamal mixed it up. I noticed that many Jamal "haters" say that he is mostly a jump shooter, but tonight he took it to the hole quite often and looked great doing so. I think because his jumper was flowing, he gained confidence in his whole game and decided to drive. Also, his defense was top-notch. I know it was only one game, but he looked pretty damn impressive.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> The Bulls need a legit 2 guard that's gonna show up every night and that will be capable of playing D on the bigger guards.


Buddy. Jamal is as close as we're likely to get. The next tier up from Jamal right now are guys that are untouchable for a team like us to get ahold of.

No. Orlando is not going to trade Mcgrady to us. Boston is probably not looking to gift us Pierce. And we don't have the cap room to get Kobe. Even if he was actually going to move his family and leave LA.

And with Jamal's long arms, he is entirely capable of guarding the fictional "bigger" guards that exist out there. Seriously. Who are these "bigger" guards? Jamal is 6-5 190 with a 7 foot wingspan. Guys have got by on a lot less. Have you seen Kobe Bryant this year? He's not abusing anyone on the block. T-Mac is 6-9. Jamal adding strength isn't going to help that much. Iverson plays the 2 guard at under 6 feet and like 140 lbs. And Eric Snow is smaller than Crawford. And yet Philly gets by.

I think the notion that Jamal can't physically guard other 2 guards is bunk. When he puts forth the effort he can guard anybody at the 2 just fine. Defense isn't about the size of your biceps. It's about positioning and heart. You'd think watching Hinrich would teach you this...jeez.

And moreover. These fictional bigger 2 guards...how are they going to guard Jamal? He just breaks their ankles and then guns it in their grill. doesn't matter what the name on the back of your jersey is or how big your shoe deal is.

Right now it's Jamal's house.:yes:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I personally think that the aliens are telling Kirk to pass the ball to Kendall Gill and Kendall Gill only. Also, I believe the head alien has vowed to destroy Sioux City, Iowa with a giant death beam if Kirk ever passes the ball to Jamal.

I really, really, really don't think Kirk isn't as good a post-feeder as Jamal is. Both are very good at it -- Jamal makes the more spectacular dishes, Kirk is the more constant feeder. KH did it all throughout college (feeding the post WAS the Roy Williams system), and I highly doubt he's forgotten how to do it since then.

Here's some food for thought: maybe Jamal got a lot of his shots tonight _because_ Kirk ran the regular offense and didn't comform to a predictable standard of dropping it off to Jamal on every possession -- not _in spite_ of Kirk running the regular offense? Do you think Jamal would have been as effective if the defense knew that Kirk would defer to Jamal the majority of the time, and if so, how good is Jamal at shooting over double teams?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I personally think that the aliens are telling Kirk to pass the ball to Kendall Gill and Kendall Gill only. Also, I believe the head alien has vowed to destroy Sioux City, Iowa with a giant death beam if Kirk ever passes the ball to Jamal.
> 
> I really, really, really don't think Kirk isn't as good a post-feeder as Jamal is. Both are very good at it -- Jamal makes the more spectacular dishes, Kirk is the more constant feeder. KH did it all throughout college (feeding the post WAS the Roy Williams system), and I highly doubt he's forgotten how to do it since then.
> ...


It's not something I want to believe in. It's just some oddball thing that I noticed. And a few other people seem to have noticed it as well. So at least I'm not completely crazy.

It's like this:
Early Bulls possession:
Jamal breaks out over to the corner, his man is pulled off of him towards Kirk. Kirk is on Jamal's side of the floor. Jamal is open for 3. I'm thinking the logical pass is to Jamal for 3. I've seen this play run a million times over an infinity of NBA basketball games. This is how they do it in the association. But then Hinrich does a 180 and literally turns his back to Jamal and starts dribbling back across the floor. At this point I'm yelling at my TV telling Kirk to turn around...that Jamal is open for 3. But nope. There's that faithfull pass to Gill who promptly catches and clanks.(I wonder if that's the reason we saw Eddie Robinson tonight, because of Gill's ****ty shot selection? He was taking bad Jamal shots most of the night).

Anyhow. It's just something I've noticed. It doesn't make any sense. I can't imagine Kirk actually having a personal problem with Crawford. That would probably be suicide on this team. And it doesn't seem like Crawford has any problems with Hinrich. He freely gives it up to Hinrich for the 3. I would say Crawford is a hundred times better at setting Hinrich up than Hinrich is at setting Crawford up. I just don't really know why it is happening as often as it does. My instincts tell me, OPEN MAN DEADLY 3 POINT SHOOTER. Pass the ball. Hinrich is operating on a higher plane of thought than I. Or he just isn't see the play yet.

Jalen made those passes.

And as far as the offense is concerned, most of Jamal's points come off of plays involving Davis or whoever the center is. Our big men do a fantastic job of looking for Jamal on the perimeter. Hopefully Eddy is watching for how to pass out of double teams.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> So I guess that anyone who criticizes Crawford's game is instantly labeled a "hater" then, huh?
> 
> ...



Louie, not that I disagree you about your valid points.... But......I will take Superstar efforts every third or fourth game right now over yeoman's work "good" solid performances. Good performances only work when you have "superstar" performances to go with them. 

Superstar performances can win games with average assistance. besides, teams with superstars often get more officiating calls, extra hustle from someone unexpected and when they need a basket they get a basket.

I love what Kirk brings to the team, but he needs to really pick it up on the shooting end of things. He has to be able to be the scorer when Crawford sits. Hinrich, Crawford and Gill are our only outside threats. When Eddy and Ty come back, they will need spacing to perform at a high level as well.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I knew this thread would come at some point even before Jamal's last 2 games...

and it's hilarious.

Outside of Futurixsten and myself, I don't remember off the top of my head too many of you that were being supportive of Jamal, and the point I was trying to make a few days ago is being demonstrated with this thread.

When a guy scores 42, you should be just as supportive when he scores 12.

It's one thing to criticize, and say hey Jamal took some bad shots or blah blah, it's another thing to say he should be traded, benched, etc. and then after a game like tonight you're ready to build a statue for him outside the UC.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Two great games by Crawford. Lets hope it continues. 

To be fair to some people, some posters have had legitimate criticisms of Jamal. That is fair. He could get to the line more, his shot selection can improve, he can play better defense are just a few examples. However, there was some unfair criticism. Crawford has been put into a position were he is the No. 1 option on offense, something that is very difficult. He then had Skiles trying to get him to learn how to catch and shoot more. While learning this skill is not difficult, consistently executing it is difficult. It would take time to perfect it, and ideally, this should be developed in the offseason, rather than during the season.

I think Jamal was put in a position of great importance to the team, and when he plays badly, the team more than likely are not successful as well. Because of his added responsibility, and because he wasn't playing well, it was greatly affecting the team's performance. People know Crawford's importance to the team at the moment, and when he didn't perform, he got the criticism, rightly or wrongly. Lets just hope it can continue.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Good points, futuristxen.



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> It's like this:
> Early Bulls possession:
> Jamal breaks out over to the corner, his man is pulled off of him towards Kirk. Kirk is on Jamal's side of the floor. Jamal is open for 3. I'm thinking the logical pass is to Jamal for 3. I've seen this play run a million times over an infinity of NBA basketball games. This is how they do it in the association. But then Hinrich does a 180 and literally turns his back to Jamal and starts dribbling back across the floor. At this point I'm yelling at my TV telling Kirk to turn around...that Jamal is open for 3. But nope. There's that faithfull pass to Gill who promptly catches and clanks.(I wonder if that's the reason we saw Eddie Robinson tonight, because of Gill's ****ty shot selection? He was taking bad Jamal shots most of the night).


It's not that I disagree with you. I see what you're saying. I just don't think that whatever passing Hinrich is or is not doing, it's dictated by the scheme set in place by Skiles. Kirk follows instruction almost to a fault, and in a game like Saturday's where Jamal was pretty much hot the entire game, I think Kirk should have given the ball to Jamal more, even if it meant breaking up the "normal" offensive sets. A hot hand, if utilized correctly, is oftentimes more effective than running the basic sets -- especially if the sets have an emphasis on getting the ball inside to two bigs who aren't great scorers. While this was obviously a fault of Kirk's, it was perhaps a bigger fault of Gill's -- Kendall should know not to shoot when he's off, ESPECIALLY if a guy like Jamal is in a zone.

One thing that I think Kirk lacks right now is the willingness to freelance and mix things up on offense, break apart from the mold and throw a wildcard in there once in a while. Of course, the fact that he doesn't do these things is something that makes him a productive player -- but, like all good things, freelancing or the lack thereof should be done in moderation. Hinrich should really try to play less like a hound on Skiles' leash and more like an aggressor, IMO (but only to the point where it optimizes his productivity and increases the success of the team...there's a tricky balance). I think this mentality will naturally come in time. I suppose him being a rookie with only 20-something games under his belt kind of detracts from the notion of departing the coach's strict sets -- especially with Skiles as head coach.



> I would say Crawford is a hundred times better at setting Hinrich up than Hinrich is at setting Crawford up.


Whoa. Totally disagree with you here. Why exactly do you think this? Generally speaking, Hinrich has done the majority of the penetrating between the two, which naturally leads to increased production from the perimeter in the form of open shots off of kickouts and the momentary attraction of another defender in the form of a double-team, which spreads the offense by default. What exactly distinguishes JC as a better setup man for KH, or vice-versa? Apart from penetrating, they both essentially do the same thing on the perimeter -- swing the ball around, find creases, set screens, come off screens, hit the open man. Nothing profound. I'd say Jamal is a hundred times better at setting up Jamal than either Jamal setting up KH or KH setting up Jamal. Which is definitely not a bad thing if he can consistently hit.



> And as far as the offense is concerned, most of Jamal's points come off of plays involving Davis or whoever the center is.


I think at least half of his shots (more like 75%) come off of Jamal himself (ie, he sets himself up with the dribble), which is fine, as stated above.




> Our big men do a fantastic job of looking for Jamal on the perimeter. Hopefully Eddy is watching for how to pass out of double teams.


I agree. And Eddy really needs to work on passing out of double-teams.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I knew this thread would come at some point even before Jamal's last 2 games...
> 
> and it's hilarious.
> ...


Its not the 42 that makes people change their minds (atleast not mine)...its the defense, shots within the system, and the hustle. That kind of thing can come EVERY NIGHT whether or not his shot is falling. Its when his shots not falling, and he just stops giving 100%. Thats when people get bothered, for good reason. 

Criticize the bad and praise the good. If a guy is consistently not hustling and playing defense, then he should be involved in trade scenarios people come up with. Theres no excuse for not doing those things.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

I for one was the captain of "Trade Jamal" ship and I might have to change the tone here.

Yes, it's only tow games but yesterday against Washington was Jamal's best game ever. Not just because of 42 points.

He did everything we fans asked for couple of years yesterday. Hitting jump shot, play defense with some energy and most of all I am impressed his continuous attack to the bascket. Yesterday was the first time I saw him doing all three together on one night.

If he can keep doing this night in and night out (I am not saying 40 pts), then only thing he need to be the great one is to play under pressure. I hope that too will come eventually.

IN short, great game by Jamal. Yes, Happyface even I have to contratualte him. he was that good yesterday. Good game.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not something I want to believe in. It's just some oddball thing that I noticed. And a few other people seem to have noticed it as well. So at least I'm not completely crazy.
> ...



:yes: Ive seen this too several games already BUT ive taken it as being a situation like the old dynasty bulls with Crawford playing the role of MJ and Kirk playing Scottie .

Scottie(kirk) knows MJ(craw) is the best offensive player but he makes sure the other players get touches even if that means not giving it to Mj on several plays .The problem I see is that Kirk allows it to go on for too long sometimes 6-8 possesions without Crawford touching the ball.This is usually followed by a bad shot by jamal .I think kirk will get better in this fashion as he gets more expereince.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*let jamal play*

The progress is happening. He's gone from "bench bum" to "selfish whiner" to the best player on the Bulls.

42 points is great. He's still streaky... but the only way this is going to improve is with playing time. Its obvious that this guy has huge upside and needs to play, which I've said since we've acquired him. His body is ready, is mind is improving and his game is coming together.

We now have an above average NBA guard on the roster. Next step is superstar. Which, will only happen if the LET JAMAL PLAY.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: let jamal play*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> We now have an above average NBA guard on the roster. Next step is superstar. Which, will only happen if the LET JAMAL PLAY.


Actually, it was Skiles benching JC that seemed to flip the switch.

So I say LET SKILES COACH.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

I'll bite.

Offensively, nothing that Crawford does surprises me. He proved last seaon over the final 20 games or so that he could score in bunches. And prior to that he also proved that he could go for stretches where he couldn't hit a bull in the [edit] with a banjo.

So what's changed?

Here's what's given me some cause for hope: Against Cleveland and Washington he proved that he doesn't have to be viewed as a defensive liability if he's willing to exert some effort. Over a two game period he's demonstrated that he's capable of one day becoming a complete player. The question is, will he? Can he play effectively at both ends on a fairly consistent basis for the next 53 games?

My only criticisms of Crawford have been his reluctance to take the ball strong to the hole and his absolutely lousy, half-hearted defensive efforts. I still think he depends too much on his long range jumper which will lead to inconsistent point production over the course of an entire season. He's riding a hot streak now. But the next time his jumper fails him, will he make adjustments and go to the basket? Or will he continue to fire blanks from outside? That remains to be seen.

Defensively he's been more than adiquate for a period of _two games_. All I can say about that is, "It's a start."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I agree with Mr. Blizzy, but would add that Jamal seems to be showing at least _some_ increased effort to drive to the basket. With hopes that his defensive efforts of late can be sustained, I hope the "to the hole" mentality will continue to increase. Not to get the kid's hopes up too much, but Skiles might want to mention to him -- it worked for MJ.

My greatest fear with Jamal is that his two glaring weaknesses -- an unwillingness to drive an a reluctance to play tough D point to one thing -- a dislike of contact. The big question with JC is whether he can toughen up and become willing to kake some elbows and hips and shoulders and suffer some bumps and bruises in order to make his game the complete game it should be and whether he's willing to make that commitment over the long haul. If he is willing to become a warrior, he could be an all-star. If not, he'll revert to being a streaky long-range shooter with a crazy crossover.

Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled with what I'm seeing. I hope, hope, hope, he can learn to take some smacks and sustain this new 90 foot effort.

Our next game is against the Heat. If my man JCRaw can, at some point during the game, step in and draw a charge from Lamar Odom or Brian Grant or Malik Allen I'll knit him a dang sweater. And I'll be convinced that all is well in Bulls-land.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Its not the 42 that makes people change their minds (atleast not mine)...its the defense, shots within the system, and the hustle. That kind of thing can come EVERY NIGHT whether or not his shot is falling. Its when his shots not falling, and he just stops giving 100%. Thats when people get bothered, for good reason.
> ...


This is the thing though. I've been telling you guys repeatedly that since Skiles came aboard Crawford's defense has been getting better and better. But a lot of posters on this board just kept harping on his defense, even though it was clearly improving.

People will say this is only two games, but these two games did not come from heaven like manna. They have been a long time coming. Skiles and Crawford have been building for this. Go back and look at the comments that Skiles has made about Crawford and the comments that Crawford has made about Skiles since Skiels came to the team, and you can definitely see the progression...and then if you bust out some game tape, you will see that even when Jamal was struggling he was doing things better and better with his decision making and defense.

And that's what is so frustrating about argueing with some of you about Jamal....some of you simply refuse to see anything unless it's huge and grand. And then then those same people label it a fluke.

Watch even Jamal's worst games under Skiles and compare them with his games under Cartwright and you can see what I'm talking about.

I won't say I told you so. But I told you so. And I'll keep telling you until you wake up and see it. 

And no one has said this yet, so I will. Last night Jamal was our best defender on the floor. And in the first quarter it was by a huge margin. He owned Larry Hughes. On both ends othe floor. It was indeed something to behold. Makes me think that maybe Jamal can be more than just a "decent" defender. And that Skiles and Bach may in fact believe that as well and are pushing him. Skiles is the one who made the brilliant discovery that Crawford actually feeds off of his defense, not his offense. And if you can get him to play intense defense it will make him play better offense. It makes him more focused out there on the floor.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> My greatest fear with Jamal is that his two glaring weaknesses -- an unwillingness to drive an a reluctance to play tough D point to one thing -- a dislike of contact. The big question with JC is whether he can toughen up and become willing to kake some elbows and hips and shoulders and suffer some bumps and bruises in order to make his game the complete game it should be and whether he's willing to make that commitment over the long haul. If he is willing to become a warrior, he could be an all-star. If not, he'll revert to being a streaky long-range shooter with a crazy crossover.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled with what I'm seeing. I hope, hope, hope, he can learn to take some smacks and sustain this new 90 foot effort.


Reading your post made me wonder...is there any chance at all that his knee surgery and subsequent arduous return to full health left him a little bit unwilling to risk another injury? Self preservation is an extremely powerful human instinct. And you couldn't fault anyone for trying to avoid a repeat of a very painful experience.

How often have we heard that the body always heals faster than the mind after a traumatic experience? If that's the case, he may eventually overcome his cautiousness with more playing time. But if it's simply his nature to shun contact then perhaps we're seeing all we can ever expect from Jamal from this point forward.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> This is the thing though. I've been telling you guys repeatedly that since Skiles came aboard Crawford's defense has been getting better and better. But a lot of posters on this board just kept harping on his defense, even though it was clearly improving.
> 
> People will say this is only two games, but these two games did not come from heaven like manna. They have been a long time coming. Skiles and Crawford have been building for this. Go back and look at the comments that Skiles has made about Crawford and the comments that Crawford has made about Skiles since Skiels came to the team, and you can definitely see the progression...and then if you bust out some game tape, you will see that even when Jamal was struggling he was doing things better and better with his decision making and defense.
> ...


Well I only get to watch like 3 games a month since I'm in LA so I'm not able to see that "steady progression"...from what I had seen prior to the last game, was him not hustling and almost giving up if his shot was off.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Reading your post made me wonder...is there any chance at all that his knee surgery and subsequent arduous return to full health left him a little bit unwilling to risk another injury? Self preservation is an extremely powerful human instinct. And you couldn't fault anyone for trying to avoid a repeat of a very painful experience.
> ...


Well, I should note that in 01-02 when Jamal came back from his knee surgery at the end of the season, he was glued to the three point line. I wondered if he would ever dunk ever! Well, as it turned out, he added a floater in the paint to his game as well as some occasional instances where he attacks the basket. Hopefully, as time goes on, he will realize that ALL of the great scorers in this league know how to draw fouls so they can get their points at the line when their shot is off.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> I agree with Mr. Blizzy, but would add that Jamal seems to be showing at least _some_ increased effort to drive to the basket. With hopes that his defensive efforts of late can be sustained, I hope the "to the hole" mentality will continue to increase. Not to get the kid's hopes up too much, but Skiles might want to mention to him -- it worked for MJ.
> 
> My greatest fear with Jamal is that his two glaring weaknesses -- an unwillingness to drive an a reluctance to play tough D point to one thing -- a dislike of contact. The big question with JC is whether he can toughen up and become willing to kake some elbows and hips and shoulders and suffer some bumps and bruises in order to make his game the complete game it should be and whether he's willing to make that commitment over the long haul. If he is willing to become a warrior, he could be an all-star. If not, he'll revert to being a streaky long-range shooter with a crazy crossover.
> ...


Good post However lets not forget this is the same kid who was 16-17 from the ft line in the preseason before Cartwright uttered those infamous words * "we dont need him to score we have plenty of scorers "*. Cartwright imo sapped all the agressiveness Crawford was showing at getting into the lane in the preseason right out of him after that .

Its taking Skiles several weeks to try to bring that back out of him and the best way for Crawford to get to the line is to always be in attack mode always probing looking for the weakspot in the defense .The last 2 games remind me of several of the early preseason games when Crawford basically had the opposing defenses back on their heels either with the pass or the shot .

I think Crawford has been waiting for the other show to drop and after Skiles stood by him through the worst 2 weeks in his career Crawford would as some other posters said "walk through walls " for skiles right about now .


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> I think Crawford has been waiting for the other shoe to drop and after Skiles stood by him through the worst 2 weeks in his career Crawford would as some other posters said "walk through walls " for skiles right about now .


EXACTUMUNDO.:yes: 

Even though I have some diffrences of opinion with how Skiles lost the Jazz game by benching Crawford, I think on the whole Skiles has handled Crawford perfectly.

Next project: Eddy Curry.

I think Curry will be easier to convert now that his buddy Jamal Crawford is a full fledged acolyte. And I think seeing Crawford playing so well, will help his confidence.


----------



## pjc845 (Jun 9, 2002)

*JAMAL!!!!*

I guess the Jay Williams vs. Jamal Crawford argument is now dead forever.

Crawdaddy is capable of greatness. We have now seen it. It is now undebatable. Jay Williams, well, is capable of ruining a Bulls franchise by taking an inadvised ride on a death-cycle outlawed by his contract, and preventing us from trading up to grab Melo.

So, now we know what Jamal is capable of. Some of us who were more intuitive and more visionary saw it and are now vindicated. Others were doubting Thomases who also thought Jay Williams was worth a #2 pick (HA). 

I guess the only question now is whether Jamal WANTS to be as great as he can be. For me, this is merely a question of attitude, work ethic, and application. His skills and talent are there. And finally, none of us can deny it.

Sorry, that I must go back to the epically stupid Jamal vs. Jay battle. I just find it terribly ironic that the same people who thought Jamal Crawford sucked seem to be the same people who thought Jay Williams was going to be some superstar in this league (his tragic motorcycle accident only prevented such people from being humiliated with the inevitable outcome to the contrary). They are the same people who didn't think trading Jay, the #7, and fodder (e.g. Marshall or Fizer) was worth grabbing Carmelo Anthony. They are the same people who thought for a second that Kirk Hinrich (a nice Steve Kerr, John Paxson type of player) should be comparable in terms of talent and value to Crawford. How can anyone lack any sort of grasp for the obvious?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> They are the same people who thought for a second that Kirk Hinrich (a nice Steve Kerr, John Paxson type of player)...


Hold on there, Killer. For all your "vision", you're sure off the mark here. Waaaaayyyy off. Sounds like you've been listening to too much of the genius Sam Smith last spring and summer. Maybe you are Sam Smith. I don't know.

P.S. If two games is all it takes to prove a point, then I guess I'll be proving a lot of points in the near future, however hollow or incidental they might actually be.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Hold on there, Killer. For all your "vision", you're sure off the mark here. Waaaaayyyy off. Sounds like you've been listening to too much of the genius Sam Smith last spring and summer. Maybe you are Sam Smith. I don't know.
> ...


Stop it ! :laugh:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

*Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> They are the same people who thought for a second that Kirk Hinrich (a nice Steve Kerr, John Paxson type of player) should be comparable in terms of talent and value to Crawford.


I always find the Steve Kerr comparison funny. 

Kerrs highest point average throughout his career - 8.8 ppg (93)
Kerrs highest assists average throughout his career - 3.2 asts (89)
Kerrs highest rebounds average throughout his career - 1.6 rebs (twice)

Kirk is averaging over 9.2 points, 2.6 rebounds, and 5.5 assists in his *rookie* season. 

Kerr was an excellent shooter, and he'll always be known for hitting big shots, but Kirk will be the much better player now and in the future. 

We've got two very good guards on our hands. Hinrichs numbers this year dont look too different than JCs last year when he was about the same age. I dont think its fair to either to say one is better than the other. Jamal is the better scorer, Hinrich is the better defender, everything else is close. Its like arguing whos better, Tyson or Eddy. 



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> Sorry, that I must go back to the epically stupid Jamal vs. Jay battle. I just find it terribly ironic that the same people who thought Jamal Crawford sucked seem to be the same people who thought Jay Williams was going to be some superstar in this league (his tragic motorcycle accident only prevented such people from being humiliated with the inevitable outcome to the contrary).


Real easy to say those people were wrong now that he got hurt? Yea it is, you can pretend they were wrong all along and that you somehow proved that by him getting injured. Jay had every bit of superstar potential as Jamal, its unfortunate you're trying to play the "Jay suffered a career ending injury, so I'm right" card.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> Kirk Hinrich (a nice Steve Kerr, John Paxson type of player)


Quick, Pull out the Kirk is a white boy comparisons!

Kirk Hinrich, a nice Will Perdue type of player. :laugh:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Kirk is nice cross between Jud Buechler and Jerry Sloan.
Actually he does LOOK a lot like Jerry Sloan. But that's because all white people look the same. And smell like hot dog water. I say this of course as a white person.

Wait. What's this thread about.:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i ****ing hate the racial comparisons. Just because Kirk is white doesnt mean he is the next Stockton or Nash (he plays NOTHING like John Stockton). The world is so conditioned to make comparisons on a race by race basis rather then crossing lines. Kirk plays alot more like Gary Payton (i think Wynn and VV came up with that) then he does like Stockton. And if anyone wants to debate that, id be very happy to do so


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Great couple of games by Jamal! His offense was unstoppable but as others pointed out, his defense and shot selection were the really impressive things. Over the last two games I think Jamal has like 5 steals and 3 or 4 blocks and did a nice job of limiting both Lebron & Hughes. 

It seems clear to me, as it has for several seasons now, that Jamal CAN at any given moment BE the best Bull since MJ. Hopefully as he gets older and more mature he will develop some nice consistency and we can expect to see him perform well every night. Jamal effectively addressed the only criticisms I have ever had for his game. He played good hard, in your shirt defense, he attacked the basket, he got to the foul line, and he played good team ball. Once Jamal gains strength I think we will see him attacking the basket even more and playing even better defense. Someone mentioned how strength wasn't a prerequisite for defense. I disagree. You need strength to fight through screens and body up your man. As Jamal adds strength he will only get better IMHO.

I want to offer up some kudos to some people who have been giving Jamal props as long as I have and never suggested that he be traded for cap space or Othella Harrington. Props and much love to: Futuresixteen, Jaf311, Happyface, RLucas, Ztect,chifaninca, and Arenas809. I'm sure there are plebty of people I am forgetting. But Kudos to these folks and to all of the others who see and have seen something very special in Jamal. 


Raspberries to: robert 60466, Jsong, shambulls, Kirk_Hinrich (a.ka. Wolverine), and anyone else who deserves it! you know who you are  Now, in the future lets try to remember that everyone has off games, what you see isn't always the finished product, and just because someone has a bad game that doesn't mean they need to be traded!

Hopefully Jamal can keep playing well and lead the Bulls to a few victories! Curry is coming back tonight and that should help, Chandler will be back in a couple weeks and that should be a huge boost. Go Bulls!


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Hold on there, Killer. For all your "vision", you're sure off the mark here. Waaaaayyyy off. Sounds like you've been listening to too much of the genius Sam Smith last spring and summer. Maybe you are Sam Smith. I don't know.
> ...


Don't worry about pjc845 VV. I think if you looked up his user name in the dictionary, you would find the word "Jay Williams hater". He is not worth the effort.



> I want to offer up some kudos to some people who have been giving Jamal props as long as I have and never suggested that he be traded for cap space or Othella Harrington. Props and much love to: Futuresixteen, Jaf311, Happyface, RLucas, Ztect,chifaninca, and Arenas809. I'm sure there are plebty of people I am forgetting. But Kudos to these folks and to all of the others who see and have seen something very special in Jamal.


This is nice Ace, but I think it just says something that some are so happy Jamal played two great games. I want nothing more than to see the Bulls and Crawford succeed, but lets hope it continues for a longer period of time so he can fully prove the people who are still skeptical of Jamal. I think he can.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't worry about pjc845 VV. I think if you looked up his user name in the dictionary, you would find the word "Jay Williams hater". He is not worth the effort.
> ...


your right. But Jamal has shown what he is capable of. When he adds maturity hopefully he will add consistency.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> Crawdaddy is capable of greatness. We have now seen it. It is now undebatable. Jay Williams, well, is capable of ruining a Bulls franchise by taking an inadvised ride on a death-cycle outlawed by his contract, and preventing us from trading up to grab Melo.


Hey Bulls fans...

Jamal or Melo?

:whoknows:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> i ****ing hate the racial comparisons. Just because Kirk is white doesnt mean he is the next Stockton or Nash (he plays NOTHING like John Stockton). The world is so conditioned to make comparisons on a race by race basis rather then crossing lines. Kirk plays alot more like Gary Payton (i think Wynn and VV came up with that) then he does like Stockton. And if anyone wants to debate that, id be very happy to do so


I hate the racial comparisons too, but I feel there is a strong resemblance to Nash's game in there. I don't necessariliy see too much of a Payton type game, unles you're talkimng about the defensive "sticktoittiveness" that Kirk has exhibited. I'd really like to see Kirk attempt to add that Payton post game and see how that works. Can you imagine Kirk with a few post moves? I would be willing to bet alot that he would be a future 20 ppg player then.

But as far as similarities to Nash go, I think the way he drives and pushes the ball are very Nash-like. Those were similarities I thought I saw in college. In the more open style that Kirk had at Kansas, I felt the similarities were even stronger.

But I don't see Mark Price or John Stockton. Unless you're talking pick and roll.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> I hate the racial comparisons too, but I feel there is a strong resemblance to Nash's game in there. I don't necessariliy see too much of a Payton type game, unles you're talkimng about the defensive "sticktoittiveness" that Kirk has exhibited. I'd really like to see Kirk attempt to add that Payton post game and see how that works. Can you imagine Kirk with a few post moves? I would be willing to bet alot that he would be a future 20 ppg player then.
> ...


that is a great point. kirk doesnt have the Payton post game. But there is something about the 2 that remind of each other. They are built almost exactly alike. They are both scorers as well as set up guys. they both play in your face defense. Stockton got a ton of steals but i doubt he could stay with a guy like Kirk can. Its a different type of D. both effective. just different. Payton and Kirk could shift over to the 2. They both seem to get every loose ball and play with a ton of energy. I doubt that Kirk talks a better game though then payton. No one in the league has his mouth. That and the post game are the only differences. There is some Nash there as well. But I think Kirk is more structured then Nash. Maybe thats just Dallas, but thats what I see. and a far better defender


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Bulls fans...
> ...


That's a tough call with the way Jamal has been playing since Skiles came aboard.
I hope it becomes tougher and tougher. Because Melo is almost a lock to be a superstar in the near future. Jamal certainly has all of the tools to be one as well.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> That's a tough call with the way Jamal has been playing since Skiles came aboard.
> I hope it becomes tougher and tougher. Because Melo is almost a lock to be a superstar in the near future. Jamal certainly has all of the tools to be one as well.


Does that mean that if you had to make the call *right now* no waiting---it would be Melo?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Does that mean that if you had to make the call *right now* no waiting---it would be Melo?


Melo.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Bulls fans...
> ...


Is this a Joke?!?

Mello.

MELLO.

and again Mello.

I'm a bulls fan but we sure cannot overrate Jamal like that.be real.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Does that mean that if you had to make the call *right now* no waiting---it would be Melo?


No. Even though Jamal shot poorly last night, watching him play, he is on the path to greatness. He looks better everytime I see him this year. And he's more fun to watch. 

But Denver is not going to trade Melo for Crawford since they have Boykins and Miller already.

I would trade Tyson or Kirk for Melo though.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

I haven't read most of this thread (Too Long!!), but do you guys realize the effect of trading Jamal would have? Especially on the fragile, ignorant mind of Eddy Curry. Trading his best friend away.... Eddy Curry would quickly want the hell out of this town... and maybe even stop trying while with the Bulls if Jamal is traded.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Bulls fans...
> ...


This is absolutely NOT a tough call... 29 NBA GMs agree... Melo is the choice.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: JAMAL!!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> This is absolutely NOT a tough call... 29 NBA GMs agree... Melo is the choice.



Estoy de acuerdo.

I agree completely.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

It's an easy call if we are talking about abilities as of right now I would trade Jamal for Mello in a second.


----------



## mr_french_basketball (Jul 3, 2003)

Stop dreaming of Melo guys!!!

Denver have FINALLY found a coherent squad of (young) players who play like a team. I doubt they would be willing to gamble on what they have now...


----------

