# Chad Ford on Crawford



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/b...olive_blazerblog/archives/2005_07.html#070697

*He's a skinny, no defense, jump-shooting guard with a selfish streak. Don't be surprised if he ends up in Cleveland or Portland.*


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Why is Chad hatin' on Jamal?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Electric Slim said:


> Why is Chad hatin' on Jamal?


he's not hatin'

he's _realin'_

:smilewink


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Why not post this in the Crawford update thread ? Oh wait it was locked :whatever: I guess its alright to post crawford updates as long as they are negative


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> he's not hatin'
> 
> he's _realin'_
> 
> :smilewink


so true. Now that Brown is the new coach and the Knicks have added Q, Jamal may find PT harder and harder to come by.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Why not post this in the Crawford update thread ? Oh wait it was locked :whatever: I guess its alright to post crawford updates as long as they are negative


No. Updates once in a while are fine, positive or negative. There is something about Jamal that remains mildly interesting to the Bulls board. People read, comment, move on.

Heck, we get updates on Rick Brunson, Dennis Rodman, Norm Van Lier. No reason not to comment on Jamal's goings on occasionally.

The Thread That Would Not Die, on the other hand, needed to be put to rest.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

it is news. If it was positive, I would have posted that one as well. 

Talking points make the messageboard go around!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> it is news. If it was positive, I would have posted that one as well.


 :rotf:

Toni Kukoc (who most everyone wants on the team this year)
- skinny (for his height)
- no defense
- lots of outside shots


I guess he's not selfish. Maybe that' why there is no hatin' on Toni. LOL


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

The bottom line is JC has more

POTENTIAL

than anyother guard in the NBA. He will be an allstar someday. Superstar. Perhaps the greatest player ever. With his potential he could go all the way.

This is a recording.

david


----------



## Chapter29 (Jun 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> :rotf:
> 
> Toni Kukoc (who most everyone wants on the team this year)
> - skinny (for his height)
> ...


Hes is an excellent passer and is an unselfish team player. So your right no hatin'


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Chapter29 said:


> Hes is an excellent passer and is an unselfish team player. So your right no hatin'


Crawford is a good passer as well.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> :rotf:
> 
> Toni Kukoc (who most everyone wants on the team this year)
> - skinny (for his height)
> ...


Hey, I'd sign JC for the veteran's minimum.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

giusd said:


> The bottom line is JC has more
> 
> POTENTIAL
> 
> ...


They called Kukoc the Magic Johnson of Europe. He never became a star in the NBA.

Watching him play a lot... you could tell he had the POTENTIAL to be a lot more than NBA Sixth Man of the year.

He never was a great defender, although he had the tools. That's why Jackson would always ride him so hard.

Honestly, when seemed to hold Kukoc back from being a true STAR in the league is a lack of effort on the defensive end. That and all the smoking.

Kukoc is similar to JAMAL in many ways, IMO.

Perhaps no hate because he was a specialist in a winning environment. Perhaps something else.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Hey, I'd sign JC for the veteran's minimum.


Yes, but Crawford was just as despised while he was on the Bulls making a rookie wage.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> They called Kukoc the Magic Johnson of Europe. He never became a star in the NBA.
> 
> Watching him play a lot... you could tell he had the POTENTIAL to be a lot more than NBA Sixth Man of the year.
> 
> ...


Kukoc had genuis basketball IQ and instincts and skills that are exceedingly rare for his size.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Kukoc had genuis basketball IQ and instincts and skills that are exceedingly rare for his size.


Very true.

His BB IQ is higher than Craw, at least on the offensive end.

On defense its another story. Both are hardly all-NBA.

Hey, I'll take Kukoc over JAMAL any day as well, at least in their primes.

Its just there are some similarities between the two players.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't want either of them, really. 

While Toni's about used up, there are 3 reasons why I'd rather sign Toni than Jamal.

1. The price. Toni can be had for cheap.

2. I don't have confidence in devoting major minutes to either of them. Toni would be content playing limited minutes off the bench.

3. In his long career, Toni only failed shoot at least .400 once. He had many years shooting close to .500, and at least one year shooting over .500 from the field. By contrast, Jamal has already ended 3 of his 5 seasons under .400, and one of the two seasons he broke .400 for the season was the year he only played 23 games. The one year Toni _did not_ reach the .400 mark was a similarly injury shortened 24 game season.

But I do agree with the sentiment that if JC was willing to sign at Toni's price, and willing to play Toni's role off the bench, I'd rather have him than Toni, just because Jamal is still young and you can about put a fork in the Croation Sensation.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Actually, the "Jamal-hating" didn't start until about year 3 of his career, when it started becoming apparent that he wasn't interested in defense and he wasn't interested in taking good shots and he wasn't interested in playing "the right way" and he wasn't going to change.

Hell, I'm known as one of the biggest Jamal-haters here, and I loved the hell out of Jamal until year 4- even after we changed coaches and got rid of Jalen and brought in "right way" players, Jamal had no interest in playing up to his incredible talents. Hell, going into Jamal's last year here, I was talking about how he was going to blow up on offense (coming off of his unbelievable April of 2003 when he gave us 37 min, 23.0 pts, 6.7 ast, 4.3 reb, 46.6% FG and 36% 3's with a 2.6/1 ast/TO ratio).

Unfortunately, Jamal changed all that himself with his Jalen-esqe play on offense and defense and his complaining about not starting a game that the TEAM won. 

It's not like people hate PLAYERS, people hate the player's GAME.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Actually, the "Jamal-hating" didn't start until about year 3 of his career, when it started becoming apparent that he wasn't interested in defense and he wasn't interested in taking good shots and he wasn't interested in playing "the right way" and he wasn't going to change.
> 
> Hell, I'm known as one of the biggest Jamal-haters here, and I loved the hell out of Jamal until year 4- even after we changed coaches and got rid of Jalen and brought in "right way" players, Jamal had no interest in playing up to his incredible talents. Hell, going into Jamal's last year here, I was talking about how he was going to blow up on offense (coming off of his unbelievable April of 2003 when he gave us 37 min, 23.0 pts, 6.7 ast, 4.3 reb, 46.6% FG and 36% 3's with a 2.6/1 ast/TO ratio).
> 
> ...


Refresh my memory some more. I seem to remember Jamal played PG on the 2nd unit that came in and cut a lot of 20 point leads way down. That'd be his 3rd season.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Refresh my memory some more. I seem to remember Jamal played PG on the 2nd unit that came in and cut a lot of 20 point leads way down. That'd be his 3rd season.


That's correct, which was why my Jamal-hating didn't start until his 4th season. He and Jay started together in April, and Jamal really blew up playing PG with Jay at SG (on offense anyway).

But for a lot of people, the Jamal-hating started in year 3, right after JayDidn't was drafted. A lot of people thought Jay was the saviour, and since Jamal's best position at the time certainly looked to be PG, it quickly became a Jay vs Jamal thing for a lot of posters.

I remember discussing the Jay vs Jamal thing with Brian Schmitz and some other Orlando-based media folks, and surprisingly (to me) a lot of them preferred Jamal to Jay at that time as well.

Of course, I also heard John Gabriel flat-out deny that he had offered Mike Miller for Jay (as McGraw reported), so who knows what to believe?

Damn, I had forgotten about that, how good would that deal look right about now for us?


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

_3. In his long career, Toni only failed shoot at least .400 once. He had many years shooting close to .500, and at least one year shooting over .500 from the field. By contrast, Jamal has already ended 3 of his 5 seasons under .400, and one of the two seasons he broke .400 for the season was the year he only played 23 games. The one year Toni did not reach the .400 mark was a similarly injury shortened 24 game season._

So then the answer is simple. 

Trade for jamal but only let him play in 23 games.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> They called Kukoc the Magic Johnson of Europe. He never became a star in the NBA.
> 
> Watching him play a lot... you could tell he had the POTENTIAL to be a lot more than NBA Sixth Man of the year.
> 
> ...


Well yeah, I think Jamal has a place in the NBA as a pretty good player off the bench. I really liked the role he played in our 30-win campaign back in 2002-2003. Anything much more than that for him is too much responsibility IMO. I guess you could call it a lack of competitive fire.

The reason I like Kukoc so much better is for his size and versatility. At times, he could play anywhere from the 1 through 5 (depending on matchups obviously), and he generally shot a good percentage and made efficient decisions.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

It's pretty amazing how public opinion can swing so quickly and so dramatically.

Just a few days ago, Chad Ford reported on the possibility of Tyson Chandler playing out his qualifying offer and bolting the Bulls for greener pastures next summer. Ford was ridiculed by most posters who cared to weigh in on the matter; in fact, it was insinuated that Ford is a liar, a hack, and a gossip.

Today, Ford says that Jamal Crawford is a poor-defending shot-jacker, and folks are treating the words as if they're the 11th commandment.

Wild and wacky stuff (and hilariously predictable).


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's pretty amazing how public opinion can swing so quickly and so dramatically.
> 
> Just a few days ago, Chad Ford reported on the possibility of Tyson Chandler playing out his qualifying offer and bolting the Bulls for greener pastures next summer. Ford was ridiculed by most posters who cared to weigh in on the matter; in fact, it was insinuated that Ford is a liar, a hack, and a gossip.
> 
> ...


Pot calling the kettle black. (and equally hilarious and predicatble).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Pot calling the kettle black. (and equally hilarious and predicatble).


How so?

I've defended Ford's bona fides as a reporter, and I don't disagree at all with his assessment of Crawford.

Pretty tough to get a "pot/black" out of that, imo.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> :rotf:
> 
> Toni Kukoc (who most everyone wants on the team this year)
> - skinny (for his height)
> ...


Chad Ford must see things differently.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's pretty amazing how public opinion can swing so quickly and so dramatically.
> 
> Just a few days ago, Chad Ford reported on the possibility of Tyson Chandler playing out his qualifying offer and bolting the Bulls for greener pastures next summer. Ford was ridiculed by most posters who cared to weigh in on the matter; in fact, it was insinuated that Ford is a liar, a hack, and a gossip.
> 
> ...


excellent post.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Middle of this upcoming season Crawford is going to really start showing what he has and people are going to be surprised. Then Chad Ford will be kissing Jamal's *** just like he does every other player that puts up the #'s.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Middle of this upcoming season Crawford is going to really start showing what he has and people are going to be surprised.


Is this a fresh post, or is it a bump from Summer of 2004? Or 2003? Or 2002? Or...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is this a fresh post, or is it a bump from Summer of 2004? Or 2003? Or 2002? Or...


I have always said Crawford was a 3-5 year project and he missed basically a year with his ACL injury. I was asked point blank at the beginning of last season when Jamal would "break out" and my answer was the second half of next season which is what I am repeating here again.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is this a fresh post, or is it a bump from Summer of 2004? Or 2003? Or 2002? Or...


It is a fresh post... for you to poop on


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is this a fresh post, or is it a bump from Summer of 2004? Or 2003? Or 2002? Or...


Stop hatin' on Jamal. He has the heart of a champion.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050804/SPORTS01/508040325/1108



> Stephon Marbury plans to follow the lead of Larry Brown.
> 
> The untouchable franchise player is no doubt going to play a huge role in whatever's drawn up, but he's willing to make some adjustments. And why not? He's got nothing left to lose except a bad reputation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

^ I personally like this quote.



> "Like I said, if I play the 2, it's going to be kind of scary," Marbury said. "Because now I could shoot whenever I want to shoot. I ain't got to think about (running the offense). And I think I'll be more of a playmaker because now I'll be playing behind the defense. I'm not bringing the ball down the court with nine people watching me. "


Crawford and Marbury deserve one another.

Glad he is gone...glad he is in NY...glad his time with the Bulls came to an end. Guards shooting sub 40% don't really "do it for me."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Guards shooting sub 40% don't really "do it for me."












.392


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> .392



I was waiting for someone to post something like that.

I have given my opinion of Hinrich in other threads. Not a huge fan of Hinrich's shooting either.

Many of my friends can attest. Everytime the Bulls were playing and I was able to watch the game, I was screaming at the TV everytime Hinrich clanked off another shot. It got so bad, no one would watch games anymore with me.

I must learn to channel my anger. Anger leads to fear. Fear leads to the darkside. (Or something like that....I know I butchered it).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pI bcs.dll/article?AID=/20050804/SPORTS01/508040325/1108


The Journal News is the leading provider of news and information for New York’s Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. More than a newspaper company, The Journal News is a multimedia presence that includes Web sites, specialty publications, weeklies and saturation coverage products.

I have seen the NY rags talk about how Crawford is likely to get shipped out of town and they bring in a guy like Snow.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

.352


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> .352



Difference is Duhon was a rookie last year. You cannot hold one season against him. If he does it for the next 3-4 seasons as a Bull.....things are different.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

.411


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> .411



Last time I checked, .411 > .400

Unless they discovered a new kind of math.

And it was his rookie season too. But I guess you missed my point on Duhon too. (Tongue in cheek, of course)


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

How about guards that shoot sub-40% and don't play defense...

That eliminates Hinrich and Duhon from the list...


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

onetenthlag said:


> How about guards that shoot sub-40% and don't play defense...
> 
> That eliminates Hinrich and Duhon from the list...



Better point.

I should have included that. But I forgot too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i find the idea of a snow coming-JC leaving unlikely, snow is clearly winding down his career now at 32. The local papers have all tried to identify "Brown Guys " for trade (snow, ollie, lindsay hunter etc), but larry brown tends to have a few defensively challenged in his rotation , and he also usually improves the defense of the players already on the roster. the guy has had Keith van horn , toni kukoc , rik smits , reggie miller, vinny del ***** on his roster and in his starting line up over the past 10 years.

the only times he really gets rid of people (or asks to get rid of people ) is when they tune him out and dont listen. The only guys i see on the roster likely for such behavior are jerome james and mo taylor , crawford has showed he is willing to play unselfish and some defense, he was clearly working on those aspects of the game , he doesn't really fit that description.

brown will just have to continue the process of "getting the chicago out of him"

and .400 isn't always a good way to judge # for guards it depends on the kind of shots they are taking, for instance kirk was more efficient shooting the ball as a rookie , a higher % of his shots were 3 pters and he was a better shooter out there his rookie year, a guy like rip hamilton who shoots a low % of his shot from deep should be well over .400 in fg%

duhon who shoots a very low .352 (low even for a rook) lives out by the 3 pt line, but his .efg on jumpshots is actually much higher than hamilton's, duhon's abysmal abilty to convert on shots close to the basket is what really hurts his shooting (he shoots .303 from the field, compared to .598 for rip) to the point it actually it lowers his fg% which is rare. if he had a comparable ability to convert on closer shots he would be over .400 from the field.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Jamal Crawford + Larry Brown = Crawford on the bench by mid season. 

Brown is not one for hot dogs. Brown is not one for players who don't bring it on both ends. Brown is not one for players who lack discipline and basketball I.Q..

Am I the only one who sees Crawford in the doghouse in a short time? Street ballers don't make it with Larry Brown, and I just don't see Crawford as the kind of player who can transform himself. 

Brown's "dream job" with that roster of selfish players who have not had much team success and a GM with the basketball IQ of a grapefruit? 

Brown will either quit in a short period or get Isiah's job.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Chad Ford on this thread:

"........I had had no idea people cared this much! If I can cause such a stir making such an ordinary statement about such an ordinary player, maybe I should visit the Bulls board more often!"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Am I the only one who sees Crawford in the doghouse in a short time? Street ballers don't make it with Larry Brown, and I just don't see Crawford as the kind of player who can transform himself.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

they actually have iverson at 6'0" tall. i thought he was much shorter - i wonder if lockup measurements are accurate...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

onetenthlag said:


> they actually have iverson at 6'0" tall. i thought he was much shorter - i wonder if lockup measurements are accurate...


Its _accurate_...but they did measure him with shoes on.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

it's amazing that he got booked and was obviosuly high at the same time - you'd think that the cops would have a problem with that. :biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Matt Guokas on the undiciplined Knicks backcourt (part of a column predicting no quick fix for Brown, Knicks)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8838371/



> *In the backcourt the starters are Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford, a couple of players who don't really understand the game.
> 
> Marbury and Crawford figure they have to make up for a lack of talent upfront and so they think they have to play a style where they will be jacking up shots. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Sigifrith (Nov 10, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Middle of this upcoming season Crawford is going to really start showing what he has and people are going to be surprised. Then Chad Ford will be kissing Jamal's *** just like he does every other player that puts up the #'s.



I thought Jammie has been showing what he has for years now. Ain't much.


----------



## Sigifrith (Nov 10, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Stop hatin' on Jamal. He has the heart of a champion.


& the brain of the scarecrow. You sure he doesn't have the heart of the Tin Man?


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


>


Not bad. I see your point.

Thing is, even though Iverson is in the mold of a "street baller", and he is a pain in the arse, the guy has a much higher talent level than Crawford and a heart as big as any player in the NBA. Iverson is sheer will and effort, and many times that heart and effort make up for sometimes stupid decisions. 

Brown fueded with Iverson constantly. If Iverson's talent level wasn't MVP level, and the team didn't depend so much on the guy, he would have been in Brown's doghouse and on the bench.

Crawford is not the attitude problem of Iverson, but his play does not will his team to victory. Unless he changes and learns a bit of intellect and defense, he will shortly end up getting less and less playing time. 

I look at this situation in NY and think this roster is about as anti-Larry Brown as any NBA roster. If his health is bad now, wait until mid season. I think he either quits after one year or they can Isiah and Brown takes over.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Not bad. I see your point.
> 
> Thing is, even though Iverson is in the mold of a "street baller", and he is a pain in the arse, the guy has a much higher talent level than Crawford and a heart as big as any player in the NBA. Iverson is sheer will and effort, and many times that heart and effort make up for sometimes stupid decisions.
> 
> ...


I agree. With our endless Çrawford debates, we would constantly talk about his flaws with shooting %, defense, etc, etc. But honestly, I think my #1 problem with him is that he never came across as giving it his all, playing balls out. There are at least 5 guys on the Bulls now who play like that. Iverson plays like that. I've never once seen Crawford go out with a pit-bull mentality for an entire game. That's not the heart of a champion, IMO.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i swear there is a significant portion of bulls fans that react to jamal crawford like jilted lovers.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i swear there is a significant portion of bulls fans that react to jamal crawford like jilted lovers.


True. But certain topics involving Crawford can be interesting, such as what separates a guy like Iverson and a guy like Crawford. Seems like harmless enough discussion to me, even if it might be more suited for the General NBA forum.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> True. But certain topics involving Crawford can be interesting, such as what separates a guy like Iverson and a guy like Crawford. Seems like harmless enough discussion to me, even if it might be more suited for the General NBA forum.


iverson is a franchise talent , i like crawford well enough but i never would put him in the same category , AI is just one of those players who really belong in categories all to themselves, there just aren't any other guys in the nba like him, like shaq.

i dont deny crawford is interesting post material , in fact i vaguely remember a thread that was about him around and to avoid JC talk from infesting other threads...it was probably the biggest thread ever on this forum.


----------

