# Jamal Just Doesn't Get It



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Jamal Crawford caught a red-eye flight from Seattle on Monday to return in time for practice. After visiting his ailing grandmother, Crawford watched Saturday's game and longingly saw the offensive freedom Jay Williams had in terms of screen-and-roll actions. 

"We won, so maybe we should do that more," Crawford said. "I think we run more triangle when I'm in the game. Just have a balance." 

Meetings with the GM...meetings with the Head Coach...and now he's using the media to imply that Jay Williams' success on Saturday is due in large part to Cartwright's decision to shelve the triangle.

Poor Jamal...he thinks they run more triangle when he's in the game and he wants BC to balance things out so that he gets the same opportunities to freelance that Jay gets.

I'm sorry, but Crawford is trying to plead his case in every way but the RIGHT WAY...by getting the job done ON THE COURT!

When is all this drama going to end? Hey Jamal...Shut the Fuzz up and just play ball! Get a frickin' clue, would ya? Sheesh! :no:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't have any problem with Jamal's current quote. What I do have a problem with is the general tone of ALL of his quotes. He often responds very immaturely and shows little responsibility for his actions. I wish the kid would grow up. There is an arrogance of youth about him, he has shown little maturity with the Bulls thus far.


VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I realize that it is open season on Jamal and bashing him is the "popular" thing to do, but I think we should give him a break here. I mean, he does have a point. We didn't run much triangle, and we won. He is saying that it would be cool if he could get equal time to "do his thing" like Jay got. He is also referring to winning games and running less triangle and saying that that could contribute to more wins. I don't see anything wrong with that. Even though, like I said in a previous thread, he wouldn't be able to put up the same numbers Jay did.


----------



## Bullsmaniac (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> I realize that it is open season on Jamal and bashing him is the "popular" thing to do, but I think we should give him a break here. I mean, he does have a point. We didn't run much triangle, and we won. He is saying that it would be cool if he could get equal time to "do his thing" like Jay got. He is also referring to winning games and running less triangle and saying that that could contribute to more wins. I don't see anything wrong with that. Even though, like I said in a previous thread, he wouldn't be able to put up the same numbers Jay did.


I agree KC. I think it's just his way of telling the coach to give him a little freedom too. BC tells him to run the traingle because he knows it more than JWill since he's been with the team longer. But is that fair? I don't thinl he will put up similar numbers because of his aggressiveness or lack thereof. His game is much different from JWill, but who knows he might surprise if given the cahnce to run and gun!


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

:sigh: 

this is sad, im dissapointed in you guys, KC is right, it seems like open season on jamal right now, we might as well shoot him:|


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

This thread is a pretty weak attempt to drum up anti-Jamal setiment. 

The statement is 100% true... where's the problem again? BullsManiac is right.. JC knows the offense better and has less freedom to "go off". But hey, whatever it takes to win.... and thats just what he said. Good Jamal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> "We won, so maybe we should do that more," Crawford said. "I think we run more triangle when I'm in the game. Just have a balance."


I see nothing in this quote that indicates a bad attitude.

He talks about "we" in the proper context and "I" in the proper context.

He makes a suggestion "We should do what we did to win, more" and he makes an observation "We run more triangle when I'm in the game."

In fact, he's willing to play the triangle, which is a good thing.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Lets assume Jamal is correct and the Bulls run less triangle and more screen/roll when Williams is on the court.

Williams has played seven games as a member of the Bulls. Crawford has played 90 games as a member of the Bulls.

Why has it taken the Bulls a mere seven games to conclude that screen/rolls and an uptempo game suits William's skills while after 90 games they continue to insist that Crawford run the triangle?

If screen/rolls and an uptempo style played to Jamal's strengths, don't you think the coaching staff would have drawn that conclusion sooner than 90 games into his career?

I've watched as many Bulls games as anyone who frequents this board, and I'm still waiting to see Crawford successfully execute his first screen/roll. IMHO, there's a reason why screen/rolls don't play to his strength.

Jamal doen't have the muscle to drive his man into a screen properly. Jamal has never been a threat to penetrate off a screen or to take advantage of a defensive switch by going one on one with a bigger, slower defender. 

During games you may notice that whenever a screen is set for Jamal near the top of the key, the defense has the screener's defender (usually a center or PF) switch to Crawford and push him out of shooting range. Has anyone EVER seen Crawford break down that bigger, slower defender and make the other team pay for switching?

Williams, on the other hand, immediately proved to the rest of the league that its a mistake to switch a big man to him after a screen's been set. As we've seen already, Williams will eat a bigger, slower defender alive, usually ending up with a layup or an assist off of penetration. 

On Saturday, the Nets stepped back from the screen/rolls preferring to see if Williams could beat them from the perimeter...and he did. Teams would never employ that kind of tactic with Crawford because he's not a threat to drive. His offensive strength lies exclusively in his perimeter shot and that can effectively be defended against with a PF or center switch.

This post is not designed to "bash" Crawford. I'm merely trying to use a technical observation to explain, IMHO, why Cartwright may run different schemes for Williams vs. Crawford. Its true that both players want more freedom on offense, and I can't blame either of them for feeling that way. But while Williams has always been given a certain amount of freedom to create WITHIN an offensive scheme (at Duke) and has thrived in doing so, Crawford has taken a confrontational approach to anything that restricts his desire to freelance.

The NBA is not a pickup league. The most successful teams have structured systems on offense and defense. Previous attempts by coaches and teams to play firehouse basketball in the NBA have all failed. Coaches will provide individual players with opportunities to create within their system if they can prove they're effective in doing so. Players like Williams and Rose and Marshall have proven their effectiveness to Cartwright.

But for whatever reason, after 90 games, the Bulls coaching staff believes that Crawford needs the structure and dicipline the triangle brings for him to be successful. In matters like this, I have to trust their judgement. It's clear that Crawford views himself as a completely different kind of player from what the coaches see him as. I ask you...whose judgement do you have more faith in? Is there any reason in this world for Bulls management not to want to see Crawford succeed? Don't you think that if after 90 games the coaching staff thought that the Bulls best chance to win meant turning Crawford loose on offense, they'd have done so long before now?

I'm not a Crawford hater. But I am sick and tired of the penchant he seems to have for always going against the grain. If Crawford truly believes that he needs to play in a system that allows him to freelance more, then he and his agent should stop talking to the press and ask Krause for a trade. But this is his third year in this system and he's STILL fighting the program like an evil stepchild. Maybe you younger guys find this type of rebellious attitude appealing. But the _reality_ is that Jamal Crawford is NOT going to change the way Cartwright coaches. So for God's sake, please, Jamal, either get with the program or get out.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Jamal has played 90 games


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Lets assume Jamal is correct and the Bulls run less triangle and more screen/roll when Williams is on the court.
> 
> Williams has played seven games as a member of the Bulls. Crawford has played 90 games as a member of the Bulls.
> ...


This post is wicked good. :clap: :clap:




VD


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> Jamal has played 90 games



...in his Bulls career.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3407

:sigh:


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

What Vin said...


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

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


i didnt even know he played that many over his career


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

That was about the most definitive post on the subject I could imagine.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> I'm not a Crawford hater. But I am sick and tired of the penchant he seems to have for always going against the grain. If Crawford truly believes that he needs to play in a system that allows him to freelance more, then he and his agent should stop talking to the press and ask Krause for a trade. But this is his third year in this system and he's STILL fighting the program like an evil stepchild. Maybe you younger guys find this type of rebellious attitude appealing. But the _reality_ is that Jamal Crawford is NOT going to change the way Cartwright coaches. So for God's sake, please, Jamal, either get with the program or get out.


That was a good post, Dickie. But I don't see how Jamal is more rebellious than Jay. Williams made comments in today's Sun-Times that we could interpret as complaint if we wanted to.



> "The game's a lot easier when you have guys running up and down the court in sprints,'' Wil-liams said. "In the past, we had games where we were jogging or trotting up the court to get into our set triangle.
> 
> "It's hard to get assists when you're in that triangle because the ball's really not in your hands. I would have games where I had two or three assists and four turnovers, and I would be like, 'What's wrong with me?' But it's a system that's really not meant for me to come down and create.
> 
> "When we run, guys are crossing and yelling for the ball. And I'm more than willing to give the ball up to make us score.''


But Williams is a good guy, he's playing well, and we all like him... so people probably won't try to accuse Jay of being critical and immature in his comments.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with your first post in this thread. I was actually impressed with how Jamal handled the situation. I think another article in the Sun-Times gives a more complete perspective.



> ''I saw the game on TV, and when he got seven rebounds and seven assists early, I felt he would finish strong and get the triple-double,'' Crawford said. ''I was really happy for him. He hit some big shots, and he did it against one of the premier guards in our league [Nets star Jason Kidd]. That was a great breakout game for him.''
> 
> ...
> 
> ''That's nice to be more flexible and to open up the game more,'' Crawford said. ''I'd like to have that happen when I'm on the floor, too.''


I have no problem whatsoever with what Jamal said.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Seems the intepretations of "words" printed on paper without any intonation or context, only mean what the person reading them want them to mean. If you have such obvious disdain for Jamal, anything he says will be analysed and twisted to fit this mindset.

Considering Jamal is just coming back from an ailing surrogate parent (his grandma raised him), I find all this disdain particularly untimely and distasteful. None of us know whether or not this has been an ongoing distraction above and beyond all the on court melodrama. 

Anyway, after the Jalen Rose trade last year, the Bulls played very little triangle, because both Rose and Best were unfamiliar with it. Not so uncoincidently, jamal had better numbers despite just coming back from an injury..

IMO no player (esp. a 19 yr at the time) can really be judged under Floyd's coaching because Floyd had no clue what he was doing


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Jamal is playing less than 3 minutes more a game now than he did in 60+ for Floyd.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*Wow*

Nice way to edit out the whole article DickieHurtz doesn't actually lead credence to your arument. Now does it?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Jamal is playing less than 3 minutes more a game now than he did in 60+ for Floyd.


What's your point? Minutes aren't the only barometer of Floyd's hatred.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> What's your point? Minutes aren't the only barometer of Floyd's hatred.


Floyd was running the triangle just like BC is. I think it is safe to judge Crawford in this particular offense even if Floyd was the coach. My point being mostly that Floyd gave him about as much time as Cartwright is giving him now


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> What's your point? Minutes aren't the only barometer of Floyd's hatred.


I understand a gauge being needed for Floyd's incompetence, but his hatred?

Please explain.

---------------------------------------
In my book:


Floyd did not want to give entitlement minutes but he did play young players.

Floyd played Artest and Brand alot from the very start.

Floyd played Khalid Alih-whatever, picked 20+ spots later, more than Craw in Craw's rookie year. Khalid actually made the rookie team at the All-STAR weekend. 

Craw got quite a bit of time his rookie year. He got as many minutes as players like Tracy McGrady and Kwame Brown and showed some steady improvement over the course of the year.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

*This is pathetic*

You guys are falling into the reporter trap. make them do some work and stop trying to rehash the same stories. :devil:


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Floyd was running the triangle just like BC is. I think it is safe to judge Crawford in this particular offense even if Floyd was the coach. My point being mostly that Floyd gave him about as much time as Cartwright is giving him now


So Floyd had equal coaching ability?


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Yeah I agree, lets give em a break....*



> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> I realize that it is open season on Jamal and bashing him is the "popular" thing to do, but I think we should give him a break here. I mean, he does have a point. We didn't run much triangle, and we won. He is saying that it would be cool if he could get equal time to "do his thing" like Jay got. He is also referring to winning games and running less triangle and saying that that could contribute to more wins. I don't see anything wrong with that. Even though, like I said in a previous thread, he wouldn't be able to put up the same numbers Jay did.


.....yo Vin, which leg you want.....? fo'get aboud it!

All kidding aside, I DO think there is a difference in the "flow" of the game while in the triangle.....opportunities open and close much quicker while in the triangle...each person needs to be where the others expect him...get outta timing...and wham...a turnover...or...rushing the shot.....or just flat out taking bad shots. While using screens and pick and rolls...the shooter has more of a "window" to stop, pop and drop it in the hoop. I see his point. I just am not sure about his mechanics period.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

*Re: Yeah I agree, lets give em a break....*



> Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
> 
> 
> .....yo Vin, which leg you want.....? fo'get aboud it!
> ...


Well, this thread wasn't started based on criticism of his game, but of a quote.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> So Floyd had equal coaching ability?


In terms of being a teacher of the game of basketball? I am sure Floyd is more qualified in that respect than Cartwright. Floyd was bashed for wanting to do the things Cartwright is doing now. Floyd probably doesn't have the respect of the players like Cartwright has, but I think he knows the game of basketball.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> In terms of being a teacher of the game of basketball? I am sure Floyd is more qualified in that respect than Cartwright. Floyd was bashed for wanting to do the things Cartwright is doing now. Floyd probably doesn't have the respect of the players like Cartwright has, but I think he knows the game of basketball.


Ok.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*While respect is needed...*



> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> Nice way to edit out the whole article DickieHurtz doesn't actually lead credence to your arument. Now does it?


the other side of the coin COULD be....if she was so bad off, why was he watching the game??? It would have pushed him over the edge if his granny had said..."Why do the Bulls play better when you are not in there jammy?" lol just kidding....

illnesses are part of life, death is also. However, respect is one thing, being two faced about how you feel about someone is worse. in my opinion. In other words, he is having a tough time, give him a break. How long does this period last?


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Big Difference in kids with no pay....*



> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> In terms of being a teacher of the game of basketball? I am sure Floyd is more qualified in that respect than Cartwright. Floyd was bashed for wanting to do the things Cartwright is doing now. Floyd probably doesn't have the respect of the players like Cartwright has, but I think he knows the game of basketball.


and multimillion dollar egos....Floyd was a fish outta water. Bill knows about playing and coaching in the NBA. Big difference. just my .02 worth.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

*Re: While respect is needed...*



> Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
> 
> 
> the other side of the coin COULD be....if she was so bad off, why was he watching the game??? It would have pushed him over the edge if his granny had said..."Why do the Bulls play better when you are not in there jammy?" lol just kidding....
> ...


It lasts as long as he needs it. Every person is different when dealing with these kinds of situations. Who are we to say how he should feel when his grandmother is ill. We don't know how close they are. And yes, family comes before basketball.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: While respect is needed...*



> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> It lasts as long as he needs it. Every person is different when dealing with these kinds of situations. Who are we to say how he should feel when his grandmother is ill. We don't know how close they are. And yes, family comes before basketball.


Like he needed ANOTHER reason to play crappy??? Oh brother.... Jerry Krause has been accused of prolonging his stay as the GM of this club by trading "building blocks" of this franchise...now jamal needs another reason to justify his crappy playing??? Same song, different partners, huh? He doesn't have any other close relatives does he? I sure hope EROB doesn't show him how to have a toe problem. Excuses, excuses, excuses....


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Yeah I agree, lets give em a break....*



> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, this thread wasn't started based on criticism of his game, but of a quote.


Well I guess you got that part free....lol:laugh: besides, the quote, and his play, or lack thereof, are related. ya think?


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Is Jamal Crawford a better player today than he was last April?

And he's not the only player on this team that we should be asking this question of. But he is the topic of this thread, so let's just talk about Jamal, shall we?

Well, does anyone care to offer a response to the question? And if you have the time and are inclined to do so, please offer an explanation that supports your response. Thanks.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Is Jamal Crawford a better player today than he was last April?
> 
> And he's not the only player on this team that we should be asking this question of. But he is the topic of this thread, so let's just talk about Jamal, shall we?
> ...


I think he is. His shot has been off, but he is averaging a career high in assists. I think he is penetrating more and I like the way he is pushing up the ball.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*No, he is NOT the only one.*



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Is Jamal Crawford a better player today than he was last April?
> 
> And he's not the only player on this team that we should be asking this question of. But he is the topic of this thread, so let's just talk about Jamal, shall we?
> ...


Curry has been sporatic at best with his defense and offense. Boards are hard to come by for Curry. IF he does not have the ball in his hands on offense, he looks lost.

Chandler...literally opens his mouth too much. Like a baby, he retaliates after being shoved and no foul is called...so who gets it, HE DOES. His offense is limited again to just dunking....his defense is great while he is in there.....fouls and for some other reason, Bill keeps him and curry on the bench. Rose seems to be a "johnny come lately".....in other words, for the most part, he is invisible until midway through the 3rd qtr. No, Jamal is not the only one...but he IS the worst one....did I forget fizer? too tired to list this guys lack of accomplishments!:upset:


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> I think he is. His shot has been off, but he is averaging a career high in assists. I think he is penetrating more and I like the way he is pushing up the ball.


Very true about the penetration...he is trying, but hasn't shown any ability to finish.

Also true about the increase in assists...however, turnovers are up as well.

As you mentioned, his shot has been off so far (23%) resulting in his scoring average being cut by more than half over last season (from 9.3ppg to 4.0ppg).

His minutes are down slightly from last year (from 20.9 to 20.0mpg).

The biggest improvement I've seen has been in his defensive intensity. Had he added some muscle over the summer I think Cartwright would have trusted him to defend against some of the other SG's in the league.

Giving Jamal the benefit of the doubt over his slow start offensively (I know he's a better shooter than he's shown so far) I'm still not convinced that he's made the kind of progress you hope to see from a third year player.

While it isn't a hard and fast rule, alot of basketball people expect a player's third year to be his so called "breakout season." I know it's very early in the season, but so far Jamal's given no indication he's ready to break out. Maybe we'll have to wait until Year Four to see what Crawford's going to become. By picking up his option for next year I think Krause has similar hopes. In either event, unless Jamal dials it up a whole bunch this season, he shouldn't expect Krause to discuss contract extensions next summer with his agent.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I hope Jamal turns it around. 

Jamal is basically our best 3pt threat off the bench... contrary to what many may think, Fred Hoiberg was pretty awful behind the arc last year(shot 26%) and Eddie Robinson has had 6 total 3-pt attempts with the Bulls, 6 friggin attempts (ie. he's not a threepoint shooter).

If Jamal gets hot shooting, that can really open it up for the Bulls 2nd unit and all of our post players as well. He has shown a little more dribble penetration, but it doesn't seem to come naturally to him. He's a lot more likely to pull up with a short floater than initiate contact and finish around the hoop. I think Jay's aggressiveness has 'rubbed off' in a good way in this category. All in all, solid performances are needed from Jamal... Jay won't be pulling 45 minutes and trip dubs every night!!!




VD


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Glad I re-read your post*



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Lets assume Jamal is correct and the Bulls run less triangle and more screen/roll when Williams is on the court.
> 
> Williams has played seven games as a member of the Bulls. Crawford has played 90 games as a member of the Bulls.
> ...


Jamal is one dimensional in his offensive skills. Like you said, Jay WILL drive the lane if necessary. Jamal? EVERY stinking time he goes to drive the lane, he stops short of the rim and shoots that sorry piece of garbage "floater" shot of his that darn near ALWAYS rims out! Again, like you say, Jay can keep a defense "honest" in that they KNOW now, if you try to contain him, you better be quicker and/or you better be ready to guard against the person he will be passing the ball to. IF anything, Jamal needs to do what Krause suggested to him, or maybe it was Cartwright...to get into the gym, put on some weight and muscle, and learn to play the 2guard!


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: While respect is needed...*



> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> It lasts as long as he needs it. Every person is different when dealing with these kinds of situations. Who are we to say how he should feel when his grandmother is ill. We don't know how close they are. And yes, family comes before basketball.


KC, actually Craw's grandmmother raised him,so he's very close to her. So "granny" was more like a mom.

Also since, he's only just turned22, he's probably not lost anyone that close to him.

My mother died suddenly when I was much older-28, and though "death is a part of life", I still was quite effected. This was the first time I lost someone so close. Though we desire stoic professionalism, we also have to interject a modicum of humanity esp. for such young kids.

This isn't an excuse for jamal. It is just reality.

As for Jamal's game on the court, aside from his shot not falling, as others have noted, other aspects of his game have improved. He's going after boards with more agression. He's pushing the ball up the court faster, and his defense is much improved.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: While respect is needed...*



> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> KC, actually Craw's grandmmother raised him,so he's very close to her. So "granny" was more like a mom.
> ...


Great post, I agree completely!


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i'm not trying to generate sympathy for jamal, or make excuses for his shooting woes, but i agree with ztect and KC's points. if you look at the kids past there's been little stability.

"My mom sent me in eighth grade to live with my dad," he said. "She wanted me to have a father figure."

But the rougher streets of Los Angeles took their toll, outweighing the benefits of living with his father. Gangs and violence bled through the city. One day, Crawford watched in horror as a local gang shot down his best friend. "

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1999/nov/11-11-99/special/special10.html

Even his short time in Michigan was rocky, followed by an even rockier introduction into the nba - tim floyd style. Follow that with a serious knee injury. Yes this is his 3rd year in the NBA, but it's the start of the 3rd year, it's too early in the season to give up on him.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

A lot of NBA players have similar stories. Check out what Juan Dixon has overcome.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

And every person reacts differently.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> And every person reacts differently.


I can make the claim he would react positively as much as you can make a claim it is a negative for him. It is a circular argument then isn't it?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I'm not arguing anything. All I'm saying is that you can understand if he isn't 100% focused on basketball right now. That isn't even an excuse. It is just an explanation.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> 
> Yes this is his 3rd year in the NBA, but it's the start of the 3rd year, it's too early in the season to give up on him.


I don't think that the issue is that the fans here are giving up on Crawford. The problem is - as soon as the Bulls drafted Williams it was pretty much guaranteed he would be the PG for a very long time. At the very least he'd be the PG over Jamal. I know that's not fair but it was a logical thing for Krause to do unless he was offered a no-brainer trade for Jay.

Now, unless Crawford will enjoy the idea of being a back-up and playing 8 minutes a game he will be unhappy. 

If Crawford moves to the 2-guard spot then the Bulls will be constantly trying to upgrade. Jamal and Jay in the back-court is not very plausible for long stretches of time. 

For them both to improve they will need to play major minutes which is impossible.

If the Bulls are committed to Jay, which it appears they are, then the BEST THING for Jamal would be for him to go elsewhere. Not b/c Bulls fans think he can't do it. Because they both can't learn and grow at the same time. Just like Darius Miles embraced the move to Cleveland and McGrady the move to Orlando, Crawford would benefit from having a young team to lead. No one thinks he's a failure but it doesn't make sense from the team standpoint to try and develop 2 young floor leaders simultaneouly.

If he went to a team that needed a PG like Cleveland, Orlando, NY or Miami - he would hopefully become a star.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> I'm not arguing anything. All I'm saying is that you can understand if he isn't 100% focused on basketball right now. That isn't even an excuse. It is just an explanation.


fair enough for me.

I personally wish there was a way he could find his way on the Wizards without them having to give up anyone beyond Laettner, Jahidi, Cardinal, Oakley, or Varda.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> 
> If he went to a team that needed a PG like Cleveland, Orlando, NY or Miami - he would hopefully become a star.


Only problem is that there really isn't anyone on Cleveland, Orlando, NY or Miami that is available (on the block), fills a Bulls need, is an improvement and thus worth trading Jamal to get.

Same is true for Denver, another team in need of a pg.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> fair enough for me.
> ...


...and I wish Tim Duncan would sign with the Bulls next summer!


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Tim Duncan's stock isn't plummeting like JC's.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Pro Bowl center Olin Kreutz had his appendix removed late Monday night and is questionable for Monday's game with the St. Louis Rams. 

Jauron said there's a possibility Kreutz, who has started 48 of 57 regular season games the last three and a half seasons, could play against the Rams.

"What [the doctors] told us is it just depends on how Olin feels," Jauron said. "The surgery went as well as they said it could've gone." 

I know this is a real stretch analogously, but talk about committment to a team!! This guy has his appendix removed and still may play in his next game?!? And we're talking about FOOTBALL! 

Not to demean the seriousness of Jamal's grandmother's illness, but if Kreutz plays on Monday I suspect Webster will put a picture of him next to the word "Tough." Jamal might want to talk to Olin about how to acquire some of that mental toughness. Seriously.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

You can't compare having your apendix out and having a sick grandmother. :no:


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> You can't compare having your apendix out and having a sick grandmother. :no:


Who says so...you? C'mon, I said the comparision was a real stretch. The point was that both situations involve a significant amount of stress, and in Kreutz's case some considerable physical pain. I said this was not intended to be a derogitory comment on Crawford's family situation. But you have to admit that to even consider playing football one week after having your appendix removed shows an extreme amount of dedication to his team. Frankly, if Kreutz pulls it off there are alot of athletes in addition to Jamal who could take inspiration from Olin's actions.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

You guys are hypocrites! You all have problems with him "complaining" about the triangle, yet you look the other way when Jay Williams complains about his struggle with the triangle! You guys have no respect for Jamal Crawford; he was supposed to be lost for the season last year, but he pushed himself and was able to play the last month of the season! I don't understand you people.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Honestly, I don't see how that could serve as inspiration for Jamal.

Olin: _"I got my apendix out and I'm gonna play, your grandma is sick, so be like me and suck it up and help the team!"_

Jamal: _"Ok"_

Yes, if Kruetz plays it would be impressive, but I just don't see how him talking with Jamal would do anything.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Pro Bowl center Olin Kreutz had his appendix removed late Monday night and is questionable for Monday's game with the St. Louis Rams.
> 
> Jauron said there's a possibility Kreutz, who has started 48 of 57 regular season games the last three and a half seasons, could play against the Rams.
> ...


Toughness or stupidity?

So many NFL players doing something "tough" now end up
in their late 30's and 40's with serious health problems.

Hope no Bull will learn the meaning of the word "Tough" from
another NFL center, hall of famer "Iron Mike" Webster.


_"...Webster was the last of the 22 Steelers who played on all four Super Bowl championship teams to leave the team, and the first to die. He refused to leave the lineup even for serious injuries, once playing six straight seasons without missing a snap.

However, *that tough-guy insistence on playing hurt may have led to the brain damage*. Webster's doctors said the concussions during his career damaged his frontal lobe, causing cognitive dysfunction...."_

http://espn.go.com/classic/obit/s/2002/0924/1435977.html


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> Toughness or stupidity?
> ...


ztect,
The thought had crossed my mind as well. But you said it and I can't really disagree with you.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> Only problem is that there really isn't anyone on Cleveland, Orlando, NY or Miami that is available (on the block), fills a Bulls need, is an improvement and thus worth trading Jamal to get.
> ...


they all have picks(high picks) and on a team that is still finding what players go where thats pretty much the best thing.

not that i'm advocating trading JC because i'm not because until we see who fits where and there are more than a few who have yet to define themselves in the nba yet

but if i were to trade anyone in their backcourt it would still be Hassell because although he is good player players like him are a dime a dozen (maybe not a dime or dozen but there are plenty) for instance there is a guy named fred house wjho i believe is either a free agent or in the nbdl who is an awesome defender and only occasionally hit an outside shot 

but thats just me thinking its still best to let the players grow (all of them and let min. become a problem because the players are now so good that should be a min. crunch instead of how it is now with whoever plays well for the time being gets court time because most of them are incosistant


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Here's a quote for you guys.

Two minutes into the 4th quarter, Jamal has two straight turnovers, one blown assignment (lets Ollie shoot trey)....

The camera catches him sitting down, angrily saying
'Bullsh**' All caught on camera.

Whoops.




VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Here's a quote for you guys.
> 
> Two minutes into the 4th quarter, Jamal has two straight turnovers, one blown assignment (lets Ollie shoot trey)....
> ...


Now then, he could have been talking about a bad call or he could have been talking to himself about his play. Look at it from both angles.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Now then, he could have been talking about a bad call or he could have been talking to himself about his play. Look at it from both angles.


Did you watch the game? There was no such 'phantom call'... it was on a Bulls FT possession I believe. Anyone who watched the game would concur.



VD


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

How many more 9 minute games before Jamal demands a trade. Anyone want to start a poll?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you watch the game? There was no such 'phantom call'... it was on a Bulls FT possession I believe. Anyone who watched the game would concur.
> ...


He could have been talking to himself about his play. He could have been mad about a call that he thought he should have gotten. Thoughts aren't limited to what is happening at that present moment in time. Endless possibilities. I guess since it is Jamal Crawford saying it, he must have been mad at Cartwright for taking him out of the game. Trade him!


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> How many more 9 minute games before Jamal demands a trade. Anyone want to start a poll?



I don't know how many, but if he keeps playing this poorly, then he can't complain about not getting minutes.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> He could have been talking to himself about his play. He could have been mad about a call that he thought he should have gotten. Thoughts aren't limited to what is happening at that present moment in time. Endless possibilities. I guess since it is Jamal Crawford saying it, he must have been mad at Cartwright for taking him out of the game. Trade him!


http://scores.nba.com/games/20021113/CHIMIL/PlayByPlayPrint.html

4th Period
(11:42) [MIL] Allen Foul: Shooting (2 PF)
(11:42) [CHI 72-84] Baxter Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS)
(11:42) [CHI] Baxter Free Throw 2 of 2 missed
(11:41) [CHI] Marshall Rebound (Off:5 Def:4)
(11:35) [CHI] Rose Jump Shot: Missed
(11:34) [MIL] Team Rebound
(11:18) [MIL] Kukoc Turnover: Lost Ball (3 TO) Steal: Marshall (2 ST)
(11:15) [CHI] Crawford Turnover: Bad Pass (3 TO) Steal: Ollie (1 ST)
(11:11) [MIL 86-72] Ollie Layup Shot: Made (12 PTS)
(11:11) [CHI] Rose Foul: Shooting (3 PF)
(11:11) [MIL] Ollie Free Throw 1 of 1 missed
(11:10) [MIL] Redd Rebound (Off:1 Def:1)
(10:54) [MIL] Kukoc Jump Shot: Missed
(10:52) [CHI] Team Rebound
(10:31) [CHI 74-86] Baxter Layup Shot: Made (9 PTS) Assist: Rose (2 AST)
(10:31) [MIL] Kukoc Foul: Shooting (2 PF)
(10:31) [CHI 75-86] Baxter Free Throw 1 of 1 (10 PTS)
(10:11) [MIL 88-75] Ollie Jump Shot: Made (14 PTS) Assist: Kukoc (10 AST)
(9:56) [CHI] Crawford Turnover: Bad Pass (4 TO) Steal: Redd (3 ST)
(9:48) [MIL] Ollie Turnover: Lost Ball (1 TO) Steal: Crawford (2 ST)
(9:45) [MIL] Johnson Foul: Shooting (4 PF)
(9:45) [CHI 77-88] Marshall Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS)
(9:45) [CHI] Crawford Substitution replaced by Williams


Endless possibilities??? Jamal was peeved b/c he got pulled early, though he had committed two turnovers in three possessions in the 4th. Any person that watched the game live on FSN can concur.



VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

How does posting that prove anything? He could have just as easily been upset at a NO-CALL. A no-call wouldn't be listed on the play-by-play. He could have been mad at himself. He could have been mad at Cartwright. We aren't inside of his head, so we don't know. Any type of "guess" is just that, it is speculation.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> How does posting that prove anything? He could have just as easily been upset at a NO-CALL. A no-call wouldn't be listed on the play-by-play. He could have been mad at himself. He could have been mad at Cartwright. We aren't inside of his head, so we don't know. Any type of "guess" is just that, it is speculation.


Fine. Answer me this. Did you watch the game on TV?

If Crawford was so peeved at the refs (and in to the game), why did he sit 4 feet away from his teammates on the sideline? He was a lot closer to the cheerleaders than any of his teammates.

Again, from my take on the game, there were no 'questionable' calls in the first 2 minutes of the 4th quarter. Plain and simple, Jamal was peeved he was pulled early.



VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine. Answer me this. Did you watch the game on TV?
> ...


Nope.

Maybe he wanted some time to cool off after being upset at himself. There were no questionable calls in your opinion, but you aren't out there playing either. Until Jamal Crawford comes out and says "I was pissed because I was pulled early," then no one knows what he was thinking when he said that.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope.
> ...


No offense KC but...

You 1) didn't watch the game, 2) didn't watch the 2 minutes in question, yet 3)claim that emotion on the court can only be explained through post-game interviews? Geez. Your argument, seeing that you didn't watch the game, holds no water. Sorry.

If someone here wants to debate what they SAW w/ Jamal, then I'm game. Otherwise, I'm really wasting time and effort.



VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense KC but...
> ...


Watching the game has no bearing on a debate about what Jamal Crawford was _thinking_. Does watching the game get you more insight into Jamal Crawford's thoughts? Maybe you can also tell us what Jalen Rose was thinking when he kicked the ball or what he was thinking when he was "yelling" at J-Will?

I'm not arguing that "emotions" can't be explained, but you can't sit here and possibly tell me that you know for sure what Jamal Crawford was thinking. Unless of course you have enhanced mental abilities.

My argument? I have no argument. I merely gave possibilities of what Crawford could be _thinking_. And your opinion of what he was _thinking_ holds no more water than anyone elses opinion.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine. Answer me this. Did you watch the game on TV?
> ...


so he was pouting? I never watched the game either. But i heard it all.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Behavioral scientists have spent years disproving your claim, *KC!* You can, in fact, tell what he was thinking. The old adage "actions speak louder than words" also applies here. Fact is, Jamal has always had the good grace to come out and put a pretty face on his actions after he's had time to think about it. His patterns of behavior, however, demonstrate that he does not respect his coach, does not respect his GM, and does not respect his teammates.

I'll judge a person by their actions ten thousand times before I judge them by their words. It's so much easier to lie using words....


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

I found it odd that Jamal was pulled not after his turnover, but after he picked Ollie at halfcourt and started the break. Surely another minute or two of playing time couldn't have hurt.... I would have been slightly pissed *at myself* for making a bonehead play, but why was he pulled after a good play....?

From the look on Jamals face he was more pissed at himself then anyone. * But It was a VERY good sign to see him and Fizer jumping off the bench all smiles when the Bulls took the lead 90-91 with 5 minutes left.... * Glad to see he got over it quick.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> How does posting that prove anything? He could have just as easily been upset at a NO-CALL. A no-call wouldn't be listed on the play-by-play. He could have been mad at himself. He could have been mad at Cartwright. We aren't inside of his head, so we don't know. Any type of "guess" is just that, it is speculation.


You're being absurd, now. Of course it's a guess, but I'd term it an educated guess with a high probability that VD's correct. When he was removed, even the announcer, Tom Dore stated, "...and Crawford is immediately replaced"...or words to that effect. The implication by Dore was clear: Crawford was being replaced after playing only two minutes of the 4th quarter because of his poor play. I was sitting with several people who know Crawford very well and they all knew exactly what he was upset about.

BTW, did you happen to notice his demeanor on the sidelines while the Bulls were making their run? Did you notice that he'd completely pulled his uniform shirt out of his shorts?

C'mon, man. You'd have to be from the planet K-Pax not to know what was on Crawford's mind.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Behavioral scientists have spent years disproving your claim, *KC!* You can, in fact, tell what he was thinking. The old adage "actions speak louder than words" also applies here. Fact is, Jamal has always had the good grace to come out and put a pretty face on his actions after he's had time to think about it. His patterns of behavior, however, demonstrate that he does not respect his coach, does not respect his GM, and does not respect his teammates.
> 
> I'll judge a person by their actions ten thousand times before I judge them by their words. It's so much easier to lie using words....


I agree, but the fact that he yelled "BS" and sat at the end of the bench doesn't shine a light on anything as far as what he was thinking. Actions tell you a lot, but not what a person is thinking at the time of those actions. Especially, when all he did was get mad and sit at the end of the bench. If he would have yelled it in Cartwright's face, then maybe it would be different.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> did you happen to notice his demeanor on the sidelines while the Bulls were making their run? Did you notice that he'd completely pulled his uniform shirt out of his shorts?


I think it was pretty clear at that time he wasn't going back in. Fizer & Bags were still wearing warm-ups at this point....


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> so he was pouting? I never watched the game either. But i heard it all.


Okay for the attempted sake of objectivity....here's my recollection.

Crawford has a tough start of 4th quarter, 2 turnovers on 3 possessions. (He has only played 6-7 minutes in the game thus far, mostly in 2nd quarter action)

Ollie trips up trying to snatch a ball... Crawford picks up the loose ball and goes on a fast break. Ervin Johnson challenges JC, so he passes off to Donyell, foul on the play.

Donyell shoots one FT, [siren] for substitution. Jay will comes in

[camera pans to Jamal who sits on sideline]
He sits down and screams.... @#$%@#

Donyells shoots second FT.
[Jamal is sitting far from his teammates for most of the quarter, 4 feet from the nearest guy on the sideline]


Hey take it for what its worth. Maybe there was some phantom call that JAmal was pissed about. I don't think so. He was pulled after playing 2 minutes, and was pissed about it. For the skeptics, I guess we'll have to wait for some snipet from a sportswriter in order for anyone to believe it. Hey.



VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> You're being absurd, now. Of course it's a guess, but I'd term it an educated guess with a high probability that VD's correct. When he was removed, even the announcer, Tom Dore stated, "...and Crawford is immediately replaced"...or words to that effect. The implication by Dore was clear: Crawford was being replaced after playing only two minutes of the 4th quarter because of his poor play. I was sitting with several people who know Crawford very well and they all knew exactly what he was upset about.
> ...


Thanks for proving my point. I didn't say he wasn't mad about being pulled out of the game. If you look at my first post, I merely stated that there were other possibilities of what he could be thinking.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I found it odd that Jamal was pulled not after his turnover, but after he picked Ollie at halfcourt and started the break. Surely another minute or two of playing time couldn't have hurt.... I would have been slightly pissed *at myself* for making a bonehead play, but why was he pulled after a good play....?
> 
> From the look on Jamals face he was more pissed at himself then anyone. * But It was a VERY good sign to see him and Fizer jumping off the bench all smiles when the Bulls took the lead 90-91 with 5 minutes left.... * Glad to see he got over it quick.


Your description of Crawford's attitude on the bench after being yanked in the 4th quarter is a complete fabrication.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I found it odd that Jamal was pulled not after his turnover, but after he picked Ollie at halfcourt and started the break. Surely another minute or two of playing time couldn't have hurt.... I would have been slightly pissed *at myself* for making a bonehead play, but why was he pulled after a good play....?


He was a complete liability out there. The sooner that he was pulled the better.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I found it odd that Jamal was pulled not after his turnover, but after he picked Ollie at halfcourt and started the break. Surely another minute or two of playing time couldn't have hurt.... I would have been slightly pissed *at myself* for making a bonehead play, but why was he pulled after a good play....?
> 
> From the look on Jamals face he was more pissed at himself then anyone. * But It was a VERY good sign to see him and Fizer jumping off the bench all smiles when the Bulls took the lead 90-91 with 5 minutes left.... * Glad to see he got over it quick.


????

Crawford wasn't sitting on the bench. He had a seat on the sideline, a few feet from the rest of the players. The only people sitting next to Fizer was Mason Jr. and DBags.




VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> Hey take it for what its worth. Maybe there was some phantom call that JAmal was pissed about. I don't think so. He was pulled after playing 2 minutes, and was pissed about it. For the skeptics, I guess we'll have to wait for some snipet from a sportswriter in order for anyone to believe it. Hey.
> 
> ...


Now I'm a skeptic for saying that you can't be certain that Crawford was mad about being pulled out of the game? Can you be 100% certain? Read my first post on this matter.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Now I'm a skeptic for saying that you can't be certain that Crawford was mad about being pulled out of the game? Can you be 100% certain? Read my first post on this matter.


I wrote that post in the most objective manner possible. I have stated my opinion clearly, as have others, who watched the game. Your opinion counts very little considering you didn't watch the game. You're basing all your points only to counter ones that have been made.



VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> I wrote that post in the most objective manner possible. I have stated my opinion clearly, as have others, who watched the game. Your opinion counts very little considering you didn't watch the game. You're basing all your points only to counter ones that have been made.
> ...


You aren't in Jamal's head. I only have one point and that is the fact that you don't know for sure what Jamal was thinking.

_"Now then, he could have been talking about a bad call or he could have been talking to himself about his play. Look at it from both angles."_


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I've heard on good authority that Crawford had some very tart sushi immediately prior to the pre-game warm-up. I'm sure he was considering the bad taste in his mouth as he muttered his explicative into the camera....


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I've heard on good authority that Crawford had some very tart sushi immediately prior to the pre-game warm-up. I'm sure he was considering the bad taste in his mouth as he muttered his explicative into the camera....


You never know.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I'd like to nominate Dickie for Post of the Year. It's an excellent, non-biased analysis of what I consider to be the Bulls #1 story of the year. Good job.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I watched the game and I too interpreted the "bull****" as Jamal being upset at being pulled out of the game. But that's just me...

Begining the season, I was in favor of Jamal starting. I thought it would be good to bring in Jay slowly while getting a group of starters used to playing together and seing what Jamal is capable of. But now, I have completely changed my mind.

After seeing Jay play, it is clear to me that he is in a different category than Jamal. Williams is a player who is capable of creating danger whenever he wants, at any given time. We haven't had that type of player for a little while now. Jamal, to me, is (or will be) capable of running the triangle smoothly, knocking the jumper when open, and maybe making nice passes off the break. That's not bad at all, but I haven't seen him capable of doing much when a play breaks down and you need someone to create. 

Given this in mind, I think Jay is the unquestionable starter. Jamal can be a nice backup. But given Williams ability to play high energy throughout the game, I think that minutes for Jamal will be more and more limited. For his own sake, he needs to accept playing a backup role behind a more talented player and pray to be traded, (which will probably happen). If he does accept it, backup might not be a bad situation for him. lately, he's been putting a lot of pressure on himself with the mini controversies his passive aggressiveness is creating. And the more pressure he's under, the worse he has played. Accepting his backup role and doing it well, he might end up in the same position Bobby Jackson is in Sacramento. (Jackson has impressed the heck out of me in the 2 games I've seen him.)


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>laso</b>!
> I watched the game and I too interpreted the "bull****" as Jamal being upset at being pulled out of the game. But that's just me...


I heard the “bull****” too! It came as a shock to hear that! This is unacceptable! Crawford just should leave now! He’s acting like a baby without a candy! Crawford, here is the message for you: Leave Jay Williams alone!


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> He’s acting like a baby without a candy!


Best Crawford description yet, "a baby without a candy!"

instant classic.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I also wacthed the game KC and it was pretty obvious to everyone that Crawford was voicing his displeasure at being pulled. In fact, I heard what he said a little differntley, to me it sounded like he said "this is bull****". It seemed readily apparent that he was talking about being pulled. I've been a strong Crawford supporter in the past, I still think Crawford should have kept the starting job until JWill clearly took it from him. Still, it's clear that he is unhappy, it's clear that he is pouting, it's clear that his confidence is totally gone. He was TRYING TOO hard IMO, his passes were more like desperation attempts to get an assist. And for some reason Bulls players just don't seem to catch his passes even when he makes a nice one (which I maintain that he frequently does). Anyway, I hate to admit it, but it seems like the time to move Jamal and probably Fizer too.

I know this is a different thread, but I also agree that E-Rob needs more minutes. Giving E-Rob some of hassells minutes would suit me fine. How are you suppossed to prove your worth in 6 minutes? It looks to me like E-rob has improved his defense and is chomping at the bit for a 25 minute plus game...I say give it to him.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*Jamal Crawford will never win*

If he shows anger (bulls***) at being benched, he is immature. But if he was pulled and sat down, showing no emotion, he would be labelled as lacking intensity.

The comparison of "potentially losing a parent (grandma) and outpatient surgery" is perhaps the most demeaning argument I have ever heard. Having lost both parents, and having one die over a one week period, the stress is mind-numbing. Obviously, it is Jamal's fault that he has a close relationship with a family member. Krause should only draft ophans. Plus, this is the same guy who had reconstructive knee surgery, and was out for the season, but through hard work, made it back last year. Actions do speak louder than words - he busted his butt last year to make it back.

He makes a comment on the triangle, and is a malcontent. Jay Will makes a comment as a nine-game rookie, and is a visionary.

He is also a bust. I mean, nobody develops slowly. Well, excluding Jermaine O'Neal, and maybe Ricky Davis, and Jonathon Bender. The list goes on and on. Crawford played only two years of organized basketball in high school, and 17 games in college. His experience level is probably less than the average high schooler. He suffered a serious injury in year two, and has one season of experience on court.

Is Jamal Crawford perfect. No. He has shown immaturity, and must grow up. But NOTHING he does will placate some people. He does X, he should have done Y. Every step and comment he makes is twisted and over-aqnalyzed. But if he stopped speaking, he would be immature. He cannot win.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Jamal Crawford will never win*



> Originally posted by <b>LIBlue</b>!
> If he shows anger (bulls***) at being benched, he is immature. But if he was pulled and sat down, showing no emotion, he would be labelled as lacking intensity.


No one here would have labeled him lacking intensity. The fact is, as many fans/viewers here have correlated, Jamal was visibly and audibly upset with getting pulled from the game last night(a game in which he wasn't playing well).



> Crawford played only two years of organized basketball in high school, and 17 games in college. His experience level is probably less than the average high schooler. He suffered a serious injury in year two, and has one season of experience on court.


Per HS experience, do you have a quote or link to confirm this? To my knowledge he played 4 years of HS ball, got offered a scholarship to Fresno State and wasn't eligible. Thus he stayed a fifth year before signing w/ the Wolverines. See articles below....



> Is Jamal Crawford perfect. No. He has shown immaturity, and must grow up. But NOTHING he does will placate some people. He does X, he should have done Y. Every step and comment he makes is twisted and over-aqnalyzed. But if he stopped speaking, he would be immature. He cannot win.


Hmmm okay. The fact is, if Jamal produces on the court, no one has a problem. Crawford has a long history (dating back to college) of being a problematic player w/ his coaches. This has carried on with his two coaches in the pros so far. I have little sympathy for this kid, and I would like him to mature both as a person (first obviously) and as a player soon. Unfortunately, it looks more and more as if this will have to be for another team.

<b>Please read:</b>
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/2000/may/05-08-2000/news/13.html
http://www.freep.com/sports/umich/um18_20000118.htm
http://espn.go.com/ncb/news/2000/0204/335876.html

Peace.


VD


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

So what he said bull**** who cares, now if he had choked Cartwright it would be news but he said a common phrase which I am sure many of you use quite frequently to show displeasure at a circumstance or situation. <strike>Get over your self righteous attitudes.</strike> He is immature because he said bull****. Ludicrous

Careful! All opinions are welcomed but attacking other posters opinions are not. truebluefan


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*Vin - Here is one link*

The attached link answers the playing time in high school question. He was a ggos student, with a 2.6 or 2.9 GPA, and he scored over a 1,000 on the SAT.

The "illegal benefits" involved the use of a automobile from a long-time family friend in Seattle. When the NCAA forced him to pay back $15,000 before he could play again, they forced him out of school. Amazingly, Carlos Boozer can move from Alaska and live with his AAU coach in California for his senior year, but this is not an illegal benefit. Crawford was loaned a 10 year old Mercedes Benz from a family friend (he had known Crawford since his return to Seattle, and was viewed as a male role model by the Crawford family), and that is illegal. Go figure.

I am not saying he does not need to grow up, but it is a feeding frenzy behind every comment he makes.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*Here is the link again*

Oops, I thought I attached it last time.

http://espn.go.com/nba/draft00/players/player_bio40.html


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I'm mad about the two stupid turnovers when the Bulls were making a run. They were Fizer passes. I know that everyone makes mistakes but he passed it to a guy surrounded by 3 Bucks. 

Also not happy with Jalen's no-look turnover in the 4th during the same run. 

There are too many young guys on the Bulls who feel entitled to minutes. I think Cartwright's situation isn't a whole lot better than Mo Cheeks in Portland. It's just that the guys on the Bulls play doesn't warrant minutes. It's my feeling that Krause needs to do something soon before these guys implode. They're too big of babies to handle this.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Here is the link again*



> Originally posted by <b>LIBlue</b>!
> Oops, I thought I attached it last time.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/draft00/players/player_bio40.html


Good link, and I stand corrected on that point.

The math doesn't really add up though... Class 3A player of the year in '98 and '99. He was granted an additional year of eligibility (his fifth year). What did he do his first 3 years? I am guessing those senior year stats are from his fifth year. Eesh, I'm confused.

Still its hard to refute the fact that Crawford has had run-ins with his last 3 coaches and staff. The kid needs to grow up.



VD


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

*His first three years of high school ...*

He spent his first two or three years of high school living with his father in Los Angeles. His mother sent him to LA to be with his dad, and he attended Dorsey HS. Dorsey in in a rough part of LA.

It was at Dorsey that he witnessed his best friend being shot and killed by gang members (neither he nor his friend were gang-bangers). After the murder, Crawford was consistently harrassed, felt threatened, and basically dropped out of school. He then transfered back home to Seattle and live his mom. Due to the extenuating circumstances in LA, he was awarded a fifth year of high school eligibility.

He always has been a perennial tease, but when he played at Michigan for 17 games, Michigan was a very good team. It was after he was suspended that the team collapsed.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: His first three years of high school ...*



> Originally posted by <b>LIBlue</b>!
> He spent his first two or three years of high school living with his father in Los Angeles. His mother sent him to LA to be with his dad, and he attended Dorsey HS. Dorsey in in a rough part of LA.
> 
> It was at Dorsey that he witnessed his best friend being shot and killed by gang members (neither he nor his friend were gang-bangers). After the murder, Crawford was consistently harrassed, felt threatened, and basically dropped out of school. He then transfered back home to Seattle and live his mom. Due to the extenuating circumstances in LA, he was awarded a fifth year of high school eligibility.
> ...


Great post LIB.

Found some additional stuff too....
http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/crawford_feature_020614.html
(Crawford has been playing organized ball since he was 8, he didnt' magically start sometime in HS)

http://www.freep.com/sports/umich/um14_19991214.htm
(Crawford lost to David Terrell in one-one-one at UMich apparently)




VD


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*i saw the game*

he refered to a bull's #2 and in my opinion it was over being pulled after 2 min. 

so what? he is supposed to get mad at these things 

he thinks he can help the bulls and wants to be on the floor.

in my opinion pulling Crawford in the 2nd contributed to the run the bucks had in the 1st place 

lets replay it in out minds for a sec jc is pulled the 2nd the score is i think 33-34 bucks (i think the bucks had just taken the lead ) on the next possesion the bulls score on a curry basket 

then redd hit s a 3 j will brings it down fast passes it to curry who gets blocked 

redd hits a 3 

j will brings the ball down fast again trying to get a basket quick passes it to curry who is blocked again and another bucks break in which they score and before anyone knows it its 61-40 bucks on way to a halftime score 67-44 

imo the fault lies with Cartwright for putting williams in at that point because if a team starts a run he incapapble of slowing things down to work for a shot and when things are going against you 

he is still a rookie you know 

and seeing what happened in the 1st half when he left i would think if i were JC i'd want to stay in too seeing as i do vaguely remember a couple of early season comebacks with him at the helm in the 2nd half


----------



## Outkast1 (Jun 5, 2002)

The first turnover wasn't Jamal's fault, it was a pick and roll with Lonny, who failed to roll into the lane as he should've done. I hope he wasn't pulled because of that.

I think Jamal should've been out there guarding Cassell late; he just ate up Jay Williams to ice it.

On the other hand, Jay could learn something from it.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Outkast</b>!
> The first turnover wasn't Jamal's fault, it was a pick and roll with Lonny, who failed to roll into the lane as he should've done. I hope he wasn't pulled because of that.
> 
> I think Jamal should've been out there guarding Cassell late; he just ate up Jay Williams to ice it.
> ...


Cassell made ONE BIG SHOT! Williams did a great job defending Cassell other than that!


----------



## Outkast1 (Jun 5, 2002)

No, he backed him into the lane and spun around him for a layup, and then drilled a fadeaway in Jay's grill.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Outkast</b>!
> No, he backed him into the lane and spun around him for a layup, and then drilled a fadeaway in Jay's grill.



WOW!! I just checked the game log and Cassell scored a whole 6 points in the fourth quarter, 2 of which came on free throws with 15 seconds left. So Cassell had 4 meaningful points in the fourth. You really think that really warrants bringing Jamal in for Jay, who was playing an excellent game??? That is absolutely absurd! Especially considering that Williams is a better defender than Crawford.

Height does not equal defense.


----------



## Outkast1 (Jun 5, 2002)

I wouldn't say Jay's a better defender. 

I made mention that Cassell was their go-to-guy in the final few minutes, he didn't have to score much prior, with Mike Redd and others going nuts. 

I think Jamal's size would've made it more difficult for Cassell to post him up.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Outkast</b>!
> I wouldn't say Jay's a better defender.
> 
> I made mention that Cassell was their go-to-guy in the final few minutes, he didn't have to score much prior, with Mike Redd and others going nuts.
> ...


Cassell knows every trick in the book...especially how to gain separation from a defender so that he can get his shot off. Williams was at his mercy, but the same could have been said about Crawford had he been out there. While size helps some, court savy, experience and the respect of the officials give Sam a huge edge over either of our PG's.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Outkast</b>!
> I wouldn't say Jay's a better defender.
> 
> I made mention that Cassell was their go-to-guy in the final few minutes, he didn't have to score much prior, with Mike Redd and others going nuts.
> ...


Have you seen Crawford play defense at all this year??? Not only is he too weak to handle the physical point guards (like Cassell), but he also rarely moves his feet. Every time he's been in this season, the man he's guarding blows right by him and gets to the basket.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: i saw the game*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> he refered to a bull's #2 and in my opinion it was over being pulled after 2 min.
> 
> so what? he is supposed to get mad at these things
> ...


first off, I have seen Jamal since he arrived with the Bulls. He has NEVER been a good defender. He is a sorry ball handler, passer, shooter(for a short period of time he did hit a few 3pters) and defender....I am not a crawford basher....but its true.

Because Curry gets blocked, it does not indicate Jay williams is at fault...(at least the ball is not glued to his hands, huh?)

Was Jamal in the game when the Bulls came back from the 23 point deficit??? IF SO, what did he do? (I believe he was on the bench tho....)

Being a rookie does not mean he cannot be great real soon....I am not too worried about sam cassell, IF jay will can hang with kidd...he has my vote. period.

and finally, if crawford gets mad about anything, it should be that he has NOT done enough to convince the man that is in charge, that he is good enough to play any extended amount of minutes.

The fact is, that the bulls tied the game at 91....from THAT point on, Rose held onto the ball too many times....himself. THAT is what BC needs to be aware of...Jay was on his way to ANOTHER HUGE game...until Jalen derailed him, as well as the rest of the team. They should have and could have won this game...without JC.:grinning:


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

From latest Tribune article:

_As Robinson aired his frustrations for a second day, Cartwright stayed on the practice court to talk to Crawford, who logged nine minutes against Milwaukee.

*Cartwright took exception to Crawford's body language as Crawford got pulled early in the fourth quarter, after committing his fourth turnover*._


Well, at least we now know what Cartwright thought about Jamal's "_outburst_".

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...4bulls,0,572829.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: i saw the game*



> Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
> 
> 
> first off, I have seen Jamal since he arrived with the Bulls. He has NEVER been a good defender. He is a sorry ball handler, passer, shooter(for a short period of time he did hit a few 3pters) and defender....I am not a crawford basher....but its true.
> ...


say what you will about craw's defense(not that crawford is a good defender but there a differece between being a non factor and a player the other team is obviously targeting) its light years ahead of Williams not one point guard going against williams has had a bad game 

and there have been some scrubs facing us PG's who couldn't the floor even if someone tripped them lighting him up 

kevin ollie schooled him as did tony delk(23 points on 9 shots in their 1st meeting)

i remember l.hunter on the raptors getting 23 pts in 31 min. mostly on williams and alvin williams getting a fair share of his 25 on jay will

and while the the game against the nets was very good on the offensive end i do still remember j kidd also getting a triple double on the defensive end

and no being a rookie does not mean he wont be great soon but 

it doesn't help and a point guard is suppose to control tempo and jay will helped it get out of control by feeding into the frenzy and rushing the off. instead of slowing things down as he and any other point guard in that situation is suppose to do 

and while its all fair and good to blame rose for a loss Rose is the go to guy not just because he wants it that way but the bulls want it that way too 

and while Jc wasn't on the floor much for the comeback it should be noted he wasn't on the floor at all when they lost control of the game either til the 4th either 

i dont have a problem with williams getting more time he's playing better i am for it but his offense comes at a price on the other end its not as cut and dry as you may want to think


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

As Robinson aired his frustrations for a second day, Cartwright stayed on the practice court to talk to Crawford, who logged nine minutes against Milwaukee. 

Cartwright took exception to Crawford's body language as Crawford got pulled early in the fourth quarter, after committing his fourth turnover.--Chicago Tribune. 



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I found it odd that Jamal was pulled not after his turnover, but after he picked Ollie at halfcourt and started the break. Surely another minute or two of playing time couldn't have hurt.... I would have been slightly pissed *at myself* for making a bonehead play, but why was he pulled after a good play....?
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> He could have been talking to himself about his play. He could have been mad about a call that he thought he should have gotten. Thoughts aren't limited to what is happening at that present moment in time. Endless possibilities. I guess since it is Jamal Crawford saying it, he must have been mad at Cartwright for taking him out of the game. Trade him!


Apologists, please be advised.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: i saw the game*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> say what you will about craw's defense(not that crawford is a good defender but there a differece between being a non factor and a player the other team is obviously targeting) its light years ahead of Williams not one point guard going against williams has had a bad game
> ...



Actually to make up for jay's lacking d, of late, hassel has been getting a lot of Jay's assignments. Hassel was the player picking up Kidd and Cassel on a lot of possesions.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: i saw the game*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> say what you will about craw's defense(not that crawford is a good defender but there a differece between being a non factor and a player the other team is obviously targeting) its light years ahead of Williams not one point guard going against williams has had a bad game
> ...




I like to see the creative ways people come up with to blame things on Williams. Sure, I realize there are a lot of people that treat Williams like the golden boy and blame everything on everyone else. But then, there are those few people that resent the golden boy image, and the fact that he went to Duke, and they look for every tiny detail that they can blame on Williams.

You say that Cartwright made a mistake in substituting Williams for Crawford. ARE YOU SEROIUS????? Crawford came in and played TERRIBLE. He didn't have a clue what he was doing. The only thing he contributed was a few ridiculuous turnovers. But lets not blame Crawford for those turnovers, lets blame WILLIAMS for the game's pace and the fact that Eddy Curry got blocked twice.

Yeah, the pace was fast. If Eddy Curry could get a damn shot off, or recognize when a double team is coming, the Bulls would have been fine. There is absolutely no reason to blame that on Williams. The Bulls slowed the tempo down after this string of events, and it did NOTHING for them as the Bucks only continued to stretch the lead. But hey, if Crawford would have been in there, the Bucks wouldn't have made that run, right?? Please tell me WHAT IN THE WORLD Crawford could have contributed to stop that run.

And to say that Williams is a worse defender than Crawford is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. You mentioned Tony Delk's big game, but that wasn't Jay's fault at all!!!! Most of those points came off of wide open 3's he got because Jay was helping on another player. That's what happens when you play the Celtics, you guard Pierce and Walker tight, and make the others beat you.

And then you mention Kevin Ollie. Hmmm...let's see. Michael Redd is canning FIVE 3's in one quarter! Do you really think that ANYONE is going to be looking to lock up KEVIN OLLIE when Redd is looking for the shot. Almost all of Ollie's points came in the second quarter when Redd was on fire. Almost all of his points came as a result of the Bulls running to stop Redd.

You're right, it's not as cut and dry as you think.

Have you watched Jamal play defense at all this year??? HE NEVER MOVES HIS FEET!!! He just stands there while his man blows right by him. He is also too weak to stop anyone from getting to the basket. At least Williams gets a lot of help defense steals. At least Williams hustles.

Like you said, Crawford wasn't on the court when the Bulls made the comeback run. However, you then said that he wasn't on the court when it got out of hand in the 4th. That means you either didn't watch the game or you're searching for excuses. What the hell would Crawford have changed if he were on the court??? The final quarter WAS ALL ABOUT JALEN. Jay did absolutely nothing to contribute to losing control of the game, it was all Jalen. But of course, if Crawford would have been in, he probably would have dribbled down and jacked up a couple of pull-up 3's. That would have been GREAT considering he is SHOOTING 24% FROM THE FIELD!!

Watching the game Williams played and watching the game Crawford played, I don't see how anyone could think that Crawford should have been in the game instead of Williams.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Cartwright took exception to Crawford's body language as Crawford got pulled early in the fourth quarter, after committing his fourth turnover.--Chicago Tribune.
> 
> Apologists, please be advised.


I'm not quite sure what your point is here...

Bill had every right to be mad at Crawford. Hell, I was mad at him for playing like crap. But this still does nothing to prove your point, whatever that is exactly....

Crawford STILL could have been mad at himself. This proves nothing.  I guess it's a nice try though....?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what your point is here...
> ...


Simply amazing.

A corroboration of Bulls fans/viewers that have similar interpretation of Jamal's anger at being subbed out early in the 4th Q of a recent game <b>AND</b> a newspaper article to confirm BC's displeasure at Jamal's body language as he left the court.

Answer me this, why would BC be upset if Jamal was 'mad at himself' for his play on Wednesday night? He clearly wouldn't. Bill C is taking exception to the fact that Jamal was pouting and vocally questioning his decision to sit him. Period. Similarly, Eddie Robinson's sitting off the court (as other teammates cheered and stood during the rally) didn't win him any brownie points either.



VD


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Simply amazing.
> ...


Vin, be amazed. I have that effect on some people.

More people believing something they cannot know does not make it right. That's just silly to say.

Now take it as you will. He publicly displayed his maddness, that's what the talk was about. Now I have * no * idea what he was thinking. _ You don't. _ Bill doesn't know. 

* ONE * MAN KNOWS, and he ain't here.

So let it go. _ No one knows. _

Jamal yelled. Jamal & Bill discussed, end of story.

Let the thread die already, it's been beat to death, dug up, and beaten again....


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Vin, be amazed. I have that effect on some people.
> ...


Wow. One last question, did you watch the game? Most certainly, no. I have a hard time arguing an incident with someone who clearly wasn't a witness. Sorry.


So according to your 'final' argument.......
I have no idea what Shaq was thinking when he took a swing at Brad Miller.

And I have no idea what Latrell was thinking when he decided to put his two hands on PJ Carlisimo

And I have no idea what Eddie Robinson was thinking when he decided to sit away from his teammates the during the entirety of the Bulls 4th Q rally against the Bucks....


Jamal's actions (body language) and words were something that BC took exception to. It has been corroborated by all fans here that saw the game, as well as by the newspaper that covers the Bulls. Everyone who saw the first two minutes of the 4th quarter Wednesday night reached the same conclusion as to what the Jamal's intention was. Yeah, but what do fans, beatwriters, and the coach of the Bulls know?

You don't have to agree with me. I don't care. You remain the vocal minority on the issue.




VD


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. One last question, did you watch the game? Most certainly, no. I have a hard time arguing an incident with someone who clearly wasn't a witness. Sorry.
> ...


The only thing that I think is more amazing than all these excuses for Crawford is the fact that some of the posters on here are saying he should have been in the game in the fourth quarter instead of Williams.

What has Crawford done to deserve such steadfast support and the unwavering benefit of the doubt?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. One last question, did you watch the game? Most certainly, no. I have a hard time arguing an incident with someone who clearly wasn't a witness. Sorry.
> ...


I most certainly DID watch the game. I actually have it on tape still if you'd like a copy. I have not missed a Bulls game in a VERY long time; judging from your posts, probably longer then you've been alive. And to respond to your sarcasm and the statement that you don't care, that is an excellent mod attitude...

I have no problem being in the minority. I'd much rather have an opinion then ride the masses, the "bandwagon" if you will. 

As for the subjects you brought up, I would think they are slightly more clear then yelling a profanity while facing no one in particular. Yet, I'll make the point again, we all have a pretty good idea what they might have been thinking in those extreme cases. But are you 100% sure. No, you cannot be.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Jim, we agree on 1 thing. This thread should have died long ago.




> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> But are you 100% sure. No, you cannot be.


Even in a court of law for a murder charge, one does not have to be 100% sure. Are you familar with the concept: *Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt*?

Not 100% certainlty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Of couse, this takes a unimous verdict from 12 jury members. But the standards are not as high for a civil case. Or on a bball message board.

Verdict: As far as having a poor attitute, Jamal is quilty beyond a resonable doubt.

Sentence: Penality can be as severe as a stint on the IR or a trade to the Clippers. Due to extentuating circumstands such as confusing verbal promises made in from the Bulls GM, we choose not to throw the book at Jamal. This time.

Show up with JWill 2 hours before each game to work on shooting, give BC no grief. Craw will remain on parole until shooting % exceeds 40%.


----------



## higginj44 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Jim, we agree on 1 thing. This thread should have died long ago.
> 
> 
> ...


:rofl:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Jim, we agree on 1 thing. This thread should have died long ago.
> 
> 
> ...



LOL!!! Great post! Exactly what this thread needed!


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Trade him to the Wizards. That will teach him. He will have to spend the rest of the season behind Hughes, Lue, Stackhouse, and Jordan. I can't think of a worse fate.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Jim, we agree on 1 thing. This thread should have died long ago.
> 
> Even in a court of law for a murder charge, one does not have to be 100% sure. Are you familar with the concept: *Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt*?


agreed!

After 3 years of law school, I'd hope I know what it meant!

But lemme put it to you this way?   

Who's more "guilty"... Jamal Crawford or O.J.????


If the yell does not fit, you must acquit!!!!

LOL!!! :wbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: :wbanana:


----------

