# Tyson Chandler, Thank You



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

For asking what alot of us have been asking

Tyson Chandler got yanked 58 seconds later after he picked up a technical foul for hanging on the rim on his second dunk of the quarter.

"When you're 7 feet tall you're supposed to dunk the ball," Skiles said. "Why do you have to slap the backboard?"

Chandler, who didn't return, expressed shock at the call and the benching.

"I don't understand why I got jerked like that after making two good plays in a row," he said. "I knew I could contribute more but I was on the bench.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Skiles is ridiculous.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> "From the beginning, I didn't know why I got jerked like that after making two good plays in a row," he said. "I thought we had momentum. I got the 2 dunks in a row. I don't care about a (darn) technical for being aggressive and slapping on the backboard. It was very frustrating getting subbed out for that."
> 
> Benching or not, the 7-foot-1 power forward, who had 4 points and 3 rebounds in 13 minutes, vowed not to change his style.
> 
> ...


 http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38311105


"If they call a tech, they call tech". 

I also don't see how standing wide open under the basket, consititutes good play. Nocioni made two great plays to allow Tyson very easy slams and Tyson had to power them down, after all that's what he does.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> Skiles is ridiculous.


It obvious, he is trying to get fired.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> It obvious, he is trying to get fired.


I mean, come on, who yanks a player for showing intensity after finishing a play? I hope Chandler keeps playing the way he does, because Skiles is just going to chop his confidence down by making him tone down his level of intensity. Basketball is a game where slight hesitation kills you, and Skiles beating discipline into these kids by magnifying slight mistakes and completely ignoring the positives will end up destroying these kids confidence. 

Its sad. Hinrich came from a top college program and has been winning all his life. Deng came from a top program too, didn't lose too much last season. Gordon and Duhon too. Nocioni just won the gold freaking medal this summer. 

We're taking fierce competitors who know how to win and exposing them to the losing culture. Its very depressing.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

A couple of points...

IMO its a dumb rule that allows Kenyon Martin to snap his jersy's shoulder staps after a dunk in a display of bravado as he parades back down the floor while penalizing Chandler for slapping the backboard after his dunk. Someone's going to have to provide me with some kind of explanation that makes sense.

Secondly, this is an extremely young team whose frustration level has to be at an all-time high. Chandler, a 21 year old shows some exhuberence after a dunk, perhaps releasing some of his own pent up feelings and gets whistled for it. Ok, if he broke a rule, even if its a dumb rule, so be it. 

At the time we're playing well during a 3rd quarter for the first time in a long time. We trail by just 2 points. Rather than encourage his young team to keep battling and retain the fire they came out with to start the second half, its lesson time again. At the expense of losing one more time, Skiles douces all that team enthusiasm by yanking one of their emotional leaders..._for the rest of the game!_

My question to Skiles is, "Was it worth it, Scott? Was it worth the possible cost of this team's first win of the season to penalize, not just the player but the entire team for one minor, ill-timed display of enthusiasm?

At this point I just don't know what drives Skiles anymore. Does he want to win as much as he wants to control individuals? This is a perfect example of a leader who prefers to win the battle even if it costs him the war. Its an indication to me that even though he's a very young coach by current standards, he's out of touch with today's athletes and what drives them. 

If it hasn't started already, at some point these players are going to start to tune him out. Theres 0-7 and there's _UGLY_ 0-7. Things are going to get much uglier if this becomes a players vs. coach situation. And that's exactly where I see this heading.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> At this point I just don't know what drives Skiles anymore. Does he want to win as much as he wants to control individuals? This is a perfect example of a leader who prefers to win the battle even if it costs him the war. Its an indication to me that even though he's a very young coach by current standards, he's out of touch with today's athletes and what drives them.
> 
> If it hasn't started already, at some point these players are going to start to tune him out. Theres 0-7 and there's _UGLY_ 0-7. Things are going to get much uglier if this becomes a players vs. coach situation. And that's exactly where I see this heading.


I'm glad you've come around on Skiles. I agree 100%.

Question. Do you think Pax sees the same thing? Why isn't he doing anything about it? Why didn't he see this before he hired Skiles?


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

I have supported Skiles since he joined the team, but after last nights game I'm done. I had no problem with him adding discipline to the team, however he has taken it to an extreme. He doesn't seem to understand his players whatsoever. This isn't a coach thats trying to win, this is a coach that just wants to maintain control. This team is a train wreck waiting to happen, Skiles is the crazy conductor, and the players are the passengers trying to get out. 

Imagine if Artest was still on this team, Artest vs. Skiles, now that would be something worth watching.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> I have supported Skiles since he joined the team, but after last nights game I'm done. I had no problem with him adding discipline to the team, however he has taken it to an extreme. He doesn't seem to understand his players whatsoever. This isn't a coach thats trying to win, this is a coach that just wants to maintain control. This team is a train wreck waiting to happen, Skiles is the crazy conductor, and the players are the passengers trying to get out.
> 
> Imagine if Artest was still on this team, Artest vs. Skiles, now that would be something worth watching.


I agree. Very many NBA players just could not play for Skiles. It would not work.

Skiles is not worth it.

But, this is clear at the end of last season and our GM did nothing about it.

Meanwhile.... the losses pile up.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

Skiles made the right decision. 

Frequently, this is a stupid (in the Bill Parcels' sense) basketball team that makes stupid decisions. Tyson completely destroyed the momentum the Bulls were building by giving them that free-throw. He needs to act like he has dunked before.

Skiles needs to continue to send a strong message not only to Tyson but to the rest of the team that witnesses such benchings. Stupid basketball should not be tolerated. 

Changing the team's behavior is more important than putting your most talented players on the court for one game.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I agree. Very many NBA players just could not play for Skiles. It would not work.


I'd go as far as most people in general could not play for skiles. While it's essential to understand the complexities of the game, in order to be a good a coach; it is also essential to understand the complexties of people. This is one thing Skiles doesn't seem to grasp at all.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> Skiles made the right decision.
> 
> Frequently, this is a stupid (in the Bill Parcels' sense) basketball team that makes stupid decisions. Tyson completely destroyed the momentum the Bulls were building by giving them that free-throw. He needs to act like he has dunked before.
> ...


I just hope Paxson's not thinking the same thing.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am a backer of Scott. But I do question last nights benching of Chandler. I backed him when he would bench Crawford and others in the past. But I wonder why he benched Chandler. We needed his emotion. 

That being said, I doubt that we win the game if Tyson was still in game. Boykins killed us. Pure and simple and Tyson was not guarding him. 

We have yet to put together 4 quarters of basketball.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

In defense of Skiles, the backboard slap wasn't Chandler's only transgression yesterday.

He also forgot the combination to his locker and was nearly three minutes late for fourth-period study hall.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

To get benched for that, specificially, is absolutely ridiculous. Does Skiles realize that Antonio Davis has done the exact same thing more than once this season? Did he bench _him_ for it? Of course not. Skiles is a total hypocrite. And the refs are wrong for calling a T sometimes, but not every time. I mean, you see players slapping the backboard all the time. ALL the time, without having a T called! It seems the veterans are allowed to do it, while young guys are called for T's. It's hypocritical and dumb on the refs part, as well. 

But, that's not the point here. Skiles is losing his players, period. Already. For those who don't want to get rid of him, ask yourselves this: can you see Skiles ever leading this team into the playoffs or further at this point? If you can, how? He's burning/burnt his bridges. Starting over right now, with this much time left, with a good head coach could salvage some of the season.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

Right move, wrong coach. I don't mind the benching--Tyson made a stupid play that hurt the team, and he should've cooled his jets for a while--but coming from Skiles that sort of response seems tetchy rather than tough.

Bill Parcells benches you after you make a stupid penalty? You shut up and take it in stride, because Parcells is a proven winner. When Skiles does the same thing, it's not in the name of getting everyone on the same winning page...since he's never won anything in his life and hasn't proven that he's able to teach a single basketball skill to anyone on the NBA level. Just makes him look like a bald little turd with a Napoleon complex, and it's not exactly a buyer's market for those types.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Kullervo:

I just wanted to compliment you on the use of the word tetchy.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> Kullervo:
> 
> I just wanted to compliment you on the use of the word tetchy.


Yeah, well who asked 'ya? 

Ahem. Nice Bird avatar, sst.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Just one question:

Is it now the precedent on the team that if you get a technical you are benched for the rest of the game?


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Just one question:
> 
> Is it now the precedent on the team that if you get a technical you are benched for the rest of the game?


Apparently.

I don't get why people are backing Skiles on this either, its a bad coaching move plain and simple. The call giving Chandler a tech in the first place was questionable. Players do that s*** all the time. 

1998-2004...some of the absolute worst coaching, managerial and court play in the history of the sport.....not to sound like Bill Walton, but you get the point.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Interloper</b>!
> 
> 1998-2004...some of the absolute worst coaching, managerial and court play in the history of the sport.....not to sound like Bill Walton, but you get the point.


Completely off topic: 

but, my favorite part of the Pistons/ Pacers fight was Walton commenting, "this is one of the low moments in the history of the NBA." . . . such classic Walton.


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> 
> 
> Completely off topic:
> ...


:laugh: 

I was laughing when he said that....I even knew it was coming.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I blame Chandler.

Look at his comments after the game. He is anything but apologetic about picking up the T and said that he didn't give a darn about picking up a tech.

Bottom line, either you do things to help your team or you don't. You don't justify the crap, detrimental to the team plays you do by explaining that is how you play, or how you just had done something good, so it shouldn't matter.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Bottom line, either you do things to help your team or you don't. You don't justify the crap, detrimental to the team plays you do by explaining that is how you play,


Can't the same be said for Skiles?


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as most people in general could not play for skiles. While it's essential to understand the complexities of the game, in order to be a good a coach; it is also essential to understand the complexties of people. This is one thing Skiles doesn't seem to grasp at all.


Exactly, I agree 100%. I actually am sort of okay with the benching because it shows consistency from Skiles...but, c'mon, the guy HAS to realize that Tyson's BEST attribute is his fire and competitiveness. I'm sure Chandler was ticked at himself enough for allowing them to shoot a free throw. You don't need to heap shame upon the kid. Just NOT an effective way to lead.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

I agree with all, it is the WRONG thing to kill a youngn's enthusiasm. Point it out and temper it perhaps but dont kill it.

Skiles is showing a little bit of short mans disease in this case. I though so, but then after his comments I became certain. I am starting to really dislike the cut of his jib!


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> 
> 
> Can't the same be said for Skiles?


How can he when he has to instill accountability in the players first? Skiles does not coach in a vacuum. and if he has to establish order first, then that is what he has to do. 

I don't think Paxson is done cleaning house, and I don't mean the coach is about to go. This is Paxson's guy, and he has to give him time. This is not Cartwright, a guy who was inherited. Paxson will not give up on Skiles this early.

Anyone giving Chandler the benefit of the doubt on this one, is making excuses I feel. There is no need to continuously pick up celebratory techs after you dunk the ball when you are 7 feet tall. I guess if Earl Boykins threw it down on someone, I could see allowing him to hang on the rim for 5 minutes.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> There is no need to continuously pick up celebratory techs after you dunk the ball when you are 7 feet tall. I guess if Earl Boykins threw it down on someone, I could see allowing him to hang on the rim for 5 minutes.


Well yeah, cause someone would need to find a ladder to get him down.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> How can he when he has to instill accountability in the players first? Skiles does not coach in a vacuum. and if he has to establish order first, then that is what he has to do.
> ...


I should probably just butt out, but I have to say that I agree for the most part. Skiles' job is to draw the line, and get everyone to line up more or less. Then they can charge!

Wasn't it Baron von Steuben who was brought in to get the American army to learn how to act like an army at Valley Forge? When they came in, all they knew how to do was complain and fight one on one. Sometimes, that was useful. But they needed to learn how to fight as one to overcome the British discipline and superior fire power. What a waste of time, learning how to march in order! you might say. But the level of pride and the kinds of victories that winter of training produced was essential for turning the war's tide. 

Who knows if Skiles is the right guy for the job, but make no mistake, that is his job, and it is how he will be judged by Paxson. 

Chandler can complain all he want. But the players have to stop believing in emotion, and start believing in teamwork and heads-up play. Emotional play will never be the foundation for a successful program. It's the ingredient that's added to make it go over the top, but it's too unstable as the foundation.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> How can he when he has to instill accountability in the players first? Skiles does not coach in a vacuum. and if he has to establish order first, then that is what he has to do.


...and if he doesn't have the coaching skill to give his team reason to hope that he can lead 'em to a championship, he'll never establish order. Players don't play in a vacuum, either--if they don't have reason to believe that the sacrifices they're asked to make will do them any good as a team, what's in it for them?

Don't get me wrong--I'd love to see our guys all spontaneously grow up. But that's unlikely to happen without a focal point (like a good coach) around whom they can rally, and as long as Skiles combines a disciplinarian style with a confused coaching strategy, he won't have the bully pulpit from which he can lead the team. There's a difference between being authoritarian and authoritative; Skiles doesn't seem to have any of the latter going for him, and without it he's increasingly making a fool of himself. And the team, to boot.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

> Wasn't it Baron von Steuben who was brought in to get the American army to learn how to act like an army at Valley Forge? When they came in, all they knew how to do was complain and fight one on one. Sometimes, that was useful. But they needed to learn how to fight as one to overcome the British discipline and superior fire power. What a waste of time, learning how to march in order! you might say. But the level of pride and the kinds of victories that winter of training produced was essential for turning the war's tide.


Point taken...to some extent. Von Steuben was a fierce disciplinarian in some regards (and wildly eccentric to boot), but he was also a highly decorated captain from the best-trained, most hellaciously effective army on the planet. He had earned a good deal of traction, in other words. Skiles hasn't.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kullervo</b>!
> Right move, wrong coach. I don't mind the benching--Tyson made a stupid play that hurt the team, and he should've cooled his jets for a while--but coming from Skiles that sort of response seems tetchy rather than tough.
> 
> Bill Parcells benches you after you make a stupid penalty? You shut up and take it in stride, because Parcells is a proven winner. When Skiles does the same thing, it's not in the name of getting everyone on the same winning page...since he's never won anything in his life and hasn't proven that he's able to teach a single basketball skill to anyone on the NBA level. Just makes him look like a bald little turd with a Napoleon complex, and it's not exactly a buyer's market for those types.


I have a SERIOUS problem with this logic. As I read it, Skiles did exactly the right thing at the right time, but because he's Scott Skiles, he's wrong. With this logic, any coach who hasn't won a championship can't possibly coach and any coach who has won a championship can do no wrong.

I'm not buyin'.

This said, I didn't like what Skiles did with Chandler. I understand that he was trying to win a game, but I would have preferred that he sat down with Chandler for 30 seconds and told him to never ******* do that again. Then again, he may have already had that conversation in the past.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Every half-decent coach would bench an immature young guy like Chandler when he hurts the team with unnecessary stuff like that.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a SERIOUS problem with this logic. As I read it, Skiles did exactly the right thing at the right time, but because he's Scott Skiles, he's wrong.


Well, he's not wrong because he's Scott Skiles, exactly...he's wrong because he made a bold move to admonish an undisciplined player but doesn't have anything positive (by way of an proven overall strategy, an ability to establish effective rotations that promote beneficial matchups, a demonstrated knack for game planning, etc.) to add to the mix. 

It's got nothing to do with championships, and I suspect that deep down you know that. It has to do with simple competence.

Benching a player for the rest of a game because he drew a technical on a dunk is fine, as long as the message is "get with the program and stop hurting your team's chance for success". But what if there's no program per se to get with? What if the coach himself isn't talented enough to carry through on his end of the bargain? What happens then?

The 2004-05 Bulls happen, that's what.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Amareca</b>!
> Every half-decent coach would bench an immature young guy like Chandler when he hurts the team with unnecessary stuff like that.


i have seen a whole lot of players do what tyson did and not get techs.

if i were skiles i would have informed him its not worth the risk on the road where the refs dont give you the benefit of the doubt sat him for a min. to let him think about it and sent him back out there .

benching him only makes a wedge between tyson one of the team leaders and skiles ...for instance antonio daivis did the same thing later in the game only less emphatically...antonio did not get benched for it , so he played on.

if you are going to be a dictator be one for everyone not just the ones you have decided belong in your doghouse because you are "teaching", I'm sure tyson feels singled out and rightfully so and thats when it came time to answer for it he refused to take a backward step and say he was wrong, we have been watching the kid for 4 years now , its not like him he is a player who is quick to say all the right things, but because he is most likely feeling persecuted he wont.

being 0-7 didn't help this either


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

All you apoligists are talking like this is Tyson's first technical, he has a history of this type of technical, he even said it doesn't matter to him that he gets T's. I guess Skiles should of just given Tyson a hug.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

So what should Skiles have done?

For a coach in his position, I'm surprised that he didn't get in Tyson's face and rip him a new one in front of the whole team, then send him back on the court. What this team needs isn't discipline (though it needs that, too) so much as a cohesive identity. Not to get all Kellen Winslow here, but our guys need to start thinking of themselves as brothers in arms--draw a technical for something as stupid as hanging on the rim, and you're jeapordizing a crucial mission. Any opportunity Skiles gets to drive home that simple, fundamental point, he should take. Letting Tyson know that he'd let the team down, letting the team know that that sort of silliness won't be tolerated, then letting the kid make good would've been the best approach. The one Skiles took is the sort of thing that absolutely requires a coach to have a track record of sorts, and that he ain't got.


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

Skiles is such a turd sandwich. Next home game Im gonna throw a beer at him.


----------



## Kullervo (Sep 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FrankTheTank</b>!
> Skiles is such a turd sandwich. Next home game Im gonna throw a beer at him.


Watch out, Frank--he might jump into the stands and...bite your ankles.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> All you apoligists are talking like this is Tyson's first technical, he has a history of this type of technical, he even said it doesn't matter to him that he gets T's. I guess Skiles should of just given Tyson a hug.


all i'm saying is he should be fair , , a tech is a judgement call by the ref, you cant control that, only they type of actions that garner them.

if slapping the backboard is a rule violation then bench all who do it, not just tyson, AD did it so he should have gotten the same treatment...especially since doing it after tyson did it could technically be seen as insubordnation.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> all i'm saying is he should be fair , , a tech is a judgement call by the ref, you cant control that, only they type of actions that garner them.
> ...


Happy,

He didn't get the technical for slapping the backboard alone, he did a gorilla slam for lack of a better description then slapped the backboard. Nobody on either dunk was under him so the T was given for the hanging on the rim. 

Tyson got whistled for this violation his 1st year w/ Floyd, did it with Cartwright managing and now he has done it a number of time w/ Skiles coaching. Tyson has no problem givng the opposition a free throw and a full 24 in the bulls backcourt because he has to do his thing. I would think most coaches would have a problem with Tyson and his thing. 

Score 2 points, give one back .


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> He didn't get the technical for slapping the backboard alone, he did a gorilla slam for lack of a better description then slapped the backboard.


I see now it all makes sense. It wasn't just any lame Kirk Hinrich human try-hard dunk, but a Tyson Chandler gorrilla unruly slam.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

It is not just that but in general TC's play this year has been really weak. I mean how many times does he get the ball striped when he goes to the hoop. KM was kicking his butt the whole game. Let me ask the people on this board, when was the last time you say TC strip the ball from someone going to the hoop. I have watched the bulls for 4 years as much as i can and i dont thing i have ever seen him do that.

Same thing with EC. I have seen them turn the ball over again and again. When is the last time TC or EC made a vet play and slapped the ball away from the other teams center or big men. And i am serious can anyone remember either of them doing this. Lord knows they get stripped every fing game, multiple times. I think it safe to say they average 6 TO a game between them and cause zero on the other team. I like them both, nice young men. Good citizens. But it is time that each of us just admit neither is ever going to help this team. Frankly, when they are both on the floor we just look awful. No weak side D, many TO.

Instead of attacking skiles many we all need to just admit that drafting them was a mistake and make whatever trade is neccessary and get to men who know how to play the game.

david


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> 
> 
> Happy,
> ...


are you implying that the dunk by tyson is somehow an automatic technical ?

because it isn't kenyon martin does the same dunk all the time...and he also slaps the backboard afterwards.

the difference most coaches take the dunk and yell at the officials if they give a tech.

skiles takes it out on his players. and not all of them but some.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> are you implying that the dunk by tyson is somehow an automatic technical ?
> ...


Happy,

Do they call a travel even though it's clearly written what constitutes a travel? The superstars get the star treatment. The stars earn the look the other way. Tyson is nowhere close to being a superstar. 

I also think if Kenyon did the same dunk as Tyson with no one under the rim, he'd get T'd too. I have a tough time believing at this stage in Kenyon's career, he would resort to having to throw down the easy gimmes. 

Just so I make myself perfectly clear, I think Tyson's 4 points were wide open gifts from Andres' hardwork. No one was underneath Tyson or within a 5 foot radius, saftey wasn't an issue so refs followed the rule book and T'd a non superstar. BTW I believe Skiles would also give Kenyon the benefit of the doubt because Kenyon can play the game and is a Star.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The hanging-after-the-dunk technical is where the NBA caste system is most vividly on display.

Guys like Marshmelo and KMart and Amare are allowed a twist, slap, and tug. Then there's guys like Malik Allen, who I saw get a tech the other day for the briefest, most feeble slap of a backboard you'll ever see in your life.

It's one freaking point. That doesn't make any difference when you're losing games by 20+, does it? And I don't see Skiles sitting his own azz down when his crap offense stalls or his weak-*** zone trap gets exploited for an easy deuce.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

D'oh

Andre Miller got a T and his coach didn't sit him out. Nor can anyone make the lame excuse that his technical somehow stopped his team's momentum.

Miller played 34 minutes and scored 16 points.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

just for perspective....

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/news_story.asp?id=106881

==============

Toronto Raptors coach Sam Mitchell benched Loren Woods and Rafer Alston after both players were charged with technical fouls in a 91-89 loss to the Boston Celtics on Friday night.

Alston said he might not want to come back at all.

"We were playing well, moving the ball, and we had semi-control of the game," Raptors coach Sam Mitchell said. "I didn't even want to look at them.

"It was inexcusable how they conducted themselves."

Toronto led by nine points at the start of the third, but Boston had cut it to six when Woods was called for two quick fouls in the final two minutes of the quarter. Alston objected by throwing the ball downcourt, resulting in the first technical.

Woods chimed in and got a technical of his own. Paul Pierce made just one of the technical foul shots, but Boston continued to close the gap and took the lead early in the fourth, with Alston and Woods out of the game.

"We could have used them both, but I wasn't going to let either one of them back in the game," Mitchell said. "These guys cannot conduct themselves like that in front of 19,000 people and get rewarded by playing.

"You cannot do your coaches and teammates like that."

Woods was repentant, saying, "I let the emotions get the best of me. I lost it, and I lost the game for us."

But Alston said he wanted to take some time to think about his career.

"It's tough right now for me," he said. "I'm going to talk to Sam and (general manager Rob Babcock).

"I think it's time. I'm tired of getting into it with my teammates and my coaches. I don't know if I'm a good fit for this team and I don't know if I'm a good fit for this league.

"I'm going to take some time off. I might not even play the rest of the season."

Mitchell said neither would start Saturday's game against Cleveland, "without a doubt."

================

I -do- realize their actions were more egregious.


----------

