# The Bulls front office are finally being exposed as the clowns they are.



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

While the majority of the local media is too afraid to go after the front office, the rest of the media around the country is telling it like it is. 



> Over and over, those listening to John Paxson and Gar Forman would tell you that Bulls management could never make peace with the praise heaped upon Thibodeau for 60-victory seasons and deep playoff runs. For them, it was too much about the best defense in the NBA, too much about his development of journeymen into rotation contributors, good players into All-Stars, great players into an MVP.
> 
> To them, Thibodeau represented a Chicago folk hero who needed to be leveled. Tell them that he was a great coach, and league officials say you'd often hear back from Bulls management that simply, "He's good."
> 
> Adrian Woj http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-bulls-management-could-never-accept-tom-thibodeau-s-success-053816326.html





> The front office rift with Thibodeau accelerated when coaching staff wanted to draft Draymond Green in 2012. They took Marquis Teague. Oops
> 
> Frank Isola Twitter





> Bulls, Reinsdorf show true colors in classless dismissal of Tom Thibodeau
> 
> Chris Mannix SI
> http://www.si.com/nba/2015/05/28/tom-thibodeau-fired-bulls-fred-hoiberg-jerry-reinsdorf-gar-forman


Even the President of the United States and Mayor of Chicago weighed in on the topic. 

Yet a dumb majority of Bulls fan's blindly follow a front office that hasn't won a DAMN THING since MJ left.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Good stuff @thebizkit69u. I don't see how bringing in The Mayor is going to magically solve this problem.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

wow Thib wanted Green, and they went against him? morons.

I was reading something about an incident where Paxson choked VDN? don't understand how he still has his position after that. Sprewell was suspended heavily for that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> While the majority of the local media is too afraid to go after the front office, the rest of the media around the country is telling it like it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Chill with the "dumb majority" bullshit, please.

Isola and Woj are both being sourced by Thibs, so it's not surprise what they've said.

Both sides are to blame for where things were. Ultimately, the decision to let Thibs go was the correct one. However, the press release was totally unnecessary and looks really bad.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Chill with the "dumb majority" bullshit, please.
> 
> Isola and Woj are both being sourced by Thibs, so it's not surprise what they've said.
> 
> Both sides are to blame for where things were. Ultimately, the decision to let Thibs go was the correct one. However, the press release was totally unnecessary and looks really bad.


Nah, Bulls fans are some of the dumbest sports fans I know. Maybe dumb is the wrong word, but this is a fan base that is incredibly content with everything and when stuff like this pops up, they stick their collective heads in the sand.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Nah, Bulls fans are some of the dumbest sports fans I know. Maybe dumb is the wrong word, but this is a fan base that is incredibly content with everything and when stuff like this pops up, they stick their collective heads in the sand.



Well, your post is basically a personal attack that is like "if you don't hate the FO like I do, then you're dumb," which is pretty classless. It also lacks any nuance whatsoever, and any acknowledgement that this isn't some simplistic heroes/villains children's story.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

jnrjr79 said:


> Chill with the "dumb majority" bullshit, please.
> 
> Isola and Woj are both being sourced by Thibs, so it's not surprise what they've said.
> 
> Both sides are to blame for where things were. Ultimately, the decision to let Thibs go was the correct one. However, the press release was totally unnecessary and looks really bad.


I don't see how letting Thibs go was the correct decision.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

JT said:


> wow Thib wanted Green, and they went against him? morons.


Given this info was inevitably coming from the Thibodeau camp or someone trying to take Thibodeau's side in this matter, I would put little to no stock into this assertion. And I'd be saying the same thing if their roles were reversed. It is so ridiculously easy for someone to throw a random comment in like this to make person A look smart and person B to look dumb. And why wouldn't they, there is no way to prove it. Just counter ammo throw out there by Thibodeau's camp, IMO, following Reindorf's press release. How many other teams passed on Green for crying out loud.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, your post is basically a personal attack that is like "if you don't hate the FO like I do, then you're dumb," which is pretty classless. It also lacks any nuance whatsoever, and any acknowledgement that this isn't some simplistic heroes/villains children's story.


The Bulls FO are acting like a bunch of clowns, they make stupid decisions and have treated people unprofessionally.... If you or anyone else believes that what they are doing isn't at the VERY least somewhat classless, then you're an idiot or just someone who blindly follows Garpax.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> While the majority of the local media is too afraid to go after the front office, the rest of the media around the country is telling it like it is.
> 
> Even the President of the United States and Mayor of Chicago weighed in on the topic.
> 
> Yet a dumb majority of Bulls fan's blindly follow a front office that hasn't won a DAMN THING since MJ left.


Is it so hard to understand that one's opinion about Thibodeau is completely independent of that same person's opinion of the front office?

Thibodeau had to go, and I am beyond words at this point how many people can say otherwise. The Bulls are making the right move getting rid of him. Nobody is saying he is a bad coach, but he is absolutely a bad fit for this team if he is kept around longer.

How they did it, however, is certainly controversial. I don't deny that. But I am sick of people playing up Thibodeau as some innocent victim here. Literally nobody is claiming the Bulls front office as victims (because they aren't), but there are plenty saying Thibodeau is the victim. He is as much to blame here as anyone. 

If you haven't noticed, I am largely refraining from commentary on the front office one way or the other. I stated as much in a thread barely a week ago, because frankly I don't think it matters. It's the same writers attacking the Bulls front office as its always been -- Woj, Van Gundy, etc. -- and GarPax aren't going anywhere for the next few years most likely, so why even debate it. I do, however, believe the success of the next coaching hire (Hoiberg or whoever else) will inevitably be tied to Gar Forman at the very least, and perhaps even Paxson. But more so Gar, I suspect could get canned if this next hire doesn't work out. Gar is the one who reportedly had the most conflict with Thibodeau, so I think Reinsdorf is telling him "OK, pick your guy then, and now the pressure is on you". Don't forget that Thibodeau was a Reinsdorf hire, not a Gar or Pax hire.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Nah, Bulls fans are some of the dumbest sports fans I know. Maybe dumb is the wrong word, but this is a fan base that is incredibly content with everything and when stuff like this pops up, they stick their collective heads in the sand.


I really think you underestimate the bullseye (no pun intended) painted on the Bulls organization by many in the national media. 

Reinsdorf clearly doesn't and never has liked the media. He has been burned by the media many times. He picks and chooses who gets access to the team. 

The side effect is those on the outside paint whatever picture of the Bulls organization they want. I am not in any way suggesting the Bulls front office is perfect, they make their share of bad decisions, but so does every team. The difference is that Reinsdorf has made enemies in the media, alot more so than most teams in the NBA. It doesn't help the Bulls play in the #3 largest market. A dumb move or controversial coaching fire by a small market team like say the Kings is not going to get nearly the attention or backlash as the Bulls. 

When Woj blows up a story to meet his anti-Bulls agenda, I take it with a big grain of salt b/c I know he is doing it to keep his sources happy. 

The "dumber" thing to do is believe everything you read in the media when there are clearly biased agendas at play. The same thing goes, BTW, with the local beat writers who are pro-front office. It goes both ways. What I try to do is piece together the info across the whole and build a story that actually makes some sense. For example the idea of the Bulls bugging their walls is all sorts of tin foil hat crazy and only 1 report (Woj) says that sort of thing.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I don't see how letting Thibs go was the correct decision.



How closely have you been following the Bulls for the past year or so? Even those among the media who think the firing was poorly handled (and boy, was it!), virtually nobody thinks Thibs should have been back. He couldn't handle the minutes limitations on players coming off of surgery, and players were literally moving away from Chicago during the summers to escape him. It's pretty apparent he'd lost the support of at least some of the team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> The Bulls FO are acting like a bunch of clowns, they make stupid decisions and have treated people unprofessionally.... If you or anyone else believes that what they are doing isn't at the VERY least somewhat classless, then you're an idiot or just someone who blindly follows Garpax.



Well, if you had paid modicum of attention to what I'd 'written, rather than just spouting the same vitriol over and over, you would know that those assertions you are putting in my mouth are not what I think. But hey, why let that stop you?

I have over and over stated that the way the firing was handled was totally wrong. But thanks for suggesting I'm an "idiot!"

Jesus Christ, dude.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, if you had paid modicum of attention to what I'd 'written, rather than just spouting the same vitriol over and over, you would know that those assertions you are putting in my mouth are not what I think. But hey, why let that stop you?
> 
> I have over and over stated that the way the firing was handled was totally wrong. But thanks for suggesting I'm an "idiot!"
> 
> Jesus Christ, dude.


Then why jump in on the defense of the stupid bulls fan?

I clearly said that if anyone doesn't think the Bulls treated this situation poorly is an idiot. You clearly said that you don't think they treated it well, so why are you acting like I personally called you an idiot?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Then why jump in on the defense of the stupid bulls fan?
> 
> I clearly said that if anyone doesn't think the Bulls treated this situation poorly is an idiot. You clearly said that you don't think they treated it well, so why are you acting like I personally called you an idiot?


No, you said if _I_ or anyone else thinks the FO acted properly, then blah blah blah. So, you're suggesting I hold that belief, when just before your post, I explicitly said the firing was mishandled. So please don't suggest I feel otherwise, ok?

Also, you original statement was this:



> Yet a dumb majority of Bulls fan's blindly follow a front office that hasn't won a DAMN THING since MJ left.


This is just unfair. I think the front office's statement released yesterday just wasn't the type of thing I want to see the organization I'm a fan of delve into. I get why they think they need to explain why they are firing the 2nd most successful coach in franchise history, but it was a deliberate attempt to criticize Thibodeau and diminish his accomplishments under the rubric of a "championship or bust" mentality.

But you can hate the statement, and hate some of what transpired before it, and still favor retaining the front office. You can favor retaining the front office without being a member of a "dumb majority" who does so "blindly," as you completely unfairly characterize it. I don't like the way this was handled, but I'd still keep the FO because they have an exceptional track record in the draft and have been somewhat successful in free agency. On the whole, in terms of talent acquisition, I believe they are a good group. And given that talent acquisition is more important to me than their diplomacy skills with the coach (which is still important, just not as important), I think they should be kept on. In your universe, that makes me an "idiot," which, you know, is pretty shitty of you.

In any event, my broader point is a thread like this is only half the story. Saying this fiasco exposes the front office as "clowns," even if that were accurate, also fails to recognize that it has exposed Thibodeau for being unprofessional and petty, as well.

It's not a tough concept. There's a lot not to like about this situation for each and every person involved in it.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

jnrjr79 said:


> How closely have you been following the Bulls for the past year or so? Even those among the media who think the firing was poorly handled (and boy, was it!), virtually nobody thinks Thibs should have been back. He couldn't handle the minutes limitations on players coming off of surgery, and players were literally moving away from Chicago during the summers to escape him. It's pretty apparent he'd lost the support of at least some of the team.


What is your opinion on how he's handled the Bulls offense and defense?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Then why jump in on the defense of the stupid bulls fan?
> 
> I clearly said that if anyone doesn't think the Bulls treated this situation poorly is an idiot. You clearly said that you don't think they treated it well, so why are you acting like I personally called you an idiot?


Bizkit, I am not seeing a single Bulls fan claiming anywhere the Bulls front office handled the Thibodeau firing well. 

I think you are extrapolating silence on the front office mistakes into contentment with their mistakes. 

I will just say it to be clear, and so did jnrjr, that the Bulls front office did not handle the Thibodeau firing well. 

My comments as well as many Bulls fans are gravitating more on that Thibodeau had plenty of fault in this ugly divorce. These comments are largely in response to this myth floating by some fans and media like Woj/JVG that the evil Bulls front office was out to get the innocent genius coach that is Tom Thibodeau. I call BS on that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> What is your opinion on how he's handled the Bulls offense and defense?


Really badly and terrifically, respectively.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Really badly and terrifically, respectively.


There are reasons why the offense under Thibs was mediocre at best. Don't act like the offense sucked BECAUSE of Thibs.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> There are reasons why the offense under Thibs was mediocre at best. Don't act like the offense sucked BECAUSE of Thibs.


He showed a heavy bias toward playing defense first guys alot of minutes at the neglect of playing guys with more offensive skill. Bogans over Korver, Hinrich over Brooks/DJ/Nate, Noah over Mirotic, and not letting a healthy McDermott sniff the court. Offense is going to suck when you blatantly choose Bogans, Hinrich, and a broken down Noah over far more skilled scoring options. 

His offensive schemes also lacked creativity and adjustment, exposed most of all during playoff series when the same opponent for multiple straight games figures out what we're doing. 

I saw a quote not long ago where some player on another team commented the Bulls offense was very predictable; they knew where guys were going to be on the floor. The turnover problems against Milwaukee in the playoffs for instance speak to this sort of issue.

These are issues that have little to do with your personnel. And let's not pretend Rose, Butler, and Gasol isn't a strong front 3 guys to lead your offense. They should've been better than they were.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> There are reasons why the offense under Thibs was mediocre at best. Don't act like the offense sucked BECAUSE of Thibs.


I would say that at least this past season, yes, the offense sucked because of Thibs. Do you actually disagree?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I saw a quote not long ago where some player on another team commented the Bulls offense was very predictable; they knew where guys were going to be on the floor. The turnover problems against Milwaukee in the playoffs for instance speak to this sort of issue.


I just tried to find this same article, which also came to my mind immediately. The notion was everyone knows exactly what sets the Bulls will run, and they are only effective when they happen to execute so well there's nothing you can do to stop it.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I just tried to find this same article, which also came to my mind immediately. The notion was everyone knows exactly what sets the Bulls will run, and they are only effective when they happen to execute so well there's nothing you can do to stop it.


I heard Jason Goff mention this on the radio (and then mentioned it in a thread on here). It'd be interesting to get confirmation of sorts (though Goff has some decent NBA contacts at this point, having worked at sirius' nba radio station).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I heard Jason Goff mention this on the radio (and then mentioned it in a thread on here). It'd be interesting to get confirmation of sorts (though Goff has some decent NBA contacts at this point, having worked at sirius' nba radio station).



I found the article.



> Throw that onto the general predictability of the Bulls' offense and they've got a mess on their hands. OK, the Bulls missed way too many open shots, particularly point-blank ones, but opposing players throughout the Eastern Conference, even ones who were/are in these playoffs, say they have the Bulls scouted to the T largely because they adhere so strictly to called plays.
> 
> "If the Bulls could avoid having all those six-, seven-minute scoring droughts they'd probably be the best team in the league, but they can't," one Eastern Conference veteran told me Sunday night. "And we all know every single thing they're going to run. ... Some nights they just execute at a level you can't stop, but you can't do that all the time in the playoffs, not against well-coached teams that lock in defensively."


http://abc7chicago.com/sports/game-4-loss-may-haunt-chicago/714112/


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I would say that at least this past season, yes, the offense sucked because of Thibs. Do you actually disagree?


Yeah, it had nothing to do with a shell of his former self Rose, a useless Noah, Kirk Hinrich being relevant, an inconsistent Dunleavy and a non roller coaster of a bench. 

That Buttler and Gasol season... Yeah Thibs had nothing to do with that.

Damn Thibs and his miss all those wide open 3 point shots offense! 

You wan't to talk about a predictable offense, sure I will agree that hes not the greatest offensive mind out there. But nets not act like Thibs was coaching the Golden State Warriors or players of similar talent either.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah, it had nothing to do with a shell of his former self Rose, a useless Noah, Kirk Hinrich being relevant, an inconsistent Dunleavy and a non roller coaster of a bench.
> 
> That Buttler and Gasol season... Yeah Thibs had nothing to do with that.
> 
> ...


The Bulls have above average offensive talent. They didn't perform commensurate with it. It's that simple. 

And no, I don't really credit Thibs for being such a nut that Butler didn't want to train in Chicago last year, holed himself up in Texas, and improved his own game.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> The Bulls have above average offensive talent. They didn't perform commensurate with it. It's that simple.
> 
> And no, I don't really credit Thibs for being such a nut that Butler didn't want to train in Chicago last year, holed himself up in Texas, and improved his own game.


the bulls finished 11th in offensive efficiency 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency

that is above average 

right above houston (12th) and memphis (13th)

i dont fault too much for his offense being ineffective , i fault it for being near unwatchable due to its predictability and its extreme lack of creativity.
..and of course needing to run his starters into the ground to achieve it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the bulls finished 11th in offensive efficiency
> 
> https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency
> 
> ...


We seem to agree.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> The Bulls have above average offensive talent. They didn't perform commensurate with it. It's that simple.
> 
> And no, I don't really credit Thibs for being such a nut that Butler didn't want to train in Chicago last year, holed himself up in Texas, and improved his own game.


Yeah, and the confidence that Thibs had in him when he was playing 26mpg and 38 mpg when he could not shoot in the 2 years prior to this year, had NOTHING to do with his development. 

You know who else avoided Thibs in the summer? Rose and Noah. Both have given big time credit to Thibs for their development. 

Offensively they played as expected, middle of the pack.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

yodurk said:


> He showed a heavy bias toward playing defense first guys alot of minutes at the neglect of playing guys with more offensive skill. Bogans over Korver, Hinrich over Brooks/DJ/Nate, Noah over Mirotic, and not letting a healthy McDermott sniff the court. Offense is going to suck when you blatantly choose Bogans, Hinrich, and a broken down Noah over far more skilled scoring options.


In most cases, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most teams usually have their best scoring players starting in the game, so if you want to have a defensive minded team, then of course you're going to fill up your starting line up with your best defensive players. In some cases though, some players are better off being left on the bench if they are significantly hurting your offensive approach (guys like Noah though are a rare exception to this). Having big scorers off the bench can boost your teams overall production dramatically.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah, and the confidence that Thibs had in him when he was playing 26mpg and 38 mpg when he could not shoot in the 2 years prior to this year, had NOTHING to do with his development.
> 
> You know who else avoided Thibs in the summer? Rose and Noah. Both have given big time credit to Thibs for their development.
> 
> Offensively they played as expected, middle of the pack.



Uhh, given that Noah is one of the ones who just ran Thibs out of town, I wouldn't exactly cite him.

So Thibs made Jimmy a better shooter now? Mmmkay.

Don't get me wrong, Thibs's key guys may well produce fantastically for a period of time under Thibs because of the heavy minute load. That is, until they are ground into dust. If you don't see Jo ("I'm 7 feet tall and cover more court according to SVU cameras than any other player in basketball over the course of a game") Noah as a potential example of this, I can't help you.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> > Uhh, given that Noah is one of the ones who just ran Thibs out of town, I wouldn't exactly cite him.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that it was Noah. Its all speculative and even if he did run out Thibs this year, does that all of a sudden discredit the work Thibs did with Noah over the course of his career?
> ...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> There is no evidence to suggest that it was Noah. Its all speculative and even if he did run out Thibs this year, does that all of a sudden discredit the work Thibs did with Noah over the course of his career?


What work is that?



> Made him a better player.


Jimmy's enormous growth happened in the offseason he decided to get out of dodge, as opposed to the seasons where he stayed. What support can you offer that Thibs made Jimmy better, aside from giving him minutes on the court?





> You know who else was 7 feet and played damn near 39 minutes a game 5 years in a row? Patrick Ewing. Oh he also played 35 mpg at age 35!


You're ignoring that Noah (1) covered more court than anyone in the NBA, something that assuredly would not apply to Ewing, and (2) has struggled with lower body injuries throughout his career, including a seemingly major surgery last offseason, and Thibs had to have a limit forced on him! And he routinely violated it until the front office reinforced it! I mean, Jesus.



> You know who used to play less than 25 mpg? Gregg Oden.


So more minutes would have healed Greg Oden?



> The minutes excuse is something obviously that has merit but lets not act like thats the lone freaking reason Noah sucked, and yet completely ignore that's why Butler is going to get paid big.



Yes, big minutes are going to get Butler paid. But also, the guy wants to be the hell away from Thibs and reportedly told the FO he would not be seen at the Advocate Center this summer if Thibs were around. Also, Butler is a young guy. Preserving him is important! Do you really want to see him turn into another Luol Deng, used up and spit out before his time?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

"pussies" - Wilt Chamberlain on today's players and their minutes concerns


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its funny how people openly question the 2nd best coach the bulls ever had based on how much he played his top players .

a quick look at phil Jackson's 1st 5 years as head reveals he actually played his top guys a little more than thibs did.

so I guess that mean phil really isn't so good now?

1st year thibs deng 39.1 rose 37.4 noah 32.4
1st year pj Jordan 39.0 pippen 38.4 grant 34.4

2nd year thibs deng 39.4 rose 35.3 noah 30.4
2nd year pj Jordan 37.0 pippen 36.8 grant 33.9

3rd year thibs deng 38.7 noah 36.8 boozer 32.2 
3rd year pj jordan38.8 pippen 38.6 grant 35.3

4th year thibs butler 38.7 deng 37.4 noah 35.3
4th tear pj Jordan 39.3 pippen38.6 grant 35.6

5th year thibs butler 38.7 gasol 34.4 noah 30.6
5th year pj pippen 38.3 grant 36.7 bj 33.8

in 3 of the 5 seasons thibs played his leading minutes guy more than phil did for an average of 38.92 to 38.48
in all 5 seasons pj played his 2nd and 3rd leading minutes guys more than thibs did 37.83 to 36.26 and 34.6 to 32.18

I don't remember a lot of people complaining about pippen, Jordan and grant playing too much , certainly not reason to fire the man , and Krause certainly wanted for purdue and Stacey king after he used an 11th and 6th pick to draft them, he drafted and traded for players like jef sanders , dennis hopson and bob hanson and craig hodges ...and yet pippen and Jordan minutes really didn't change much

I don't remember people complaining that he was wearing them down and shortening their careers seeing as grant and pippen played for 17 years apiece and Jordan played for 15.

it seems like a lot of spinning that people are buying up , that doesn't at all stand up to any real kind of scrutiny that garpax are justified in making such a big stink about it ....its not like luol deng was never knocked for being injury prone before thibs or that explosive players like rose never get knee injuries or hustle players like noah don't wear down and suddenly become less effective (ben Wallace anyone)

and this is from someone who believed thibs was playing his players too much, in truth I believed it created a smokescreen of sorts to allow people to believe the bulls were better than they actually were , if they played lesser players more they simply would not have been as good , I would take jimmy butler in his 40th minute of play in a game over cj Watson or or a marquis teague at any point in their lives and i'm betting everyone reading would agree, 

if thibs handled their minutes like popovich does the spurs they aren't winning 60 games in a season maybe they win 45 , on a good year maybe 50 with everyone healthy the bulls don't have the kind of talent where they can plug people in and develop them and still win 60+ games, and then of course there would be complaints about not trying to win and questionable substitution patterns so you cant win for losing especially with garpax and their apparent constant undermining .


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> its funny how people openly question the 2nd best coach the bulls ever had based on how much he played his top players .
> 
> a quick look at phil Jackson's 1st 5 years as head reveals he actually played his top guys a little more than thibs did.
> 
> ...



I think it's just more that times and bodies are changing. During Phil's time, we didn't have access to the sports medicine we do now. New information informs new decision-making. 

Hockey goalies didn't use to wear face masks. Should we go back to that?

My total speculation on why the injury situation seems different these days is this. What we're seeing now is that players are bigger and stronger than ever. The ability of players to pack on muscle and become more physically imposing, faster, and more explosive has never been like this. However, a person's ligaments and cartilage don't get stronger. There is no commensurate improvement in that department as muscle mass increases. So, these bigger, stronger players are imparting greater and greater forces on their own bodies, but the same old ACLs and the like must bear this strain. So, while everyone is stronger, they are also more injury-prone. Given that sports science indicates injuries are more likely to occur when players are fatigued, and given that players are more prone to hurting themselves, it could be argued that fatigue must be fought against to a greater degree than in the past.

Anyway, I am far from a doctor, but this is my own pet theory as to why times are changing. A lot of people also look at specialization (playing the same sport continuously growing up rather than multiple sports) leading to having a less all-around rugged body. I'm open to that thought as well, though it seems perhaps a more fitting explanation for baseball arm injuries than basketball leg injuries.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think it's just more that times and bodies are changing. During Phil's time, we didn't have access to the sports medicine we do now. New information informs new decision-making.
> 
> Hockey goalies didn't use to wear face masks. Should we go back to that?
> 
> ...


if I bought your scenario I would find it hard to believe that deng rose and noah are collectively stronger and more athletic than Jordan pippen and grant thus there should more care in regards to them sports medicine training methods or not, in fact not only did they play more minutes they played in more games , they missed a total 41 out of 1148 and a combined 14 seasons of play averaging out to 79 out of 82 games played possible games in Jackson's first 5 years while making winning 3 titles and in the other 2 years making the 2nd round and the conf. finals and I believe pippen missed 1 playoff game because his father died while I don't believe grant and Jordan didn't missed any.

maybe paxson is drafting more fragile players, because on top of it all the nba was a lot more physical than it is now...a lesson paxson should well know since he was on those 1st 5 seasons with Jackson grant pippen and Jordan(the 1st 4 anyway)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> if I bought your scenario I would find it hard to believe that deng rose and noah are collectively stronger and more athletic than Jordan pippen and grant thus there should more care in regards to them sports medicine training methods or not, in fact not only did they play more minutes they played in more games , they missed a total 41 out of 1148 and a combined 14 seasons of play averaging out to 79 out of 82 games played possible games in Jackson's first 5 years while making winning 3 titles and in the other 2 years making the 2nd round and the conf. finals and I believe pippen missed 1 playoff game because his father died while I don't believe grant and Jordan didn't missed any.
> 
> maybe paxson is drafting more fragile players, because on top of it all the nba was a lot more physical than it is now...a lesson paxson should well know since he was on those 1st 5 seasons with Jackson grant pippen and Jordan(the 1st 4 anyway)



If you bought my scenario, you are not making the correct comparisons.

Rose's equivalent isn't Jordan. It's Paxson. You don't think Rose is bigger and stronger?

The argument is also pretty silly just due to sample size. 3 players then were healthier than 3 players now, so...proof? 

Would you not agree that players in the NBA generally are getting hurt at a faster clip than they were then? 

Heck, here's Michael Jordan's trainer criticizing overuse injuries caused by too much youth playing:

http://www.si.com/edge/2014/12/18/why-so-many-injuries-be-surprised-there-arent-more

Here's something indicating that among players that play 20 or more minutes per game, the number of players that missed more than 20 games between 1980 and today has increased 100% (even though the number of teams has only expanded 25%).

http://www.quora.com/Are-there-more-injuries-in-the-NBA-nowadays










Your point that the NBA "was a lot more physical then than it is now" actually works against your argument. If the NBA was more physical in the past, then shouldn't the number of injuries have been greater? (Frankly, I'm not sure "physical" play matters, because most of the injuries we are talking about are non-contact/overuse injuries, like Jo's plantar fasciitis or Derrick's ACL tear. Those aren't about "physical" play.)

Also, the notion that Paxson simply drafts "fragile" players as though this was something that should have been scouted out is laughable. This is a truly silly, frivolous thing to say.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Jimmy's enormous growth happened in the offseason he decided to get out of dodge, as opposed to the seasons where he stayed. What support can you offer that Thibs made Jimmy better, aside from giving him minutes on the court?


Obviously you refuse to give Thibs any credit on his ability to develop players. So there really is no point in even debating with you any further on the matter. 



> You're ignoring that Noah (1) covered more court than anyone in the NBA, something that assuredly would not apply to Ewing, and (2) has struggled with lower body injuries throughout his career, including a seemingly major surgery last offseason, and Thibs had to have a limit forced on him! And he routinely violated it until the front office reinforced it! I mean, Jesus.


Covering more court = injuries now? 

Funny on how the two years that Thibs pushed him past the brink was his best years as a basketball PERIOD. The whole minutes excuse is sooo overused and is being used as a big excuse as to why these guys can't stay healthy. Who's to say that Noah's injuries weren't caused by his refusal to change shoes for 2 seasons when people where bringing up the idea that his french shoes could be hurting his feet? 

McDermott played very few minutes and he could not stay healthy.
Taj Gibson wasn't a big minutes guy and he would get injured consistently.
Pau Gasol played big minutes and yet he was healthy for a large part of the season.
Jimmy played huge minutes and was only hurt on a couple of freak plays. 
Rose had the TIGHTEST minutes restriction of any player in the NBA and was still injured. 

*INJURIES HAPPEN. 
*



> So more minutes would have healed Greg Oden?


Just proves that the whole minute excuse is overblown. 





> Yes, big minutes are going to get Butler paid. But also, the guy wants to be the hell away from Thibs and reportedly told the FO he would not be seen at the Advocate Center this summer if Thibs were around. Also, Butler is a young guy. Preserving him is important! Do you really want to see him turn into another Luol Deng, used up and spit out before his time?


As much as people wan't to portray Jimmy as a nice aww shucks cowboy, the dude is probably the most selfish player on the team. So if he was the guy who said he would not be at the advocate center if Thibs was there, was probably not going to be there anyways regardless of who is there.

Rose trains in California, Jordan stayed away from the Berto Center and worked out with his own guys on the west side. Some guys went back to their home states and worked out there on their own too. People act like training outside of their team controlled buildings is a new thing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> If you bought my scenario, you are not making the correct comparisons.
> 
> Rose's equivalent isn't Jordan. It's Paxson. You don't think Rose is bigger and stronger?
> 
> ...



I think you have lost yourself in this .

i'm talking about the minutes thibs doled out to his players as not really being all that serious by comparing it to Jackson.

you retort today's players are more athletic and explosive than players than they were 25 years ago....doesn't matter because PJ's high minute players were more athletic than thibs high minute guys 

heck LeBron who is a pretty athletic guy and he plays today averages 39.3 minutes a game over his 12 year career 42.4 in the playoffs .

anyone ever fire his coach for playing him too much?

anyone complaining his career is being shortened ?

you gonna rack your brain and try to argue that somehow he isn't a good enough example?

its a stupid reason to get into a serious beef with your coach and now they have done it with 2 head coaches in a row .

its all a distraction from people asking the right questions about their lack of results in the front office

at what point do you say enough is enough ?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Obviously you refuse to give Thibs any credit on his ability to develop players. So there really is no point in even debating with you any further on the matter.


I don't give him no credit. But you seem to act as though Thibs just magically conjured this improvement. The majority of the credit should go the players themselves for their hard work. I am not a big believer that, particularly for Jimmy - whose major improvement occurred during the offseason when he made a point to escape Thibs - that the lion's share of the credit goes to anyone other than Jimmy himself. 



> Covering more court = injuries now?


Can you credibly argue otherwise, particularly for a big, and particularly for a big with repetitive stress injuries like Noah has struggled with? I am not saying anything controversial.



> Funny on how the two years that Thibs pushed him past the brink was his best years as a basketball PERIOD. The whole minutes excuse is sooo overused and is being used as a big excuse as to why these guys can't stay healthy. Who's to say that Noah's injuries weren't caused by his refusal to change shoes for 2 seasons when people where bringing up the idea that his french shoes could be hurting his feet?


I think I've been pretty clear that the guys Thibs gives huge minutes are going to produce really well during that period of time. The question is at what cost.

I agree that we don't know that Thibs overusing Noah caused his injuries. It's just one factor to look at. The team did that in conjunction with sports medicine personnel and came up with a plan to address that particular factor. Thibs hated the plan and violated it routinely.

Again, this is not controversial.



> McDermott played very few minutes and he could not stay healthy.


He had a single acute injury.



> Taj Gibson wasn't a big minutes guy and he would get injured consistently.


True. He twisted his ankles a lot. Hardly a repetitive stress injury.



> Pau Gasol played big minutes and yet he was healthy for a large part of the season.


Agreed.



> Jimmy played huge minutes and was only hurt on a couple of freak plays.


Funny. When Taj suffers ankle sprains or McDermott needs a knee scope, you cite those as evidence to favor your argument. But when Jimmy has similar injuries, those are "freak plays."



> Rose had the TIGHTEST minutes restriction of any player in the NBA and was still injured.


I have no idea whether 32 minutes was the tightest restriction in the NBA, but yes, he was injured yet again. More minutes would have prevented this, then?



> *INJURIES HAPPEN.
> *
> 
> They sure do. You can't stop them. But the current sports medicine consensus seems to think that you can reduce their frequency by adhering to certain practices. Again, I'm not sure why you're bristling at this, other than you hate GarPax and just want to believe that anything they would implement must be wrongheaded.
> ...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> I think you have lost yourself in this .
> 
> i'm talking about the minutes thibs doled out to his players as not really being all that serious by comparing it to Jackson.
> 
> you retort today's players are more athletic and explosive than players than they were 25 years ago....doesn't matter because PJ's high minute players were more athletic than thibs high minute guys


This makes no sense. And geez, if you can't see that this sample size renders the whole thing ridiculous, I don't know what to tell you.

Players are bigger and stronger now. Their ligaments are not. They get injured more frequently. Maybe one causes the other and maybe it doesn't, but burying your head in the sand isn't an option.



> heck LeBron who is a pretty athletic guy and he plays today averages 39.3 minutes a game over his 12 year career 42.4 in the playoffs .
> 
> anyone ever fire his coach for playing him too much?


So?



> anyone complaining his career is being shortened ?
> 
> you gonna rack your brain and try to argue that somehow he isn't a good enough example?


LeBron is durable, therefore all NBA players are durable. I get it. 



> its a stupid reason to get into a serious beef with your coach and now they have done it with 2 head coaches in a row .


No, it's management's job to protect the players if necessary. What's "stupid" is a coach not being able to live with a minutes restriction to protect players. In any other normal job, is it ok to simply flaunt these sorts of directives from your bosses?

To me, this falls into one of those areas where even if Thibs disagrees or isn't convinced by the data, he has to fall in line. To simply be insubordinate about it, and publicly rail against it, is not professional. 

Hopefully in his next gig he'll find a front office that doesn't believe in such limits, and then he'll be fine.



> its all a distraction from people asking the right questions about their lack of results in the front office
> 
> at what point do you say enough is enough ?


It's not a distraction. People should be perfectly capable both of thinking about the minutes issue and also thinking about whether the FO has done a good job. It doesn't take that much brain power to have thoughts on both issues.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I'm still wondering how these modern athletes who have every advantage in terms of diet and conditioning, medical advances, better equipment, advanced sports science and training etc etc etc are having a hard time playing minutes that the guys from 60s shrugged off as normal when the game was 30% faster back then (meaning lots more trips up and down the court), they were playing in Chucks (which are basically canvas with cardboard soles), on atrocious surfaces (see Boston Garden), under horrible conditions etc - I guess I'm confused


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't give him no credit. But you seem to act as though Thibs just magically conjured this improvement. The majority of the credit should go the players themselves for their hard work. I am not a big believer that, particularly for Jimmy - whose major improvement occurred during the offseason when he made a point to escape Thibs - that the lion's share of the credit goes to anyone other than Jimmy himself.


You are discounting the times Rose and others praised Thibs for his work with them and discounting the effect that big time minutes Thibs gave to Jimmy as a part of development. So why even debate it any further. You act like Jimmy came into this league as one of the better defenders in the NBA! Don't act like Thibs had NOTHING to do with that. 



> Can you credibly argue otherwise, particularly for a big, and particularly for a big with repetitive stress injuries like Noah has struggled with? I am not saying anything controversial.


You use this as a veiled excuse as to why Noah's minutes caused his injuries. When there really is no concrete evidence AT ALL that his minutes where the damn reason Noah gets hurt all the damn time. Lebron James probably does 10 times more than what Noah does on a daily basis and is about 6'9 250 and hes not limping around every damn season. 



> I think I've been pretty clear that the guys Thibs gives huge minutes are going to produce really well during that period of time. The question is at what cost.
> 
> I agree that we don't know that Thibs overusing Noah caused his injuries. It's just one factor to look at. The team did that in conjunction with sports medicine personnel and came up with a plan to address that particular factor. Thibs hated the plan and violated it routinely.


The problem here is that the Bulls fully sold themselves on the idea that the minutes was the problem and they threw Thibs under the Bus. I'm not saying Thibs isn't to blame either, Thibs sure as hell could have just said "Ok, I will play these guys less." but he did not and his lack of peoples skills clearly cost him his job. 

Some players are just injury prone. No minutes restriction will ever eliminate injuries, nor limit the number of freak injuries. An ACL can go out at any minute in a game, a dude could play 10 minutes or 40 it would not really matter. 




> Funny. When Taj suffers ankle sprains or McDermott needs a knee scope, you cite those as evidence to favor your argument. But when Jimmy has similar injuries, those are "freak plays."


Huh? They both make my argument that the whole minutes excuse is not based on any actual evidence that it causes injuries! You wan't to make the argument that it affects their play on the court? Well that's a different story, one that again has no evidence that suggests that its a valid argument. 



> I have no idea whether 32 minutes was the tightest restriction in the NBA, but yes, he was injured yet again. More minutes would have prevented this, then?


You act like I'm asking for these guys to play more minutes! I'm just pointing out that if Rose's minutes limit was 15 there is no guarantee that he would not have re injured himself either. 




> They sure do. You can't stop them. But the current sports medicine consensus seems to think that you can reduce their frequency by adhering to certain practices. Again, I'm not sure why you're bristling at this, other than you hate GarPax and just want to believe that anything they would implement must be wrongheaded.


I'm not bristling at what medical professionals say about players, but I also understand that it isn't necessarily NBA minutes that are affecting these guys alone. You got these guys playing year long at a very young age with travel teams, AAU, HS, College etc. You can't monitor those minutes, you sure as hell can't predict that limiting their activity in the NBA keeps them from being injured either. 



> I agree that the minutes thing is only one factor in the decision to dismiss Thibs and, in and of itself, may not have been a fireable offense. Of course, we know there was plenty more.


Absolutely. I'm not saying Thibs did not deserve to be fired, heck its best for both of them to part ways. My main concern and point of the thread was that the Bulls front office should be held EQUALLY responsible if not MORE for the failures of this franchise. Not many people in sport can have this much front office drama and still keep their jobs.



> He was there in years past, was he not? I'm not sure why selfishness in playing style would have anything to do with where you train, either.


Even if Thibs constant presence at the advocate center irked some Bulls, its far from a fire-able offense and really should not have been leaked by the Bulls front office (A front office by the way, that was talking about keeping what goes on with the team insulated. Yet they leak this bit out? Classless).



> It's been reported that players specifically threatened to avoid the Advocate Center this summer if Thibs were around. If you don't want to believe that, that's fine. But don't act like this isn't Thibs-related. You're just not being honest.


I believe it and I could care less. Players avoid team facilities all the time for various reasons. Rose has avoided them for how many years? You act like this is some grand revelation! 

Its time to move on. I think we both agree that it was time for both parties to part way. I think we both agree that Thibs could have done stuff differently. Nobody is innocent in this whole thing. I just wish the Bulls front office had more class, would have handled it better and would be held accountable for what is going wrong with this team.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

GarPax out!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Its time to move on. I think we both agree that it was time for both parties to part way. I think we both agree that Thibs could have done stuff differently. Nobody is innocent in this whole thing. I just wish the Bulls front office had more class, would have handled it better and would be held accountable for what is going wrong with this team.



After reading your post, I think we're actually more in agreement than it may appear. I agree that it's far from certain that minutes are the cause of the Bulls' injury woes. Or, it could be the cause for some guys and not others. And obviously, you're correct in saying that some players are injury prone, and others are not, regardless of minutes. My big issue is basically that it seems the Bulls do have some injury prone guys, the front office consulted with doctors and implemented a plan to try to reduce injuries, and Thibs basically publicly rejected it. That's not ok.

I also agree the FO's handling of his firing was really poorly done in terms of the statement and some of the content of the news conference.

I also agree that if Hoiberg doesn't work out like Vinnie and Thibs before him, then it'll probably be time for a change in the front office. I tend to be pro-retaining the front office because of their solid performance in the draft. For a team like the Bulls that is likely to have a lot of late picks, it's really important to have the skill that they do in terms of finding quality players that other people are passing on. But, being able to select a coach and work with him is also another requisite skill, and if they can't find a coach that will be both effective and someone they get along with, then that's not tenable.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I am pretty sure Hoiberg is Gar's guy through and through, albeit one that Paxson and the Reinsdorfs have bought into. If let's say 2 more seasons go by and the Bulls are failing to meet expectations and Hoiberg is clearly part of the problem, I am betting Gar Forman gets fired at the very least. Most reports the past few years made it sound like the Thibodeau rift with the "front office" was primarily with Gar Forman, at least until toward the end. So IMO this is Gar getting to pick his coach, and if it fails then Gar is the fall guy. I could easily see Paxson sticking around well past Gar Forman. Which I am perfectly OK with, because I am not really a fan of Gar.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I am pretty sure Hoiberg is Gar's guy through and through, albeit one that Paxson and the Reinsdorfs have bought into. If let's say 2 more seasons go by and the Bulls are failing to meet expectations and Hoiberg is clearly part of the problem, I am betting Gar Forman gets fired at the very least. Most reports the past few years made it sound like the Thibodeau rift with the "front office" was primarily with Gar Forman, at least until toward the end. So IMO this is Gar getting to pick his coach, and if it fails then Gar is the fall guy. I could easily see Paxson sticking around well past Gar Forman. Which I am perfectly OK with, because I am not really a fan of Gar.



Dan Bernstein (so take it with a rather large grain of salt) has been saying on the Score this week that he is informed that GarPax were basically told this is the last shot they're getting at finding a coach, and if this doesn't work out, their jobs will be in peril as well.

I tend to be with you that Pax might survive, but I think Gar has pretty much tied his ship to Hoiberg and their fates are bound together at this point.

Because of the nature of GarPax, I don't really know who is responsible for what decisions in the organization, but I also find Gar unappealing, at least on a personal level. He just seems like a guy that you wouldn't trust.


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I also find Gar unappealing, at least on a personal level. He just seems like a guy that you wouldn't trust.


It's the hairdo, totally.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Dan Bernstein (so take it with a rather large grain of salt) has been saying on the Score this week that he is informed that GarPax were basically told this is the last shot they're getting at finding a coach, and if this doesn't work out, their jobs will be in peril as well.
> 
> I tend to be with you that Pax might survive, but I think Gar has pretty much tied his ship to Hoiberg and their fates are bound together at this point.
> 
> Because of the nature of GarPax, I don't really know who is responsible for what decisions in the organization, but I also find Gar unappealing, at least on a personal level. He just seems like a guy that you wouldn't trust.


I believe it because its almost common sense. I would be completely lost for words if Pax is allowed to choose another HC after Hoiberg. Unless Hoiberg has a decade of winning a title or 2, I see 0 chance of the regime going forward as is, if this fails.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I believe it because its almost common sense. I would be completely lost for words if Pax is allowed to choose another HC after Hoiberg. Unless Hoiberg has a decade of winning a title or 2, I see 0 chance of the regime going forward as is, if this fails.


Sorry, I'm confused...Pax...or Gar? Or are you thinking Pax is the one who pushed for Hoiberg? I am pretty certain it was Gar pushing for Hoiberg and there was alot of reported stuff out there in the past that the biggest rift was between Thibs and Gar. Gar is also at the bottom of the front office food chain. He surely would be the first one to go, right? I am just confused why you say "if Pax is allowed to choose another HC" when the past 2 coaches (Thibs & now Hoiberg) haven't even been Paxson's guys. 

Paxson's exact role is kind of a mystery to everyone these days, that I don't know how anyone can truly comment on what he did or didn't do himself (other than pulling on VDN's tie, lol). We basically just know that Paxson has alot of input on player acquisitions (scouting, targeting guys in the draft & free agency). But I also am not sure he has the end all say on those decisions, for instance we've heard things like Tony Snell is Gar Forman's guy, etc. Regardless, I am just saying it's hard to say what actually happens to Paxson if things go south, whereas Gar I'm pretty sure would get replaced regardless.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Sorry, I'm confused...Pax...or Gar? Or are you thinking Pax is the one who pushed for Hoiberg? I am pretty certain it was Gar pushing for Hoiberg and there was alot of reported stuff out there in the past that the biggest rift was between Thibs and Gar. Gar is also at the bottom of the front office food chain. He surely would be the first one to go, right? I am just confused why you say "if Pax is allowed to choose another HC" when the past 2 coaches (Thibs & now Hoiberg) haven't even been Paxson's guys.
> 
> Paxson's exact role is kind of a mystery to everyone these days, that I don't know how anyone can truly comment on what he did or didn't do himself (other than pulling on VDN's tie, lol). We basically just know that Paxson has alot of input on player acquisitions (scouting, targeting guys in the draft & free agency). But I also am not sure he has the end all say on those decisions, for instance we've heard things like Tony Snell is Gar Forman's guy, etc. Regardless, I am just saying it's hard to say what actually happens to Paxson if things go south, whereas Gar I'm pretty sure would get replaced regardless.


Hoiberg was both Pax's and Gars guy, dont get confused about that. If Pax wasn't sold on Hoiberg there would be no way in hell that he would have allowed the year long back door dealings with gauging Hoibergs interest in coaching the Bulls.

Also, I just don't see Pax surviving another HC because his reputation around the league is at an all time low. If Hoiberg fails, I have to imagine Michael Reinsdorf isn't as attached to Pax as his father is. Its better to start fresh than to sell another coach and GM that working under Pax isn't as bad as the rest of the league thinks it is.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Hoiberg was both Pax's and Gars guy, dont get confused about that. If Pax wasn't sold on Hoiberg there would be no way in hell that he would have allowed the year long back door dealings with gauging Hoibergs interest in coaching the Bulls.
> 
> Also, I just don't see Pax surviving another HC because his reputation around the league is at an all time low. If Hoiberg fails, I have to imagine Michael Reinsdorf isn't as attached to Pax as his father is. Its better to start fresh than to sell another coach and GM that working under Pax isn't as bad as the rest of the league thinks it is.


I have little doubt Paxson is sold on Hoiberg. It's just that Gar is Hoiberg's former assistant coach way back at Iowa State, and Gar was surely instrumental in bringing Hoiberg to Chicago as a player long before Paxson was ever in the Bulls front office. Remember Gar came to the Bulls back when Tim Floyd became coach. Their relationship pre-dates the Paxson-Hoiberg relationship by quite a bit. For that matter, it's reasonable to think Gar and Hoiberg talk frequently and probably have for years. I am sure feelers were sent out in those discussions about his interesting in coaching the Bulls someday. I guess I just find it hard to believe Paxson specifically was the one driving that whole thing.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The front office thought it had to fire Thibodeau and I'm fine with that.

Reinsdorf decided that he had to share his feelings about the Thibodeau firing with the fan base. IMO, this was a mistake. GarPax followed Reinsdorf's lead in their press conference. This compounded the mistake.

Regardless of how poorly the Bulls handled the Thibodeau firing, Hoiberg is an excellent candidate for a NBA head coaching position:

- Hoiberg played 10 years in the league. Of the last 25 NBA championships, 23 were won by a team coached by a former NBA player or a team coached by someone with the last name Popovich.

- Hoiberg spent 4 years in an NBA front office.

- Hoiberg then took over a losing (under .500 for 4 straight seasons) Iowa State team where the team made an immediate turnaround, has made the NCAA tourney 4 straight seasons and won 2 Big-12 Conference Championships. Those 2 Big-12 Championships are twice as many as the school had won before Hoiberg became the head coach.

For a 42 year old, that's pretty damned good.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/7/71/675993/bulls-chance-draft-draymond-green-2012



> According to Grantland.com, former Bulls assistant coach Ron Adams was in favor of drafting Green, who eventually went to the Golden State Warriors with the 35th overall pick.
> 
> Adams said him and Thibodeau were wanting to draft Green because of his unique skill set and the hustle he brought to the floor, but they couldn’t convince management.
> 
> “As a coaching staff, we were very disappointed we didn’t get him,” Adams says. “He is definitely a Chicago kind of guy…He has internalized the parts of the game that are the winning parts: the hustle, the grit, the defense, making the right play at the right time. I love that guy. I’m glad he’s on our team.”


since matt Lloyd left it seems we are not getting much in the draft . also the scuttlebutt was adams was fired because he wouldnt keep his mouth shut on things they disagreed on ....at the same time if you are right , should you have to?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

This NBA finals just makes me lose some hope about the type of team the Bulls wan't to build going forward.

Lebron James vs Thibs Bulls

26 ppg 39% shooting 10% 3pt shooting 5 to's 6 fta's per game

(3 games so far)Lebron James vs Steve Kerr's up tempo Offense (What the Bulls want to play)

41 ppg 40% fg 35% 3s 3 tos and 13 FTA's per game

Golden State being held to damn near 20 points below their season scoring average with a team with much better talent than the Bulls.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> This NBA finals just makes me lose some hope about the type of team the Bulls wan't to build going forward.
> 
> Lebron James vs Thibs Bulls
> 
> ...


I'm not sure it's Golden State's style that is the problem, rather lack of experience. They are just a young team that hasn't been this deep in the playoffs and IMO they appear shaken. Reminds me alot of when the Thunder were in the Finals and they got ran over by a more experienced Heat team, even though the Thunder were pretty close talent wise. Steph Curry is just crapping the bed, save for a 2nd half outburst last night which was too little too late. But really it's their whole team crapping the bed. Certainly credit the Cavs for turning on the defensive switch in the playoffs (their D wasn't nearly this good in the regular season, and it's caught people off guard), but even so we are not seeing anything close to Golden State basketball. In the regular season and even most of the playoffs they exhibited tremendous ball movement and creation of quality shots. Now their ball movement has been subpar and they are making panicked plays resulting in bad shots, and even missing when they are open. 

Cleveland lacks this experience as a whole but they know their best player has been here before and are just going out and playing ball. It's making a huge difference. On a side note, I find it really sad that a team like this broken down Cleveland squad is going to win an NBA championship. The media is eating it up as a big Lebron accomplishment and it probably is on some level, but IMO it speaks to just how watered down the NBA is these days and in particular the Eastern Conference. MJ always had to face a premier foe like the Pistons, Knicks, and Pacers before even reaching the Finals, which made for a really great series. Just feels too easy when there isn't another powerhouse sitting in the same conference, to the point where Lebron can literally lose his 2nd and 3rd options and still win in convincing fashion. The Hawks earning the #1 seed sort of speaks to this problem, and my view on this was reinforced by seeing the Bulls and Hawks just roll over and die, while superior teams would at least go out there and play balls to the wall, not going down easy. I guess it's just the overall lack of resistance by so many teams that I find disheartening. Maybe that's just the generation we live in these days....players want things to be easy and if they aren't, just give up and do something else (in this case, rake in millions of dollars and go on your off-season vacation).


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I'm not sure it's Golden State's style that is the problem, rather lack of experience.


I don't buy this excuse really. The Bulls have been one of the most experienced teams for the past couple of years and they have been dispatched and havent gone as far as the Warriors have in a MUCH tougher conference. 



> But really it's their whole team crapping the bed. Certainly credit the Cavs for turning on the defensive switch in the playoffs (their D wasn't nearly this good in the regular season, and it's caught people off guard), but even so we are not seeing anything close to Golden State basketball. In the regular season and even most of the playoffs they exhibited tremendous ball movement and creation of quality shots. Now their ball movement has been subpar and they are making panicked plays resulting in bad shots, and even missing when they are open.


One big issue I see is that they are stubborn in not trying to play differently. I fully understand why they want to run up the court and jack up 3's before the Cavs can set up their defense, but its not currently working and they should have tried more Pick and Roll with Lee as of game 2. Green has been playing pretty subpar basketball. 

I fully agree with GS crapping the bed. They are WAY TOO TALENTED to lose to this team. No matter what Lebron does, the Warriors are the more talented team and they should be able to win the series. While Lebron is dominating the series, there is no doubt in my mind that Curry's poor performance has just as much if not more negative impact on the Warriors than Lebron. 

Heck, Jordan put up 63 5 6 3 and 2 vs the Celtics and still could not beat a much more talented team. GS has to wake up and play like they are the more talented team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> This NBA finals just makes me lose some hope about the type of team the Bulls wan't to build going forward.
> 
> Lebron James vs Thibs Bulls
> 
> ...



I mean, LBJ is the best player since Jordan, so he's going to get his. I don't think it's the GS style so much that is leading to his production (keep in mind he is volume scoring, not being efficient). Rather, it's the fact that all of Cleveland's other scoring options are injured. He wouldn't be doing this on their full squad.

Also, keep in mind we couldn't beat LBJ with Thibs, so it's not like this outcome is different.

The interesting question is whether GS would actually be better matched against the run-and-gun Cavs, rather than the defensive juggernaut they've been forced to become with these roster adjustments.


----------

