# Iverson vs Hinrich: Who would you rather have on the Bulls?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Iverson vs Hinrich: Who would you rather have on the Bulls?

I just want to know how deep it goes?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Iverson.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Going talentwise, you have to always go Iverson, untill he starts declining. As good as Hinrich is and is going to get, I mean, its still Iverson.


Personally for me, I've liked Hinrich since his first year at Kansas, and I've always just absolutely loathed Iverson, so its easy as far as fanwise. But as far as the good of the team, as much as I'd hate to see the guy on the team, how can you not go with Iverson.


----------



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

If you're referring to the current scoring-malnourished team which I assume you are, it's definitely Iverson.

But if you're referring to some kind of All-time Bulls team with MJ, Scottie it's probably Hinrich to feed the ball.

If you're talking in general, it's probably Iverson.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Who voted Hinrich?

Iverson baby.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Iverson. 

Wow, a lot of votes for Kirk.

edit: I suppose I can see some reasons to vote for Kirk. He's considerably younger, healthier, with a much better work ethic. However, despite Iverson's questionable practice habits, I'd still take a many time all star still in his 20's. Now that Iverson has made the move to point guard, I think he's actually going to be very productive for the next 5-6 years.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Iverson any day of the week and thrice on Sundays.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Iverson.
> 
> Wow, a lot of votes for Kirk.
> ...


that and Basghetti has 9 different screen names.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Considering Hinrich is the greatest player of all time, you'd be foolish to take Iverson.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I'd rather have Paul Shirley over Allen Iverson. It's a personal thing. :sour:


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> that and Basghetti has 9 different screen names.


:laugh:


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Iverson, easy.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I just want to know how deep it goes?


You should consult with your proctologist for the definitive answer


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Iverson vs Hinrich: Who would you rather have on the Bulls?*



> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> You should consult with your proctologist for the definitive answer


OoOo


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

His practice mentallity scares me. but you can't secape his immense talent.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

The people who voted Kirk need a real reality check. Some homerism goes too far, this is $%#@ rediculous.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> The people who voted Kirk need a real reality check. Some homerism goes too far, this is $%#@ rediculous.


No one should even need to think of this topic. It's a given. It's like "you get 10 pts for putting your correct name on the test". This sure is getting rediculous. There was one earlier "Wade vs. Hinrich" and i thought that was horrible. This is way worst.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PD</b>!
> 
> 
> No one should even need to think of this topic. It's a given. It's like "you get 10 pts for putting your correct name on the test". This sure is getting rediculous. There was one earlier "Wade vs. Hinrich" and i thought that was horrible. This is way worst.


Kirk Heinrich is at the moment, and average starting PG. Do some Bulls fans not see this?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> I'd rather have Paul Shirley over Allen Iverson. It's a personal thing. :sour:


You got him!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You got him!




And BOY was I happy about it!

:woot:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

If the players were on one-year contracts and never would play for the Bulls again, I would take Iverson (but it would be a fairly close call). Considering the long-term value of each player, I would take Hinrich.

Hinrich, right now, is just an average starter, although I suspect he will improve on that over time. Iverson is very overrated and is only a little better than that. Given the Bulls lack of offense, Iverson would be very valuable to the Bulls this year - even with his very poor offensive efficiency. Iverson can only be a consistent help for teams with great defense that can make up for the high-volume/low-efficiency offense that he provides. Thus, he would probably provide a lot of points for the Bulls, but only a marginal improvement in wins.

(I am ignoring the financial aspects. Iverson definitely costs a lot more, but he also would bring in a lot more revenue - at least initially. My guess is that that would be about a wash.)


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Iverson is un-coachable. 

No thank you.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Iverson. Duh. 

And if you have questions on his effort...did you see the Olympics? Kid has HEART.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Hinrich, right now, is just an average starter.....
> 
> Iverson is very overrated and is only a little better than that.



That's some quote.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I love Hinrich, but my gosh...

Iverson any day of the week. With as many question marks as he has, between health and attitude, he brings it and will carry a team.

Btw, I think all who voted Hinrich are only doing so because they dislike Iverson; the talent differential is unquestionable.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

The question was, "who would you rather have on the Bulls?"

Talent nonwithstanding, its Hinrich any day of the week.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

Iverson ALLLLLLLLLLLLL DAY Lonnnnnnnnng!


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Practice? Practice?

Yeah...Ok. We really need a clown like that here.

GET BACK!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*iverson*

I should have been clearer in my post.

I meant for 1 season.

And... I'm surprised and not surprised that Hinrich has roughly 35% of the vote.

Wow.


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

Thanks for clarifying. That's a pretty important considerationI suspect (though might be wrong) if you re-ran the poll with question as restated, that many hinrich voters would switch. I mean, as good as A.I. is now, he's a played a ton of minutes in his career, he is declining some, and somebody's going to be on the hook to him for (according to published reports) $21.9 million in 2008-9. And, TBH, I'm not sure how tradeable he is. In a mythical "for just this season" situation, obviously Iverson.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

I gave a vote for Hinrich over Iverson.

I feel Iverson is overated, I agree with Rosenbaum on this. There are certain aspects of his game that are just not that good. He is a horrible 3pt shooter, he commits way too many turnovers, and all too often he fails to get his teammates involved offensively. He is certainly an amazing talent, plays with more heart than almost anybody, but he is just not that efficient at what he does. Over the past three years he has been about a 40% shooter, 28% from 3 pt range, 4 turnovers and 6 assists a game. Granted stats don't tell the whole story, but they can certainly clue you in on the premise. 

Now at the same time comparing Iverson and Hinrich is like comparing apples and oranges. They are two completely different type players. But in my view Hinrich is the type of player that will make those around him better, and that is one of the most important qualities a player can bring to the table. Of course Hinrich has only played one season so far, making it hard to definitivly pin point how good he will be. But in my view I have seen enough of Iverson, however the passion that he plays with does make me want to root for him on occasions.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

There are players much worse than Hinrich that I would take before Iverson...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

For this poll to be this close shows that there are alot more Bulls fans then anyone else voting. Any non deluded fan would pick Iverson. NBA.com didnt even have Hinrich as a top 10 PG. Iverson alone has taken a team to a finals AND regularly takes trash to the playoffs. Hinrich? Well, 30 to 23 wins. Sure, not all his fault, but he isnt the positive influence that people make him out to be. What he is is an average PG in the NBA, who happens to be unmercifully hyped by his coach for no reason that I can tell. I have openly even think there is a racial double standard going. Lets remember, Skiles says he likes hard work, tells everybody how hard Kirk works and how none of his teammates deserve to be on the floor with him, but when Jamal almost broke the Berto Center record for attendance, Skiles questions his work ethic? Why havent we heard about how hard Curry or Chandler have worked this summer from Skiles? Or Ben Gordon? What we hear is the same old trash. Hinrich is Jesus Christ, and Nocioni is one tough SOB. Those are the only 2 players Skiles praises. Does anyone see a pattern?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Practice? Practice?
> 
> Yeah...Ok. We really need a clown like that here.
> ...


Some guys can practice all day and never amount to anything. Some guys have it. Iverson has it. He takes trash to the playoffs and made it to a finals. He plays with more passion then anyone in the east. If you want to lose, then pick Hinrich. If you want to win, pick Iverson, that easy. Anything else is just stupid. Winning often means making concessions on things like practice. Rodman, Pippen, Grant anyone? Laker fans made it with Shaq and Kobe?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> For this poll to be this close shows that there are alot more Bulls fans then anyone else voting. Any non deluded fan would pick Iverson. NBA.com didnt even have Hinrich as a top 10 PG. Iverson alone has taken a team to a finals AND regularly takes trash to the playoffs. Hinrich? Well, 30 to 23 wins. Sure, not all his fault, but he isnt the positive influence that people make him out to be. What he is is an average PG in the NBA, who happens to be unmercifully hyped by his coach for no reason that I can tell. I have openly even think there is a racial double standard going. Lets remember, Skiles says he likes hard work, tells everybody how hard Kirk works and how none of his teammates deserve to be on the floor with him, but when Jamal almost broke the Berto Center record for attendance, Skiles questions his work ethic? Why havent we heard about how hard Curry or Chandler have worked this summer from Skiles? Or Ben Gordon? What we hear is the same old trash. Hinrich is Jesus Christ, and Nocioni is one tough SOB. Those are the only 2 players Skiles praises. Does anyone see a pattern?


i'm sorry, but when did, specifically, skiles admonish jamal's work ethic. 

unfortunately you seem to be the one perpetuating this kind of crap. there have been plenty of negative posts and posters here in the last few days but none have pulled the race card as flippantly as you do.

deng and gordon are high on skiles list of summer workout attendees as is chandler. eddy has been commended for his dedication to his weight loss program. skiles has been pretty complimentary of the entire team, in fact, for the effort they put in during the off season. pre-season brought out praise for deng and nocioni. in fact, if anything i think skiles has toned down the hinrich lovin'. so you can take it with a grain of salt, or you can continue with this agenda pushing. 

this kind of rhetoric is baseless, imo.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> i'm sorry, but when did, specifically, skiles admonish jamal's work ethic.
> ...


Rhetoric? For every time Skiles says Chandler worked hard, which I cant say I have heard him directly say, I can give you 10 other quotes for Hinrich. Gordon and Deng, 20 quotes. Nocioni is clearly a Skiles favorite, though I doubt Skiles knows much about him. If you dont think there is a double standard, then your completely foolish, and guilty as well


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Rhetoric? For every time Skiles says Chandler worked hard, which I cant say I have heard him directly say, I can give you 10 other quotes for Hinrich. Gordon and Deng, 20 quotes. Nocioni is clearly a Skiles favorite, though I doubt Skiles knows much about him. If you dont think there is a double standard, then your completely foolish, and guilty as well


i _don't_ think there is a RACIAL DOUBLE STANDARD as you so brazenly suggest...so i guess that makes me both foolish and guilty. nice. 

:|


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> i _don't_ think there is a RACIAL DOUBLE STANDARD as you so brazenly suggest...so i guess that makes me both foolish and guilty.
> ...


That, and completely blind.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/fantasy_games/fantasy04_pointguards.html

An independent writer breaks down the NBA top 10 at the point, where is Hinrich? Iverson happens to be on the list. But I guess since Kirk practices, and Iverson doesnt, why should we want to win games?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> That, and completely blind.


good one.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> good one.


Some people buy the hype, you clearly do. But if you listen to Skiles long enough, youll hear that none of the other bums deserves to even take the floor with the teachers pet. Its a running joke among NBA fans who arent bulls fans. No player in the league gets his *** kissed more by a coach then Hinrich does by Skiles. Is it deserved? Well, not too many people think Hinrich is a top 10 PG. But if you listen to the coach, he is the greatest Bull of alltime


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Some people buy the hype, you clearly do. But if you listen to Skiles long enough, youll hear that none of the other bums deserves to even take the floor with the teachers pet. Its a running joke among NBA fans who arent bulls fans. No player in the league gets his *** kissed more by a coach then Hinrich does by Skiles. Is it deserved? Well, not too many people think Hinrich is a top 10 PG. But if you listen to the coach, he is the greatest Bull of alltime



you are clearly delusional.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Rlucas returns and spouts more lies. Seems to me that rlucas loves nothing more then causing trouble. 

If you listened to the radio Skiles would constantly praise Chandler, Deng, Gordon over the offseason. The only time he would mention Kirk is when the interviewer would bring his name up. 

By the way rlucas, Skiles has NEVER questioned Crawford's work ethic. *please come up w/ a direct quote from Skiles saying Crawford didnt work hard enough*

By the way, Jamal didnt nearly break the Berto Center attendence record. FYI, Hoiberg, Hassall, and Jamal were the top 3 attending players during last offseason. The rest of the players went off in their own direction during the offseason because Paxson said they could workout on their owna nd he wouldnt have a problem with that. 

If you were around on Realgm last summer instead of pouting because Paxson choose Hinrich over your boy Pietrus, maybe you would remember that there were constant threads on "when is Jamal going to work out in Chicago and not in seattle?"

Paxson and Skiles have never questioned Jamal's work ethic, they have always questioned his on-court decision making. A worthy criticism for a guy going into his 4th season in the NBA.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Just out of curiousity, rlucas, do you know who Skiles' favorite players were in Phoenix, because I don't. It might shed some light on this issue.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I think there's merit to the racism view.

Terms like "kind of player" and other phrases I've seen quoted do sound a lot like "blacks can't play catcher" or "blacks aren't equipped to play QB."

Hinrich does appear to be favored, and his stats and performance may not deserve the level of favoritism being shown. 

Paxson took over an almost all-black team with a black coach and has brought in more white players and a white coach. He's moved almost all the black players who have star potential (Rose, Marshall, Crawford, and even Fizer). It looks like he'll do the same with Curry and Chandler (that's my supposition).

On the other hand, Paxson has drafted black players, traded for black players, and has brought in some black players from the NBDL. Only those he drafted (or inherited) have a real future with the team.

I'm not sure any perceived racism is actual, but I understand how it can be perceived.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I think there's merit to the racism view.
> 
> Terms like "kind of player" and other phrases I've seen quoted do sound a lot like "blacks can't play catcher" or "blacks aren't equipped to play QB."
> ...


It's laughable that race is even being brought up as an issue. 

It's one thing to question Paxson and SKiles Bball IQ, its another thing for posters (not you) to suggest that their is underlying racial motives.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I think that Paxson has proven with his draft picks that he is not a racist. Drafting three black guys, especially picking Deng and #7 after clearly being enamored with Luke Jackson, shows a lack of racial bias to me.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> It's laughable that race is even being brought up as an issue.
> ...


Reading Is Fundamental 

Please, please, please re-read DaBullz's post. He didn't suggest anything of the sort.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Reading Is Fundamental
> ...


I know Dabullz didnt bring up the race issue, he was giving both sides to the argument, however my comments were also to comment on rlucas' "racial-double standard".


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Reading Is Fundamental
> ...


Actually ScottMay, pease reread remlover's post:

"It's one thing to question Paxson and SKiles Bball IQ, its another thing for posters *(not you)* to suggest that their is underlying racial motives."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> It's laughable that race is even being brought up as an issue.
> ...


Racism and sports have a long history. From the days when blacks were forced to play in the ***** leagues to the concept of the "great white hope" (boxing) to discrimination against black people being members of golf clubs to the catcher/QB issue I already mentioned to the racist comments by sport reporters and even the recent defamation of a top black QB by Rush Limbaugh (ABC Sports announcer at the time) on racial grounds.

I don't mean to lecture, but the history and stereotypes are deep and have been around for too long. I can understand the (skeptical, perhaps) perception of racism, even in this case


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

you know what? this poll/thread was chugging along nicely until a certain poster chimed in with the accusation that skiles, because he praises kirk, is a racist.

i'm sorry but i think that's nuts. and sour grapes. 

i stand by the delusional comment.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

I don't see why anyone would vote for Hinrich. Iverson is one of the best players in the last ten years and one of the best scorers ever. That, and he brings his game every night. Hinrich will be a fine player but I don't think ever will compare to Iverson.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually ScottMay, pease reread remlover's post:
> ...


Mea culpa, remlover. I'm going to ask these people  for my money back.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, remlover. I'm going to ask these people  for my money back.


:laugh: :laugh: 

It's all good ScottMay!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

This poll would be better if it was posed on the NBA board. Reason why, you're asking Bulls fans to vote against one of their players whom they want to succeed. 

Doesn't make much sense. However, with Iverson on the decline, I still take him for a season, but at this point in their careers, I would take Hinrich. Iverson has 3 above average years left MAX.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont believe skiles or pax are racists ....but pax seems to have a sort of bias against african-americans , in 2 years in a league 80% african american it is a little odd that not one homegrown black talent has been brought in and that he has seemed to clash with that groups talent that was already on the team.

it seems like a cleansing under the slogan of "playing the right way".

maybe its cultural or classism. but it does seem to be a little out of the ordinary.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Racism and sports have a long history. From the days when blacks were forced to play in the ***** leagues to the concept of the "great white hope" (boxing) to discrimination against black people being members of golf clubs to the catcher/QB issue I already mentioned to the racist comments by sport reporters and even the recent defamation of a top black QB by Rush Limbaugh (ABC Sports announcer at the time) on racial grounds.
> ...


i have dealt with racism and sports my whole life. I wont give a long, drawn-out life history of my family and I, but i will say that i have 2 african-american sisters who were/are very involved in sports in High School. My sisters account for the whole black population of the school district. 

In saying that, i know what racism and double-standards are. Skiles and Paxson have not crossed that line. 

I know some people want to paint Skiles and Paxson as the devil for trading away Rose and Marshall and getting nothing in return for Crawford, but this slippery-slope to racism is a little silly.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I know Dabullz didnt bring up the race issue, he was giving both sides to the argument, however my comments were also to comment on rlucas' "racial-double standard".


If you dont think there is a race double standard, then clearly your as blind as others. Lets see, since he has gotten here, Skiles has gone out of his way to rip every black player, but lavish praise on Kirk. He had one sentence after Gordon was drafted, where he couldnt even say a nice thing about Ben without mentioning Kirk. He called Kirk the Bulls best player, when statistically that is inconclusive, and gave him his starting spot, while everyone else is open to competition. Are you stupid? Do you not see the double standard. Or are you going to be foolish enough to say that there is a POSSIBLILITY that Trybanski has a better shot at replacing Curry then say Ben Gordon, who could be better off at the 1, has of replacing Kirk? Either way, you lose. And interestingly, McGraw called Skiles out on that, and Skiles only reply was, well, he is our best player. Well on a 23 win team, you dont have good players. 

And for the record, where have I accused Pax of racism? I believe he buys into Skiles BS about Kirk being the greatest thing since sliced bread, and he is guilty of that. But outside of adding some questionable players (piatkowski for Dikembe, Shirley over Fizer), I find his GMing to be pretty even handed and direct with the exception of Kirk to be untradable. No 15th best PG should be labeled that way, which when you think about it, also shows a bit of a double standard. 

Again, read skiles opinion. youll never hear a complaint about kirk. but I bet you will find a ton about everyone else


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, remlover. I'm going to ask these people  for my money back.


No problem, it's all good.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm normally a big fan of rlucas and what he brings to the board, but I think he's offbase on this one. Not only that, I think it's a dangerous drum to be beating. Skiles has been praising most of the team throughout the offseason. Paxson drafted all black players in this past draft, and as DMD pointed out, he drafted Deng ahead of a comparably rated white player who arguably could have helped us more right away than Deng will (4 years of college ball). I don't see any racism undercurrents in the Bulls' management, I just don't. And I don't think we should be concerning ourselves about a possible double-standard every time a white player garners the praise of his coach, GM or peer. 

Does Skiles talk Kirk up too much? Maybe he does. He does speak about Kirk in the kind of glowing terms usually reserved for an All-Star. This I agree with. Does he think Kirk is the "greatest Bull of all time", as rlucas suggested? Of course not! That's just outrageous hyperbole. Perhaps it's a simple matter that Kirk's rookie season compares very nicely to a lot of PGs who ended up being excellent players and Skiles sees that kind of future for the guy. He knows as well as anyone what Kirk's made of, coaching him every day in practice and games. Is that such an outlandish view to have? At the risk of insulting rlucas, his last few posts have reminded me somewhat of the presidential campaign. Say something enough times and hopefully people will start believing it whether it's true or not. Just because he keeps SAYING that Skiles worships the ground Kirk walks on and allows him a double-standard doesn't mean it's actually true. Skiles is a Kirk fan. BC was a Hassell fan. Maybe neither of them deserve(d) all the praise they get/got. So what.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'll add a little fuel to the fire here.

When Krause resigned, it sure looked like BJ Armstrong was the right man for the job as replacement. He was groomed for it.

The EFFECT of hiring paxson was to make management white, as he fired the black coach for a white one, passing up some seriously talented coaches like Lenny Wilkins and Doc Rivers.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> you know what? this poll/thread was chugging along nicely until a certain poster chimed in with the accusation that skiles, because he praises kirk, is a racist.
> 
> i'm sorry but i think that's nuts. and sour grapes.
> ...


and I stand by the blind comment


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> This poll would be better if it was posed on the NBA board. Reason why, you're asking Bulls fans to vote against one of their players whom they want to succeed.
> 
> Doesn't make much sense. However, with Iverson on the decline, I still take him for a season, but at this point in their careers, I would take Hinrich. Iverson has 3 above average years left MAX.


I'll disagree with the mighty HKF again. I think Iverson actually has at least 5 quality years left. I think he is going to excell as a point guard, and hopefully he will learn over time to put his body at less risk. I think Allen's gift for making space will actually stay with him after he loses his jets because I think his whole conception of body positioning and basketball understanding is at such a high level. 

I also think that Iverson will become a top 5 assist man in the NBA for the next several years.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll disagree with the mighty HKF again. I think Iverson actually has at least 5 quality years left. I think he is going to excell as a point guard, and hopefully he will learn over time to put his body at less risk. I think Allen's gift for making space will actually stay with him after he loses his jets because I think his whole conception of body positioning and basketball understanding is at such a high level.
> ...


Interesting DMD. I don't think he has the playmaking ability to be a competent PG, but maybe Jim O'Brien knows something I don't. He just may turn out okay at that spot. I think he won't. We'll see.

Oh and I expect Skiles to get burned out and quit by the middle of 2005-06 at the latest.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I'm normally a big fan of rlucas and what he brings to the board, but I think he's offbase on this one. Not only that, I think it's a dangerous drum to be beating. Skiles has been praising most of the team throughout the offseason. Paxson drafted all black players in this past draft, and as DMD pointed out, he drafted Deng ahead of a comparably rated white player who arguably could have helped us more right away than Deng will (4 years of college ball). I don't see any racism undercurrents in the Bulls' management, I just don't. And I don't think we should be concerning ourselves about a possible double-standard every time a white player garners the praise of his coach, GM or peer.
> 
> Does Skiles talk Kirk up too much? Maybe he does. He does speak about Kirk in the kind of glowing terms usually reserved for an All-Star. This I agree with. Does he think Kirk is the "greatest Bull of all time", as rlucas suggested? Of course not! That's just outrageous hyperbole. Perhaps it's a simple matter that Kirk's rookie season compares very nicely to a lot of PGs who ended up being excellent players and Skiles sees that kind of future for the guy. He knows as well as anyone what Kirk's made of, coaching him every day in practice and games. Is that such an outlandish view to have? At the risk of insulting rlucas, his last few posts have reminded me somewhat of the presidential campaign. Say something enough times and hopefully people will start believing it whether it's true or not. Just because he keeps SAYING that Skiles worships the ground Kirk walks on and allows him a double-standard doesn't mean it's actually true. Skiles is a Kirk fan. BC was a Hassell fan. Maybe neither of them deserve(d) all the praise they get/got. So what.


VF, we are mates, and I appreciate this post. But the obvious counter is, how can anyone expect Kirk to be good, if he is already at the God level that Skiles has put him on? Even Phil would occasionally say Jordan needed to work on this or that. Skiles would never say a demeaning thing about Kirk. EVER. And lets face it, Kirk is not the savior, or even a top flight, PG that people make him out to be. I stand by my comments. If someone can find an actual criticism of Kirk by Skiles, I will walk away and say your right. But in nearly a year, not a thing. Is that good coaching? No. And lets face it, he is far more critical (read Curry who he seems to think he knows more about even before he got here) of the rest of the team, who mostly consist of black players. Ironically, I am awaiting him to give some criticism of Nocioni or Piatkowski at some point. I have yet to read an inkling of that


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'll add a little fuel to the fire here.
> 
> When Krause resigned, it sure looked like BJ Armstrong was the right man for the job as replacement. He was groomed for it.
> ...


you want some fire, how about all the yahoos on this board who love Skiles and bash BC, then realize that BCs career winning % with the Bulls is in line, or better, then Skiles, even last year. Maybe a little double standard, on whatever lines you want to call it, by the members of the board.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Its a running joke among NBA fans who arent bulls fans. No player in the league gets his *** kissed more by a coach then Hinrich does by Skiles.


Welcome back, but


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Welcome back, but


GB, after bumping heads, we have emerged as good friends. I know where you stand, I disagree. I see a double standard. Its pretty clear. And if there isnt a double standard, its still not good coaching to put an above average player on such a perch. I think that is clear.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> If you dont think there is a race double standard, then clearly your as blind as others. Lets see, since he has gotten here, Skiles has gone out of his way to rip every black player, but lavish praise on Kirk. He had one sentence after Gordon was drafted, where he couldnt even say a nice thing about Ben without mentioning Kirk. He called Kirk the Bulls best player, when statistically that is inconclusive, and gave him his starting spot, while everyone else is open to competition. *Are you stupid?* Do you not see the double standard. Or are you going to be foolish enough to say that there is a POSSIBLILITY that Trybanski has a better shot at replacing Curry then say Ben Gordon, who could be better off at the 1, has of replacing Kirk? Either way, you lose. And interestingly, McGraw called Skiles out on that, and Skiles only reply was, well, he is our best player. Well on a 23 win team, you dont have good players.


I'm stupid because i dont agree with your premise? Please grow-up rlucas.

So Skiles has ripped on EVERY black player? How has he ripped into Antonio Davis? What about Scottie Pippen? JYD? Hell, the only players he has called out was for Curry's lack of defense and condition and erob. Crawford got criticized for his decision making and defense. There IS a difference between constructive criticism and ripping.

You act like Skiles goes out of his way to knock a player. Skiles is a direct guy and during a press conference if a reporter asks him "why did you bench Eddy Curry?" Is he going to lie and say "well we thought we needed a spark off the bench." or is he going to tell the truth and say, "he looked out of it and wasnt playing and defense or rebounding." For all Skiles ripping on Curry, Curry confirms all of Skiles assertions during this offseason w/ his drastic turn-around. 

Saying that Hinrich was the best player on the team is no crown to be proud of. However he was the teams best all-around player. Kirk might not have been the best defender in the world, but he was the most consistent guy on defense. Meanwhile, on offense, Jamal and Kirk shot the same FG% (maybe a 1% or 2% difference), but Jamal shot about 6 times more a game resulting in Jamal having the higher PPG then Kirk.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> you want some fire, how about all the yahoos on this board who love Skiles and bash BC, then realize that BCs career winning % with the Bulls is in line, or better, then Skiles, even last year. Maybe a little double standard, on whatever lines you want to call it, by the members of the board.


I'm with you in all this. Blind and all. Too many people are blind to these things, and there's no excuse to do anything but remain vigilant until the situation is truly made right.

I've consistently pointed out that Pax was in a big hurry to dump BC. I've pointed out that given all the things BC represented, I wanted nothing more than to see him succeed. I don't think that 12 games, more than half of those he coached with the press writing about how his job was in jeopardy, was a fair shake, especially after coaching the team to 30 wins and getting real improvement from players like JWill, Crawford, Curry, and Chandler AND getting Rose and Marshall to fit in at the same time. Good enough that the team had its best run since MJ left and good enough that most people believed he had turned us into a playoff contender.

Blind? No. But I still must point out that it's fair to say that Pax wanted his own guy, and it's his rightful duty to choose his own guy. The points others raise about the specific guys Pax has drafted and brought in are fair in his defense.

I obviously don't believe in Paxson as a GM or Skiles as a coach, but not for any reasons that have to do with race. I simply feel they're not very competent.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> GB, after bumping heads, we have emerged as good friends. I know where you stand, I disagree. I see a double standard. Its pretty clear. And if there isnt a double standard, its still not good coaching to put an above average player on such a perch. I think that is clear.


I'll agree with you there...up to a certain point.

But to interject race into it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

:no:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> you want some fire, how about all the yahoos on this board who love Skiles and bash BC, then realize that BCs career winning % with the Bulls is in line, or better, then Skiles, even last year. Maybe a little double standard, on whatever lines you want to call it, by the members of the board.


First of all, I'll calling for a cease and desist on the name calling.

Thats my domain. 

Secondly ---> Cartwright had a older, more seasoned, more mature and probably better team than Skiles has had.

He was fired for losing control of it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm stupid because i dont agree with your premise? Please grow-up rlucas.
> ...


Grow up? You called me out. 

There is a double standard, anyway you cut it. Sometimes actions speak louders then words. Would Kirk be benched for having his shirt untucked? Would Kirk be pointed out if he came into camp 5 lbs overweight. Again, is Kirk that special a player to be above any criticism? His shooting was horrendous for stretched and his handles are still highly questionable at the spot. But rather then challenge this player, Skiles just says, Kirks job is safe, everyone else needs to earn it. Well, where I come from, when you win 23 games, and your not Tmac, then you have to earn that spot. Right there, is the double talk of Skiles so clearly exposed again. He actually insinuated to McGraw that it was more likely that Trybanski could beat Curry out for a spot then Gordon beating out Kirk. Either Skiles has a double standard, OR, he is the dumbest fool this league has seen. Pick your poison.

As for Phoenix, he couldnt get along with Kidd, or KJ. McDyess wanted nothing to do with him. We know where Corie Blount, a respected vet stood. he did like Penny and get this, TOM GUGLIOTTA. Interesting


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Would Kirk be benched for having his shirt untucked? Would Kirk be pointed out if he came into camp 5 lbs overweight.


Yes.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll agree with you there...up to a certain point.
> ...


But GB, as an african american, why shouldnt I have the right to call someone out if I see something fishy? Clearly there is a double standard, thats obvious. What would happen if Gordon blew up and Kirk couldnt co-exist with him? Thats the litmus test. My guess is Skiles would lobby for Ben to be shipped out. Thats speculation on my part I readily admit. But history does support that speculation


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> As for Phoenix, he couldnt get along with Kidd, or KJ.


So Skiles couldnt get along w/ Coach Killer Jason Kidd? Isn't kidd the same guy that had problems with Byron Scott.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes.


I very seriously doubt it. Remember, Hinrich was HANDED the starting PG spot when Skiles became coach. Nothing in the 12 games leading up to BCs departure would have said he was ready. Doesnt anyone remember that terrible game in NO?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Clearly there is a double standard, thats obvious.


If it's so clear why doesn't everyone share your opinion?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> So Skiles couldnt get along w/ Coach Killer Jason Kidd? Isn't kidd the same guy that had problems with Byron Scott.


or KJ, or Blount, or McDyess. You can jump on Kidd, rightfully so, but what about the others?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> If it's so clear why doesn't everyone share your opinion?


clearly some do, others dont know what its like to be on the other end of the fence. I guess some agree with lavishing praise on someone while others are just as deserving of it, but dont get it, for whatever reason


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> But GB, as an african american, why shouldnt I have the right to call someone out if I see something fishy? Clearly there is a double standard, thats obvious. What would happen if Gordon blew up and Kirk couldnt co-exist with him? Thats the litmus test. My guess is Skiles would lobby for Ben to be shipped out. Thats speculation on my part I readily admit. But history does support that speculation


Theres nothing fishy here.

Theres a good to very good white PG who has stood out on the team for various reasons...among them, the lack of standout qualities among his teammates. It may change this season. it may not. But thats the way the chips fall.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


I guess you dont see that some do. But then again, we see selective reading is a trait that you seem to have

<FONT COLOR=0000ff>Don't let your temper get the best of you. The selective reading bit is over the top.
-- DaBullz</FONT>


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> I very seriously doubt it. Remember, Hinrich was HANDED the starting PG spot when Skiles became coach. Nothing in the 12 games leading up to BCs departure would have said he was ready.


Everything since then has said he was. :grinning:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I've consistently pointed out that Pax was in a big hurry to dump BC. I've pointed out that given all the things BC represented, I wanted nothing more than to see him succeed. I don't think that 12 games, more than half of those he coached with the press writing about how his job was in jeopardy, was a fair shake, especially after coaching the team to 30 wins and getting real improvement from players like JWill, Crawford, Curry, and Chandler AND getting Rose and Marshall to fit in at the same time. Good enough that the team had its best run since MJ left and good enough that most people believed he had turned us into a playoff contender.


I didn't agree with the whole BC firing, however let's not forget that BC was under a lot of pressure after the way the bulls played early on. Constant blowouts and the team looking dysfunctional. I think Rose played a huge part in this teams slow start.

Pax wasnt in too much of a hurry to fire BC. If he was, he could have gotten Rick Carlisle who was a coaching Free Agent. 

Also, according to Doc Rivers and his agent the Bulls contacted Doc after Pax fired BC about taking over for the bulls. Doc didnt want to take over a job in the season and wanted to start fresh during the offseason. Thus skiles was hired.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Theres nothing fishy here.
> ...


but GB, thats my problem. The use of the word "white" before PG. I know you hate Jamal, but we had a pretty good "black" pg here who was unceremoniously supplanted from his job the second Skiles was handed the job. Now Jamal isnt really a 2, nor a 1, but I do know one thing, the bulls, and curry in particular, were a better team with Jamal as the primary handler. Kirk played ok in the 7 games before Skiles was hired but no way should he have been handed that job. If that isnt a double standard, what is? Do you think Kirk would be benched if the Bulls went 4-12 to start the year? There you go


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't agree with the whole BC firing, however let's not forget that BC was under a lot of pressure after the way the bulls played early on. Constant blowouts and the team looking dysfunctional. I think Rose played a huge part in this teams slow start.
> ...


I agree with this, however things didnt get much better. Id like to also agree about Doc, I heard that too. Again, my beef isnt with Pax, as much as it is with Skiles. 

One thing about Skiles. For all of you who praise him, remember he quit a long time ago on a good phoenix team. And not since then did he even get seriously considered to be a head coach anywhere. I dont believe he was even interviewed. Dont you think we should have atleast looked at multiple people before Skiles? Everyone else seemed to think he was trash. And the fact is, the final result was no worse then BC who is considered a moron by 90% of the people here (me included). I wont play favs. If BC wins 30% of his games, and Skiles wins 28%, then they are both morons.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> I very seriously doubt it. Remember, Hinrich was HANDED the starting PG spot when Skiles became coach. Nothing in the 12 games leading up to BCs departure would have said he was ready. Doesnt anyone remember that terrible game in NO?


It looked to me like BC said Hinrich was going to be a good substitute for the team and would have a good career. He was fired REAL fast and the replacement coach played Hinrich an awful lot of minutes for a rookie; and a rookie who wasn't one of those difference maker types I like to talk about a lot.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It looked to me like BC said Hinrich was going to be a good substitute for the team and would have a good career. He was fired REAL fast and the replacement coach played Hinrich an awful lot of minutes for a rookie; and a rookie who wasn't one of those difference maker types I like to talk about a lot.


Cmon GB, doesnt this sound a little fishy? Dabullz is not making anything up here.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Would Kirk be benched for having his shirt untucked? Would Kirk be pointed out if he came into camp 5 lbs overweight.


I think the point is that Kirk doesn't need to be told not to do those things. I don't think that has anything to do with race, personally.

Would Skiles call Kirk out for those things? We'll probably never know because Kirk is a pretty professional player as far as we know and probably won't need to be called out for things like that. That doesn't automatically make it a double-standard.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess you dont see that some do. But then again, we see selective reading is a trait that you seem to have


haha. i went back and deleted that cause i thought it would feed into this - but damn, you are quick!

listen, i simply disagree that skiles praises and criticizes based on racial bias. because he does not. and he never has. 

i feel you were wrong to bring it into the discussion, i felt it warranted a response. 

that's it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> but GB, thats my problem. The use of the word "white" before PG.


We can all tell. 

Race is valuable for nothing more than medicine these days Luke. I used the word "White" to contrast with something I later deleted.



> I know you hate Jamal, but we had a pretty good "black" pg here who was unceremoniously supplanted from his job the second Skiles was handed the job.


Don't hate Jamal. Just hate that he has all that un-used talent.



> Now Jamal isnt really a 2, nor a 1, but I do know one thing, the bulls, and curry in particular, were a better team with Jamal as the primary handler.


We still would have sucked, and we would have retarded Hinrich development.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> or KJ, or Blount, or McDyess. You can jump on Kidd, rightfully so, but what about the others?


I don't recall McDyess problem w/ skiles (not saying they didn't exist). Some coaches rub players the wrong way, doesn't make them racist.



> I very seriously doubt it. Remember, Hinrich was HANDED the starting PG spot when Skiles became coach. Nothing in the 12 games leading up to BCs departure would have said he was ready


Kirk wasnt handed the starting job after the trade. For 5 or 6 games Kendall Gill and Jamal started and kirk came off the bench. The PT Kirk got off the bench the better he was performing (dont forget he started the season on the IL). When kirk got the starting spot he was playing well. Good all-around numbers. 

Regarding this team AFTER the trade. Who else would you want starting over Kirk? Would it make sense for the future of your team (#1 draft pick) to be on the bench while Kendall Gill is starting?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't recall McDyess problem w/ skiles (not saying they didn't exist). Some coaches rub players the wrong way, doesn't make them racist.
> ...


Hinrich was absolutely handed the job. Everyone the team had who could have and who probably should have played PG was traded or moved out of position so he could have the job all to himself. 

It got to the point where Gill was plaing SF and the Bulls had to sign Brunson because the depth at G was so incredibly thin. This left the coach no choice but to play Hinrich and to play him massive minutes (like 40+ in a LOT of games).


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> but GB, thats my problem. The use of the word "white" before PG. I know you hate Jamal, but we had a pretty good "black" pg here who was unceremoniously supplanted from his job the second Skiles was handed the job. Now Jamal isnt really a 2, nor a 1, but I do know one thing, the bulls, and curry in particular, were a better team with Jamal as the primary handler. Kirk played ok in the 7 games before Skiles was hired but no way should he have been handed that job. If that isnt a double standard, what is? Do you think Kirk would be benched if the Bulls went 4-12 to start the year? There you go



Rlucas, I never know where to draw the line on this issue. Obviously there is still a lot of racism/glass ceiling in the world. I also have sympathy as I am a minority myself as a Jew, although it is not as physically obvious that I'm a minority. This has probably prevented me from dealing with a lot of the racism that a black man could encounter.

But there are many instances I have spoken to minorities who have suspected racism where I didn't see it. Who is right, the white man who might be unaware of these biases or the black man who might be (understandly so) overly aware of them?

Trying to be as objective as I can, I suppose that Skiles could have some tendancies to admire a hardworking white uberscrub like Hinrich or Nocioni, as he was one himself. But you said as much that he did like Penny back in the day. I think he likes Tyson quite a bit and he will like Deng very much. So it could be in there in some deep subconscious place, but I'm not sure one way or another, and I certainly don't think it's as clear as you do.

I also don't think people don't realize how connected you are to the basketball world. You talk to people in the industry, and are thus more informed than almost all of us.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> I very seriously doubt it. Remember, Hinrich was HANDED the starting PG spot when Skiles became coach.


Didn't BC start using Kirk more and more as he recovered from the viral infection? Didn't Kirk get that infamous start when BC benched Rose and Crawford? It wasn't just Skiles.

And anyway, after the Rose trade, playing Kirk and Craw together was simply a matter of necessity. They were our two best guards. I don't think it was a matter of holding Crawford down to hand Kirk anything. They HANDED Crawford the role of primary scorer at that same time. And we've known for a while that Jamal likes shooting just as much as passing. I think this borders on revisionist history.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The answer to your question is "the black man" who's aware of these little things.

There's a real pattern here. Paxson: white PG. Skiles: white PG. Hinrich: white PG.

It's easy to see a conspiracy.

It's also easy to see that Paxson picked a coach that "looks like himself" and that he drafted a guard who "looks like himself and his coach".

It's also quite possible it's a coincidence. But it's absolutely right to realize it and recognize it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich was absolutely handed the job. Everyone the team had who could have and who probably should have played PG was traded or moved out of position so he could have the job all to himself.


They were right to do so too. Proof is in the production.

I'm stepping back. I can't *BELIEVE* we're having another Jamal vs. KH or KH vs. The Bulls Fans argument.

It dead, silly and over.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich was absolutely handed the job. Everyone the team had who could have and who probably should have played PG was traded or moved out of position so he could have the job all to himself.
> ...


Didn't we draft Kirk out of neccessity and *since* we were thin at the PG spot, we got him?

Rose is the only person in the world who thinks he can play PG. and Jamal? he's a tweener


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is "the black man" who's aware of these little things.
> ...


Right, but not even rlucas thinks Paxson is a racist. Those are all Paxson's choices above that you listed. But drafting a white player is obviously not the only way Paxson has gone, as you have stated above.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't we draft Kirk out of neccessity and *since* we were thin at the PG spot, we got him?


Are you sure?

We already had a PG, and we were thin at SF. I remember people screaming that we didn't need another PG controversy and that we needed an SF (or SG if Rose played SF).


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich was absolutely handed the job. Everyone the team had who could have and who probably should have played PG was traded or moved out of position so he could have the job all to himself.
> ...


The depth got thin @ PG because the bulls decided to move JC to the 2. Again, i ask, what would you want Skiles to do w/ Jamal and Kirk? Kirk wasnt brought in to supplant JC, he was brought in to take the spot of Jason Williams. After the trade we had the option of starting Gill and Crawford, or Crawford and Hinrich. For the future of this team, im glad Pax choose to give Hinrich PT. 

Let's not forget that the bulls were going to trade for Alvin WIlliams (PG), hwoever his injury concerns caused him to be left out of trade discussions. If memory serves me correctly the bulls tried to get Morris Peterson, but the Raps wouldnt include his name in the talks. 

Anyways, w/ the way the roster looked post trade, Skiles made due the best he could. Skiles and Pax made Jamal a lot of money showcasing his talent @ the 2 and giving him free reign during the season. 

The reason Kirk gets a lot of accolades (more then the rest of the bulls rookies in the past). IMO deals w/ the fact that Kirk produced in his rookie season. He wasnt great, or superb, but he was a SOLID rookie who played both sides of the court. In the past years from Fizer, Crawford, Curry, Chandler, Bagaric (does he count?) bulls rookies did VERY LITTLE. I compare Hinrich's rookie season to Artest. Not exceptional, but Solid with a bright future.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich was absolutely handed the job. Everyone the team had who could have and who probably should have played PG was traded or moved out of position so he could have the job all to himself.
> ...


say what? Jay got hurt. Jamal, as the team's PG, was "leading" us to 30 point blowout losses, as you yourself said all the time last season. Who else did the team have to play PG that was moved out? Roger Mason? Are you saying Mason should have played ahead of Kirk? Rose? Maybe you have a point here, but Rose was never asked to play PG while here, so I can hardly tie that into Kirk. Pippen? He didn't play - which is just as big a reason for why Gill had to play SF as this hooey that Hinrich was "handed" the job. Gill also missed a lot of games with injuries. Is that also a management ploy to keep Hinrich on the floor? He got the job because he was one of the team's best guards after the trade. Heck, he did SOME things better than the incumbents before the trade as well.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> ...


well I wasn't. jamal was a SG in my opinion and could do a little passing. I loved what Jay Will and Jamal were doing in the backcourt. I remember Pax saying the motorcycle incident forced them to draft Kirk.

Jalen shouldn't be touching the ball that much and I really thought scottie could handle 20 minutes of running the team a night.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> The depth got thin @ PG because the bulls decided to move JC to the 2. Again, i ask, what would you want Skiles to do w/ Jamal and Kirk? <FONT SIZE=+2>Kirk wasnt brought in to supplant JC</FONT>, he was brought in to take the spot of Jason Williams. After the trade we had the option of starting Gill and Crawford, or Crawford and Hinrich. For the future of this team, im glad Pax choose to give Hinrich PT.
> ...


I emphasized the key phrase in your post, as I see it. He WAS brought in, and when the coach wouldn't play ball, he was toast.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> say what? Jay got hurt. Jamal, as the team's PG, was "leading" us to 30 point blowout losses, as you yourself said all the time last season. Who else did the team have to play PG that was moved out? Roger Mason? Are you saying Mason should have played ahead of Kirk? Rose? Maybe you have a point here, but Rose was never asked to play PG while here, so I can hardly tie that into Kirk. Pippen? He didn't play - which is just as big a reason for why Gill had to play SF as this hooey that Hinrich was "handed" the job. Gill also missed a lot of games with injuries. Is that also a management ploy to keep Hinrich on the floor? He got the job because he was one of the team's best guards after the trade. Heck, he did SOME things better than the incumbents before the trade as well.


As I see it, Paxson moved everyone who might take minutes from Kirk, including Hassell, Hoiberg, and Rose. Those were guys that a Cartwright would be tempted to play when the team was in trouble.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal, as the team's PG, was "leading" us to 30 point blowout losses...


Gone in body, but he apparently remains in spirit.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I emphasized the key phrase in your post, as I see it. He WAS brought in, and when the coach wouldn't play ball, he was toast.


Kirk started 2 games i believe during BC's short 2003-2004 tenure. 

It's a stretch to suggest that the reason BC was fired was because he wouldnt start Hinrich. If this team was competitive and not getting constantly blown-out BC would never been fired. 

BC was fired because of this teams actions on the floor. Right or Wrong, the blame fell on him. I for one, believe when Kirk was completely healthy and in-game shape, sooner or later BC would shuffle his lineup where he would start JC and Kirk in the backcourt w/ Rose @ the 3. 

I dont get the sense that BC was anti-Kirk by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vicious Flogging</b>!
> 
> Jamal, as the team's PG, was "leading" us to 30 point blowout losses...





> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Gone in body, but he apparently remains in spirit.



:laugh: :jump:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> As I see it, Paxson moved everyone who might take minutes from Kirk, including Hassell, Hoiberg, and Rose. Those were guys that a Cartwright would be tempted to play when the team was in trouble.


I guess in your opinion, Pax was twisting his imaginary mustache in hopes of getting his "boy" into the game at any cost. 

It's a wonder why Paxson never hired Shawn Eckardt and Jeff Gillooly to whack Marbury and Iverson across the kneecaps w/a metal baton so that his "boy" could be in the olympics.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> Kirk started 2 games i believe during BC's short 2003-2004 tenure.
> ...


Here's what Cartwright said about Hinrich on draft night:

"He's a grade-A kid," Cartwright said. "He's tough. We like him, and he'll fit in nicely."

There's a big difference between "he'll fit in nicely" and "he's going to be the starting PG and the new cornerstone of the team" (cornerstone is what Hinrich's become, for better or for worse, deserving or not).

To top it off, Hinrich only got the starting PG job when Crawford had that scary fall against Minny and missed some games.

Here's a bit from a hoopsworld article at the time:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_6344.shtml

As you probably know, Hinrich started six games over Jamal Crawford earlier this season, a move I have to hope was done to motivate Crawford, not because now deposed Bill Cartwright thought Hinrich was the superior player. Hinrich's numbers were tough to translate because he played primarily off the ball as a senior at KU. Thus, while his translated assists are vastly underrated (3.7 in 35 minutes, predicted), so too are his turnovers (2.1 in 35 minutes, predicted, 2.75 in 25 minutes actual). Hinrich would rank fourth in the NBA in turnover rate if he qualified (the actual list includes eight rookies in the top 30, surely not a coincidence), indicating that the move back to point guard has been a bit overwhelming for Hinrich. At the same time, an average of nearly six fouls per 48 minutes seems to indicate Hinrich has struggled with the quickness of opposing guards. On the plus side, Hinrich has demonstrated NBA three range (35.7%), something I questioned.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Its pathetic that Kirk has 22 votes


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's what Cartwright said about Hinrich on draft night:
> ...


Just to correct you DaBullz, according to bulls.com 2003-2004 schedule, Hinrich started 4 games in a row over Crawford. Nov8 @NO, nov10 denver, [email protected], 13 minn. Crawford then got hurt midway through the minn game and missed the seattle game. 

Just checking out the minutes, BC gave Hinrich an average of about 25 mpg during BC's short stay in 2003. Jeez, i have no life...or have too much time on my hands lol


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

You want to know why the Bulls are in trouble? Kirk Hinrich is now your best player. There isn't another team in the entire league who would trade their best player straight up for Hinrich...not one. That says alot about how pitiful your GM is and how pitiful your season will be...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> Just to correct you DaBullz, according to bulls.com 2003-2004 schedule, Hinrich started 4 games in a row over Crawford. Nov8 @NO, nov10 denver, [email protected], 13 minn. Crawford then got hurt midway through the minn game and missed the seattle game. Just checking out the minutes, BC gave Hinrich an average of about 25 mpg. Jeez, i have no life...or have too much time on my hands lol


Hinrich wasn't the starting PG though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> You want to know why the Bulls are in trouble? Kirk Hinrich is now your best player. There isn't another team in the entire league who would trade their best player straight up for Hinrich...not one. That says alot about how pitiful your GM is and how pitiful your season will be...


No kidding.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich wasn't the starting PG though.


Chicago v New Orleans

Denver v Chicago 

Chicago v Boston

Minnesota v Chicago

Name in BOLD letters= Starters? correct? (not trying to be a smart ***.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> You want to know why the Bulls are in trouble? Kirk Hinrich is now your best player. There isn't another team in the entire league who would trade their best player straight up for Hinrich...not one. That says alot about how pitiful your GM is and how pitiful your season will be...


Kirk is our best player by default. Hopefully Curry can take a big step towards being our best player.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> You want to know why the Bulls are in trouble? Kirk Hinrich is now your best player. There isn't another team in the entire league who would trade their best player straight up for Hinrich...not one. That says alot about how pitiful your GM is and how pitiful your season will be...


The hope, for the last 3 years, has been that Curry and Chandler would anchor this team. We're still waiting for that to happen, and coming to the realization that it might NEVER happen, and that's hardly Kirk's fault.

But you're right, it IS sad that he's our best player right now. He'd be best-suited as a team's 3rd best player or so.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> Chicago v New Orleans
> ...


I think we're arguing semantics.

Cartwright benched both Rose and Crawford in that first game, and they were pissed

Yes, Crawford wasn't the starter in those games. I don't think that means he lost the starting job (yet).


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I think we're arguing semantics.
> ...


what are we arguing bout anyways ? lol

I think my only point is that BC wasnt adverse to playing Kirk and giving him PT. My only contention is that BC wasnt fired because he wouldnt start Kirk and Pax wanted Hinrich to start.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> Kirk started 2 games i believe during BC's short 2003-2004 tenure.
> ...


the games kirk started were the 2 games crawford missed due to injury ....VF was mistaken when he said kirk was starting the games Jc was benched in , i believe gill and rose were the starting backcourt in those games with pippen...but it definitely wasn't kirk in at least half of those games all you have to do is matchup the fact that kirk didn't start 10 games and he also didn't start the season because of a viral infection on the active roster ... .


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

but back to something else ...

doesn't anyone else find it strange that in a league that has about 80% african american paxson has not brought in one player of this background to be one of his core player?( and i mean by that likely to be on the roster past the purge of the summer of 2006)

the closest people can say is curry and chandler , but alot of people dont believe thats anywhere close to the case , in fact if the bulls had gotten a top 2 pick tyson would likely already be gone for okafor who is from nigeria or his parents moved to texas from nigeria right before his birth . And Curry has already been linked to trade rumors and basically wont get the deal he seeks as a bull , and i doubt very many people think he will.

i doubt either are bulls come next year this time . 

but of the players paxson has actually brought in kirk, nocioni , gordon and deng to be his vision does anyone find it the slightest bit odd that none of them are native born african american , almost as if paxson is going out of his way to find players that aren't ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> but of the players paxson has actually brought in kirk, nocioni , gordon and deng to be his vision does anyone find it the slightest bit odd that none of them are native born african american , almost as if paxson is going out of his way to find players that aren't ...


What the hell difference does native african american vs. non-aferican american?

Do you think Pax is allergic to US-style playground ball?


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

hinrich will be better than iverson one day.....when iverson is 100 and hinrich is like 93 lol


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What the hell difference does native african american vs. non-aferican american?
> ...


the difference is clear, gordon was born in london , deng in sudan , technically they could be african americans, (i mean really they are black so obviously they do come from africa originally , heck deng is african , it would be hard to consider him anything else if he were a citizen) you for some reason say playground basketball which is somewhat stupid or at least uninformed as if somehow being born here and black means you play playground basketball.

does dwight howard play playground basketball?

shaun livingston , devin harris , josh childress , these are the player between deng and gordon in the draft all play guard and yet none of them were really at all considered for a selection by the bulls.

have i missed the and1 tape childress , harris and livingston were on ?...darnit!

who did pax go after this year as a free agent? macas i believe is from eastern europe , nocioni is from arg.

its just wierd pattern considering 80% of the league doesn't have such diverse beginnings.

i mean what the odds if it were random 1 out of 625 , i think.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz and rlucas, you guys make some interesting points. I'm not choosing sides here, since I haven't looked at the issue closely enough. But you guys definitely have gotten my attention. I will view the season closely and chip in when I have a better idea of the situation. I've always thought that Kirk was praised too highly by management, but haven't ruled race as the issue. Though I'm not saying it's not possible. 

As for the poll, it's silly to even consider Hinrich. Get real guys, Hinrich's best year will never be as productive as Iverson's worst year (so far). And I'm a Hinrich fan. And as for these, "Iverson's a head case" comments, there are a bunch of superstars who are, IMO, more baggage than Iverson. And for those who think he has a few years left, I disagree. I don't think people realize Iverson is a very smart basketball player with good Bball IQ, and that once his speed goes, there are a number of ways he can be effective.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> somewhat stupid or at least uninformed as if somehow being born here and black means you play playground basketball.


What's stupid and uninformed is the theory that Pax is avoiding native African Americans and is cool with Blacks from other countries.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> What's stupid and uninformed is the theory that Pax is avoiding native African Americans and is cool with Blacks from other countries.


so you go ahead and explain it to me ...i doubt you will , but when its time to once again make some silly claim about john paxson and his allergy to a style of basketball i'm sure you'll be the 1st to chime in.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> so you go ahead and explain it to me ...i doubt you will , but when its time to once again make some silly claim about john paxson and his allergy to a style of basketball i'm sure you'll be the 1st to chime in.


re: allergy, I was asking you what could possibly explain such a dumb theory.



> Originally posted by <b>Johnston797</b>!What the hell difference does native african american vs. non-aferican american?
> 
> Do you think Pax is allergic to US-style playground ball?


Pax doesn't give a hoot that Gordon was born in England. Why would he? Gordon grew up in the US.

Pax is trying to add the best players possible. He has added 4-yr college guys, 3-yr college guys, 1-yr college guys, guys from Europe, guys from the CBA. Black guys, white guys.

At this point, the only bias Paxson could be accused of is not really wanting to draft another HS kid. And wanting guys that give full effort on both ends of the court.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797,

I'm with you on this one.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Pax doesn't give a hoot that Gordon was born in England. Why would he? Gordon grew up in the US.
> 
> Pax is trying to add the best players possible. He has added 4-yr college guys, 3-yr college guys, 1-yr college guys, guys from Europe, guys from the CBA. Black guys, white guys.
> ...


This post should be the final word on this matter. (But of course it won't.)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> re: allergy, I was asking you what could possibly explain such a dumb theory.


it could be something as simple as paxson not realling liking the way the avg. african american aspiring basketball player compose themself , it may be a lack of ability to put aside things in a hip hop culture , which has been hypothisized before , though not really with paxson (krause and darius miles' braids thing comes to mind although when eddy got his hair cut it did lead to a comment that has been joked about on this site) it could just be nothing , but the chances of it are rare not in just whom paxson has selected to be a core player but whom he has also seeked out to be a core player , he appears to looking outside the norm , or its a very out of the ordinary occurance.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I'd rather have Khalid El-Amin than Iverson.


----------

