Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
I wonder if the Curry and Crawford for Kwame is still on the table, and if we can pry Garnett away from the Wolves...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Smith is a moron; I think Skiles is a great coach for the Bulls. I'm tired of these primadonna athletes that whine like children when they don't get thier way. I not saying that the coach should be an overbearing jerk and berate the players and that they should stand for it, but a coach needs players that will listen to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
I'm not immune to this kind of argument... but Smith really didn't seem to make the argument.

What the hell is he saying here? This seems to be one of the few times Smith is actually speaking from the heart, but I still don't get it- he's repeatedly slammed our kids as sucking major ***. Yet, now he doesn't want Pax to give up on them and he doesn't think Skiles can motivate them.

Well, they're on their third coach and they've not been "motivated" yet. And they have yet to play with a good set of players around them.

I don't see how any coach could succed with the players Skiles has been given.

Nor do I see how our "core" players could realistically be expected to succeed when they have to play with a crappy supporting cast.

If you want a blueprint for success, Pax ought to call up his brother and see what he's done. He made decisions about who was essential and who wasn't, then moved all the unessential guys for useful guys, who, if not great, are a good set of role players, not past their prime, and form a coherant team around LeBron and all.

Ira Newble (29), Eric Williams (31), Tony Battie (27), Jeff McInnis (29), Kevin Ollie (31)

Solid guys, vets, in their prime, fill a role, good defenders (except McInnis, who's a good scorer.

to get these guys, they gave up Ricky Davis (24), Chris Mihm (24), two guys who were pretty young and didn't play particularly good defense.

Since these trades, the Cavs have shown steady improvement and look to be playing above .500 ball for the rest of the year.

We, on the other hand, traded and signed:
Gill (35), Pippen (38), Blount (35), Davis (35), JYD (30)

to get these guys they gave up in trade Rose (31), Marshall (30), Baxter (25).

Anyone see a pattern here?

It's not the coach, it's the players. It's just not the players you think.
 

·
"Meow."
Joined
·
5,595 Posts
Originally posted by <b>dsouljah9</b>!
Smith is a moron;
I must say I got the exact opposite from this read. This article is another example of why Smith is a premier journalist. There is nothing to write about this incarnation of the Bulls...nothing. Its bleak. Death. Darkness.

This article is somewhat entertaining and thought provoking. Is it true? Probably not. But, I doubt Smith believes everything he writes, nor does he have to.
 

·
"Meow."
Joined
·
5,595 Posts
As to the merits of this article, I'm not sure I buy the view point that Crawford and Curry have tuned Skiles out. I'm not claiming they are going to be filming an episode of "Friends" any time soon, but both players have made marked improvements since Skiles arived.

Jamal is actually starting to develop a two 's game. I see him starting to hit catch-and-shoot opportunities, taking the ball to the hoop, and working off the ball. His D has improved as well. Still not starter material, or any where close to the level he will have to play at for this team to win. But, nonetheless, he is making strides despite the numerous "confrontations" he has had with Skiles.

Curry appears to really have taken to the Skile regimen. Besides the fact that he is actually working himself in to shape, I am seeing new offensive moves. The range on his shot... his spin to the left. There are improvements taking place. Again, I'm not making an argument that he hasn't dissapointed or that he is starter material. Just that Curry is making strides.

It's hard to foward the argument that this mess can all be placed on Skiles's door-mat when our young players are developing faster then they ever did under our past coaching regimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
I'll go against everyone on this board and say this may be one of the most insightful pieces Smith has written in a long time. Skiles is a good coach, and I thought the best thing about him was that the players were buying into his ideals. He is NOT a great coach, he is NOT Greg Poppovich, Rick Adelman, Don Nelson, Flip Saunders or Phil Jackson. He is NOT Jeff Van Gundy, Rick Carlisle or Larry Brown.

So building around him is kind of questionable. On top of that, a team of Scott Skiles, whether you like it or not, is going nowhere. 5 Kirk Hinrichs might make you all happy, but it won't win us a championship. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I'm a believer of the role system in which players fit roles and when all those roles are fit and they are fit well, the team performs on an amazingly high level.

You can't win with a team of Kirk Hinrichs so much as you could win with a team of Jamal Crawfords and Eddy Currys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
So, after 32 games, Skiles isn't the right man? Not after a offseason and training camp, but 32 games and Skiles isn't the right man. That makes no sense to me. Smith is the same guy that wanted the Bulls to trade Eddy Curry for Kwame Brown, na d for us to trade Crawford to the Knicks for a washed up Antonio McDeyess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
I'll go against everyone on this board and say this may be one of the most insightful pieces Smith has written in a long time. Skiles is a good coach, and I thought the best thing about him was that the players were buying into his ideals. He is NOT a great coach, he is NOT Greg Poppovich, Rick Adelman, Don Nelson, Flip Saunders or Phil Jackson. He is NOT Jeff Van Gundy, Rick Carlisle or Larry Brown.

So building around him is kind of questionable. On top of that, a team of Scott Skiles, whether you like it or not, is going nowhere. 5 Kirk Hinrichs might make you all happy, but it won't win us a championship. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I'm a believer of the role system in which players fit roles and when all those roles are fit and they are fit well, the team performs on an amazingly high level.

You can't win with a team of Kirk Hinrichs so much as you could win with a team of Jamal Crawfords and Eddy Currys.
Well, just because you work hard doesn't mean you won't have talent, either. It also remains to be seen whether he is a great coach given his short track record. Phil Jackson has never had to build a team, he always had superstar players. Skiles has not had much to work with. I don't think he is a great coach either; it's too early to tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
"You can't win with a team of Kirk Hinrichs so much as you could win with a team of Jamal Crawfords and Eddy Currys."


Doc Rivers did it in Orlando(before T-Mac and G.Hill) and almost took that team to the playoffs with " a team full of Kirk Hinrichs"

Jerry Sloan's winning in Utah with "a team full of Kirk Hinrichs" when the Jazz were expected to win 17 games this season affter Stockton and Malone left.

Don't blame this team's crappy play on Skiles and day that he isn't a good coach and that he isn't right for the Bulls. They have never been pushed to actually earn their money and now they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
I'm not immune to this kind of argument... but Smith really didn't seem to make the argument.

What the hell is he saying here? This seems to be one of the few times Smith is actually speaking from the heart, but I still don't get it- he's repeatedly slammed our kids as sucking major ***. Yet, now he doesn't want Pax to give up on them and he doesn't think Skiles can motivate them.

Well, they're on their third coach and they've not been "motivated" yet. And they have yet to play with a good set of players around them.

I don't see how any coach could succed with the players Skiles has been given.

Nor do I see how our "core" players could realistically be expected to succeed when they have to play with a crappy supporting cast.

If you want a blueprint for success, Pax ought to call up his brother and see what he's done. He made decisions about who was essential and who wasn't, then moved all the unessential guys for useful guys, who, if not great, are a good set of role players, not past their prime, and form a coherant team around LeBron and all.

Ira Newble (29), Eric Williams (31), Tony Battie (27), Jeff McInnis (29), Kevin Ollie (31)

Solid guys, vets, in their prime, fill a role, good defenders (except McInnis, who's a good scorer.

to get these guys, they gave up Ricky Davis (24), Chris Mihm (24), two guys who were pretty young and didn't play particularly good defense.

Since these trades, the Cavs have shown steady improvement and look to be playing above .500 ball for the rest of the year.

We, on the other hand, traded and signed:
Gill (35), Pippen (38), Blount (35), Davis (35), JYD (30)

to get these guys they gave up in trade Rose (31), Marshall (30), Baxter (25).

Anyone see a pattern here?

It's not the coach, it's the players. It's just not the players you think.
I agree. However, the trade of Rose was necessary. We might have won a little bit more with marshall this year, but he was definitely not a good fit for this team.

As for John asking Jim for advice.... Jim is a horrible GM. Drafting Dajuan Wagner in 2002 over Nene, Amare, etc was not the greatest. Nor was picking Trajan Langdon in the lottery in 1999 over people like Magette or Artest (Langdon is now in Europe...). Or drafting Diop. He lucked into Lebron.

Hopefully, his "skill" in evaluating players doesn't run in the family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
As you probably already know, Smith is basically saying what I've been saying for months now (about the Bulls), and for weeks now (since Skiles was hired). RLucas, too.

Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, and Crawford are ROLE PLAYERS at this point in their careers. We're suffering through a backwards step of a season because we're trying to play them as if they're something more than ROLE PLAYERS.

My view still is that we don't have to give up on these guys at all, though Paxson's bungled moves has seriously handicapped our ability to improve and really develop these guys.

What I still maintain would have been the ideal strategy for the Bulls was to have signed a guy like Juwann Howard (he's WAY better than AD), and traded for Jamison or Walker or anyone else of their ilk who was available (Van Exel). We should have put a team on the floor that included Rose, Howard, Gill, and Walker (Walker for example only) and tried to win. We should have used Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich as ROLE PLAYERS until they prove they're ready. And there'd be plenty of time to prove themselves ready - if not this year, next, if not next, the year after. No pressure - what they contribute is GRAVY. (Note in this scenario, the Bulls would have likely traded Jamal to Boston as part of a deal for Walker).

The kids would be able to play against other teams' 2nd units instead of their first. Their mission would be to play those 2nd units even or not fall behind by that much. No pressure, like I said.

Starting the season out two straight years with a lineup featuring Crawford (or JWill) and Chandler and Curry has proven to be disaster. The pressure to succeed at home early was tremendous, and then there was the circus trip. Vets are both more suited to the pressure of the early home games and the circus trip. All we had to do THIS year was play vets for the first 20 games and we'd have had a much better record.

Here's the real problem with the Bulls. Paxson is GM, Reinsdorf is owner. The rhetoric from management is NOT "whatever it takes to win" but rather "if we win, we'll pay people accordingly." The difference is stark, and the results are exactly what I expect.

Paxson has decimated the team of the kind of veterans (Rose, Marshall) that could have been pieces of a competitive team (if you add guys like Howard and Walker). I do like AD and JYD, but I do not see them as the kinds of players who could be a #1 option on the team (Rose and Marshall could be/have been, Walker obviously would be, etc.). Realistically, I don't see any team in the NBA that would trade us players of much value for either AD or JYD to undo Paxson's blunder.

Winning is something that is learned as a team. This team is learning the opposite - how to lose. The losing is so ingraned in the atmosphere around the team that a new GM and coach is bound to have little effect. The alternative is to change the players, and Paxson has limited that option effectively to trading Curry and/or Chandler and/or Crawford and/or Hinrich, because those four are the only guys we have with even limited trade value (perhaps more, but I'm a skeptic and doubt it ;-)

In another thread, the subject is the mistakes made by Krause. Well, suppose he made few mistakes at all. The guys who have left the Bulls and gone on to better days elsewhere did not do as well for the Bulls and I don't see why they would have ever gotten past the losing atmosphere to become the players they are if they stayed. In fact, I think Krause made a brilliant move in trading for Rose. Where he failed was NOT trading for more guys like him (quality vets signed to long term deals) to go with Rose.

I admit I drank some kool aid after Skiles' first game. We won, and how we won was impressive. The defense was impressive, especially when we played zone. The offense was a blur of fast break after fast break after turnovers caused by the D. We looked unbeatable. Then Skiles started implementing his system, and 32 games later (or however many it is), the team is struggling with a godawful offensive set and the defense is giving up 100+ points on an alarmingly regular basis, especially considering we traded two guys who were supposedly weak on D for two guys whose strength is D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, and Crawford are ROLE PLAYERS at this point in their careers.
Congratulations! You have won 2 chocolate bars courtsey of Carson of a *****!!

:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
It isn't hard to make the case that these 4 are role players.

Consider the championship Bulls teams:

1st 3peat - Jordan, Pippen, Paxson, Grant, Cartwright

Which of those 5 would Curry, Crawford, Chandler, or Hinrich beat out to win a starting job? If you answer "they wouldn't win a starting job," as I would answer, then they are by definition, role players.

2nd 3peat - Jordan, Pippen, Longley, Harper, Rodman

Same question.

Now let's look at the role players on those two teams:

Kukoc - not even Crawford would beat him out for 6th man job!

Armstrong - he won votes for NBA all-defense team as well as shooting about 48% for 2's and 43% for 3's.

Kerr - this guy shot over 50% for 2's and for 3's and played his butt off on defense. Crawford or Hinrich wouldn't have beaten him out for PT.

Stacey King - in just 21 minutes per game, the guy scored ~9 PPG and grabbed ~5 RPG and shot over 50% from the field. Maybe Curry or Chandler would get his minutes.

So what's wrong with comparing our guys now with the championship teams? After all, those teams were champs, which is what we all want for the Bulls now (and forever), right? There's nothing unfair in my pointing out the obvious here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
It isn't hard to make the case that these 4 are role players.

Consider the championship Bulls teams:

1st 3peat - Jordan, Pippen, Paxson, Grant, Cartwright

Which of those 5 would Curry, Crawford, Chandler, or Hinrich beat out to win a starting job? If you answer "they wouldn't win a starting job," as I would answer, then they are by definition, role players.

2nd 3peat - Jordan, Pippen, Longley, Harper, Rodman

Same question.

Now let's look at the role players on those two teams:

Kukoc - not even Crawford would beat him out for 6th man job!

Armstrong - he won votes for NBA all-defense team as well as shooting about 48% for 2's and 43% for 3's.

Kerr - this guy shot over 50% for 2's and for 3's and played his butt off on defense. Crawford or Hinrich wouldn't have beaten him out for PT.

Stacey King - in just 21 minutes per game, the guy scored ~9 PPG and grabbed ~5 RPG and shot over 50% from the field. Maybe Curry or Chandler would get his minutes.

So what's wrong with comparing our guys now with the championship teams? After all, those teams were champs, which is what we all want for the Bulls now (and forever), right? There's nothing unfair in my pointing out the obvious here.
these comparisons are so far of the mark its not even funny .

Your talking the Nba ten years ago different rules a different league PERIOD.

PJ didnt play young players major minutes back then ahead of vets .He wouldnt play BJ ahead of Pax even when BJ was clearly the better player because he likes vets .

Those guys fit that team because of what THAT team needed at the time .

Kerr nor Armstrong was never asked to step out of their roles as role playing spot up shooting .Our bigman was never asked to dominate just show up and not look god awful and play tough inside .

That team was never searching for a LEADING

SCORER
REBOUNDER
ASSISTS MAN
STEAL MAN
SHOT BLOCKER
LEADER
COACH
RESPECT

all at the same time it always had the stabilty of 2 HOF players I cant even believe you compared the two.Youre comparing them to 2 of the greatest teams ever with 6-7 players in their primes.

Part of the problem with this team and some of its fans is that they forget that all players develop at different rates of speed and they dont all become starts at the same time .I mean how crazy is it to even think that way.

Elton
Wally
Franchise
Matrix
Rip
Bender
Odom
Artest
Maggette
ak47
kenny thomas
terry
andre miller
Posey
deveon george


all these players came out the same year but they have all developed at different rates why do we expect Curry and Chandler and even Crawford to all hit stride at the same time .It just doesnt make sense .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,837 Posts
I'll read the article later, but I must admit I've been thinking the same thing.

With

This season's firings or resignations of Doc Rivers (Orlando), Don Chaney (New York), Byron Scott (New Jersey) and Bill Cartwright (Bulls) follow the summer departures of Pat Riley (Miami), Isiah Thomas (Indiana), Paul Silas (New Orleans), George Karl (Milwaukee), Lenny Wilkens (Toronto), Rick Carlisle (Detroit), Larry Brown (Philadelphia), Doug Collins (Washington) and Keith Smart (Cleveland).[
Talent like that hitting the market and ending up with Skiles I feel somewhat cheated. Very intelligent, yes, but still an unknown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,150 Posts
Smith is an idoit. Skiles has had no time to put his system into place and had major players injured from the time he was hired. After a preseason and time for these players to develop then we can see. As for sam smith.

He wrote in 1991 that the bulls should trade scotty pippen and Grant for larry bird. Logical. Well we could win a couple of championships while bird had a couple of years left. Bird retired the next year because of his back. And sam smith solidified his spot as total fing idoit. If we had made that trade we would have never won one championship.

david
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top