Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Is Scott Skiles the new Doug Collins?
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=5718		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Beardown [ Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
There is a huge flaw in your theory. Skiles just signed a fairly big deal. He has 3 more years left on that deal. I don't know what year Collins was in his contract when he was let go. But no matter it wasn't big money back in 1989. Plus I think Pax and him get along great. Phil Jackson was on Collins bench. He was a Krause spy and lobbied for the job. Plus I think MJ got Collins fired. Or at least had a say. There is no big star on the Bulls like MJ that can do that. Nobody would even if they could.
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:54 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think he is like Collins but I do think the players who listen to him right now will shut him out within 5 years. The best thing Pax has done is turn over the roster. A coach like Skiles must have change to be effective. Also, I don't know if he will be able to coach an established superstar.
Author:  lipidquadcab [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Maybe this should wait until the playoffs are over.
Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Let me ask this question again

Last I checked, it wasn't Scott Skiles disappearing every 5th game; it was Deng/Gordon/Heinrich. We need to just face facts: the Bulls are still basically a young and somewhat-undersized team. That's all there is to it.
Author:  Tall Midget [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Skiles' end-of-game play-calling doesn't impress me at all.
Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
It's the coach job to get it out of them.

And he does. Look at the Knicks or even the Nets they played last night. The Bulls are nothing special talent-wise. The reason they're among the best in their league is good coaching and the fact that the guys Paxson gets are hard workers who you generally get the most out of.

As bothered as I am by last night's game, you have to hand it to the Nets somewhat; they played a pretty damn good game. Carter was unconscious.

By the way, did any of you watch the game on the ESPN feed? I did, because it was in high-definition. Anyways, Bill Walton must die. Soon. This guy has now moved past Berman to be my new "greatest irritant in sports." What a complete and utter fucktard.
Author:  Mike Mikerson [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't believe rotating Thomas, Thabo and other into the lineup would've hurt the bulls chances last night.
Author:  Bulldog Scott [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
He was driving me crazy, too, MITC. Why does he hate the Bulls so much? It's like he has a Joey Crawford like vendetta against them.
Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
The Bulls are nothing special talent-wise.

What are you talking about? The Bulls have the best young talent in the league.

The key word being "young." They don't have a top-5 guy at any position.

Quote:
The past few years the Bulls have disappeared in key games. It's during those times that a coach is supposed to get the best out of his guys. Doug Collins couldn't do it so they let Phil move over and he did. Three straight 1st round exits isn't a sign of a championship coach. Only time will tell.

The difference between these circumstances being the best player to ever play in the NBA. They played a team last night who had two bona-fide, all star, go-to guys. They'll play another in the first round of the playoffs now.

To put it another way: those Bulls of the late 80's were under-achieving; these Bulls are still very clearly over-achieving in my mind. They're set up very well for the future, IMO, but they're just plain not there yet. Know what the Bulls are? The Bulls are Luol Deng; great young talent, perhaps superstar talent, but just not quite ready for the prime-time.

MJH are right about one thing: Chicago is meatball city with the coaching rhetoric. Christ.

edit:
Quote:
I love Bill. No one else can make me laugh the way he does while watching a game.

Were you being facetious? If it were physically possible to choke someone through the television screen, ESPN would be running Walton's eulogy all day today.
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

To put it another way: those Bulls of the late 80's were under-achieving; .


I always thought Mark Olberding should have played at a much higher level. On the other hand Orlando Woolridge played at a very high level. Unfortunately, it was not on the court.
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nas wrote:
Quote:

I always thought Mark Olberding should have played at a much higher level. On the other hand Orlando Woolridge played at a very high level. Unfortunately, it was not on the court.


88-89 and 89-90 they lost to the Pistons. That would qualify as late 80's


But neither underachieved. Those Piston teams were great and the Bulls were just emerging.
Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
The key word being "young." They don't have a top-5 guy at any position.
How many teams do? 5?

25, minus the number of teams who have a top 5 at 2 positions.

Quote:
Quote:
The difference between these circumstances being the best player to ever play in the NBA. They played a team last night who had two bona-fide, all star, go-to guys. They'll play another in the first round of the playoffs now.

Can Skiles coach a star player? Something tells me he wouldn't be able to coach certain guys and that's why you might not see a guy like Zach Randolph on the team.

Lazy half-assers who only want to give 75% half the time? No, you're right. And you're also right that they won't bring those guys in; I, for one, am glad. Everyone always talks about how athletes are spoiled and lazy, and the reason is that no one's willing to take a stand. The Bulls took a stand, and I won't blame them for it.

Quote:
The Bulls roster is filled with a bunch of team players. Also saying the Bulls don't have a go to guy(which is true)is a lot different than comparing their roster to NJ. The Bulls have a better and younger roster.

No, I agree. Don't get me wrong; the Bulls are very talented, and they play so well as a team that their synergy makes them over-achieve, in general (which I attribute about a third to coaching, a third to pedigree, and a third to personal makeup). But a team like NJ with fantastic individual players that only plays as a team on occasion has another gear when they get into the playoffs; the Bulls are already in overdrive.

Quote:
Quote:
To put it another way: those Bulls of the late 80's were under-achieving; these Bulls are still very clearly over-achieving in my mind. They're set up very well for the future, IMO, but they're just plain not there yet. Know what the Bulls are? The Bulls are Luol Deng; great young talent, perhaps superstar talent, but just not quite ready for the prime-time.

How is going to the Eastern Conference Finals and losing to the eventual champion under achieving?

They had the best player ever on their roster. Under-acheiving is a bit harsh, though. They got some better talent, and that helped them get over the hump. Phil is a good coach, don't get me wrong, but I think its simply ludicrous to say Phil is what got them over the hump. Humans are lazy thinkers in general, and they rarely consider whether something is actually an instance of causation, or merely correlation. Hence the "Phil got them over the hump" meme.

Quote:
Losing in the 1st round 3 years in a row(especially after signing Wallace)is underachieving.

Why? The first time they made it, it was roundly regarded as a miracle turnaround. Last year they had to have in incredible stretch run to make the playoffs; it is disappointing that neither team advanced, but not surprising in the least. They've improved this year. They're now the 3rd best team in the East, record-wise. They got the misfortune of drawing a team that is the defending champion and is just now getting its main guys on the floor. Hopefully the Bulls can stop them, but if they don't, I'd hardly blame Skiles for it. They're simply not there yet. They don't have a Shaq or a Dwayne Wade.

Quote:
Quote:
MJH are right about one thing: Chicago is meatball city with the coaching rhetoric. Christ.

Aren't you the same guy that wanted Dusty run out of town? How is Lou doing with a team that 20 X's better.

I did. But not because I thought his coaching is what made the Cubs lose, but for his antics, for his excuse-making, for his lassies faire attitude, and for his refusal to play young players on an obviously-terrible team. I was lukewarm on Pinella coming in, but it doesn't make a difference, because Lou's only going to lose or win you a handful of games tops. As long as he doesn't lose control over the team to the point that his players are threatening the play-by-play guys (that is the incident that calcified my hate for Baker), you won't be hearing me bitch about the manager.

Bottom line, it's important to keep in mind that were were mocking those "through thick and thin" ads pretty recently. They didn't turn this around with veteran signings, and young talent takes time to develop into veteran leadership in this league.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/