Bulls Fire Skiles

Scav · #1 12-24-2007, 03:09 PM

I get the feeling this is to 'wake up' the Baby Bulls. Skiles was well liked around here and this is quite a surprise

golfer · #2 12-24-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

I get the feeling this is to 'wake up' the Baby Bulls. Skiles was well liked around here and this is quite a surprise

He may have been well liked, but do you think he ever proved himself to be a quality coach? Why do you think the Bulls have started so slowly? Under-achieving or just not that good?

JJP · #3 12-24-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfer

He may have been well liked, but do you think he ever proved himself to be a quality coach? Why do you think the Bulls have started so slowly? Under-achieving or just not that good?

THe answer to your question is they are not very good. Skiles got the most out of the limited talent for 3 years. A bad decision, IMO, and the heat should deservedly be on GM John Paxson.

packerbacker7964 · #4 12-24-2007, 04:00 PM

Da Bulls brought this shait upon thier own. They shuld've been upfront and open with the players on the Kobe trade talk. Nothing breaks up a team more than secret talks behind closed doors.

SentToStud · #5 12-24-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packerbacker7964

Da Bulls brought this shait upon thier own. They shuld've been upfront and open with the players on the Kobe trade talk. Nothing breaks up a team more than secret talks behind closed doors.

Other than your backcourt shooting 25% for the year.

pmayjr · #6 12-24-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

I get the feeling this is to 'wake up' the Baby Bulls. Skiles was well liked around here and this is quite a surprise

I think he's good at bringing talent and discipline out of a young team. I'd love to see him coauch the Wolves next year (I don't think Randy Wittman will be back).

King Glorious · #7 12-25-2007, 12:30 AM

It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls have all of those big guys and not a single one of them has any kind of post game. It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls don't have a single player that commands a double team. It is Skiles' fault though that Ben Gordon is still the go-to guy on that team. As terrific a talent as he is, when your go-to guy is a small shooting guard that relies on the long range jumper and doesn't really get to the basket too well and can be taken out defensively by longer defenders, your team is going to be in trouble. Especially when they are playing 4 on 5 because u don't have to guard any of the Bulls' big men, especially when it's Wallace on the floor.

Scav · #8 12-25-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls have all of those big guys and not a single one of them has any kind of post game. It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls don't have a single player that commands a double team. It is Skiles' fault though that Ben Gordon is still the go-to guy on that team. As terrific a talent as he is, when your go-to guy is a small shooting guard that relies on the long range jumper and doesn't really get to the basket too well and can be taken out defensively by longer defenders, your team is going to be in trouble. Especially when they are playing 4 on 5 because u don't have to guard any of the Bulls' big men, especially when it's Wallace on the floor.

It is close to 3 on 5 when Noah or Thomas is on the floor with Wallace. All they can do is dunk and make layups.

JJP · #9 12-25-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls have all of those big guys and not a single one of them has any kind of post game. It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls don't have a single player that commands a double team. It is Skiles' fault though that Ben Gordon is still the go-to guy on that team. As terrific a talent as he is, when your go-to guy is a small shooting guard that relies on the long range jumper and doesn't really get to the basket too well and can be taken out defensively by longer defenders, your team is going to be in trouble. Especially when they are playing 4 on 5 because u don't have to guard any of the Bulls' big men, especially when it's Wallace on the floor.

I don't know how much of them you see but it must be quite a bit because you are 100% correct.

GPK · #10 12-25-2007, 10:28 AM

Bulls suck
Bears suck
Cubs suck
White Sox suck
Blackhawks suck

I sure hope that field hockey team is good

hoovesupsideyourhead · #11 12-25-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPK

Bulls suck
Bears suck
Cubs suck
White Sox suck
Blackhawks suck

I sure hope that field hockey team is good

bears do not suck..the beat the fudge packers twice this year....a good season..

packerbacker7964 · #12 12-25-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

bears do not suck..the beat the fudge packers twice this year....a good season..

Why the "fudge" part? Yeah Da Bears beat us twice this year. In fact they've beaten us the couple of times to the tune of 5 of the last 6 I think. BTW who does Da Bears play in the opening round of the playoffs?

Scav · #13 12-25-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPK

Bulls suck
Bears suck
Cubs suck
White Sox suck
Blackhawks suck

I sure hope that field hockey team is good

Your lucky it is Xmas and I am going to be nice to ALL today

#14 12-25-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls have all of those big guys and not a single one of them has any kind of post game. It's not Skiles' fault that the Bulls don't have a single player that commands a double team. It is Skiles' fault though that Ben Gordon is still the go-to guy on that team. As terrific a talent as he is, when your go-to guy is a small shooting guard that relies on the long range jumper and doesn't really get to the basket too well and can be taken out defensively by longer defenders, your team is going to be in trouble. Especially when they are playing 4 on 5 because u don't have to guard any of the Bulls' big men, especially when it's Wallace on the floor.

Skiles had no say in drafting Noah?

Bulls knew exactly what they would get with this guy. A mobile big man with no offensive game unless you run. A good defensive help man off the ball if you have a defensive plan. Thats what he is. The Spurs will take him thank you.

King Glorious · #15 12-25-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

Skiles had no say in drafting Noah?

Bulls knew exactly what they would get with this guy. A mobile big man with no offensive game unless you run. A good defensive help man off the ball if you have a defensive plan. Thats what he is. The Spurs will take him thank you.

At the point where the Bulls were picking, who else was there to take but Noah? The only other probables were maybe Rodney Stuckey or Al Thornton. Stuckey is a nice player but he's another guard which they didn't need. The argument could be made that Thornton should have been the pick there but I don't think Noah was a bad one. There just wasn't much left to choose from.

Scav · #16 12-25-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

At the point where the Bulls were picking, who else was there to take but Noah? The only other probables were maybe Rodney Stuckey or Al Thornton. Stuckey is a nice player but he's another guard which they didn't need. The argument could be made that Thornton should have been the pick there but I don't think Noah was a bad one. There just wasn't much left to choose from.

They could have easily traded the pick for Gasol which is EXACTLY what the Bulls need. The one negative about Paxson is that he is worried about giving up a mess of players for one guy, but there is only FIVE guys on the court. All you need in the NBA is 8 guys, and like 7 stiffs to eat up garbage time. If they could get a Gasol type player, this team would be fine.

Cannon Shell · #17 12-25-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

They could have easily traded the pick for Gasol which is EXACTLY what the Bulls need. The one negative about Paxson is that he is worried about giving up a mess of players for one guy, but there is only FIVE guys on the court. All you need in the NBA is 8 guys, and like 7 stiffs to eat up garbage time. If they could get a Gasol type player, this team would be fine.

Why would Memphis trade Gasol for that pick? Chicago is screwed because they are a transition team who cant play any other style. Wallace is washed up and is a huge drain on the salary cap. They dont have a single low post threat and they have not been particularly good or energetic on defense, the perimiter game is suspect, Deng has regressed, etc. What they should have done was try to reaquire Curry from the Knicks for Wallace. It would help Chicago and you know Isiah would make the trade for a washed up guy making 15 million a year..

Cannon Shell · #18 12-25-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

They could have easily traded the pick for Gasol which is EXACTLY what the Bulls need. The one negative about Paxson is that he is worried about giving up a mess of players for one guy, but there is only FIVE guys on the court. All you need in the NBA is 8 guys, and like 7 stiffs to eat up garbage time. If they could get a Gasol type player, this team would be fine.

Why would Memphis trade Gasol for that pick? Chicago is screwed because they are a transition team who cant play any other style. Wallace is washed up and is a huge drain on the salary cap. They dont have a single low post threat and they have not been particularly good or energetic on defense, the perimiter game is suspect, Deng has regressed, etc. What they should have done was try to reaquire Curry from the Knicks for Wallace. It would help Chicago and you know Isiah would make the trade for a washed up guy making 15 million a year..

#19 12-25-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

At the point where the Bulls were picking, who else was there to take but Noah? The only other probables were maybe Rodney Stuckey or Al Thornton. Stuckey is a nice player but he's another guard which they didn't need. The argument could be made that Thornton should have been the pick there but I don't think Noah was a bad one. There just wasn't much left to choose from.

At this point, with the minutes Noah is getting, anyone would have done. Really would not have mattered. When you pick a guy that high for a spot you think you need... 12 min a game...

I think the player may not have been assessed properly. If Skiles really wanted a low post game from Noah.

King Glorious · #20 12-25-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

At this point, with the minutes Noah is getting, anyone would have done. Really would not have mattered. When you pick a guy that high for a spot you think you need... 12 min a game...

I think the player may not have been assessed properly. If Skiles really wanted a low post game from Noah.

I don't think he was assessed wrong. I think that everyone knew exactly what Noah was/is. He's just like Tyrus Thomas and Ben Wallace. Guys that are limited offensively but active on the defensive end. Maybe trading the pick would have been the move to make but there really wasn't another player for them to take at that point. When there isn't a player that a team can draft to help fill a specific need, that's when you resort to taking the best player available at that point. They now have enough pieces to make a move though and get different ones that fit. The team they have now just doesn't fit well on the court but I think that if Paxson decides to grow some balls and make a move, this team could be right back in the thick of things in the East.