We know what is wrong with the Bulls. All their players are bad.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 29, 2007 9:45 PM CST in News Comment 24 comments

John Hollinger does the work in pointing out exactly how bad this start has been. It's a pretty academic exercise: all the players stink.

The worrisome part is that this isn't just a slow start. The offense is historically awful. Every single player ('cept Joe Smith) is playing worse than last year. But the more you read it's almost therapeutic. Yes, the Bulls are really playing incredibly awful. But it's so awful that you'd have to think it won't continue.

Simply: It's a fluke.

A group of players this young (save Wallace, if he's really toast) don't suddenly all forget how to play. They'll get back to their usual levels by the time the season's over.

There are minor suggestions that have been made: Hollinger just figures play the high-PER guys more like Smith and Noah. Sam Smith's sticking to his tall-ball idea (complete with Tyrus dig!). But there's no real solution unless the major core guys just play better. Which is why I'm still angry at Skiles for his knee-jerk lineup changes, as it's tough to also overcome the damage done by replacing Luol Deng's minutes by Adrian Griffin.

So hoping this start is actually over, we know the 'what', but actually, but I'm forgetting the 'why' too. This is beyond a slow start, it's incomprehensible. So why strain our amateur psychology hats figuring it out?

So when they do get back to normal, then we can start really evaluating the team (and Skiles, of whom this start is a definite strike against). Because as it's been said many many times: just back to normal isn't enough in the first place.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If nothing else,

it is a change to read about Skiles being too nice in Sam's article.

"I believe. I believe. It's silly, but I believe." (Miracle on 34th Street)

by wjb1492 on Nov 29, 2007 10:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Sam Smith is a thief!

Did he just copy and past John Hollinger's two paragraphs about "tuning out coaches" and "defense"? I mean, yeah, those things probably are the explanation... but I read Hollinger's earlier, and I almost thought I was reading the same thing.

A lot of people are saying the Bulls have wearied of coach Scott Skiles' hard-driving ways, because in his fifth season the players are no longer as receptive to his message. Usually, the clearest sign of this is that the team stops defending with as much passion, and to be honest there hasn't been that great a drop-off.

The Bulls rank sixth in the league in Defensive Efficiency, hardly a sign of a team mailing it in.

This team isn't that bad, and one indicator is defense. The Bulls rank sixth in opponents' field goals at 43.8 percent, barely above the 43.5 percent of last season that had them second best in the NBA. The usual sign of a coach losing his team is failure to hustle and defend, which hasn't occurred. The Bulls have broken down some on their basic defensive philosophy of denying the middle on drives but have outworked their defensive mistakes.

Rarely do teams tune out their coach by refusing to make shots, which, of course, has been the Bulls' main flaw.

Okay, so maybe I'm just jumping on Sam, and I'm going to assume that a man of "professionalism" didn't steal this, but rather it was sitting in the back of his head after doing research on the interweb. Still, it's eerily close to me.

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Nov 29, 2007 11:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I thought the same thing when I read Sam

Wrecked 'em? Damn near killed 'em!

by mdmnd9294 on Nov 30, 2007 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger's article

It's definitely therapeutic, but none of it really comes as a surprise if you've even had a passing familiarity with the Bulls' season thus far.

But as far as personnel/line-ups, there's really nothing they can do except play the young core. If they improve (I think they will), it actually is possible to salvage something of this season. These seasons are incredibly long, and they have some winnable games coming up. If they truly suck, then fine - give them 1 season to play out of it, then blow it up and start over.

But playing Griffin and Joe Smith doesn't make any sense - at the end of the season, we still don't know what we have.

Of course, you can argue over who the "young core" really is. And the re-signing of Noc still makes no sense, in my mind. But I say, throw out Hinrich, BG, Deng, and Tyrus and see what they can do. If they truly stink for a whole season (or a better part of one), then at least we know what to do.

by Bayern Munich on Nov 30, 2007 12:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

and let me add -

Slumps based on poor jump-shooting are the kind that MAYBE can be played out of. I'm not trying to make excuses - the Bulls stink and they've been painful to watch. But it's not like a team that has no one who knows how to rebound or defend the dribble - at least some of these guys have shot well before, they're just shooting (very) poorly now, and it's spread. We'll see.

by Bayern Munich on Nov 30, 2007 12:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I sincerely hope bullshooter

didn't follow through on his awful inclination toward self-mutilation yesterday. If you're local, bullshooter, I know someone who might be able to help you with those thoughts. Reply off-list to Matt and he can put you in touch with me.

Ita est, ergo ita sit.

by alec on Nov 30, 2007 9:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

heh

no, i just stopped reading for a while. But somehow, I always get sucked back in...

Nocioni-Khryapa in '08

by bullshooter on Nov 30, 2007 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That I can't help you with.

Glad to see you hale and hearty.

Ita est, ergo ita sit.

by alec on Nov 30, 2007 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Matt - you made a valid and clear point:

"A group of players this young (save Wallace, if he's really toast) don't suddenly all forget how to play. They'll get back to their usual levels by the time the season's over."

With everything that has passed under the bridge about all the reasons why the team sucketh -

For whatever reason(s), and there ARE many, the bottom line it the team and Skiles do not match anymore.
Nothing against Skiles - nothing against the players - nothing against Pax.

They just don't match.

And when a team (a good one at that) and the coach are not on the same page - nothing above average can come of it, not to even mention a Championship.

I don't believe for a minute that any one of us here are content with the simple "make it to the playoffs and then see what happens" attitude anymore.
Two years ago....yes....last year....perhaps.

But not when this team WAS figured by many to be at the top this year.
Simply getting to the playoffs and then out again would be like a horrible nightmare revisited.

Is it spring training yet?

by Bluelou on Nov 30, 2007 11:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I wish I could make a valid and clear point

I am so disappointed that making the playoffs would not be ideal but would be acceptable considering this horrible start and the improved East.

by chgobr on Nov 30, 2007 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Regarding A-Drain

you stated:

Which is why I'm still angry at Skiles for his knee-jerk lineup changes, as it's tough to also overcome the damage done by replacing Luol Deng's minutes by Adrian Griffin.

Since Paxson is the one who fell in love with Prozac Griffin, I wonder how much Skiles is to blame for playing him--in Skiles' defense, he could say, "Pax, you're the one who put him on my roster. If he was total crap then why did you sign him?"

Skiles would have at his disposal all of the arguments Pax used when we signed him--that he's here for veteran leadership, and that he started in the Finals year for Dallas before last and did a reasonable job.

To us fans it's easy to laugh at Griffin and wonder what the hell he's doing out there, but is it possible that he's not putrid during practice? Add to that the fact that Luol Deng really wasn't playing great ball to start the season (before the back injury), Thabo has done nothing on offense, and (if we believe Sam Smith and Skiles) Tyrus Thomas has an attention deficit while on the court.

I suppose this line of reasoning would point to a somewhat more troubling issue, i.e., the head games between a GM and coach. Let's hope that this isn't Tim Floyd vs. Krause all over again, complete with on-court cluelessness by the players. If so, then Skiles can't be fired soon enough.

I thought the Bulls were back... turns out they're just a back end...

by bullhockey on Nov 30, 2007 11:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

it's true that Paxson signed him

but for all we know Skiles may have asked him to.

Griffin has basketball deficit disorder while on the court.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 30, 2007 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're probably right

about adrian. he must be something like a player/coach in practice. I mean, everyone made fun of it when it happened, but he was the one who called the players meeting. Not that it had any apparent effect...but at least the players went along with his idea.

Ita est, ergo ita sit.

by alec on Nov 30, 2007 12:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Jump Shooting Team!

I cringe everytime I see or hear the Chicago Bulls associated with this phase: "Jump Shooting Team"

It sounds so one-dimensional and frighting ...

by exult463 on Nov 30, 2007 2:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have to say...

that the 'they are so awful now that eventually they will pull it together logic' may be a little off. While it is possible that it will just click, a worse start could also mean more time pulling it together and quite possibly never getting to where you were the last year.

I wonder if there is there any historical precedence for there situation.

by Kemp on Nov 30, 2007 2:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i'm more concerned about how they're playing

and how it translated into who gets kept and who gets gone.

their record is already screwed.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 30, 2007 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Does Hollinger change anyone's opinion of Skiles?

I think Hollinger makes the case that Skiles is not at fault for this baffling bad play. Of course, the other side of that coin is that Skiles may not be responsible for good play, either. It's a players' game.

True, Skiles does have the ability to bench players, and I think his line-up changes are what really provoke a strong reaction on this forum. But hey, when the season-opening line up plays so badly, why not shake things up a little? And one thing about playing on a team run by Skiles: you had better stay ready on the bench, because you could play at any time, and you had better stay awake on the floor, because you could be benched at any time.

Anyway, I'm guessing all would be forgiven if the Bulls went on a 10-game winning streak, with Wallace getting double-digit rebounds a game and Deng hitting 10 15-footers a game.

By the way, Hollinger fails to note the effect of Deng's injury. It doesn't account for everyone else's bad play, but it did really hurt.

by Tim S. on Nov 30, 2007 3:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Play of the season Number 2:

Tyrus' monster dunk on Marvin Williams.

What's so amazing about Tyrus is that he makes the plays that change momentum and decide games. After the dunk on Williams it seemed as though the game had been decided even though the Bulls were only up 8 points afterwards (I believe). The Bulls haven't had a game-changer who can make plays on both ends of the court since, dare I say it, the Championship years.

P.s.- The first play of the season was Tyrus' dunk on Richard Hamilton (another game-changer).

by philosoball on Nov 30, 2007 4:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Excuse me, block of Richard Hamilton.

by philosoball on Nov 30, 2007 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But still a game-changer!

by philosoball on Nov 30, 2007 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How

come Joe Smith hasnt been playing that much. I wouldnt mind seeing him an Noah at the same time together in the second unit.

by eross226 on Nov 30, 2007 8:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wages of Wins: Me too

David Berri chimes in on our favorite topic this season: why the Bulls suck. Same conclusion as the others. He suggests that the Bulls would be on track to win 55-57 wins if they remembered how to shoot.

Some other observations:

At least half of this team's decline is tied to the performance of Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon.
I would note that this could be entirely a small sample problem.... A similar streak in mid-season would not be quite the same story.
Ben Wallace has played somewhat worse, but I think his decline has been somewhat over-stated. Overall his WP48 has declined from 0.210 to 0.165. But I think part of this is due to how badly he played the first week of the season when he was playing hurt.

by paxson43 on Dec 1, 2007 7:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

So

after the terrible start, at this point they are statisticly "capable" of 49 to 51 wins, if they shoot at their '06-'07 level, starting NOW.

by marionette on Dec 2, 2007 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I liked the statistical analysis

on Wages of Wins, and think that even without the fancy stats talk, it makes sense that the shooting averages would veer toward what they have historically been as the season goes on.

The statistics have spoken, Kirk. Now go do it.

"But Butch, you said we could challenge you anytime we wanted to." "That's because I thought you never would."

by bullhockey on Dec 3, 2007 1:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs