Okay, the Bulls will likely be better with a shorter rotation -- at least for the next twenty games or so. I don't think I should underplay what that will do for the team. Yet . . . The idea that this team is built for running is ill-conceived. I don't need to watch Wallace dribble the ball and try to make decisions. This team is horrible in transition, and they don't need to play up to those weaknesses. Moreover, once the playoffs come around, any skills that the Bulls would be able to develop running, would be worthless. I don't really understand the whole push to make this team play an up-and-down game. I also don't think the team is cut out for slashing to the hoop like Boylan had them doing in the first quarter. The Bulls are a jump shooting team, whose only somewhat adequate slasher is now playing off the bench. I don't need to see Hinrich force things anymore than he is right now. That was a second move that didn't work, and won't work in the future. Wallace really is shadow of the player he once was. I saw him block a shot in the fourth and couldn't remember the last time he had done that. His decline is nothing short of remarkable. And on that note, why is this team not going to Aaron Gray in the post more. I just don't understand it. Another game went by without the Bulls attempting an entry pass -- it's just bad news.
If you move the ball up court faster, you give the defense less time to get set up. Given the lack of scoring ability that most of the players have, it's a good thing. That's the only benefit I see to it. Wallace had 4 blocks in last night game along with 10 boards in 33 minutes, which isn't _that_ bad... The upbeat tempo did help Gordon get to the line 15 times. Hinrich's funk continues, though. He had 9 assists, but 4 turnovers and shot 4-10.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Dec 29 2007, 10:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you move the ball up court faster, you give the defense less time to get set up. Given the lack of scoring ability that most of the players have, it's a good thing. That's the only benefit I see to it. Wallace had 4 blocks in last night game along with 10 boards in 33 minutes, which isn't _that_ bad... The upbeat tempo did help Gordon get to the line 15 times. Hinrich's funk continues, though. He had 9 assists, but 4 turnovers and shot 4-10.</div> I know the theory behind running. It just hasn't worked for the Bulls and even if you could get it to work, it wouldn't work in the playoffs. You need someone running the break who could finish, and we really don't have thought. All we have is Ben Wallace passing the ball off of peoples' backs. I should have clarified Wallace got a block, with Wallace got a monster block last night. People aren't scared of him anymore.
Well now we've seen game two, and if anything, it looks like Boylan is bringing a lot of the same thing Skiles did, with the exception that he may (and I stress "may" because he hasn't had a real challenge yet) be getting more out of the players. The whole idea of Wallace dribbling the ball in transition has, thankfully, been buried, for now at least. The rotation is a little bit shorter, accomplished mostly by making Thomas and Sefolosha ride the pine. I'm mixed. I am willing to accept that it was a good firing, if the team ups there play for a longer period of time, and the move doesn't disrupt whatever flow the team did have. I wonder if, in some respects, Paxson made the move because he felt comfortable that Boylan could take over with out shaking up the franchise.
I haven't gotten to see either game yet, but I from reading accounts it seems to me the only real difference is the players seem to be trying. Which is an indictment on pretty much all involved. As far as Boylan goes, I never had much problem with Skiles on a day-to-day basis. I think his downfall, in a nutshell, was that he was unable and probably unwilling to build any sort of relationships with his players. It looks like communication was lacking all around. From the accounts I've read, he came, did his thing, and went home. And that worked fine until things got bad, at which point he had absolutely no good-will to call on. A couple things I've seen from Boylan suggest he understands this, but it remains to be seen how good he is at it, or all the other things that require good coaching.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Dec 31 2007, 07:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I haven't gotten to see either game yet, but I from reading accounts it seems to me the only real difference is the players seem to be trying. Which is an indictment on pretty much all involved. As far as Boylan goes, I never had much problem with Skiles on a day-to-day basis. I think his downfall, in a nutshell, was that he was unable and probably unwilling to build any sort of relationships with his players. It looks like communication was lacking all around. From the accounts I've read, he came, did his thing, and went home. And that worked fine until things got bad, at which point he had absolutely no good-will to call on. A couple things I've seen from Boylan suggest he understands this, but it remains to be seen how good he is at it, or all the other things that require good coaching.</div> Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. The move really wasn't an indictment on Skiles' coaching but his working relationship with his players, if you can separate the two. We saw all kinds of weird stuff in the press about how Boylan was going to manage differently: bigger backcourt (with who?!!!) more development time (if anything, there's been less). It looks to me like Boylan is more of the same, which is actually a good thing given the extreme limitations of the team as currently constituted -- just with rejuvenated players. I will say that the shorter rotation and benching Thomas has been a good thing. I wonder when will be the next time Thomas sees the court? Boylan, at least for now, doesn't seem to want to deal with his bull shit. Kudos, in a very limited limited limited way, to Paxson for hiring a coach who isn't scared to bench his draftees, in specific Thabo and Thomas.
Yup. I agree pretty much all around. I really want to see how this team copes with some adversity the next time though. More than anything, I wonder about Tim Duncan, Larry Miller and rings. I wonder if that's what makes Skiles different from Gregg Popovich or Jerry Sloan or Pat Riley? Because as far as I can tell, Skiles isn't a very different coach or personality than those guys. Is it largely just the support of their organizations that give those guys, and when the going got tough, our GM (possibly with his own job on the line) pulled the plug on him when other teams actually would have sent folks (other than the coach) packing? I mean, as it became clear Skiles and the players had had it with each other, folks kept saying "well, you can't fire all the players" or "it's easier to replace the coach". I say why? For people who think coaches are easily replaceable, I say for every Scott Skiles there are ten Pete Myers out there. Getting a guy who's even possibly a top level coach is not an easy thing to do. For people who say players are hard to get rid of because of their guaranteed salaries, well, Skiles' salary is guaranteed too. The Bulls are now paying him to sit at home and chuckle at Tyrus Thomas' inability to get around a screen. To set the tone, you don't have to get rid of every player or the coach, I'd think. In other work environments, pretty often if you tell one guy get lost, things will cheer up considerably without the prime malcontent. Which is how it works with a guy like Sloan. Not that he's the best coach ever, but the Jazz get a whiny guy like Boozer or Kirilenko or Giricek, they tell them to suck it up or hit the fucking road. And they end up with guys who spend whole years being upset coming back and playing well. All of that is not to say I think Skiles should have stayed. From what I can tell, at least, Popovich and Riley, at least, may have a key difference with him. They've managed to get total buy-in to them from important players (Duncan, Magic Johnson, etc) by displaying some leadership. Then again, maybe they just got better players to deal with. Or management that would stick it out with them. Just questions that are floating around in my head.
