Noah's blowup in practice leads to benching: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Two team sources said Noah kept forgetting plays and blowing assignments during the walkthrough, then snapped when Adams kept riding him. Asked about the incident after the Bulls' 100-97 victory, Noah at first declined to comment. When pressed further on whether he regretted the incident, the rookie launched into a lengthy answer. "Yeah, I regret it because it was stupid," Noah said. "I mean, honestly, I like the coach a lot, but I felt like he disrespected me and I went back at him and maybe I shouldn't have done that.</div> Maybe? So much for the high basketball IQ we heard so much about.
Well Gordon got benched in the 2nd quarter for being the only one that was playing good. Boylan's lost this team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Jan 13 2008, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well Gordon got benched in the 2nd quarter for being the only one that was playing good. Boylan's lost this team.</div> Gordon was in foul trouble.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Jan 13 2008, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Benched another game after a players only meeting. I would love to know what he said.</div> I wonder if that's really the deal here. Or is the player's suspension based on more than this incident? Is it related to his frequent tardiness and his big mouth? I thought Noah would end up being the leader of the Bulls if he could play. Well, it sounds like his mouth has led him further than his game as of right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 13 2008, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see it as the players showing support for the coaching staff.</div> LOL, did you mean to put that in <span style="color:#008000">green</span>? I mean, none of us can be sure, but I think it was the opposite of support for the coaching staff. The coaching staff responded to the situation as it saw fit. Then Wallace sees fit to hold a meeting and hand out some additional discipline on the youngster. That's a lack of respect not a show of support! The coaches now have to deal with potential bad blood between players on the team rather than just a routine disciplinary matter. And they've obviously got to deal with the perception that some players (I guess those behind Wallace?) have that they have to take matters into their own hands because the coaches aren't doing it right. That's just plain disasterous.
Or Boylan didn't want to seem to harsh in his punishment (here's some rope, go hang yourself) and the players stood up for him and sent a message to the rookie that they won't tolerate lack of respect for the coaches. You have some evidence wallace had anything more to do with this than any of the other players in particular?
Sure, the article here says Wallace and Griffin were the ones calling the meeting to vote on it and Wallace is the guy quoted talking about it. He's the guy with the juice. Griffin doesn't even play. Like I said we can't be sure, but when I read through the lines I think it's on him.
Beyond that, I just think the idea of the players "supporting" the coach by forcing his hand on something is pretty backwards. I can't think of any place of business I've ever been in where that'd be a good thing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"It's a situation we felt got out of hand," Wallace said. "Our big thing is regardless of what happened between a coach and a player, it should never get to the point where you don't respect a grown man. You have to always respect that fact." Boylan applauded his players' decision and said the message sent to Noah was a cumulative one that also addressed Noah's habitual tardiness. "We talked about the team taking some ownership in their group and they have," Boylan said. "They came to me and expressed some hesitation as far as letting Joe just have one game to sit. They felt it deserved more. I backed my team and the decision they made and appreciate the leadership they have shown."</div> I don't know how else to read it. The first paragraph says the players were upset that Noah didn't respect the coach. The second paragraph shows Boylan respects the players' decision. The third paragraph is the "here's the rope, go hang yourself" bit.
I disagree with the premise that a player A (Ben Wallace) should be allowed to lead the charge to keep another player B, that routinely outshines player A, and makes Player A look like a sack of crap, from playing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 13 2008, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"It's a situation we felt got out of hand," Wallace said. "Our big thing is regardless of what happened between a coach and a player, it should never get to the point where you don't respect a grown man. You have to always respect that fact." Boylan applauded his players' decision and said the message sent to Noah was a cumulative one that also addressed Noah's habitual tardiness. "We talked about the team taking some ownership in their group and they have," Boylan said. "They came to me and expressed some hesitation as far as letting Joe just have one game to sit. They felt it deserved more. I backed my team and the decision they made and appreciate the leadership they have shown."</div> I don't know how else to read it. The first paragraph says the players were upset that Noah didn't respect the coach. The second paragraph shows Boylan respects the players' decision. The third paragraph is the "here's the rope, go hang yourself" bit. </div> I don't so much disagree with one and two, but it seems that the first paragraph seems to be a cumulative one, not just about the latest incident. Having the colleagues rather than the bosses handing out discipline treads on very dangerous ground. It gives lots of opportunities for abuse due to popularity, perceived threats, all kinds of stuff. That's why you avoid it in the first place. The second paragraph... well, what else is Boylan supposed to do? He's at least smart enough to know he's not in any sort of control of the situation. The third paragraph is prophetic.
I don't think there's any need to parse the statements that are coming out in the press. To me, the idea that the Bulls need or want their players to take ownership is starkly incongruent with how they've run business over the last four or five years. It's always been Skiles and Pax, brothers in arms with one unified vision. And to any player who wouldn't fall in line, the door. All for the better too -- Skiles had a system that covered for the teams gaping lineup wholes and played up the limited strengths. It wasn't pretty but the Bulls weren't prepared to do anything else. Now the unified vision is long gone, and even more than that, unless the Bulls drop mad cash on some uber name this off season -- which just isn't going to happen -- the players can feel comfortable here on out that they don't have to buy into the team framework. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Jan 13 2008, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 13 2008, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"It's a situation we felt got out of hand," Wallace said. "Our big thing is regardless of what happened between a coach and a player, it should never get to the point where you don't respect a grown man. You have to always respect that fact." Boylan applauded his players' decision and said the message sent to Noah was a cumulative one that also addressed Noah's habitual tardiness. "We talked about the team taking some ownership in their group and they have," Boylan said. "They came to me and expressed some hesitation as far as letting Joe just have one game to sit. They felt it deserved more. I backed my team and the decision they made and appreciate the leadership they have shown."</div> I don't know how else to read it. The first paragraph says the players were upset that Noah didn't respect the coach. The second paragraph shows Boylan respects the players' decision. The third paragraph is the "here's the rope, go hang yourself" bit. </div> I don't so much disagree with one and two, but it seems that the first paragraph seems to be a cumulative one, not just about the latest incident. Having the colleagues rather than the bosses handing out discipline treads on very dangerous ground. It gives lots of opportunities for abuse due to popularity, perceived threats, all kinds of stuff. That's why you avoid it in the first place. The second paragraph... well, what else is Boylan supposed to do? He's at least smart enough to know he's not in any sort of control of the situation. The third paragraph is prophetic. </div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Jan 13 2008, 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 13 2008, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"It's a situation we felt got out of hand," Wallace said. "Our big thing is regardless of what happened between a coach and a player, it should never get to the point where you don't respect a grown man. You have to always respect that fact." Boylan applauded his players' decision and said the message sent to Noah was a cumulative one that also addressed Noah's habitual tardiness. "We talked about the team taking some ownership in their group and they have," Boylan said. "They came to me and expressed some hesitation as far as letting Joe just have one game to sit. They felt it deserved more. I backed my team and the decision they made and appreciate the leadership they have shown."</div> I don't know how else to read it. The first paragraph says the players were upset that Noah didn't respect the coach. The second paragraph shows Boylan respects the players' decision. The third paragraph is the "here's the rope, go hang yourself" bit. </div> I don't so much disagree with one and two, but it seems that the first paragraph seems to be a cumulative one, not just about the latest incident. Having the colleagues rather than the bosses handing out discipline treads on very dangerous ground. It gives lots of opportunities for abuse due to popularity, perceived threats, all kinds of stuff. That's why you avoid it in the first place. The second paragraph... well, what else is Boylan supposed to do? He's at least smart enough to know he's not in any sort of control of the situation. The third paragraph is prophetic. </div> If Boylan wanted to overrule the players, we probably wouldn't have heard about the whole thing in the press - Noah just would have played tonight as if nothing happened. There are all kinds of organizations where "colleagues" hand out discipline. You have the players' unions in sports (like when a player gets suspended by the league, they negotiate or fight it or determine a lesser or greater penalty). Or unions in general. Fraternities. Congress. Medical associations, the Bar. In fact, any kind of club (or in this case team) where the membership elects its leaders.
