Chisoxfn

I must have missed it in all the Hoiberg/Boylen discussion, but Randy Brown stepped down as an assistant yesterday. https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/bulls-announce-changes-coaching-staff

Exactly. Holiday in isolation is not necessarily a bad basketball player, but on a team focused on getting other guys more touches and development, he might not be the right guy. Holiday would actually be a pretty good fit on the Lakers. He'd be a pretty solid floor spacer next to LBJ.

Holiday is really the most interesting guy. He hasn't been bad this year, but he takes a lot of difficult shots and his fit on the roster is just not good when you are trying to get development of others. Lavine and Parker have both tried to be distributors. Parker is actually a pretty good distributor and would do better if we had more weapons on the floor. Lavine has been trying but you can tell being the primary "distributor" is not his talent and it has caused turnover issues. That said, the opportunity and all the doubles he's experiences should be good learning opportunities for him to improve. I think things will pick up a bit with Dunn and Lauri coming back. Portis makes them better and he's a solid player, I just don't think I can really get very excited tying up cap space to him. He isn't ever going to be a difference maker and thus I think he's a guy you hope comes back and plays well and maybe you can creatively move and get other assets (this is an absolute area that Gar/Pax have done a poor job at...maximizing their assets).

Yes...I don't disagree with anything you state. I think the decision had to be based a lot more on what was happening in practice and within the lockeroom vs. the in-game performance. In-game this team was going to be bad, given who has been out.

I will say...I think I was literally the biggest critic of Fred in that first season. I thought he was a disaster and literally was calling for him to be dropped in that first season. It didn't really get much better then 2nd season, however, last year I didn't really have any major negative in terms of Fred. I don't know that I had a major positive, but maybe I just got so used to how lousy he was that my expectations were so low. His first two years, I regularly thought we had one of the worse coaches in the league and the front office is absolutely responsible for that move. I'll also say that Fred is the type of guy that I'll root for wherever he lands next. He truly seems like a great guy and his personality is just a much better fit for the college game, imo.

Oh yeah, I was purely commenting on Blakeny. I used to yell at the TV pretty regularly to pull him...very rarely would he, but the guy just never takes good shots. I will also say, many times I yelled at him, he'd end up making the shot, but I don't think that necessarily makes it better. Personally, I don't think Pax was ever that enamored with Hoiberg, however, their was probably some point in him being a "nice guy" (post Thibbs) and a strong communicator (or so they thought) who they could develop a strong front office relationship with that lead Pax to getting on board with the move. Its like anything...when you break up with one coach, often times teams end up going the exact opposite direction with the next hire. Thibbs and Hoiberg couldn't have been more opposite (literally the fullest extremes possible to be honest). I'd take Thibbs over many coaches in the league, but you can see based upon what happened in Minnesota that he wasn't going to work well with others.

Blakeney frustrates me. The guy who thinks he's the best player in the league. That said, he's the type of guy you don't mind coming off the bench when you are done and need a spark off the bench (losing big, momentum not on your side) who you put out. In the first minute or so you'll know if he will lead you back and create a spark or if he'll just make the hole worse (which at that point isn't a big deal). Play him too often and it won't work as he just doesn't get his buckets in the conframe of an offense.

Separately, I should have a made a post about it at the time (or maybe I did and just don't remember) but I thought the quote from Carter calling out a lack of leadership was really interesting (happened like a week ago). I have to imagine there was more to that comment then just a rookie airing frustration. On a sidenote, did something happen with Blakeny and Fred?

I almost didn't make my post cause I know I'm on an island with my stance. Haha. I've also said, I have zero problem if the Reinsdorf's go another direction either, but I think under Pax we will see this team as an eastern conference contender in the next 2-3 years. That said, if the chemistry all blows up and they miss badly in the off-season, things could change pretty quickly. I'm presuming Boylan could be the last coach they hire, depending on how everything goes. Or Boylan could be the transitional guy (but that means the roster is doing its thing and they think there is the right long-man to gain new guys. I haven't really paid much attention to Boylen other then noticing he was always very engaged on the sidelines and usually yelling or smiling. I remember when Hoiberg hired him as his top assistant I was impressed at his resume (but a resume is purely a resume). He's worked with some all time greats so for now I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Does Meyer take a year off? Or is he going to head to an Auburn or USC?

I should point out the sleeper comment was more about how they were positioning for the long term...not them being a potential playoff team. My comment on odd fit essentially alluded to the fact that the roster construction still needs work...but talent accumulation and cap space all are well positioned. Nothing is a gimme though and lots of work ahead but a year and a quarte in, I personally am more optimistic vs less. Excited to see how things look when everyone comes back. Seperately, I do not think Valentine or Portis would register as busts. Look at their production vs others in their draft class. Could better picks have been made...sure, but neither of them are busts and both have proven to be solid role players (especially Portis). Neither of them were top ten picks either. But they are/were better then a number of players picked above them. The bulls have been one of the best drafting teams in the NBA over the Gar/Pax era. You can debate a lot of things but their drafting has been in the top ten percent of the league if not better.

Didn't Hoiberg hire Boylen?

Technically he's in charge of the Bulls defense, which had some good statistical season under Boylan (up until this year and I can't really blame him on that). Either way, I laugh at how irate everyone is over this. If there is one thing we do know, its that Fred was not a "special" coach. The Boylan moves seems odd but making a move this early and given how critical the long-term development of this current core is to the franchises future, they absolutely had to give a ringing endorsement to Boylen (anything other than that would create just a chaotic window into contention). They also must at least see some long-term fit from him, albeit, if they really believed long-term, he'd get a 4 year deal. The reality is they'll take a deeper look at everything this off-season and if its a total disaster, then I'm sure everything will be on the table. Somehow I don't see that being the case and my guess is Pax finally decided he needed to make the move now vs. later. I'm presuming Pax saw the lockeroom souring and turning the wrong way and wanted to get ahead of that with a change (and that is why everything happened when it did). I really can't argue the move and find it so odd that so many people that weren't big Fred fans are now speaking up glowingly for him. By the way, the couple people I know who are close to NBA circles have long told me the Bulls are the sleeper team out there in terms of how they are building a nucleus of talent. Odd fit but you can't get overly worked up about that this early in the rebuild. The major issue is/will be how do they add those extra pieces via free agency (or getting lucky and getting a top pick which can be converted into a difference maker). I also think the past year of Thibs era shed at least some light that things weren't entirely on Pax. Of course I've been the long-time Paxson defender and I say that from the perspective if they wanted to make a change, so be it, but I can also envision a future where this team is a regular conference contender again and it happening under Paxson's leadership. I can't predict championships because I think there is too much luck once you get to that point. I think great GM's can regularly make their team's conference contenders but being a title contender involves a bigger component of luck (i.e., normally there can only be 1 best roster and typically that is fielded by the best player and well, sometimes, you have zero ability to get said player). But I do think good GM's can find ways to be above average to very good on a regular basis and I think Pax has that ability.

Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but is the fact that it is Boylan for the longer term mean that basically GarPax have this one shot and if it doesn't work, they are all gone. Either way, while the timing was odd, I think everyone knows enough to see Hoiberg is not an amazing head coach and I can totally buy the comments from Stephan A Smith (regarding players not thinking that highly of Fred). He is a class act though.

Originally, I thought Hoiberg was awful. Last year he grew on me and I saw some development. I've said for a while, I had no idea whether he was good or a turd. I do think we saw enough to know he wasn't great/elite. The roster design the past year and a half was not one where you could really state the Bulls should be winning games and I'm not putting that on the front office or the coach...its the nature of a rebuild. I do think it is clear that from day 1, Paxson was skeptical of Hoiberg and the wording of the release made it very clear this was a Paxson move.

Shit. Shit. On the bright side I won’t have to hear about how Daniel is so much better then Mitch. I said it in the preseason, he’s okay for a game in the pinch but he is far from a starter. Lots of plays and points left on the field by the bears.

Would be great if the fucking bench players would have involved Lauri. Pathetic job getting him involved. Was great seeing him back though and you could already see better spacing for Levine. Lauri sets good screens and just knows how to play ball. Still rusty but man the bulls didn’t ever give him the ball when he had a beneficial switch. By the way have I ever mentioned how much I don’t like watching Blakeny. Probably one of my all time least favorite bulls. Such a ball hog.

Rip. Always classy and forever honorable!!!

Which we know I don't like. I think its a dangerous game to play in the NFL. That said, better knowing Mitch is okay. The real question is how his body responds tomorrow.

Great. Mitch threw!!! Pumped

Yes...what you said.. Just win baby!!! Just win!

Okay, so you did get the same vibe on the Bears being overly cautious as I did. The problem I have with the 538 number is the odds are so strong because we play the Giants and Niners. Or at least I think that is why they are so high. Of course, lets just beat the Giants and then we will all feel so much better. I will admit, when it comes to the Bears, I have too many bad memories that I have a built in bias to think downside so that if it does happen, I don't get dissapointed haha. It also makes me enjoy all the good wins so much more cause I very much am taking this whole season as just a bonus. Love what has been done and even if they miss the playoffs, I've told myself I'll still be jacked up about what is to come next year (albeit...at this point...don't miss the playoffs Chicago...please)

Ok...I get it...but if they lose to the Giants, here is who they play. Underdog in two of the games, so it isn't some massive hottake to say if they lose to the Giants a plausible scenario might exist where they only win one game. This is a good football team, but there are still major unknowns including injuries and in the NFL fluke happens. I hope I'm wrong and the Bears go on to destroy the Giants, shock the Rams and win out and get the 2nd seed. I legitimately could see that happening too. I'd probably be more surprised by them winning out then them winning just 1-2 more games from here on out (which is why I'm saying...if Mitch could play without risking injury..than you play him). - vs. Rams (Bears will not be favored unless Girley and Goff go down) - vs. Packers (we would be the favorites at this point, however, its the Packers and Rodgers has owned the Bears his entire career; I just can't say that such a game is a walk in a park) - @ San Francisco (Better win this game, even if it is on the road) - @ Vikings (my best guess would be Vikes favored by 3ish)

Tony...you got to go back to the immediate statements I made when the injury came out. I said, either this is something he should be back and playing quickly or this turns into a Ryan Tannehill situation and he misses a solid chunk of time. I don't see it being in-between. If it is a bruise, like is being reported, he should be able to play and the Bears are, potentially getting too cute. I totally got it with Robinson and Mack...this is our QB and he's a young QB who still needs a lot of reps, etc. I also don't believe in Chase Daniel as much as everyone else does. The more he plays, the worse he will play. Even Mitch's quotes yesterday, he basically said he isn't allowed to say much (which is fine) but it makes me suspicious. Either this injury is way worse then is leading on, or Bears are using this as an opportunity to force a bit more game planning out of the Giants. In the NFL, where you only have 16 games in the regular season, the notion that you can just sit your QB (@ 90%) because you think you can win without him just doesn't make any sense to me (and I'm not saying you have said that is the case, but a lot of fans seem to just think we can rest guys and win at ease...the NFL doesn't work that way, it doesn't and if the Bears somehow believe that and keep playing with fire, they will get burned). Basically put, either he's more injured than the various reports have been (in which case, fine, I get it and I stand corrected) or they are being overly cautious. Note: All of my aboves are clearly hot-takes since I have zero inside information.

I enjoy how he plays. A good find and someone nice to have come off the bench, who can bring energy, etc. He doesn't have the athleticism to start in this league, albeit his shot has really taken strides. That said, I'm not watching as much of the games as I usually do (I usually work and/or read while watching the Bulls games but lately my patience has been shorter). I've told myself I can't watch too much as I don't want to get too irritated and need to wait until the guys come back in the next week or two. I'm fired up to watch Lauri get back out there in a week. Good timing too cause things always slow down a bit more around the holidays (in terms of work schedule/time off, etc). Note: Being a west coaster, everything I watch is on record and late. I haven't been as good at not checking scores lately, which makes it hard too. Albeit Bulls have played well the last couple of games.