Vinnie fires back

PippenAintEasy · Post #21 » by **PippenAintEasy** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:09 am

Am I the only one in the world who likes VDN? It's his first season, he's going to make mistakes.

Post #22 » by **Tommy Udo 6** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:14 am

charity stripe wrote:
BullsandBears wrote:Well Vinny can take his defiant ass to the unemployment line if he keeps the franchise player on the bench anymore.

Can't get unemployment benefits if you're fired.

some cases you can - but he will not because he would still be collecting on his Bulls contract for next 2 years

Post #23 » by **Tommy Udo 6** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:15 am

PippenAintEasy wrote:Am I the only one in the world who likes VDN? It's his first season, he's going to make mistakes.

i like him a lot

Post #24 » by **fleet** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:20 am

Originally posted: March 3, 2009

Del Negro defends decisions
K.C. Johnson

CHARLOTTE --- Luol Deng participated in the morning shootaround Tuesday and is playing against the Bobcats but will be coming off the bench as coach Vinny Del Negro opted to start John Salmons. Del Negro said it's likely Deng would reclaim his starting spot once he feels 100 percent.

"He didn't play in the second half of the (Houston) game (Saturday)," Del Negro said. "He didn't practice (Monday). He went through shootaround a little (Tuesday). I just want to see how he feels. We'll get him in there as soon as we can."

Del Negro dismissed a question about fears of losing Deng mentally because of the demotion.

"If it does, that means you're not strong enough mentally," Del Negro said. "You have to go play. And I'm not worried about that (with Deng)."

Del Negro also addressed Derrick Rose's fourth-quarter playing time and general manager John Paxson's public disclosures that Rose needs to play down the stretch of games.

"That's between us," Del Negro said of his near-daily conversations with Paxson. "I'll make decisions on the team on what I see fit for players and when they should play and when they don't. I know my players better than anybody. Derrick is going to be out there in the fourth quarter. Everyone is going to be held accountable defensively. If I feel there's an advantage for us to do certain things in the fourth quarter, those are the decisions I have to make as a head coach. And I'll make them."

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribu ... sions.html

Post #25 » by **DJhitek** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:30 am

kulaz3000 wrote:You know what, I'm glad that Vinny is standing up for myself. It means that he isn't going to bend over for anyone.

Sure, he made the mistake of benching Rose in the fourth a few games, but it isn't like he did it the entire season, and one of those games out of 3, it was the right decision. So basically we're talking about a sample size of only about 3 games or so.

Big deal.

I want him gone, yet Vinny is showing some balls, and good for him. Sometimes you have to stand up against your GM.

Same here, I'm not justifying his actions bu any means.

But man I was starting to think he was a complete pushover. He should be using the same tone on the team as well.

Kiid-Nerd- · Post #26 » by **Kiid-Nerd-** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 1:02 am

Oh no he didn't !!!!!!!!! Bish...

kyrv · Post #27 » by **kyrv** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 1:09 am

Thanks Fleet. Again to add, those words were said, in my opinion, very seriously, very sternly. Not like he was shrugging it off.

Basically, if Rose closes games, it was Vinnie's idea. ;p

From Red:

Sure, when your GM is being a complete and utter imbecile. What Paxson said was a no-brainer. If that's what Vinny is standing up for, then this is nothing to commend him for. If he was responding to the question, he should've responded completely different than what kyrv just paraphrased. A response that was completely cliche ("I'm all for doing what's best for the team and it's future") and didn't imply any type of angst towards management.

I agree and it seems to me that normally Vinnie is pretty diplomatic, so this appears to be a very intentional departure.

To add, Paxson is his boss. Whether he likes Paxson, or agrees with him, that is who he reports to. One does not typically not win a public media driven battle against your boss.

Post #28 » by **DJhitek** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:25 am

Dude, Vinny is winning some cool points with me with his statement about Deng and how he would take the demotion.

MAQ · Post #29 » by **MAQ** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:30 am

kyrv wrote:Thanks Fleet. Again to add, those words were said, in my opinion, very seriously, very sternly. Not like he was shrugging it off.

Basically, if Rose closes games, it was Vinnie's idea. ;p

From Red:

Sure, when your GM is being a complete and utter imbecile. What Paxson said was a no-brainer. If that's what Vinny is standing up for, then this is nothing to commend him for. If he was responding to the question, he should've responded completely different than what kyrv just paraphrased. A response that was completely cliche ("I'm all for doing what's best for the team and it's future") and didn't imply any type of angst towards management.

I agree and it seems to me that normally Vinnie is pretty diplomatic, so this appears to be a very intentional departure.

that would be true if vinny didnt take every opportunity to say that this is his team and he's the one making the decisions whenever the question comes up...but he does do that whenever the question comes up...and he's doing it again right now...

Post #30 » by **Rerisen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:36 am

kyrv wrote:I agree and it seems to me that normally Vinnie is pretty diplomatic, so this appears to be a very intentional departure.

After trying to be the nice guy, the communicator, Vinny is now entering his faux tough guy phase. It's not really who he is at heart though, and the real Vinny has essentially failed to win over this team. It's a stage Boylan went through as well before he was canned. The coach tries the opposite approach of what he started out believing because nothing is working. I don't think the team is going to buy it or get scared by Vinny's new large and in charge attitude.

A lost coach cometh before said coach losing his team.

Red Larrivee · Post #31 » by **Red Larrivee** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:38 am

I thought Boylan just came out from the gate as the wildly old coach who will let our players do what they want because he knew he wasn't going to be there next year. Hence the joke material at press conferences, putting Ben Wallace in charge, taking the team bowling instead of practice, taking them to paintball games, etc.

Otherwise I agree though. These are the motions your coach goes through when he's about to get canned.

Ajosu · Post #32 » by **Ajosu** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:47 am

Keep digging Vinny :thumbsup:

At least you have your dignity!

Ajosu · Post #33 » by **Ajosu** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:53 am

Red Larrivee wrote:These are the motions your coach goes through when he's about to get canned.

The first stage is denial.

Vinny is exhibit A

AirP. · Post #34 » by **AirP.** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:55 am

Rerisen wrote:
kyrv wrote:I agree and it seems to me that normally Vinnie is pretty diplomatic, so this appears to be a very intentional departure.

After trying to be the nice guy, the communicator, Vinny is now entering his faux tough guy phase. It's not really who he is at heart though, and the real Vinny has essentially failed to win over this team. It's a stage Boylan went through as well before he was canned. The coach tries the opposite approach of what he started out believing because nothing is working. I don't think the team is going to buy it or get scared by Vinny's new large and in charge attitude.

A lost coach cometh before said coach losing his team.

And this is why you don't hire someone who's never coached before. This team needs consistency and they're just not getting.

Vinnie said he could develop players, he planed things out, had a nice presentation but he had never really tested his own theories.

Damn it, the D'Antoni non hire was a huge, huge mistake. He would have came saw what the team had, set a rotation and pretty much stuck with it, players would know their roles on the court instead of the Vinnie... we'll throw out combos and see what works. YOU LOOK AT THE PLAYERS, LOOK AT THEIR GAMES AND FIGURE OUT WHO SHOULD WORK BEST TOGETHER AND TWEAK FROM THERE.

Sometimes when you're too close to the problem you become part of the problem, Vinnie needs to take a few steps back from this team with a clear head and try to identify what the high level problems for this team are, then you can start going deeper from there.

Just a bad hire for a young team. I still can't believe Chicago hired a Rookie coach for this bunch.

stlboy · Post #35 » by **stlboy** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 4:14 am

That's whats wrong with the Nba now, it's too political. The coach is the head of the team, and its his choice to play whomever is performing the best during games, no matter who it is.

ChiCitySPORTS#1 · Post #36 » by **ChiCitySPORTS#1** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:32 am

lol i gurantee pax knows more about the players than vinny does; wtf is he talking about. your a **** rookie coach, you dont know jack. pussy.

wardevil · Post #37 » by **wardevil** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 6:14 am

stlboy wrote:That's whats wrong with the Nba now, it's too political. The coach is the head of the team, and its his choice to play whomever is performing the best during games, no matter who it is.

I admire Vinny for standing up and stating his opinion, instead of being a lame duck, spineless GM like Paxson. I don't blame Vinny , Pax knew he was new to coaching when he hired him, now he wants to dictate to Vinny how to do his job.Maybe if Pax did his job this team wouldn't suck! If I were coaching a game and my team had a legitimate chance to win, no way in hell am I playing a PG that plays candy a** defense! Everyone caters to the so-called star players, the coach's get fired and the teams continue to suck year after year, because GM'S won't let coach's hold the players accountable.

MJ-23 · Post #38 » by **MJ-23** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 1:29 pm

What an idiot

theheel · Post #39 » by **theheel** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:15 pm

wardevil wrote:
stlboy wrote:That's whats wrong with the Nba now, it's too political. The coach is the head of the team, and its his choice to play whomever is performing the best during games, no matter who it is.

I admire Vinny for standing up and stating his opinion, instead of being a lame duck, spineless GM like Paxson. I don't blame Vinny , Pax knew he was new to coaching when he hired him, now he wants to dictate to Vinny how to do his job.Maybe if Pax did his job this team wouldn't suck! If I were coaching a game and my team had a legitimate chance to win, no way in hell am I playing a PG that plays candy a** defense! Everyone caters to the so-called star players, the coach's get fired and the teams continue to suck year after year, because GM'S won't let coach's hold the players accountable.

Are you serious?

Pax did his job, he drafted Rose. Paxon is looking at the big picture for this bulls team and that is Rose getting some quality 4th quarter minutes to learn how to play under pressure in the NBA and close out games that will help him the rest of his career (hopefully with the bulls). VDN is looking with a short sighted vision looking for a couple extra wins here and there.

And to say that Pax is dictating how VDN should be coaching, that is just a blatent over-exaggeration of what is going on. Paxon just simply said that Rose should play the 4th quarters. As far as i have heard he has not said anything about other VDN things like his offensive strategies, defensive schemes, rotations or anything else. So hes not dictating everything.

I am an engineer and when i work on a project i do designs for my current project and do it with a short term view (how to get this project done as efficiently, cheaply, and with as good quality as possible given my guidlines). My boss, who has the big picture view of where the company wants to go often guides me on how i should approach some aspects of the projects. He doesnt tell me how to do every little thing, but he does advise me on some things that i may have overlooked because i am only looking at the short term goals and not the big picture. Even if i dont agree with my boss, i still do it his way because he is the boss and i have to trust he knows what hes doing.

That is the same thing i believe is going on with Pax and VDN. Paxon is looking at the big picture (which is rose) and guiding VDN to play him for the betterment of the future, and VDN was looking at the short term of getting wins which right now debatebly is not rose (although i believe hes better than hinrich at the end of the games). Pax just told him to play rose. nothing more, nothing less.

BigUps · Post #40 » by **BigUps** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:25 pm

I read the quote as saying Rose struggles defensively so VDN had decided to go to Hinrich in the 4th to close games out.

IMO, Rose should definitely be playing in the 4th. No doubt about that, however VDN is correct in stating that Rose is a huge liability defensively when closing games out. The only thing is that Hinrich hasn't been much better defensively when VDN has gone to him.

I'm hoping VDN was trying to do offensive and defensive subs (Rose and Hinrich respectively) and in theory that makes sense. The problem is that Hinrich got the majority of playing time based upon his supposed better defensive play, which in reality wasn't any better. The difference between Rose and Hinrich's defense lately is less than the difference between Rose and Hinrich's offense in late game situations.