# Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks(0)



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*
The Bench Mob​*





















































































































*Atlanta Bench​*







































































*

Regular season matchups(Chicago - Atlanta Hawks):*​
*Round 2 Game 1​**Date:* May 2, 2011
*Time:* 7:00pm CT/8:00pm ET
*Location:* United Center
*Channel:* TNT


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

A little excited, are we? Btw, it's going to be Atlanta. I'm calling it now!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

No pictures for Taj or Kurt Thomas?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

I'm ecstatic that Atlanta is in the driver's seat, though if anybody blows a 3-1 (now 3-2) series lead, it would be them. I just really don't want to cringe each time Rose drives the lane against Dwight Howard, not to mention Ron Jeremy's face each time a call doesn't go his way.

Btw, who is the Bench Mob player on the bottom right?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*



yodurk said:


> I'm ecstatic that Atlanta is in the driver's seat, though if anybody blows a 3-1 (now 3-2) series lead, it would be them. I just really don't want to cringe each time Rose drives the lane against Dwight Howard, not to mention Ron Jeremy's face each time a call doesn't go his way.
> *
> Btw, who is the Bench Mob player on the bottom right?*


From left to right (for me at least): Watson, Brewer, Korver, Asik, Scalabrine, Rasual Butler, Janerro Pargo and John Lucas III. (but still no love for Taj or Big Sexy)


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

Ah, I forget John Lucas re-joined the team. I've never really seen the guy play and hence didn't know what he looked like. :laugh:


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

Wow, I can't believe I forgot those 2. Epic Fail


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

I hope its the Hawks.:clap:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

I'll steal a quote from the book of Vogel. Regarding tonight's ATL/ORL game: "Whoever wins this game will win the series"

So, go Hawks!


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

Atlanta it is...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

Bring on Atlanta!

No Dwight = Derrick's tail bone will be OK afterall

Horford concerns me a bit, but as a unit we should be fine.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

*Re: Round 2 Game 1: Chicago Bulls(0) vs. Atlanta Hawks/Orlando Magic(0)*

Bulls vs. Hawks in ROUND 2. Go Bulls!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

This can be a very tough match-up for the Bulls, the Hawks size and athleticism can cause the Bulls HUGE problems and lets not forget that Josh Smith and Horford are much better defenders than anything we faced with the Pacers. 

Josh Smith
14 ppg 8reb 1.2 blk

Al Horford
11 ppg 11 reb 1 blk 

Joe Johnson
16 ppg 7reb 3 ast

Jamal Crawford
20 ppg off bench

Numbers don't scare you much but the Post was basically shut down by Dwight Howard and Carlos Boozer has shown 0 ability to defend anybody so these numbers could go up. 

One thing that I feel confident about is that Tom Thibs can out coach the Hawks head coach, there is just no way they have anyone who can guard Rose one on one BUT they can collapse in the paint with some very good shotblockers so again it comes down to Boozer, if he does not score we will LOSE this series.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Eastern Conference semifinals: Bulls vs. Hawks 

Game 1: Atlanta at Chicago, 7 p.m. Monday, TNT 
Game 2: Atlanta at Chicago, 7 p.m. Wednesday, TNT 
Game 3: Chicago at Atlanta, TBD May 6, ESPN 
Game 4: Chicago at Atlanta, 8 p.m. May 8, TNT 
Game 5*: Atlanta at Chicago, TBD May 10, TNT 
Game 6 *: Chicago at Atlanta, TBD May 12, ESPN 
Game 7*: Atlanta at Chicago, TBD May 15, TNT


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Bulls sweep this. Max 5 games.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Bulls sweep this. Max 5 games.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I'm interested to see how the Hawks approach things defensively... I'm assuming they'll still start Hinrich (if healthy), Johnson, Smith, Horford and Jason Collins, as they have been, and I think that poses some interesting matchups... 

Josh Smith Guarding Luol Deng is one that intrigues me. Unless they switch primarily to a smaller lineup with Marvin Williams at the 3 and Smith at the 4 (which I would do),I think this match-up might help us out. Josh Smith is an all-world defender, but chasing Luol Deng around screens for 40+ minutes doesn't leave a lot of time or energy to help out elsewhere defensively for Smith. Unless they switch on every screen... does anyone know if that is something Atlanta still regularly does? The Trib says "not as much as they used to"... but that isn't that helpful. 

And are we really going to see a lot of Jason Collins? Don't you get the impression that Noah would just run circles around him (literally)? Are we safe in assuming that Collins PT will be limited (to basically nothing) now that they aren't facing D12?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> again it comes down to Boozer, if he does not score we will LOSE this series.



Really? I don't think Atlanta is so formidable that the series actually hinges on Boozer, though the inflammatory rhetoric sure is fun!


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I wouldn't expect Collins to play as much as he did in round one. Boozer & Noah are nice bigs, but they aren't the same challenge that guarding Howard was.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Really? I don't think Atlanta is so formidable that the series actually hinges on Boozer, though the inflammatory rhetoric sure is fun!


They just easily beat a team with the best bigman in the game, no body else besides Dwight Howard stepped up so its a possibility. Atlanta also is much more capable of scoring than the Pacers and we all saw how we needed Super Rose to show up to win games. If the Bulls CANT establish an inside scoring presence they will just collapse on Rose when he takes it to the basket and make life hell for him because they do have very solid shot blockers.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

On the bright side if Carlos averages 17 and 10 we win this series easily in 5.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> They just easily beat a team with the best bigman in the game, no body else besides Dwight Howard stepped up so its a possibility. Atlanta also is much more capable of scoring than the Pacers and we all saw how we needed Super Rose to show up to win games. If the Bulls CANT establish an inside scoring presence they will just collapse on Rose when he takes it to the basket and make life hell for him because they do have very solid shot blockers.


Orlando is not that good.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> They just easily beat a team with the best bigman in the game, no body else besides Dwight Howard stepped up so its a possibility. Atlanta also is much more capable of scoring than the Pacers and we all saw how we needed Super Rose to show up to win games. If the Bulls CANT establish an inside scoring presence they will just collapse on Rose when he takes it to the basket and make life hell for him because they do have very solid shot blockers.


I didn't watch the ATL-ORL series, but the box scores would suggest they simply defended Howard 1-v-1 (using Collins & Pachulia), and to hell with trying to stop him otherwise. Instead they focused on shutting down the other 4 guys, and it apparently worked because Howard is not a guy who can single handedly win a game. 

I don't see that strategy working against the Bulls, we are too balanced and Rose is a far more dynamic playmaker than Howard, meaning he won't just score around the basket but will hurt you from outside and by setting up teammates as well (Howard does neither of those things). Not to mention, the Bulls have 3 guys outside of Rose are who arguably better than Orlando's second best player.

Another thing, Atlanta doesn't have the size or big man depth to hang with our guys. We have 5 guys who average double-digit rebounds per 48 minutes, and are the best rebounding team in the league. Atlanta has 1 guy in Horford that is remotely threatening on the boards. You can bet the farm Thibodeau will revolve our defense around keeping Horford off the glass, and fortunately we have the horses to get that done (going 5 deep on big men who can rebound).

I'm sure the Bulls offense will stink at times, but as usual we will own the defense and rebounding battle by a long shot. This series should be finished in 6 at the most, and quite possibly in 5. If there's any concern I have, it's our ability to hit jumpshots and keeping turnovers down; that's what ultimately hurt us against Indy.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> They just easily beat a team with the best bigman in the game, no body else besides Dwight Howard stepped up so its a possibility. Atlanta also is much more capable of scoring than the Pacers and *we all saw how we needed Super Rose to show up to win games.* If the Bulls CANT establish an inside scoring presence they will just collapse on Rose when he takes it to the basket and make life hell for him because they do have very solid shot blockers.


I didn't see that... I saw Rose having a pretty average to below average(for him) series. I didn't see "super Rose".


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Hinrich will probably be out with a significant hamstring injury. Feel bad for Kirk, but that's good news for the Bulls. Heard it from KC's twitter feed.

http://twitter.com/#!/KCJHoop


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> I didn't see that... I saw Rose having a pretty average to below average(for him) series. I didn't see "super Rose".


He had 2 average games in Indiana so don't get that confused with what he did in the series. He single handedly won games one and two and he did hit the game sealing basket in game 3 AND he averaged like 30 and 6 at home. 

Did you watch games 1 and 2? Just wondering thats all.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

As much as I want to see more Asik and Thomas, I think you have to try every type of play and player combination with Boozer to see what works. The Bulls need to get him in a groove, maybe not for this series, but for the next two. So even if it costs the Bulls somewhat I think they have to risk it and try to get him back to where he was. He is the second best scorer on the team and the Bulls need him. Once you get him in the groove, I think he'll be comfortable playing 30-32 minutes a game depending on matchups.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> *He had 2 average games* in Indiana so don't get that confused with what he did in the series. He single handedly won games one and two and he did hit the game sealing basket in game 3 AND he averaged like 30 and 6 at home.
> 
> Did you watch games 1 and 2? Just wondering thats all.


They were 2 well below average games, he was shooting 35% going into game 5. He had great games at home, but for sure a below average series for the MVP. I mean the way I look at it those close games were more of a mirage because Rose played worse than usual overall throughout the series.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DunkMaster said:


> They were 2 well below average games, he was shooting 35% going into game 5. He had great games at home, but for sure a below average series for the MVP. I mean the way I look at it those close games were more of a mirage because Rose played worse than usual overall throughout the series.


I don't get what you are talking about, he wins basically 3 games in a series and thats a below average series? 

Game 3 was a bad game no doubt but its pretty safe to say that playing on hurt ankle really hurt his game 4 numbers.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Hinrich is doubtful all series.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Hinrich is doubtful all series.


If Hinrich doesn't play, Hawks little chance of winning is even smaller.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> He had 2 average games in Indiana so don't get that confused with what he did in the series. He single handedly won games one and two and he did hit the game sealing basket in game 3 AND he averaged like 30 and 6 at home.
> 
> Did you watch games 1 and 2? Just wondering thats all.


To different perspectives, that's all. Youll seee what you want to see. Personally I thought Rose played excellent in game 1, I thought he played worse in game 2 but still very good, he did have a stretch in that game where he turned the ball over seemingly every time down the court and it killed us. The next 2 games Rose did not play well, the last game he did. But when I add it all up I thought Rose was just average to below average (for him). For that series. 

I think it was clear that we did not witness "super Rose" that series. What I saw was one of the best players in the NBA have basically an average series for him. Which still means he was one of the best players in the NBA that series, so it's no knock on Rose. He was excellent, but not better then normal Rose.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> To different perspectives, that's all. Youll seee what you want to see. Personally I thought Rose played excellent in game 1, I thought he played worse in game 2 but still very good, he did have a stretch in that game where he turned the ball over seemingly every time down the court and it killed us. The next 2 games Rose did not play well, the last game he did. But when I add it all up I thought Rose was just average to below average (for him). For that series.
> 
> I think it was clear that we did not witness "super Rose" that series. What I saw was one of the best players in the NBA have basically an average series for him. Which still means he was one of the best players in the NBA that series, so it's no knock on Rose. He was excellent, but not better then normal Rose.


When a guy single handedly wins game's I think its fair to say that said player played "super" after all winning is all that matters in the playoff's. 

When a player averages over his averages how is that having a below average series? Take into account that he faced constant double teams, multiple defenders, hard fouls and no production what so ever from the teams second most important player and still WIN games and produce like an MVP how is that below average? 

Everyone had turnovers on the team, everyone shot under their FG$ and almost everyone on the team struggled offensively at some point in the series. It's playoff basketball, the Bulls easily could have been swept by Indiana if Rose did not play the way he did.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> When a guy single handedly wins game's I think its fair to say that said player played "super" after all winning is all that matters in the playoff's.
> 
> When a player averages over his averages how is that having a below average series? Take into account that he faced constant double teams, multiple defenders, hard fouls and no production what so ever from the teams second most important player and still WIN games and produce like an MVP how is that below average?
> 
> Everyone had turnovers on the team, everyone shot under their FG$ and almost everyone on the team struggled offensively at some point in the series. It's playoff basketball, the Bulls easily could have been swept by Indiana if Rose did not play the way he did.



You are wasting your time pal.

An entire world knows that it was exclusively because of Rose we won round 1, but someone just want to impose on us his own vision (nothing new, year after year).

We all know, that this team success does solely depend on Rose game. If he wants, we win if not we loose...simple like that. 

It is very clear to everyone that Boozer, Deng, Noah , Bogans etc- are just supporting crew and could be replaced anytime. For example, if you replace our starting SF position with Granger or Artest or Outlaw, you will forget about Deng existence forever. Same thing you can do with Boozer and Noah.

Any player who plays with Rose will flourish, if he is not a complete moron. 

Rose *colossal improvement* brought us where we are now . That phenomenon, should I say was a miracle number one in entire NBA history! Of course I would like to mention an excellent coaching staff as well.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> You are wasting your time pal.
> 
> An entire world knows that it was exclusively because of Rose we won round 1, but someone just want to impose on us his own vision (nothing new, year after year).
> 
> ...


I will say that my vision that I keep imposing, year after year, has been shockingly accurate... While your constant complaining abnd analysis of players and this teams potential has been awful.

Anyways you guys don't get that this is a team game. Ive been telling you that rebounding, defense, off the ball scorers, team ball are important but it is something that has never been appreciated by a few of you guys (most on here get it). Thats why I was real big on this team prior to the season starting and a couple of you were real negative. 

As much as Rose was the player most responsible for winning games 1 and 2, (and the series as a whole) it was the team that out-rebounded indiana by a ridiculous 39 rebounds in those first 2 games. I would say team rebounding was probably more important then any one player in those first 2 wins... Your talking about almost a 20 possession difference, due to rebounding in each of those games. That is just silly.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> When a guy single handedly wins game's I think its fair to say that said player played "super" after all winning is all that matters in the playoff's.
> 
> When a player averages over his averages how is that having a below average series? Take into account that he faced constant double teams, multiple defenders, hard fouls and no production what so ever from the teams second most important player and still WIN games and produce like an MVP how is that below average?
> 
> Everyone had turnovers on the team, everyone shot under their FG$ and almost everyone on the team struggled offensively at some point in the series. It's playoff basketball, the Bulls easily could have been swept by Indiana if Rose did not play the way he did.


 No point in going further with this. You have an agenda to make our team out to be made up of a bunch of mediocre players and Rose who is incredible.

All I'm saying is that we have an excellent supporting cast surrounding Rose (who is a top 5 player in the NBA). Sometimes our supporting cast doesn't show up particularly well in the point totals, sometimes they do. But the majority of games they are going to dominate the defensive/rebounding aspects of the game. This, like always, happened in this series. It is predictable and consistent. It is why we were number 1 in both defense and rebounding this year. It is the most important reason for why this team is so very good.

So keep viewing the games with your agenda, we clearly will never agree on this subject, but as much as Rose was the star of that series you have to realize that this stat line:
28ppg, *37%fg*, 6 apg, 5 rpg, 4 topg. Is not _super_ Rose. At least not in my eyes... I think he can be better then that.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> No point in going further with this. You have an agenda to make our team out to be made up of a bunch of mediocre players and Rose who is incredible.


oh Case don't fall back into that "Me against the world" mentality, EVERYONE knows that without Rose this team loses, everyone KNOWS its because of Rose that we won game 1 and 2, he single handedly won those 2 games. Don't confuse that with DENG sucked and so did everyone else, they all played their roles but if not for Rose we lose games 1 and 2 and frankly we lose the series rather easily if hes not on the court. 



> All I'm saying is that we have an excellent supporting cast surrounding Rose (who is a top 5 player in the NBA). Sometimes our supporting cast doesn't show up particularly well in the point totals, sometimes they do. But the majority of games they are going to dominate the defensive/rebounding aspects of the game. This, like always, happened in this series. It is predictable and consistent. It is why we were number 1 in both defense and rebounding this year. It is the most important reason for why this team is so very good.


Dude this series basically proved that Rose trumps all of that, WTF would the Bulls do with the #1 defensive team in the NBA do without THE FREAKIN MVP?! They would have been SWEPT by the Pacers. 



> So keep viewing the games with your agenda, we clearly will never agree on this subject, but as much as Rose was the star of that series you have to realize that this stat line:
> 28ppg, *37%fg*, 6 apg, 5 rpg, 4 topg. Is not _super_ Rose. At least not in my eyes... I think he can be better then that.


My definition of Super is not just shooting 50%, its winning damn games in crunch time. Its taking the life out of the other team and just willing his own team to win. Derrick Rose did it against the Pacers, you and guy's like Hollinger can nit pick Rose's game all you wan't but in the words of Charles Barkley Derrick Rose is "The best damn player in the WORLD"


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> oh Case don't fall back into that "Me against the world" mentality, EVERYONE knows that without Rose this team loses, everyone KNOWS its because of Rose that we won game 1 and 2, he single handedly won those 2 games. Don't confuse that with DENG sucked and so did everyone else, they all played their roles but if not for Rose we lose games 1 and 2 and frankly we lose the series rather easily if hes not on the court.


Rose is an extremly important piece on this team, but don't get it twisted, he plays a role as well. His role as the only playmaker is extremly important. We built a team around Rose, knowing that he was an excellent playmaker, so we filled in the gaps with excellent roleplayers. So you can say what you want about taking Rose off the team, it's all purely hypothetical and an opinion based on nothing. But this is a team game and we have a superbly well put together team. Yeah if you take our only playmaker off the team then the team would be much worse... But if you traded him for another top 1st option then this team would still be excellent. 

Also not sure why you bring Deng up and capitalize his name, I never mentioned the guy. 



> Dude this series basically proved that Rose trumps all of that, WTF would the Bulls do with the #1 defensive team in the NBA do without THE FREAKIN MVP?! They would have been SWEPT by the Pacers.


This just looks like a really bad argument, based on nothing.



> My definition of Super is not just shooting 50%, its winning damn games in crunch time. Its taking the life out of the other team and just willing his own team to win.


God, you sound like an awful sportswriter. Look you can insert all of the emotion and fairy tale stories you want into your analysis. But it juse doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I'm sorry but I don't care how magical you thought his performance was. I thought Rose played his role in the series and so did the majority of our team. It's why we won.


> Derrick Rose did it against the Pacers, you and guy's like Hollinger can nit pick Rose's game all you wan't


First off I'm not nit picking his game... I'm telling you the guy had an average series for a top 5 player. That's not a compliment or a knock on him. It's just my opinion of grading an excellent player like Rose. I think the guy is phenomenal and part of the reason I picked the Bulls to be one of the best teams in the league this year and was the most optimisitic about the bulls this season.



> but in the words of Charles Barkley Derrick Rose is "The best damn player in the WORLD"


I'm not arguing against Rose. I think the guy is an elite player in the NBA, top 5. But quoting Charles Barkley just goes along with the rest of the nonsense in your rebuttal. And quoting Barkley to argue with a huge Rose supporter is even more questionable.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> He had 2 average games in Indiana so don't get that confused with what he did in the series. He single handedly won games one and two and he did hit the game sealing basket in game 3 AND he averaged like 30 and 6 at home.
> 
> Did you watch games 1 and 2? Just wondering thats all.



He played great in games 1 and 2, but in 4 and 5 shot a combined 10 of 40 from the field. He wasn't Super Rose the entire series.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DunkMaster said:


> As much as I want to see more Asik and Thomas, I think you have to try every type of play and player combination with Boozer to see what works. The Bulls need to get him in a groove, maybe not for this series, but for the next two. So even if it costs the Bulls somewhat I think they have to risk it and try to get him back to where he was. He is the second best scorer on the team and the Bulls need him. Once you get him in the groove, I think he'll be comfortable playing 30-32 minutes a game depending on matchups.



Agreed. While I don't want to underrate Atlanta, I think we can put up with some inconsistency from Boozer in the interest of getting him going. If the Bulls want to win a championship, they're going to need him to get back in the groove.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rose is a phenomenal player. One of the best in the league. I agree without his incredible ascension this year, the Bulls would not be contenders. However, we also do have a very good supporting cast. In the past 20 years or so, I can't off the top of my head think of one NBA champ who had one phenomenal superstar and a terrible supporting cast. Basketball is a team game, and you simply can't win without putting a good cast around your star (or putting multiple stars together). AI's Sixers that went to the Finals are about the closest thing I can recall to a title contender who was basically just one guy putting a mediocre supporting cast on his back, and AI fell short.

So, Bizkit is right that without Rose, we are not contenders. Casey is also right that the Bulls have a very good supporting cast around Rose. Both of these things can be true at the same time.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> we all saw how we needed Super Rose to show up to win games


Thats what I said, I never said Rose played SUPER the entire series. He won us games one and 2, he hit got the game sealing layup in game 3 and game four he played poorly and they lost. Some of you guy's may not agree and thats fine but don't get it twisted without Rose this team loses to the Pacers, solid role players and all.


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Thats what I said, I never said Rose played SUPER the entire series. He won us games one and 2, he hit got the game sealing layup in game 3 and game four he played poorly and they lost. Some of you guy's may not agree and thats fine but don't get it twisted without Rose this team loses to the Pacers, solid role players and all.


This sounds like an argument I've heard people constantly make about the Bulls in the 90s. People would say that the Bulls would be garbage without Jordan. It always tickled me how the entire team was underrated because of one man. The biggest complaint people always had is if Jordan didn't play then the Bulls would lose. Yea sure, take the best player off the team and expect that team to compete on the exact same level. HA! Okay, let's play that game then. Let's take Rose off the Bulls for the Pacers series and also take the Pacers' best player off their team and then you tell me who wins.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> ...Casey is also right that the Bulls have a very good supporting cast around Rose...


Let see what we got : 

Carlos Boozer $15M
Luol Deng $12M
Joakim Noah $10M 

Bogans $2M

...................

Total Team $55M

In summary , a three so called “supporting cast “ players will make $37M/year or astonishing 67% of team’s salary cap and that does not count Rose future salary ( imo, it will be no less than $15M/year). And for what ???, if they can not hold their own against an average NBA players.

Does current “supporting crew” look appealing , now ?!...I don’t think so. As I said before, we can find a better deal for much less money.

Conclusion: THANKS GOD, WE HAVE ROSE! Any comparison regarding his impact vs “supporting crew” services, is just laughable at least.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

taco_daddy said:


> This sounds like an argument I've heard people constantly make about the Bulls in the 90s. People would say that the Bulls would be garbage without Jordan. It always tickled me how the entire team was underrated because of one man. The biggest complaint people always had is if Jordan didn't play then the Bulls would lose. Yea sure, take the best player off the team and expect that team to compete on the exact same level. HA! Okay, let's play that game then. Let's take Rose off the Bulls for the Pacers series and also take the Pacers' best player off their team and then you tell me who wins.


The difference is Granger is not the player that Rose is, which is why the Pacers are an 8th seed team as compared to the Bulls being the #1 seed mainly because of Derrick Rose. This is not some bash the Bulls role players thread this is just stating the obvious, you take Rose off the team and they lose to the Pacers, there is no debating this especially if you watched the series. 

The Bulls averaged 97 ppg against the Pacers, Rose averaged 27 ppg thats about 28% of the Bulls entire scoring! 100 ppg the Bulls averaged in game 1 and 2, Derrick Rose averaged 37ppg in those 2 games thats 37% of the Bulls offense!


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> The difference is Granger is not the player that Rose is, which is why the Pacers are an 8th seed team as compared to the Bulls being the #1 seed mainly because of Derrick Rose. This is not some bash the Bulls role players thread this is just stating the obvious, you take Rose off the team and they lose to the Pacers, there is no debating this especially if you watched the series.
> 
> The Bulls averaged 97 ppg against the Pacers, Rose averaged 27 ppg thats about 28% of the Bulls entire scoring! 100 ppg the Bulls averaged in game 1 and 2, Derrick Rose averaged 37ppg in those 2 games thats 37% of the Bulls offense!


So you agree that the Bulls w/o Rose would beat the Pacers w/o Granger? If that's the case then that shows you why the Bulls are the #1 seed. If you took the best player off of every team in the league, where do you think the Bulls would rank? 

It's not just Rose, it's a good group of players around Rose as well. What would Miami be without LeBron? What would L.A. be without Kobe? It's easy to say the Bulls are merely just Rose and some change, but that's not true. You couldn't just add Rose to the Timberwolves and suddenly have the #1 record in the league. You're underestimating the impact that other players have on this Bulls team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> Let see what we got :
> 
> Carlos Boozer $15M
> Luol Deng $12M
> ...



This is utterly nonsensical. First, I assume most teams pay a small number of their players the majority of the team's salary. Second, the idea they can't "hold their own against average NBA player" is preposterous.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is utterly nonsensical. First, I assume most teams pay a small number of their players the majority of the team's salary. Second, the idea they can't "hold their own against average NBA player" is preposterous.


// First, I assume most teams pay a small number of their players the majority of the team's salary//

Yours “small number” does not include Rose, so why pay so much !?
And after giving Rose his share, what will get our 10 bench players - something around $1M ! Nonsense

// Second, the idea they can't "hold their own against average NBA player" is preposterous //

Priceless statement as usual ... I have no more questions.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

taco_daddy said:


> So you agree that the Bulls w/o Rose would beat the Pacers w/o Granger? If that's the case then that shows you why the Bulls are the #1 seed. If you took the best player off of every team in the league, where do you think the Bulls would rank?


Pointless to even talk about it. 



> It's not just Rose, it's a good group of players around Rose as well. What would Miami be without LeBron? What would L.A. be without Kobe? It's easy to say the Bulls are merely just Rose and some change, but that's not true. You couldn't just add Rose to the Timberwolves and suddenly have the #1 record in the league. You're underestimating the impact that other players have on this Bulls team.


Miami without Lebron would still be better than the Bulls without Rose. Again, I never said the Bulls are just basically Rose and bums, I said they would lose the Pacer's series without him... Thats just a fact.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

* vs *









*
EASTERN CONFERENCE PLAYOFFS –SEMIFINALS: GAME ONE, HOME GAME ONE
MONDAY, MAY 2, 2011 – 7:00 P.M. CDT
UNITED CENTER
TNT / ESPN 1000 AM
*

Game 1 - Mon May 2
Game 2 - Wed May 4
Game 3 - Fri May 6
Game 4 - Sun May 8
Game 5 * Tue May 10
Game 6 * Thu May 12
Game 7 * Sun May 15

Bulls' playoff history vs Atlanta
2011 - Eastern Conference Semifinals - 
1993 - Eastern Conference 1st round BULLS WON 3-0
1970 - Western Conference 1st round HAWKS WON 4-1

VS. HAWKS ALL-TIME IN PLAYOFFS
ALL-TIME ............... BULLS lead 4-4
BULLS CURRENT STREAK .. 3 Wins
BULLS HOME STREAK .........2 Wins
BULLS ROAD STREAK .............. 1 Win
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BULLS VS. HAWKS ALL-TIME
ALL-TIME ..................... Bulls lead 113-100
BULLS CURRENT STREAK ..... 2 Wins
BULLS HOME STREAK ............ 1 Win
BULLS ROAD STREAK ............... 1 Win

BULLS VS. HAWKS THIS SEASON
Mar. 02 @ Atlanta – HAWKS WON 83-80
Mar. 11 @ Chicago – BULLS WON 94-76
Mar. 22 @ Atlanta – BULLS WON 114-81


Game Notes










*Chicago Bulls (62-20)*

Playoffs
Homen 3-0
Road 1-1

Regular Seaon
Home 36-5
Road 26-15
Div 15-1
EConf 39-13
WConf 23-7

*Bulls Averages:*
PPG: 97.6 (Opp: 90.2)
RPG: 46.4 (Opp: 38.4)
APG: 19.8 (Opp: 16.0)
SPG: 8.20 (Opp: 8.20)
BPG: 7.60 (Opp: 5.60)
TO: 16.20 (Opp: 15.20)
FG%: .415 (Opp: .409)
FT%: .813 (Opp: .770)
3p%: .352 (Opp: .377)

*Probable Bulls starters*





































Derrick Rose - PG - 27.6 pts, 4.6 reb, 6.2 ast
Keith Bogans- SG - 5.4 pts, 1.8 reb, 0.6 ast
Luol Deng - SF - 18.6 pts, 6.2 reb, 3.6 ast
Carlos Boozer - PF - 10.0 pts, 10.2 reb, 1.6 ast
Joakim Noah - C - 12.0 pts, 10.6 reb, 2.6 blk

*Bulls Stats Leaders*
Points: Rose 27.6, Deng 18.6
Rebounds: Noah 10.6, Boozer 10.2
Assists: Rose 6.2, Deng 3.6
Steals: Rose 2.60, Deng 1.40
Blocks: Noah 2.60, Gibson & Rose 1.20

FG%: Thomas .636, Korver .487
FT%: Rose .867, Deng .800
3FG%: Korver 0.588, Bogans .500

For a full report and the latest on Bulls' injuries, check out the AthletiCo Injury Report.










*Atlanta Hawks (44-38)*

Playoffs
Home 3-0
Road 1-2

Regular Seaon
Home 24-17
Road 13-28
EConf 28-24
WConf 9-21

*Probable Hawks starters*
Kirk Hinrich- PG
Joe Johnson - SG
Josh Smith - SF
Al Horford - PF
Jason Collins - C

*Injury report*
Kirk Hinrich (strained right hamstring)


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Boozer is getting better:




> When practice ended Sunday at the Berto Center, Carlos Boozer was on the floor shooting baskets with his teammates.
> 
> The previous two days, he was out of sight in the training room, getting treatment for a turf toe injury on his right foot.
> 
> ...



Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110502/sports/705029971/#ixzz1LC97HsIx


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> // First, I assume most teams pay a small number of their players the majority of the team's salary//
> 
> Yours “small number” does not include Rose, so why pay so much !?
> And after giving Rose his share, what will get our 10 bench players - something around $1M ! Nonsense


Rose is still on his rookie deal. What of it? I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. Let's just take all the money available and divide it up evenly among everyone on the roster! That'll do it!



> // Second, the idea they can't "hold their own against average NBA player" is preposterous //
> 
> Priceless statement as usual ... I have no more questions.


I see you have no rebuttal. Figures. There is no way you can have an honest opinion that Deng, Boozer, and Noah can't hold their own against average NBA players at their positions. Get real. Or keep pushing your thoughtless agenda. Whatever works for you.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Miami without Lebron would still be better than the Bulls without Rose. Again, I never said the Bulls are just basically Rose and bums, I said they would lose the Pacer's series without him... Thats just a fact.



Agreed. A Rose-less Bulls would not be favored to win that series. Derrick didn't play his best every game, but games 1 and 2 especially would have been lost without him.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

BULLS are getting raped by their own stupidity. Not very efficient on D, silly turnovers, awful shots being put up. They're making ATL look like the #1 seed.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

Crawford with the dagger. Joe Johnson(who miraculously found his shot) and Jamal are murdering us.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

I'm legitimately scared of this team going down 2-0.

Honestly, I don't think we're considerably better than the Hawks so that we're going to have a huge statement game in Game 2. I think it will be close again, and we'll play rather sloppily again.

It's becoming a trend.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Man, this is bad, bad, bad.

Rose better not have really hurt that ankle again, and Boston better win the next game against the heat.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

D.Rose injured on the last play of the game. Just what we don't need on the day he's named MVP. F'd up. Basketball Gods, ain't no Bulls fans. 

:banghead:


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Not surprising, I predicted that the Hawks would give the Bulls big time trouble, their streaky shooters will hurt the Bulls. Joe Johson just torched Deng, Deng IMO played good defense but Johnson just flat out made all his shots. 

Derrick Rose had a bad half but played great defense and made some very nice assist that being said like I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, If Rose struggles the Bulls lose. 

All that being said, I was not impressed at ALL with the Hawks, terrible shot selection and bad decision making was bailed out by the 3 point shooting of Johnson and Crawford. Those 2 WILL NOT shoot like this all series so I still see the Bulls winning this series.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

Ok, he looked better than he did with the other ankle sprain, but who knows outside of the docs. Lets say he is ok. I think the Bulls will have a huge game 2 and not play down to their opponents and the Hawks will not shoot above 50% from 3 throughout the series. If they do, then gg bulls.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

IF D-Rose can't go for Game 2, i'm gonna punch a baby. 

Yeah, you read that right.


----------



## RR 823 (Mar 29, 2003)

I really wonder what Derrick was thinking when he stepped out to guard Crawford. The nine other players on the court were clearly content with letting the clock run out. Just a rare dumb move by the MVP.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

The lack of energy to start games is really frustrating. We came out with energy in game 5 against the Pacers and we all know how that turned out. Bulls need to put the clamps on early.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

RR 823 said:


> I really wonder what Derrick was thinking when he stepped out to guard Crawford. The nine other players on the court were clearly content with letting the clock run out. Just a rare dumb move by the MVP.



I think he just jammed it abit , nothing too serious i hope.

generally there is nothing wrong with rose being the most competitive guy on the floor , this is an instance where it backfired


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

Yes these slow starts are starting to bug me. The Bulls have started slowly in every game but game 5 vs the Pacers, during these playoffs. That needs to stop.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Whats crazy is that all of the missed shots at the start of the game where rim out's, Rose could have easily gone 5-7 instead of 0-7, couple that with how EVERYTHING that Joe Johnson and Crawford shot went it this game looks more like a fluke than anything but I guess we will see on Wednesday.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Whats crazy is that all of the missed shots at the start of the game where rim out's, Rose could have easily gone 5-7 instead of 0-7, couple that with how EVERYTHING that Joe Johnson and Crawford shot went it this game looks more like a fluke than anything but I guess we will see on Wednesday.


I pretty much agree with you on that. There were basically two Jamal Crawfords on the court last night, and the Bulls defense did exactly what they needed to do, which is to force bad shots.

That can be defended, though, and the best way to prevent them from hoisting up those fluke shots is to prevent them from even touching the ball. Bogans was actually the best defender on Johnson, and I was surprised Coach took him out so early in the third quarter.

The other two improvements the Bulls need to have tomorrow are getting to the free throw line and rebounding. Granted, the Hawks were shooting so well that there naturally were less rebounding opportunities, but I saw a couple of offensive rebounds for the Hawks that should not have happened.

Edit: The Bulls also need to find Boozer a lot more. He had his way against both Smith and Horford, and that facial dunk on Smith had me falling out of my seat.

I'm going to chalk up the loss to having too much rest and being rusty, as the Thunder and Lakers seemed to be suffer from the same symptoms.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rusty or not there is just no stopping lucky shots that go in, yeah denying the ball would have helped but there is no way to deny 2 hot shooters, especially with Horford and Smith roaming around the inside. 

Rose has to attack from the moment the clock begins on Wednesday, they can't give these Bird Brains any more confidence.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Crawford is averaging 20 ppg on 44% shooting from two and 46% shooting from three and thats after 7 games. If we keep trying to treat these shots as luck we are going to lose just like the Magic did. It took the Magic being down 3-1 before they realized we are better off doubling both Johnson and Crawford and forcing them to make shots but by them they were too far down for it to make a difference . 

Johnson hasnt shot that well in the playoffs but what saw from Crawford has been the norm in these playoffs . 

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/1007/joe-johnson

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/165/jamal-crawford

We should force the ball out of those two hands and to Marvin Williams and Josh Smith and force them to shoot and also Jeff Teague who cant shoot at all.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Crawford is averaging 20 ppg on 44% shooting from two and 46% shooting from three and thats after 7 games. If we keep trying to treat these shots as luck we are going to lose just like the Magic did. It took the Magic being down 3-1 before they realized we are better off doubling both Johnson and Crawford and forcing them to make shots but by them they were too far down for it to make a difference .
> 
> Johnson hasnt shot that well in the playoffs but what saw from Crawford has been the norm in these playoffs .
> 
> ...


The problem is Crawford and Johnson are great shot creators, they may not always make the shots but they can get their shot's off NO MATTER who is on them. Loul Deng played solid D on Johnson IMO but he still got torched and Kyle Korver should not have guarded Crawford, this might be a series where maybe giving Boogan's more minutes is not a really bad thing, he gave Johnson more trouble than Deng. 

I do like the idea of making Josh Smith make more shots, the guy can at times shoot you out of a game.


----------

