RealGM

Rerisen wrote:Will be interesting to see if Kirk's low minutes (20 vs BKN) was just a product of his first game back, or if Thibs is going to stick with this as a rotational thing, playing DJ the bigger of the PG minutes, perhaps Boganizing Kirk a bit, while letting him remain the starter.

Rerisen wrote:Will be interesting to see if Kirk's low minutes (20 vs BKN) was just a product of his first game back, or if Thibs is going to stick with this as a rotational thing, playing DJ the bigger of the PG minutes, perhaps Boganizing Kirk a bit, while letting him remain the starter.

Mech Engineer wrote:This team is again showing how their performance increases exponentially if you get a couple of average ball handlers to keep the offense working. It can be system offense, average PG, less athletic guy etc......but, it makes a big difference. I know this is the positive thread. But, it also shows how inept the Bulls FO has been with this, IMO. For whatever reason, one would think they would have learnt from last year's experience of using two of the three guys at once(Nate, Kirk, Marco).

It also shows how Teague was killing the team with his play when DJ can make such a big difference.

coldfish wrote:

Mech Engineer wrote:This team is again showing how their performance increases exponentially if you get a couple of average ball handlers to keep the offense working. It can be system offense, average PG, less athletic guy etc......but, it makes a big difference. I know this is the positive thread. But, it also shows how inept the Bulls FO has been with this, IMO. For whatever reason, one would think they would have learnt from last year's experience of using two of the three guys at once(Nate, Kirk, Marco).

It also shows how Teague was killing the team with his play when DJ can make such a big difference.

All good points. There are nuances of playing the point guard position that players learn as early as grade school that Teague never got. The guy with the ball has to put some pressure on the defense to move defenders around so that others can get shots. When you are just dribbling the ball down the court and handing the ball off, you are almost forcing someone else to score out of an isolation play and the Bulls don't have any isolation scorers.

I don't view this thread so much as the positivity thread so much as the "let's talk about basketball instead of saying tank, tank, tank, darn it we won" thread.

Mech Engineer wrote:The Bulls could have used the Mavs model(Dirk, Kidd, Terry, Barea) as the shot makers/creators/ball handlers after 2010-11 especially when they saw their team fail while the Mavs won against the Heat. Rose getting injured has given GarPax the luxury to focus the spotlight on Derrick, Thibs, Deng etc..

Rerisen wrote:

Mech Engineer wrote:The Bulls could have used the Mavs model(Dirk, Kidd, Terry, Barea) as the shot makers/creators/ball handlers after 2010-11 especially when they saw their team fail while the Mavs won against the Heat. Rose getting injured has given GarPax the luxury to focus the spotlight on Derrick, Thibs, Deng etc..

Not only didn't we learn the multiple on ball attackers lesson from the Mavs, we didn't even learn the spacing and 3pt shooting lesson!

Not only has the team never had a very capable 2nd option behind Rose, we've also never had a cast of elite 3pt shooters that would fit hand and glove with his very straight forward, drive and kick style. And when your top guy is elite at penetrating in, its a pretty no-brainer thing to go after.

Rerisen wrote:

Mech Engineer wrote:The Bulls could have used the Mavs model(Dirk, Kidd, Terry, Barea) as the shot makers/creators/ball handlers after 2010-11 especially when they saw their team fail while the Mavs won against the Heat. Rose getting injured has given GarPax the luxury to focus the spotlight on Derrick, Thibs, Deng etc..

Not only didn't we learn the multiple on ball attackers lesson from the Mavs, we didn't even learn the spacing and 3pt shooting lesson!

Not only has the team never had a very capable 2nd option behind Rose, we've also never had a cast of elite 3pt shooters that would fit hand and glove with his very straight forward, drive and kick style. And when your top guy is elite at penetrating in, its a pretty no-brainer thing to go after.

coldfish wrote:

Mech Engineer wrote:This team is again showing how their performance increases exponentially if you get a couple of average ball handlers to keep the offense working. It can be system offense, average PG, less athletic guy etc......but, it makes a big difference. I know this is the positive thread. But, it also shows how inept the Bulls FO has been with this, IMO. For whatever reason, one would think they would have learnt from last year's experience of using two of the three guys at once(Nate, Kirk, Marco).

It also shows how Teague was killing the team with his play when DJ can make such a big difference.

All good points. There are nuances of playing the point guard position that players learn as early as grade school that Teague never got. The guy with the ball has to put some pressure on the defense to move defenders around so that others can get shots. When you are just dribbling the ball down the court and handing the ball off, you are almost forcing someone else to score out of an isolation play and the Bulls don't have any isolation scorers.

I don't view this thread so much as the positivity thread so much as the "let's talk about basketball instead of saying tank, tank, tank, darn it we won" thread.

Jo-Anne wrote:

DanTown8587 wrote:

coldfish wrote:What is funny is that I suspect that Boozer would be more effective in a bench role. Playing against second units in specific match ups would help him. I don't even look at it as a Bogans situation because Bogans sucked no matter when he played. Carlos "bumslayer" Boozer can be effective in the right situations.

Augustin was a nice pick up and is now getting the "random PG playing for the Bulls" bounce. He is actually playing better than Derrick was to start the year.

No one played more than 34 minutes yesterday. If the Bulls get fully healthy sans Rose, it will be interesting to see how the minutes play out.

Overall, the biggest thing I can take away from the game yesterday was the body language. For weeks after Rose went down the Bulls looked like zombies, even Thibodeau. That seems to be dissipating.

I've been fairly pro-tank in terms of what I hope happens, but while watching the game yesterday, I realized that rooting like that was stupid and not fun and why the **** do I follow sports if its not fun?. So about half way through that run in the 3rd quarter, I realized it's a lot more fun to just ride the wave of where this team goes. If it rebounds and makes the playoffs and can get out of it's own way in terms of the Heat/Pacers in rd 1, maybe Derrick thinks about coming back.

The Bulls trail the #5 seed (and homecourt in the first round) by 2 games where as two games worse would make them all of 8th in the lottery standings. While Indiana is a fantastic team, the Bulls are much better equipped to play against them than Miami. I'm not saying the Bulls without Rose will be able to handle the Pacers, but if Derrick comes back like April 1 (which would be a 4.5 month recovery) than who knows.

And if the two game stretch is a mirage and the tank is still on? So be it.

Regarding Boozer v Taj, what is Taj doing any differently in his career here? I mean a week ago he had a four game stretch of 8-28 then he regresses a little and people are like "let's bench Boozer!"

I love this board and it's nature; after every good game Taj has it's he's better than Boozer and every bad game, crickets. I don't see the reason to start Taj because when he's playing well and playing better than Boozer, he stays in the game. When Boozer plays well, you want to maximize that time on the floor.

Yes!! I love it.
If you could have seen how excited I was yesterday just to see the team playing well and to see the guys enjoying winning. You would have thought I'd won the lottery. Tha win literally made my Christmas Day.
Seriously it would be like ripping my heart out of my chest for me to be happy if we lost that game especially after they way the guys battled and hustled in that game.

coldfish wrote:I don't view this thread so much as the positivity thread so much as the "let's talk about basketball instead of saying tank, tank, tank, darn it we won" thread.

Rerisen wrote:We are going to start a new positivity thread for this game, as its very possible the posts would carry the last one over 100 pages mid-game.

GoBlue72391 wrote:

coldfish wrote:I don't view this thread so much as the positivity thread so much as the "let's talk about basketball instead of saying tank, tank, tank, darn it we won" thread.

Exactly the way I feel.

Mech Engineer wrote:This might sound crazy but I think the Bulls have placed too much emphasis on intangibles more than the tangibles.
MJ's success against Detroit in 1991 was somehow compared taking the next step for this team, Rebounds win championships mantra, if healthy they are a 70%(somewhere around that) win team, Learning from experience of losing etc.. While most of them have some truth to it, it was not a solution to sit around and wait for the intangibles to somehow click.

bearadonisdna wrote:

Rerisen wrote:We are going to start a new positivity thread for this game, as its very possible the posts would carry the last one over 100 pages mid-game.

last i looked it was at 80 pages. Sure its reasonable to predict the possibility of going over 100 but by my estimation it had no chance in hell.