How bad are we really? How watchable are we?

[Warren G]

Do you even have to ask? Just look around. Talk to people who are casual fans and they can't even name half the team. Five years ago we routinely had 50 page post game threads. Look at them now. There is not much interest and many have just bailed on this mess.

There's maybe a dozen people here who actually think this is watchable.....and watch every game. And we are the hardcore fans. Hell, most friends of mine who used to be HUGE HUGE Bulls fans, don't even follow the team anymore. Most couldn't even name 6 players on the team. It's just really bad and unorganized and hard to watch. You wonder the long term effect of this tanking on the "Bulls Nation" itself. How many kids won't be die hards because their parents don't watch anymore?

Sounds like you're describing bandwagon fans? They'll be back once we're good again.

Not really. Would you call people who post here who admit to not watching games bandwagon fans? I wouldn't. I can't say I blame them. Are their kids going to be as big of Bulls fans as they are? I think that is the question. I've tried to watch and seldom get through a game. Mostly watch the condensed version on LP. What I'm saying is that we ARE the hardcore fanbase. The ones who care the most. If a lot of us aren't watching, what do you think the ratings are going to look like?

I grew up with some pretty crappy Bears teams, some really good Bulls and Hawks teams that never won a title and some really bad Cubs teams. But I know I'm a fan because my dad watched all the games and went to the Stadium a lot for both hockey and basketball, and I went with him. I'm seriously worried about long periods of disinterest having an effect 20 years from now, not so much with the 25-70 crowd, but the youngsters who don't have Michael Jordan to watch play for their team and may not get much exposure to the team during their formative years. We avoided this in the aughts with the tear down/rebuild because Bulls fans were still fresh off the dynasty. This feels different.

If those fans got into the team because of D Rose and stopped watching, sure.

There's a reason Cubs fans before the last few years are called diehards, the team hadn't won a championship for quite literally 100 years.

I watched the White Sox since I was a kid, I watched the late 80s teams turn into the early 90s teams, Frank Thomas go from amazing rookie to seasoned vet. The culmination of a championship in one's fandom is amazing, to only care about a team when it's doing well isn't true blue fandom to me.

People's priorities change, sure, and other hobbies/activities/sports take up what used to. I used to watch every Sox game I could from age 8-13, I could tell you every team's starting lineup and who their best two pitchers were, I'd be surprised if I saw a full Sox game start to finish 5 times in the last 3 years.

I still watch nearly every Bulls game I can, I miss maybe a handful each year when I have other obligations. I watched every game when they had Brand and Artest, and watched every game when they had Derrick and Noah.

[The Evidence]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

[Ice Man]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

I've never seen a 15-win team play better and more interesting basketball than a .500 team. Maybe this year will be the very time that I see such a thing, but somehow I doubt that ... particularly when the 15-win team has one of the worst offenses in recent history.

[CubsFanInAR]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

I've never seen a 15-win team play better and more interesting basketball than a .500 team. Maybe this year will be the very time that I see such a thing, but somehow I doubt that ... particularly when the 15-win team has one of the worst offenses in recent history.

They were never quite 15 win teams, but the Denver Nuggets of the mid 80s to early 90s led the league in points per game while finishing with 20 wins at one point. They were pure entertainment if you liked watching high scoring (by them and their opponents). If offense was your thing, the not-very-successful Nuggets were the epitome of basketball.

[Mech Engineer]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

Passing the ball around on the perimeter is not some great offense. ISO game is a part of the offense. What did Butler or Rose kill? Passing around the ball to get a better jumpshot for Joakim Noah?

And, BTW, players like MJ, LeBron, Harden all play(ed) a lot of iso ball. The point is about seeing your team win with an identity and not about some fancy scheme which results in 20 point losses and 15 win seasons.

Edit: I understand the importance of an offensive scheme but most of those are taken away by good/elite defenses. And, most offenses cannot adapt in the middle of a game. It is no wonder Hoiberg's offenses have been bad. It is all on paper and when implemented on the court, it fails to function.

[dice]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

Passing the ball around on the perimeter is not some great offense. ISO game is a part of the offense. What did Butler or Rose kill? Passing around the ball to get a better jumpshot for Joakim Noah?

And, BTW, players like MJ, LeBron, Harden all play(ed) a lot of iso ball. The point is about seeing your team win with an identity and not about some fancy scheme which results in 20 point losses and 15 win seasons.

Edit: I understand the importance of an offensive scheme but most of those are taken away by good/elite defenses. And, most offenses cannot adapt in the middle of a game. It is no wonder Hoiberg's offenses have been bad. It is all on paper and when implemented on the court, it fails to function.

to be fair, hoiberg for the most part hasn't had players suited to his preferred style of basketball. but even if he did I'm not sure it would matter. "play with pace" is not a viable philosophy. lots of ball movement sure seems to work as long as you've got players who can make open shots though

[Mech Engineer]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

Passing the ball around on the perimeter is not some great offense. ISO game is a part of the offense. What did Butler or Rose kill? Passing around the ball to get a better jumpshot for Joakim Noah?

And, BTW, players like MJ, LeBron, Harden all play(ed) a lot of iso ball. The point is about seeing your team win with an identity and not about some fancy scheme which results in 20 point losses and 15 win seasons.

Edit: I understand the importance of an offensive scheme but most of those are taken away by good/elite defenses. And, most offenses cannot adapt in the middle of a game. It is no wonder Hoiberg's offenses have been bad. It is all on paper and when implemented on the court, it fails to function.

to be fair, hoiberg for the most part hasn't had players suited to his preferred style of basketball. but even if he did I'm not sure it would matter. "play with pace" is not a viable philosophy. lots of ball movement sure seems to work as long as you've got players who can make open shots though

I am sick of that excuse. He literally has had 3 different set of rosters with a lot of good players. No coach ever gets a perfect roster except for maybe Kerr at GS. He is a 1 trick pony of some pace and space crap.

If he needs a GS roster to execute his offense, well, he is probably not going to get that even if he is the coach for the Bulls for the next 25 years.

I agree it might look a little better with players who will make open shots but so would almost any offense you would call primitive.

My point is if the Bulls were winning 50 games with grinding defense and swatting/blocking shots/playing great defense, that would be more watchable than scoring 120 points and losing 65 games.

[DarthDiggler69]

bad, young but watchable. Might be more watchable when Lavine and Niko play

[dice]

Passing the ball around on the perimeter is not some great offense. ISO game is a part of the offense. What did Butler or Rose kill? Passing around the ball to get a better jumpshot for Joakim Noah?

And, BTW, players like MJ, LeBron, Harden all play(ed) a lot of iso ball. The point is about seeing your team win with an identity and not about some fancy scheme which results in 20 point losses and 15 win seasons.

Edit: I understand the importance of an offensive scheme but most of those are taken away by good/elite defenses. And, most offenses cannot adapt in the middle of a game. It is no wonder Hoiberg's offenses have been bad. It is all on paper and when implemented on the court, it fails to function.

to be fair, hoiberg for the most part hasn't had players suited to his preferred style of basketball. but even if he did I'm not sure it would matter. "play with pace" is not a viable philosophy. lots of ball movement sure seems to work as long as you've got players who can make open shots though

I am sick of that excuse. He literally has had 3 different set of rosters with a lot of good players. No coach ever gets a perfect roster except for maybe Kerr at GS. He is a 1 trick pony of some pace and space crap.

If he needs a GS roster to execute his offense, well, he is probably not going to get that even if he is the coach for the Bulls for the next 25 years.

I agree it might look a little better with players who will make open shots but so would almost any offense you would call primitive.

My point is if the Bulls were winning 50 games with grinding defense and swatting/blocking shots/playing great defense, that would be more watchable than scoring 120 points and losing 65 games.

agree completely

[ChiTownHero1992]

This team is bad and at the beginning of the year I wasn't worried but now I think we have a legitimate worry that we wont win 10 games. Its going to be tough...on top of that there is not much to watch to me honestly...I loved the defensive bulls teams of the past...that grinding basketball was amazing to watch and this score 150 points only to give up 200 points isn't worth watching at all...I hate watching players jack up 5+ 3pointers each...its not talent its luck at that point...you do something enough times your going to see results...I just want to see them win some games and play better ball

[ThreeMileAllan]

This team is bad and at the beginning of the year I wasn't worried but now I think we have a legitimate worry that we wont win 10 games. Its going to be tough...on top of that there is not much to watch to me honestly...I loved the defensive bulls teams of the past...that grinding basketball was amazing to watch and this score 150 points only to give up 200 points isn't worth watching at all...I hate watching players jack up 5+ 3pointers each...its not talent its luck at that point...you do something enough times your going to see results...I just want to see them win some games and play better ball

Yup. Before you could watch the artistry of a Kobe or Elton Brand use footwork and nuanced moves to get buckets. A beautiful combination of strength, coordination, and speed. Now it's glorified beer pong from beyond three. The game is straight hideous now. Now it's just coordination and speed. Strength is almost completely out of the picture at the wing positions. Boring. I am not sure I will come back even when the Bulls become good again. I enjoyed Jimmy because he was an old school type of player. Curry bores me tbh.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Stratmaster]

Do you even have to ask? Just look around. Talk to people who are casual fans and they can't even name half the team. Five years ago we routinely had 50 page post game threads. Look at them now. There is not much interest and many have just bailed on this mess.

There's maybe a dozen people here who actually think this is watchable.....and watch every game. And we are the hardcore fans. Hell, most friends of mine who used to be HUGE HUGE Bulls fans, don't even follow the team anymore. Most couldn't even name 6 players on the team. It's just really bad and unorganized and hard to watch. You wonder the long term effect of this tanking on the "Bulls Nation" itself. How many kids won't be die hards because their parents don't watch anymore?

Sounds like you're describing bandwagon fans? They'll be back once we're good again.

Not really. Would you call people who post here who admit to not watching games bandwagon fans? I wouldn't. I can't say I blame them. Are their kids going to be as big of Bulls fans as they are? I think that is the question. I've tried to watch and seldom get through a game. Mostly watch the condensed version on LP. What I'm saying is that we ARE the hardcore fanbase. The ones who care the most. If a lot of us aren't watching, what do you think the ratings are going to look like?

I grew up with some pretty crappy Bears teams, some really good Bulls and Hawks teams that never won a title and some really bad Cubs teams. But I know I'm a fan because my dad watched all the games and went to the Stadium a lot for both hockey and basketball, and I went with him. I'm seriously worried about long periods of disinterest having an effect 20 years from now, not so much with the 25-70 crowd, but the youngsters who don't have Michael Jordan to watch play for their team and may not get much exposure to the team during their formative years. We avoided this in the aughts with the tear down/rebuild because Bulls fans were still fresh off the dynasty. This feels different.

My first exposure to the Bears was a 1-13 team. I suffered through the 70s, 80's and 90's... and 2000s etc with the Cubs and only a handful of competitive teams in that time.

This too will pass.

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Do you even have to ask? Just look around. Talk to people who are casual fans and they can't even name half the team. Five years ago we routinely had 50 page post game threads. Look at them now. There is not much interest and many have just bailed on this mess.

There's maybe a dozen people here who actually think this is watchable.....and watch every game. And we are the hardcore fans. Hell, most friends of mine who used to be HUGE HUGE Bulls fans, don't even follow the team anymore. Most couldn't even name 6 players on the team. It's just really bad and unorganized and hard to watch. You wonder the long term effect of this tanking on the "Bulls Nation" itself. How many kids won't be die hards because their parents don't watch anymore?

Sounds like you're describing bandwagon fans? They'll be back once we're good again.

Not really. Would you call people who post here who admit to not watching games bandwagon fans? I wouldn't. I can't say I blame them. Are their kids going to be as big of Bulls fans as they are? I think that is the question. I've tried to watch and seldom get through a game. Mostly watch the condensed version on LP. What I'm saying is that we ARE the hardcore fanbase. The ones who care the most. If a lot of us aren't watching, what do you think the ratings are going to look like?

I grew up with some pretty crappy Bears teams, some really good Bulls and Hawks teams that never won a title and some really bad Cubs teams. But I know I'm a fan because my dad watched all the games and went to the Stadium a lot for both hockey and basketball, and I went with him. I'm seriously worried about long periods of disinterest having an effect 20 years from now, not so much with the 25-70 crowd, but the youngsters who don't have Michael Jordan to watch play for their team and may not get much exposure to the team during their formative years. We avoided this in the aughts with the tear down/rebuild because Bulls fans were still fresh off the dynasty. This feels different.

If you're participating in a message board like this, I'd have to say you're not a bandwagon fan. Not even close. Without a doubt.

That being said, if you used to watch every game you possibly could, but now you don't because the team sucks, then (by my definition) you're also not a die-hard fan.

I'm in my 50s, so I've been a fan of some really, really bad teams at different times throughout my 40+ years of sports fandom, and I still watched every game I could, no matter what. To me, that's what a die-hard fan does. Again, that's just my definition of a die-hard fan, just my personal opinion.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, if you watch all the games when the team is a contender - or let's even say a .500ish team that makes the playoffs every year - but you don't watch them all (or don't watch at all) when the team is 3-20... a lot of people would say you're a bandwagon fan. Not me, because that's not my opinion, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who holds that opinion.

There is no set in stone, dictionary definition of a "die-hard" fan or a "bandwagon" fan, it's everyone's personal choice to decide their own definition.
_____________________________________

But I know I'm a fan because my dad watched all the games and went to the Stadium a lot for both hockey and basketball, and I went with him.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you either don't have any kids or if you do, they are too young to follow sports. I only assume that because you didn't mention your own kids.

Just speaking from my own personal experience as a father of a 26-year-old and a 14-year-old, but you don't become a fan just because your dad watches all the games and you used to go to a lot of the games with him (not "you" personally, just a general "you").

I watch all the games, and both of my boys have been to quite a few games, and neither of them gives a rat's ass about sports. I don't know if it's a generational thing or what, because like you I became a sports fan because my dad watched all the time.

I'm still blessed, I play bass so I'm a huge, massive, over-the-hill Primus fan, and that's pretty much all the music any of my kids ever heard growing up (other than the garbage they listened to when they were alone with their mothers, of course). All 3 of them saw their first Primus concert before their 8th birthdays, and they are all huge fans now. I didn't expose them to Primus and more or less than sports, but one they love, one they could not possibly care less about.

[ArizonaBullsFan]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

Passing the ball around on the perimeter is not some great offense. ISO game is a part of the offense. What did Butler or Rose kill? Passing around the ball to get a better jumpshot for Joakim Noah?

And, BTW, players like MJ, LeBron, Harden all play(ed) a lot of iso ball. The point is about seeing your team win with an identity and not about some fancy scheme which results in 20 point losses and 15 win seasons.

Edit: I understand the importance of an offensive scheme but most of those are taken away by good/elite defenses. And, most offenses cannot adapt in the middle of a game. It is no wonder Hoiberg's offenses have been bad. It is all on paper and when implemented on the court, it fails to function.

to be fair, hoiberg for the most part hasn't had players suited to his preferred style of basketball. but even if he did I'm not sure it would matter. "play with pace" is not a viable philosophy. lots of ball movement sure seems to work as long as you've got players who can make open shots though

Agreed for the most part, except for one thing.

Definitely, on it's own just saying "play with pace" isn't really a philosophy. That being said, I think it's easier to score in today's NBA if you push the ball up the floor every chance you get instead of having Thibs calling a set play and having the PG walk the ball up the floor after every missed shot.

Like you said, Hoiberg hasn't really had the type of roster to play the way (I think) he wants to play - spread the floor with 3pt shooters, run at every possible opportunity, and move the ball a lot on offense. That's why I don't expect him to be fired until after next season at the earliest (and probably not until his contract his up in 2 more seasons) - he hasn't had a roster that fits his style.

When Thibs was hired, the roster was pretty close to perfect for the way he wants to coach. Ironically, now he's got a roster that can't guard a chair (among other reasons their defense is horrible, I know we just had that discussion in the last day or two).

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Can I make a request of the people who do the techie stuff for this board?

Is there any way you can add a feature somewhere, like by the poster's "rank" or under their avatar or wherever, that informs us whether on not they watch the games?

I try to ignore the names of the posters, but when someone types something that you think is brilliant or idiotic, you're gonna notice who wrote it. For better or worse.

I hadn't clicked on this thread until like an hour or two ago, and I'm pretty surprised to see (a few/several/many) posters say they haven't been watching the games at all (or rarely watching a few highlights)... but I've seen them comment in many threads about how players are doing on the season, how they played in a specific game, whether they have any potential...

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't possibly care less to read about what Joe Blow thinks of a player's performance the night before when Mr. Blow didn't even watch the game. It's a freaking waste of time. And quite rude, if you ask me (not that anyone has, or would).

I'm mostly kidding here, but my point stands 100% - I have the courtesy to not say who I think the Bulls should draft next summer, because I don't watch college basketball. Why would I waste anyone's time giving an opinion on a player I've only seen in highlights - EVERYBODY looks good in highlights, that's why they call them HIGHLIGHTS.

The same thing goes for judging a guy based only on the box score - we're having that exact discussion in the Dunn thread right now, statistics alone mean very little without the proper context.

Thank you. Drive through.

[the ultimates]

I'm watching them just like I watch the Whitesox (the other team people said Reinsdorf would never let rebuild). I'm looking for growth from the young players in Dunn, Lauri and Lavine when healthy. Just like on the Whitesox I watched Giolito, Moncada, Lopez and can't wait for Kopech and Jimenez.

The realization people need is that every young player you draft or trade for isn't going to be a superstar. What I caution myself and other people to do is not overreact to every game. If a guy plays well he's not a hall of famer, superstar or maybe even around when you get really good. Conversely if he struggles it doesn't mean their a bust or they won't be a piece for you to contend moving forward. Let the players find their way at the professional level.

[SfBull]

What was "so watchable" about Rose, Butler, Wade, Rondo be ball stoppers and kill the offense?

What was "so watchable" about barely scoring 80 PPG and praying we held the other team to 70 PPG?

I've never seen a 15-win team play better and more interesting basketball than a .500 team. Maybe this year will be the very time that I see such a thing, but somehow I doubt that ... particularly when the 15-win team has one of the worst offenses in recent history.

They were never quite 15 win teams, but the Denver Nuggets of the mid 80s to early 90s led the league in points per game while finishing with 20 wins at one point. They were pure entertainment if you liked watching high scoring (by them and their opponents). If offense was your thing, the not-very-successful Nuggets were the epitome of basketball.

This team is just boring for watching maybe because many fans including me are rooting for losing and tanking but not just that,they play hard for a time and don't have the skills for closing games, they are frequently lost on defense ,their offense is bad depending so much on 3s with little or nothing of an inside game.This team is hard to watch even for hardcore fans like me, really try as much as I can but it's more and more unwatchable.

[SfBull]

And there's a dilemma for the Bulls fans as always when you root for a bad team with a very deep draft coming,if your team wins more games lasting say with 30-35 wins it won't go to the playoffs but won't be in a high draft position either depending on the lottery,it happened in 2003 and the Bulls drafted Hinrich when they could have ended with Anthony ,Wade or Bosh.I try to watch as many games as possible but after a hard day of work sitting before my TV ( in my case living overseas ) for watching this team is more and more a very hard task,I try to watch the positives like the development of Dunn ,Lauri and even Denzel into a reliable role player ,RoLo 's steady delivery at Center and good defensive skills of Nwaba but many times got pissed to watch how they blow leads and are smashed by the best NBA teams. .You got pissed because they lost but somewhat satisfied because one more defeat is another step for their tanking season.And we have Lavine coming,if he stays healthy playing with the intensity of his Wolves days maybe this team can be more watchable but at the same time we can miss the chance for drafting a franchise player.

[MC3]

http://www.landofbasketball.com/statistics/worst_seasons.htm

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Passing the ball around on the perimeter is not some great offense. ISO game is a part of the offense. What did Butler or Rose kill? Passing around the ball to get a better jumpshot for Joakim Noah?

And, BTW, players like MJ, LeBron, Harden all play(ed) a lot of iso ball. The point is about seeing your team win with an identity and not about some fancy scheme which results in 20 point losses and 15 win seasons.

Edit: I understand the importance of an offensive scheme but most of those are taken away by good/elite defenses. And, most offenses cannot adapt in the middle of a game. It is no wonder Hoiberg's offenses have been bad. It is all on paper and when implemented on the court, it fails to function.

to be fair, hoiberg for the most part hasn't had players suited to his preferred style of basketball. but even if he did I'm not sure it would matter. "play with pace" is not a viable philosophy. lots of ball movement sure seems to work as long as you've got players who can make open shots though

I am sick of that excuse. He literally has had 3 different set of rosters with a lot of good players. No coach ever gets a perfect roster except for maybe Kerr at GS. He is a 1 trick pony of some pace and space crap.

If he needs a GS roster to execute his offense, well, he is probably not going to get that even if he is the coach for the Bulls for the next 25 years.

I agree it might look a little better with players who will make open shots but so would almost any offense you would call primitive.

My point is if the Bulls were winning 50 games with grinding defense and swatting/blocking shots/playing great defense, that would be more watchable than scoring 120 points and losing 65 games.

Now I am completely, 100% baffled and confused.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if you never said this, it doesn't apply to you:

BUT

I was told throughout last season by a really, really, really sort of big number of posters on this board that the 2016-17 Bulls roster was comprised of Jimmy "Superman" Butler and a bunch of garbage. A 15-20 win team without Jimmy.

So who exactly comprised the "lot of good players" on the roster?

I have read throughout this season that the current Bulls roster has maybe 2 or 3 actual NBA talents, the rest are deep bench players AT BEST, but most likely G-Leaguers.

So who exactly are the "lot of good players" on this roster?

Again, I don't know what you said about last year's roster, so I'm making any accusations. I just know that nobody can argue that the prevailing attitude on this board was that the 2016 Bulls were "Jimmy and Garbage".

Same this year, without Jimmy, it's just a month of Lauri and Garbage. (And a few people are liking Dunn, though I'd guess just as many are saying he'll never ever be able to maintain his current semi-average level of play).

I'm fairly new here, just trying to keep up with the trends.