This team is doing great. Most people did not even expect them to make the playoffs with out rose.
SMH if rose was active he would be getting all the credit for this teams hard work. and he would be in the race for MVP.
Printable View
This team is doing great. Most people did not even expect them to make the playoffs with out rose.
SMH if rose was active he would be getting all the credit for this teams hard work. and he would be in the race for MVP.
this team benefits greatly from having someone like rose to get them easy points during crunchtime but they have been lucky that players like deng and boozer have been stepping up this year to fill that hole
[QUOTE=Joey3000]This team is doing great. Most people did not even expect them to make the playoffs with out rose.
SMH if rose was active he would be getting all the credit for this teams hard work. and he would be in the race for MVP.[/QUOTE]
A healthy Derrick Rose adds at least 15 wins to this teams schedule. The team deserves credit, no doubt, but believe you me, if Rose was active this team would probably be competing for the first seed, if not have it already.
bulls without rose = first round knockout by sixers.
bulls with rose= above .83
bulls without rose= .605
They're 4th seed. If they had Rose, they'd most likely be 1st seed right now.
They are a very good team without Rose, but they are even better with him.
Rose is yet another overrated peremiter player taking all of the credit for the main reason why his team wins: defense and rebounding....and Rose has nothing to do with that. Rose is unfairly giving all of the credit in the media's effort to artifically create a superstar in a big market. He is one of the most overrated players in the NBA. He is merely a very good, not great player....let alone MVP caliber player.
In 2011 when Chicago got to the ECF they got there with the #1 defense and #1 rebounding and #17 offense.
Rose had nothing to do with the defense and rebounding yet got all of the praise for carrying the mediocre offense with his 8-23 shooting games.
[QUOTE=nathanjizzle][B]bulls without rose = first round knockout by sixers.[/B]
bulls with rose= above .83
bulls without rose= .605[/QUOTE]
Didn't Noah and Gibson got injured during that series?
Anyway, I think Rose do make them better, and they'll probably be the 1st seed if he was there but they are good without Rose too. They prove that last year, and again this year. You have to give Thibs and the Bulls roster some credit.
[QUOTE=GreatGreg]A healthy Derrick Rose adds at least 15 wins to this teams schedule. The team deserves credit, no doubt, but believe you me, if Rose was active this team would probably be competing for the first seed, if not have it already.[/QUOTE]
The Bulls with Rose in 2011 through this point in the season were 25-13.
They are 23-15 now.
Thats two games and if we stretch it out to 82 its 5 games added max. 15 is a streeeeeeetch.
[QUOTE=tpols]The Bulls with Rose in 2011 through this point in the season were 25-13.
They are 23-15 now.
Thats two games and if we stretch it out to 82 its 5 games added max. 15 is a streeeeeeetch.[/QUOTE]
2011 was when the bulls assembled a new team with the coach and alot of new players. you cant compare the begining of the season of that team to this one thats already tenured.
If they can stick around till Rose come back, I can see the Bulls making a push for top seed.
people have been saying the Bulls would at least be okay without rose since well before he even won the MVP. and if they didn't think so the Bulls playing pretty well in the many games he missed last year would do it.
people have been making these such and such don't really need such and such topics forever when a star gets hurt.
I remember people clowning Webber in 04 when they had a great record being led by peja.
MVP level players have been getting hurt and having teams carry on forever.
the Bulls being above average without rose means no more than the Bulls being above average without Jordan or the 76ers winning 55 games after wilt left. or the Knicks making the finals without Ewing. The King's being great without Webber. the Knicks barely missing a beat when Willis reed fell apart before the second ring.
is just fuel for haters which no one will care about looking back on the era.
it doesn't matter if a team can win a good number of games without its best player. it comes down to whether or not a team can be taken serious.
it isn't hard to build a respectable team. Taking the team from respectable to legitimate is what being great is all about.
history doesn't remember 51 wins and losing to the pacers.
They've always been a good team with or without Rose. They have great role players.
[QUOTE=nathanjizzle]2011 was when the bulls assembled a new team with the coach and alot of new players. you cant compare that to a team thats already tenured in 2013[/QUOTE]
The bulls without rose are going to win mid 50ish games this year. Their defense is elite and they're a very good team.
You think if you add rose they go from 55 wins to 70? No way.. They go to the low 60s so a little over five wins is what rose would add to this team.
There are diminishing returns on teams this good though.. Rose might add 15 to a bad team.
Not saying Rose doesnt help, just think he is overrated. He is ranked ahead of guys like:
Westbrook, Rondo, Harden Yet to me he is not clearly better than any of them.
Rondo would be an improvment on defense and would also make scoring easier for the guys around him.
Westbrook and Harden would both bring the same thing Rose brings.
Not bashing Rose, just dont get the hype.
[QUOTE=secund2nun]Rose is yet another overrated peremiter player taking all of the credit for the main reason why his team wins: defense and rebounding....and Rose has nothing to do with that. Rose is unfairly giving all of the credit in the media's effort to artifically create a superstar in a big market. He is one of the most overrated players in the NBA. He is merely a very good, not great player....let alone MVP caliber player.
In 2011 when Chicago got to the ECF they got there with the #1 defense and #1 rebounding and #17 offense.
Rose had nothing to do with the defense and rebounding yet got all of the praise for carrying the mediocre offense with his 8-23 shooting games.[/QUOTE]
This, Rose was and will be one of the worst MVP of all time. He is a more likable Blake Griffin in point guard form. Very little actual skill compared to other superstars, a lot of atheleticism
[QUOTE=secund2nun]Rose is yet another overrated peremiter player taking all of the credit for the main reason why his team wins: defense and rebounding....and Rose has nothing to do with that. Rose is unfairly giving all of the credit in the media's effort to artifically create a superstar in a big market. He is one of the most overrated players in the NBA. He is merely a [B]very good, not great player.[/B]...let alone MVP caliber player.
In 2011 when Chicago got to the ECF they got there with the #1 defense and #1 rebounding and #17 offense.
Rose had nothing to do with the defense and rebounding yet got all of the praise for carrying the mediocre offense with his 8-23 shooting games.[/QUOTE]
did you start watching basketball last season? to say rose is just a "good" player and not a "great" player is the dumbest shit i ever heard.
given a healthy career playing at the level they are playing now every player you just mentioned is going to the Hall of Fame. but you don't get the hype?
[QUOTE=noob cake]This, Rose was and will be one of the worst MVP of all time. He is a more likable Blake Griffin in point guard form. [B]Very little actual skill[/B] compared to other superstars, a lot of atheleticism[/QUOTE]
the shit people say on this messageboard:facepalm
[IMG]http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Derrick+Rose+Skills+Challenge+mCbkorm-Thil.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://gifsoup.com/view4/3154014/derrick-rose-layup-orlando-o.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]people have been saying the Bulls would at least be okay without rose since well before he even won the MVP. and if they didn't think so the Bulls playing pretty well in the many games he missed last year would do it.
people have been making these such and such don't really need such and such topics forever when a star gets hurt.
I remember people clowning Webber in 04 when they had a great record being led by peja.
MVP level players have been getting hurt and having teams carry on forever.
the Bulls being above average without rose means no more than the Bulls being above average without Jordan or the 76ers winning 55 games after wilt left. or the Knicks making the finals without Ewing. The King's being great without Webber. the Knicks barely missing a beat when Willis reed fell apart before the second ring.
is just fuel for haters which no one will care about looking back on the era.
[B]it doesn't matter if a team can win a good number of games without its best player. it comes down to whether or not a team can be taken serious.
it isn't hard to build a respectable team. Taking the team from respectable to legitimate is what being great is all about. [/B]
history doesn't remember 51 wins and losing to the pacers.[/QUOTE]
Understood, but my question is does Rose make them that much better or does he just take the credit for their hard work?
As was mentioned before the year rose got MVP his teams success was off of dominant rebounding and defense. Nothing to do with Roses horrible shooting percetage.
And if I remember correctly, when they faced Miami in the playoffs that year, they lost 4 in a row and there was nothing this Leader/MVP could do to help his team. He got exposed so badly that the NBA started reconsidering the MVP nomination process.
Again, is he getting more credit than he has earned.
[QUOTE=Joey3000]Understood, but my question is does Rose make them that much better or does he just take the credit for their hard work?
As was mentioned before the year rose got MVP his teams success was off of dominant rebounding and defense. Nothing to do with Roses horrible shooting percetage.
And if I remember correctly, when they faced Miami in the playoffs that year, they lost 4 in a row and there was nothing this Leader/MVP could do to help his team. He got exposed so badly that the NBA started reconsidering the MVP nomination process.
Again, is he getting more credit than he has earned.[/QUOTE]
Stop sounding like such a moron. You're the type of player that has given this board a bad reputation. How dumb do you sound with that obvious Heat homer talk.
And if you watched basketball then you saw how Rose was the one winning games down the stretch against the elite teams like Miami, LA, SA, DAL. Whenever they needed him to come up big he did. And I doubt Westbrook does anything if LeBron is guarding him down the stretch and he doesn't have KD to kick it out to him and bail him out.
Me and my homie Noah got this, Let lil Rose rest :pimp:
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]given a healthy career playing at the level they are playing now every player you just mentioned is going to the Hall of Fame. but you don't get the hype?[/QUOTE]
Ok I'm fine with that... but none of them are placed on the same level as Rose. again, not saying he is not good. But people rank him ahead of guys who are just as good based off the hard work of his teamates.
I'm sure more than half this Board would rank him ahead of Carmelo Anthony. WHY? He is even ranked ahead of guys like Chris Paul by many... WHY?
They are even saying if he was here Chicago would be in first place in the east. What would he bring that would make that arguement valid?
[QUOTE=noob cake]This, Rose was and will be one of the worst MVP of all time. He is a more likable Blake Griffin in point guard form. Very little actual skill compared to other superstars, a lot of atheleticism[/QUOTE]
Yeah because every PG in the league can spin Tyreke Evans around....croos Andre Miller to the floor and toss in acrobatic layups like it is nothing.
Can't wait for Rose to be back so he can make you fool's eat your words.
[QUOTE=Joey3000]Ok I'm fine with that... but none of them are placed on the same level as Rose. again, not saying he is not good. But people rank him ahead of guys who are just as good based off the hard work of his teamates.
I'm sure more than half this Board would rank him ahead of Carmelo Anthony. WHY? He is even ranked ahead of guys like Chris Paul by many... WHY?
They are even saying if he was here Chicago would be in first place in the east. What would he bring that would make that arguement valid?[/QUOTE]
We don't get burned by opposing teams pgs when Rose is playing. He dominated Rondo, RW and pretty much any pg you put in front of him in his MVP season.
[QUOTE=tpols]The bulls without rose are going to win mid 50ish games this year. Their defense is elite and they're a very good team.
You think if you add rose they go from 55 wins to 70? No way.. They go to the low 60s so a little over five wins is what rose would add to this team.
There are diminishing returns on teams this good though.. Rose might add 15 to a bad team.[/QUOTE]
heres some math. out of 82 games. bulls this season at .602 is projected to win 49 games.
2 season prior when rose played bulls were at .75 wining percentage.
thats wining 62 games
thats 13 games that rose is propelling his team to win, even when the bulls without him are already above average.
that says alot.
[QUOTE=CarlosBoozer]Me and my homie Noah got this, Let lil Rose rest :pimp:[/QUOTE]
Stfu lame
[QUOTE=ballinhun8]Stop sounding like such a moron. You're the type of player that has given this board a bad reputation. How dumb do you sound with that obvious Heat homer talk.
And if you watched basketball then you saw how Rose was the one winning games down the stretch against the elite teams like Miami, LA, SA, DAL. Whenever they needed him to come up big he did. And I doubt Westbrook does anything if LeBron is guarding him down the stretch and he doesn't have KD to kick it out to him and bail him out.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I'm not a Miami Fan. Only time I meantioned Miami is to make the point that they man-handled a Rose lead Bulls in the playoffs.
Thats the problem with this board. Instead of making a logical arguement, you just call the person arguing a "Homer" and feel you have made a case.
Its funny that after all the things Ive said u single out one word... Miami. Sounds like ur the "homer".
[QUOTE=Joey3000]Ok I'm fine with that... but none of them are placed on the same level as Rose. again, not saying he is not good. But people rank him ahead of guys who are just as good based off the hard work of his teamates.
I'm sure more than half this Board would rank him ahead of Carmelo Anthony. WHY? He is even ranked ahead of guys like Chris Paul by many... WHY?
They are even saying if he was here Chicago would be in first place in the east. What would he bring that would make that arguement valid?[/QUOTE]
you seriously started watching basketball yesterday? bulls have been first in the east the last 2 seasons when rose was healthy.:facepalm
vs chris paul
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8FAmOjKF_k[/url]
vs melo
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5bFtysx30o[/url]
these kids are so uneducated guessers.
[QUOTE=Joey3000]
They are even saying if he was here Chicago would be in first place in the east. What would he bring that would make that arguement valid?[/QUOTE]
let me reroute this idiot that started watching basketball this season.
noo its so outlandish to consider bulls to be first in the east if rose was healthy
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img339/6118/bullsfirst1.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img593/2904/bullsfirst.png[/IMG]
pls stfu if u dont know what your talking about
[QUOTE=Go Getter]Stfu lame[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.pngfaces.com/images/joomgallery/thumbnails/by_emotion_28/emoticon-smiley-serious_6/nba-carmeloanthony1-serious_20120317_1466971137.png[/IMG]
Plus they still have Joakim Noah. You can't lose with a guy like that on your team.
[QUOTE=nathanjizzle]you seriously started watching basketball yesterday? bulls have been first in the east the last 2 seasons when rose was healthy.:facepalm
vs chris paul
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8FAmOjKF_k[/url]
vs melo
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5bFtysx30o[/url]
these kids are so uneducated guessers.[/QUOTE]
What about the game he went honey baked ham on Rondo? Or the Thunder...when they had to take RW off him and he crossee the shit out of Sefolosha? The game winning step back against the Bucks? 44 against the Hawks?
Dude gets no respect from these lames....which is cool, I hope he comes back with a vengeance so I can rub some e noses in the mud....
I feel like this is a conversation that would go better in person. I suspect I would find you less foolish.
Exposed so badly the NBA considered changing the nomination process? So Dirk going out shooting 2-11 being eliminated by the 8th seed when is team won 67 games didn't do it? Malone in 1999 verses Portland didn't do it either? rose set the standard by being outplayed by people the basketball world ranked ahead of him anyway?
Sure.
Anyway....
Id love to see some of you ina Rose vs Isiah Thomas or bob cousy topic. I bet you would struggle to figure out why I id find it so funny.
They were very good in the regular season without him last year too. They play great D...so they will always compete.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]people have been saying the Bulls would at least be okay without rose since well before he even won the MVP. and if they didn't think so the Bulls playing pretty well in the many games he missed last year would do it.
people have been making these such and such don't really need such and such topics forever when a star gets hurt.
I remember people clowning Webber in 04 when they had a great record being led by peja.
MVP level players have been getting hurt and having teams carry on forever.
the Bulls being above average without rose means no more than the Bulls being above average without Jordan or the 76ers winning 55 games after wilt left. or the Knicks making the finals without Ewing. The King's being great without Webber. the Knicks barely missing a beat when Willis reed fell apart before the second ring.
is just fuel for haters which no one will care about looking back on the era.
it doesn't matter if a team can win a good number of games without its best player. it comes down to whether or not a team can be taken serious.
it isn't hard to build a respectable team. Taking the team from respectable to legitimate is what being great is all about.
history doesn't remember 51 wins and losing to the pacers.[/QUOTE]
This.
The bulls are not serious contenders for a title without rose, without rose their a playoff team in a weak conference that would always be one superstar away from being able to seriously contend.
[QUOTE=nathanjizzle]heres some math. out of 82 games. bulls this season at .602 is projected to win 49 games.
2 season prior when rose played bulls were at .75 wining percentage.
thats wining 62 games
thats 13 games that rose is propelling his team to win, even when the bulls without him are already above average.
that says alot.[/QUOTE]
That's disingenuous because they were 25-13 then and are 23-15 now and surging upwards.. They're easily finishing with 50+. They're two games off pace what they were with rose. Winning percentages at this point in the season aren't that reliable..
if you got haters that means you're damn good. ignore them bulls brehs, if they don't see what makes rose great, they never will and just like trolling.
something I find a little funny....
most of 2011 and especially late in the year people were claiming rose did not make the impact that Howard did. Bron had wade and bosh. But Dwight had to go it alone. He's making a personal impact unlike rose who is just along for the ride.
then Dwight joins a Lakers team so talented people are talking about 75 wins and owners call secret meetings on how this is exactly what they feared......and big bad Dwight puts up his usual numbers minus the point or two from having talented teammates and they are like 2 games up on the magic. Magic in tenth place lakers in eleventh.
basketball is funny sometimes. makes fools of us all.....
anyone really feel like a 90 percent healthy Derrick Rose in place of a 90 percent healthy Dwight Howard doesn't make the Lakers a little better than they are?
I just have trouble seeing them at 16-22. doesn't mean rose is more impactfull.
Means.....this game is not as simple as records.
Complicated game we have. Complicated and hilarious.
[QUOTE=nathanjizzle]did you start watching basketball last season? to say rose is just a "good" player and not a "great" player is the dumbest shit i ever heard.[/QUOTE]
He is not a great player. Don't let hype influence you.
[QUOTE=Joey3000]Ok I'm fine with that... but none of them are placed on the same level as Rose. again, not saying he is not good. But people rank him ahead of guys who are just as good based off the hard work of his teamates.
I'm sure more than half this Board would rank him ahead of Carmelo Anthony. WHY? He is even ranked ahead of guys like Chris Paul by many... WHY?
They are even saying if he was here Chicago would be in first place in the east. What would he bring that would make that arguement valid?[/QUOTE]
Because Rose impact would be much higher than Hinrichs. I dont think anyone is dismissing the fact that the Bulls are built on defense and rebounding. But Rose is very important to the offense. The Bulls have no guy that can create their own shot on a consistent basis.
As far as Rose being MVP in 11. He deserved it. He played a huge role in helping keep the Bulls ahead of the pack during injuries to Noah, and Boozer.
Theres no way you can honestly say Rose wouldnt improve this team.