Re: I thught Chigaco was a horrible team with out Rose?
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.