Bulls (1-0) @ Celtics (2-0) Game Thread

[houheffna]

I don't know why you are disappointment, same two teams, same results every year...at least in Boston. I am not surprised. This team is MUCH, MUCH better than the Bulls, period. Its not even close...

 

[Fred]

houheffna wrote:

I don't know why you are disappointment, same two teams, same results every year...at least in Boston. I am not surprised. This team is MUCH, MUCH better than the Bulls, period. Its not even close...

We played them pretty well the last 4 games in Boston. (During the playoffs). It wasn't that long ago. They had an injured Garnett. We had an injured Deng. They were missing Big Baby tonight, who was a big part of their success in those Finals. Based on everything I've read and heard, I thought we were a much better team this year. I'm absolutely shocked we lost by 38.

 

[TheStig]

Fred wrote:

The Bulls were 2-15 from the 3-point line. Salmons was 1-4 and Hinrich was 0-5. It's not hard to play defense when you only have to really play out to 18 feet. And it's easier to stop Derrick when you have 5 guys closer to the basket.

The Celtics, on the other hand, shot 12-24 from the 3-point line. This is surprising because Bill Wennington said on ESPN 1000 tonight that the Bulls were now a very good defensive team. (At the end of the first quarter.) It's all the more surprising since we're so much taller at the guard position.

We didn't have Salmons and Miller when we were blown out in Game 2 last year. The Celtics didn't have Garnett in the playoffs, but we didn't have our 2nd best player, according to management, the incredible Luol Deng.

This is an extremely disappointing loss.

Kirk, Salmons and Deng combined for 8 of 31. Reminds me of 07/08. Though Kirk has actually been fine. Nothing special but a nice combo guard off the bench. If only he didn't make 3/27 left on his dea.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Fred wrote:

houheffna wrote:

I don't know why you are disappointment, same two teams, same results every year...at least in Boston. I am not surprised. This team is MUCH, MUCH better than the Bulls, period. Its not even close...

We played them pretty well the last 4 games in Boston. (During the playoffs). It wasn't that long ago. They had an injured Garnett. We had an injured Deng. They were missing Big Baby tonight, who was a big part of their success in those Finals. Based on everything I've read and heard, I thought we were a much better team this year. I'm absolutely shocked we lost by 38.

I do believe that 118-90 is 28 Fred either way, that game was terrible. To be honest, I'm not shocked. 1) it was a back to back, 2) KG was in the lineup, and the Celtics have destroyed the Bulls everytime he was in the lineup, and 3) we absolutely sucked from 3. I mean, I know BG helped the Bulls' 3pt shooting a lot, but I wasn't expecting this much of a deficiency.

 

[Dpauley23]

Fred wrote:

The Bulls were 2-15 from the 3-point line. Salmons was 1-4 and Hinrich was 0-5. It's not hard to play defense when you only have to really play out to 18 feet. And it's easier to stop Derrick when you have 5 guys closer to the basket.

The Celtics, on the other hand, shot 12-24 from the 3-point line. This is surprising because Bill Wennington said on ESPN 1000 tonight that the Bulls were now a very good defensive team. (At the end of the first quarter.) It's all the more surprising since we're so much taller at the guard position.

We didn't have Salmons and Miller when we were blown out in Game 2 last year. The Celtics didn't have Garnett in the playoffs, but we didn't have our 2nd best player, according to management, the incredible Luol Deng.

This is an extremely disappointing loss.

Fred are you bipolar?

 

[engies]

Bulls lose by 28
Ben Gordon scores 25 + 7Rbs

But oh forget about keeping Ben coz we have Salmons, we can stop Ray Allen from scoring as well as replace Ben's shooting, and we have Deng back who can stop Pierce and replace some more of Ben's scoring.

I guess its one game, but if it keeps occurring then the people who were against signing Ben have a lot to explain

 

[houheffna]

We played them pretty well the last 4 games in Boston. (During the playoffs). It wasn't that long ago. They had an injured Garnett. We had an injured Deng. They were missing Big Baby tonight, who was a big part of their success in those Finals. Based on everything I've read and heard, I thought we were a much better team this year. I'm absolutely shocked we lost by 38.

The Bulls played bad basketball for the whole series! So did the Celtics, the series is considered great when the fact is both teams played bad basketball...and the Celtics were playing around and not willing to take that series like they should have. If Garnett is in that series, the Celtics win in 4 without a doubt. Certain players played well during the series, like Noah and Hinrich, but overall, there was nothing to take away from that series except for Noah and Rose getting to experience the playoffs...

Bulls lose by 28
Ben Gordon scores 25 + 7Rbs

But oh forget about keeping Ben coz we have Salmons, we can stop Ray Allen from scoring as well as replace Ben's shooting, and we have Deng back who can stop Pierce and replace some more of Ben's scoring.

I guess its one game, but if it keeps occurring then the people who were against signing Ben have a lot to explain

Lets not act as if Gordon didn't get his ass kicked with the rest of the team when this happened in the past....he was helpless to do anything just like everybody else. Gordon's 7 rebounds are an anomaly. Lets not act like Gordon grabs 7 rebounds routinely. Wade does that not Gordon. Gordon grabbing does boards is more an indictment of frontcourt ineptitude on both teams...that is all it is.

 

[Shakes]

Actually Kirk has been the best guard in both the first two games. Despite the supposed "love" Kirk gets and "hate" BG got, if BG had been the best guard off the bench for two games to start the year the "start BG" chorus would have been in full force. Salmons being god awful, and Rose looking no better than last year are really a concern (although at least Rose has the injury excuse).

Salmons playing badly is a big problem though, because we need him to opt out for his cap space so we really don't want to sit him. But we also can't afford to have him suck and lose games. It's a difficult balancing act if we want to get a big FA.

As far as having vs not having BG goes, we'd still be 1 out of 2 with or without him. We won the first game on the offensive boards, and lost the second on defense. You aren't going to win many games while letting the other team shoot 58% and 50% from 3, no matter how good a scorer your SG is.

I'm going to make a bold prediction that Noah ends up being the best player on the team this year. I just don't see Rose stepping it up like we'd hoped. Although obviously I hope he makes me look stupid for predicting this.

 

[houheffna]

Rose showed some signs in the first game...I don't think he is going to have a reliable 3pt shot for a couple of years, but he might have a good jump shot this year.

Not going to worry about Salmons just yet...

Bulls lose by 28
Ben Gordon scores 25 + 7Rbs

But oh forget about keeping Ben coz we have Salmons, we can stop Ray Allen from scoring as well as replace Ben's shooting, and we have Deng back who can stop Pierce and replace some more of Ben's scoring.

I guess its one game, but if it keeps occurring then the people who were against signing Ben have a lot to explain

Who is saying that stuff?

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Rose showed some signs in the first game...I don't think he is going to have a reliable 3pt shot for a couple of years, but he might have a good jump shot this year.

Not going to worry about Salmons just yet...

Bulls lose by 28
Ben Gordon scores 25 + 7Rbs

But oh forget about keeping Ben coz we have Salmons, we can stop Ray Allen from scoring as well as replace Ben's shooting, and we have Deng back who can stop Pierce and replace some more of Ben's scoring.

I guess its one game, but if it keeps occurring then the people who were against signing Ben have a lot to explain

Who is saying that stuff?

Wasn't that pretty much the battle cry of the letting BG go arguement? Salmons will score as much as BG and play much better D and Deng will return to his 06/07 self.

 

[engies]

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Rose showed some signs in the first game...I don't think he is going to have a reliable 3pt shot for a couple of years, but he might have a good jump shot this year.

Not going to worry about Salmons just yet...

Bulls lose by 28
Ben Gordon scores 25 + 7Rbs

But oh forget about keeping Ben coz we have Salmons, we can stop Ray Allen from scoring as well as replace Ben's shooting, and we have Deng back who can stop Pierce and replace some more of Ben's scoring.

I guess its one game, but if it keeps occurring then the people who were against signing Ben have a lot to explain

Who is saying that stuff?

Wasn't that pretty much the battle cry of the letting BG go arguement? Salmons will score as much as BG and play much better D and Deng will return to his 06/07 self.

Pretty much from the drones that was the story. Wasnt pointing fingers at you Houston. More in general about the radio and media talk show hosts and the casual fans who throw in there worthless 2 cents

 

[Simeon2UC]

Rose got trapped on every play that wasn't a fast break. I Tivoed it.

 

[houheffna]

Wasn't that pretty much the battle cry of the letting BG go arguement? Salmons will score as much as BG and play much better D and Deng will return to his 06/07 self.

Ummmm no...I heard no one say Salmons would score as much as BG, he might, he might not. But Salmons is a better defender and you wouldn't lose as much offensively because Rose should improve, Hinrich will have a bigger role, Tyrus is expected to improve and Deng should be healthy and motivated. Scoring was not a problem, whether BG scored or not, defense was the problem. They wanted more size at the SG spot and more versatility from their wing players. And so that is what they did.

 

[JimmyBulls]

Salmons is just in a start of the season shooting funk. We've all seen Gordon start the season in a funk as well. But, I'm very happy with the looks he's getting, and eventually, those shots are going to start dropping.

I do think our perimeter defenders tend to gamble and double off three point shooters far too much for my liking though.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Wasn't that pretty much the battle cry of the letting BG go arguement? Salmons will score as much as BG and play much better D and Deng will return to his 06/07 self.

Ummmm no...I heard no one say Salmons would score as much as BG, he might, he might not. But Salmons is a better defender and you wouldn't lose as much offensively because Rose should improve, Hinrich will have a bigger role, Tyrus is expected to improve and Deng should be healthy and motivated. Scoring was not a problem, whether BG scored or not, defense was the problem. They wanted more size at the SG spot and more versatility from their wing players. And so that is what they did.

Sure it was, it might not have been your specific example but I recall hearing deng was gonna come back to 06-07 form and salmons was going to imporve on his 18ppg from last year with the more free flowing offense and be much better on D.

 

[houheffna]

People who say that were going overboard. I want Salmons to continue to be what he was last year, a solid wing player who plays good defense. Whatever defense he gives is an improvement over BG.

I also see Doc Rivers assessment of the team without Gordon...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=333167

maybe the sky ain't falling after all.

 

[??? ??????]

houheffna wrote:

Wasn't that pretty much the battle cry of the letting BG go arguement? Salmons will score as much as BG and play much better D and Deng will return to his 06/07 self.

Ummmm no...I heard no one say Salmons would score as much as BG, he might, he might not. But Salmons is a better defender and you wouldn't lose as much offensively because Rose should improve, Hinrich will have a bigger role, Tyrus is expected to improve and Deng should be healthy and motivated. Scoring was not a problem, whether BG scored or not, defense was the problem. They wanted more size at the SG spot and more versatility from their wing players. And so that is what they did.

Let's not pretend that Salmons is any type of defensive upgrade on Gordon.

The Pistons backcourt has been great in the two games so far. The stats of the opposing guards are:

OJ Mayo: 9 points on 2-12 shooting
Michael Conley: 3 points on 1-4 shooting
Marcus Williams: 4 points on 2-8 shooting

Russell Westbrook: 10 points on 2-11 shooting
Thabo Sefolosha: 8 points on 2-4 shooting
James Harden: 2 points on 1-6 shooting
Kevin Ollie: 2 points on 1-2 shooting

Guards are shooting 23.4% from the field through two games against the Pistons. The Pistons defense is just sick right now.

They're currently sitting as the fourth best defensive team in the league.

The problem with the Bulls defense was never Gordon. It was always the big men (and to the lesser extent, Derrick Rose's pathetic defensive displays).

 

[JimmyBulls]

Come on, those stats mean absolutely nothing. You can't judge whether good defense is being played until you see the quality of shots that's being missed. If guys are getting good looks and missing, the misses are NOT due to good defense.

NTM, there's not a great offensive player in the bunch.

 

[Shakes]

houheffna wrote:

People who say that were going overboard. I want Salmons to continue to be what he was last year, a solid wing player who plays good defense. Whatever defense he gives is an improvement over BG.

I also see Doc Rivers assessment of the team without Gordon...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=333167

maybe the sky ain't falling after all.

When have you ever heard an opposing coach say before the game "Yeah these guys suck, I expect we'll blow them out because they suck so much". Even if the other team is 0-81 the coach will still say they'll be a tough match up and his team will need to be on top of their game to win.

 

[houheffna]

When have you ever heard an opposing coach say before the game "Yeah these guys suck, I expect we'll blow them out because they suck so much". Even if the other team is 0-81 the coach will still say they'll be a tough match up and his team will need to be on top of their game to win.

That usually depends on the coach...for example, when the media asked Phil Jackson if the Bulls cold be successful in the playoffs last season, his reply was that if they got Luol back they could do some damage...that was his opinion. What would he gain by saying that they look better and then going into detail? Why not just give a cliched response? Why not say "they will miss Gordon's scoring but their young frontcourt seems to be improving" is that an insult? Especially after that game...Rivers could have offered no analysis whatsoever, we are not talking about Lou Holtz here.