Bulls vs Celtics game thread

[houheffna]

Well this is the team you wanted. You wanted a team without ben gordon and said the defense would improve.

If you think this is the team I wanted...you weren't paying attention...or maybe you are talking about somebody else...

It has been all about 2010 with me...and you don't pay Gordon the same amount or more than Monta Ellis...

I wouldn't call making the playoffs, or winning 47 games, or 49 games, sucking. Sucking is when you're well below .500 and not making playoffs, which is what seems to be the case this season

We were an average or good team before. We certainly werent great and our ceiling was always the 2nd round of the playoffs, but thats still good. In a league of 30 teams, not everyone can finish 1st. Hell I think making the 2nd round is somewhat successful.

Either way we were better than what we are now....but apparently 4 inches on defense was supposed to make us better, not someone who could nail long rang bombs at will.

My point is this team was at best mediocre...some good, but mediocre mostly. To build, rebuild and it culminate in a second round ass kicking at its peak....is sucky. I don't count playoff berths in the NBA. Its more important in football and baseball. I have not heard many people say they would be better.

Gordonheads use the practice of makin' up arguments. I only heard one or two media members say they would be better than last year and win 50 games, most said 40-44 wins. The reason that won't happen if it don't is because the team has given up on Del Negro...which is what the "good" team did to Skiles a couple of years back.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

If you think this is the team I wanted...you weren't paying attention...or maybe you are talking about somebody else...

It has been all about 2010 with me...and you don't pay Gordon the same amount or more than Monta Ellis...

BG agreed to take $2mill per year less to stay with us. We turned down 6/54 an Ellis got 6/66. And by we, I mean fathead JR who chose a guy who should be in the nbdl now over BG.

 

[houheffna]

Why go over that again? Everybody knows what happened...he was offered 2 contracts...

I have said that they should have paid him 9mil, 10mil at the most over the summer....others feel he is worth 11,12mil...that is where the disagreement was.

 

[Fred]

houheffna wrote:

Well this is the team you wanted. You wanted a team without ben gordon and said the defense would improve.

If you think this is the team I wanted...you weren't paying attention...or maybe you are talking about somebody else...

It has been all about 2010 with me...and you don't pay Gordon the same amount or more than Monta Ellis...

I wouldn't call making the playoffs, or winning 47 games, or 49 games, sucking. Sucking is when you're well below .500 and not making playoffs, which is what seems to be the case this season

We were an average or good team before. We certainly werent great and our ceiling was always the 2nd round of the playoffs, but thats still good. In a league of 30 teams, not everyone can finish 1st. Hell I think making the 2nd round is somewhat successful.

Either way we were better than what we are now....but apparently 4 inches on defense was supposed to make us better, not someone who could nail long rang bombs at will.

My point is this team was at best mediocre...some good, but mediocre mostly. To build, rebuild and it culminate in a second round ass kicking at its peak....is sucky. I don't count playoff berths in the NBA. Its more important in football and baseball. I have not heard many people say they would be better.

Gordonheads use the practice of makin' up arguments. I only heard one or two media members say they would be better than last year and win 50 games, most said 40-44 wins. The reason that won't happen if it don't is because the team has given up on Del Negro...which is what the "good" team did to Skiles a couple of years back.

Vinny Del Negro has nothing to do with Salmons and Hinrich shooting so poorly. If there were about 40% from the 3-point line, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But when you take away your best weapon, the defense can concentrate on the inferior offensive players, and their shot percentages are bound to go down. Even I didn't expect to drop to this level.

 

[Fred]

houheffna wrote:

Why go over that again? Everybody knows what happened...he was offered 2 contracts...

I have said that they should have paid him 9mil, 10mil at the most over the summer....others feel he is worth 11,12mil...that is where the disagreement was.

Technically, if KC Johnson is to be believe, he was offered one. They pulled the 2nd one on the table, and they would have done it no matter when he wanted to accept it. It will go down as one of the worst moves in Bulls history.

 

[TheStig]

Fred wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Why go over that again? Everybody knows what happened...he was offered 2 contracts...

I have said that they should have paid him 9mil, 10mil at the most over the summer....others feel he is worth 11,12mil...that is where the disagreement was.

Technically, if KC Johnson is to be believe, he was offered one. They pulled the 2nd one on the table, and they would have done it no matter when he wanted to accept it. It will go down as one of the worst moves in Bulls history.

Beat me to it. I hope JR got what he wanted because watching kirk now is just too painful.

 

[houheffna]

That is pure speculation at this point...there was a deadline...he didn't meet that deadline. That's life. I don't think Reinsdorf liked him anyway. Maybe one day Reinsdorf tells his side of that story.

As far as that being one of the worst moves in franchise history...that means the team has a damn good history. Because that is not that dramatic a loss....

 

[TheStig]

Your right, no impact. We just dropped 12ppg from last year and went from 8th in ppg to 28th. No big difference, I can see it. One of the best to one of the worst but hey its only offense. Our stifling defense led by the great Kirk Hinrich can make up for it. I'm fairly certain that the second biggest drop in franchise history behind when we blew up the dynasty and played scrubs in 99. But hey, its not noticeable right?

 

[houheffna]

Not really....that wasn't a good team last year...sorry to break it to you...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Not really....that wasn't a good team last year...sorry to break it to you...

Uh huh, we looked like crap at the end of the year. We just took the 2 seed to 7 games in one of the best first round series ever and finished the year at a 50 win pace. But obviously that team was crap. Clearly we will be able to land a marquee fa with this collection of crap.

 

[Shakes]

If Salmons, Miller & Kirk were playing like they are now, and Tyrus was out, we wouldn't have played at a 50 win pace to end the year, we would have missed the playoffs. And taking Boston to 7 games needs a huge asterisk next to it when you consider they were missing a player who was better than anyone on our team.

Lets not over or under hype last year's team. It may have been the third best Bulls team since Jordan, but that's not saying a whole lot.

 

[houheffna]

Uh huh, we looked like crap at the end of the year. We just took the 2 seed to 7 games in one of the best first round series ever and finished the year at a 50 win pace. But obviously that team was crap. Clearly we will be able to land a marquee fa with this collection of crap.

This is where you and other Bulls fans are so very wrong at. I have been watching Bulls basketball for quite some time. So much so that I know bad basketball when I see it. What would have happened if both teams were at full strength? With the beloved Ben Gordon? A sweep possibly, Bulls might win one game. That series proved nothing. It was entertaining. That's it...

I took from the game that Noah was ready to step up...that was the number one revelation of that series. If the Celtics play up to par...that series would not have been a contest. If the Bulls had Gordon last night....they lose...fairly easily. Because right now Gordon's absence is not the problem...the problem is that the team has quit on the coach...

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

If Salmons, Miller & Kirk were playing like they are now, and Tyrus was out, we wouldn't have played at a 50 win pace to end the year, we would have missed the playoffs. And taking Boston to 7 games needs a huge asterisk next to it when you consider they were missing a player who was better than anyone on our team.

Lets not over or under hype last year's team. It may have been the third best Bulls team since Jordan, but that's not saying a whole lot.

Salmons and Kirks scoring wouldn't be near as important if you had BG here. Both would be bench players the way BG and Deng have been playing. We would still be a little thin in the frontcourt but we would be .500 with BG around. Rose would also be much better with having spacing with an actual outside shooter. You can clear see the lane is clogged for him. I can say that this team with BG would win 45 with the injuries. If we traded Kirk and Tyrus for boozer, we would be over 50 wins.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Uh huh, we looked like crap at the end of the year. We just took the 2 seed to 7 games in one of the best first round series ever and finished the year at a 50 win pace. But obviously that team was crap. Clearly we will be able to land a marquee fa with this collection of crap.

This is where you and other Bulls fans are so very wrong at. I have been watching Bulls basketball for quite some time. So much so that I know bad basketball when I see it. What would have happened if both teams were at full strength? With the beloved Ben Gordon? A sweep possibly, Bulls might win one game. That series proved nothing. It was entertaining. That's it...

I took from the game that Noah was ready to step up...that was the number one revelation of that series. If the Celtics play up to par...that series would not have been a contest. If the Bulls had Gordon last night....they lose...fairly easily. Because right now Gordon's absence is not the problem...the problem is that the team has quit on the coach...

The reason that it was such a close series was because both teams with the same rosters they had in the playoffs finished at a 50 win pace. Both were good teams. I don't know what basis you have for calling them bad. The Celtics took the magic to 7 games, thats not a bad team.

 

[Shakes]

To be .500 the Bulls needs to change 3 losses into wins. Which three is Ben Gordon going to change? I only really see the loss to the Nuggets by 1 as something you could pencil in. The Nets loss Ben would have been injured for, ditto for the loss to the Bucks (and Salmons played really well that game anyway). All our other losses have been by enough that I'm not confident Ben would change the outcome.

And if we're pining for Detroit players, give me Charlie V (surely with Skiles as a coach there had to have been a player from our roster the Bucks could have used?). Between him and Ben Wallace Detroit got a couple of steals the last off season.

 

[houheffna]

This 50 win pace b.s. is overrated. The Celtics were more talented than that Bulls team, more experienced than that Bulls team and I never said the Celtics were bad. But the Bulls were NOT a good team. They were mediocre at best. They couldn't beat any of the top 5 teams in the east in a playoff series with both teams healthy. They were a mediocre team....middle of the pack.

My basis for calling that style of basketball bad is from me watching good basketball for over 20 years. I know what it looks like, competitive, compelling does not equal exceptional. That was bad basketball. Point blank...

The reason it was a close series is because the Celtics played bad basketball...that is the only reason. Otherwise it would have been no contest...

 

[clonetrooper264]

I'd say it was a close series because 1) KG was out. If he had been healthy, C's sweep. 2) BG pretty much won a couple of those games for us by himself. 3) We were a pretty decent team at the time. Boston was still better, but we weren't horrible. 4) Celtics didn't play as well as they could have.

 

[Frank Breakfast Styleham]

Man this John Salmons over Ben Gordon experiment sure is working.

Oh well...at least we'll have a top 3 pick in June's draft...

 

[houheffna]

I'd say it was a close series because 1) KG was out. If he had been healthy, C's sweep. 2) BG pretty much won a couple of those games for us by himself. 3) We were a pretty decent team at the time. Boston was still better, but we weren't horrible. 4) Celtics didn't play as well as they could have.

Which couple of games did BG win? I don't recall that at all...I agree with everything else.

 

[Shakes]

houheffna wrote:

Which couple of games did BG win?

This. Ben's only really good game for the series was in the game 2 loss. He played OK in a couple of others, but wasn't the best player in any of the three wins.

Edit: And in saying that he wasn't the worst player either and I'm not blaming him for the losses, if anyone can remember I was heavily defending him after game 7 when people were saying he was a chucker who cost us the game.