1. Game 1 for the Bulls: Bad game or bad sign?
Royce Webb, ESPN.com: Bad game wrapped in a bad sign, coated with another bad sign, like a chili corn dog. The Bulls are better than they looked, as they'll demonstrate soon, but two concerns linger: (1) The 37-45 Pacers did expose some Chicago vulnerabilities, and (2) the Bulls just found out that pretty much every team plays hard in the postseason.
Jared Wade, Hardwood Paroxysm: A bad game. This team was too dominant throughout the second half of the season for anyone to get overly concerned by one lackluster performance in a game that it still won. Indiana's abuse of Carlos Boozer in the pick-and-roll should cause concern, but if the Bulls win the title it will be because of defense and Derrick Rose's brilliance. And both of those were in heavy supply when it came time to win Game 1.
J.M. Poulard, WarriorsWorld: The Pacers shot better from the floor than the Bulls, hit 55.6 percent of their 3-point attempts, collected 13 offensive rebounds, forced 14 turnovers ... and still lost. I don't think Indiana plays this well again. I say bad game for the Bulls.
Matt McHale, By The Horns: It wasn't Chicago's best game, but look at it this way: Darren Collison, Danny Granger and Tyler Hansbrough combined to shoot 12-for-22 from 16-23 feet for Indiana (Hansbrough went 7-for-10). Plus, Collison and Granger were 6-for-10 from downtown. Furthermore, Brandon Rush and A.J. Price combined to go 4-for-5 on 3s. Trust me: That kind of unusually hot outside shooting won't continue.
Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: It's not a good sign that, for the second time in their past two meetings, the Bulls allowed a mediocre Pacers offense to score 116 points per 100 possessions. Two data points don't make a trend, so Monday night might tell Chicago (and the league) whether Indiana is doing something that threatens the Bulls.