Rosen on the Bulls Win Last Night

by eddiew23 on Nov 7, 2006 8:07 AM CST Comment 27 comments

Well, considering what Charley has to say about the Bulls, and any team in general, this was a pretty positive article. It was overall a solid game I hope the Bulls can perform on a consistent basis. Eventually, I'm hoping Sefolosha can take over on defense against the large guards like Redd so that Kirk can have the ability to make more of a scoring impact. Here's the link, and a little of what Rosen had to say. I disagree strongly about the Bulls not making it into the 2nd round, as I think most of us would agree.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6146124

The Bulls' defense depends on ball-pressure, great rotations, and Wallace's ability to protect the ring. As a rule, they avoid double-teaming, try to force drivers baseline and generally collapse whenever the ball penetrates into the paint.

How to beat this nasty D?

Make Wallace have to play against a powerful big who can fill the basket. Fortunately for the Bulls, there aren't many of these specimens around.

Either post the smallish Hinrich and Gordon, or else iso them, back them into money-territory and merely shoot over them.

Hit a high percentage of perimeter shots.

How good are the Bulls?

Good enough to beat a flat Miami team in the season's opener. Good enough to rout a Milwaukee team that couldn't wait to go belly-up. But their offense has too big of a hole in the middle. So unless they can gain a top-four seed in the playoffs, Chicago is probably not good enough to survive into the second round.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rosen

Being a Rosen article (and knowing his underappreciation of Skiles' talents), this is a glowing review of the Bulls. Unfortunately, I think very little of Rosen's opinion.

by CookDing on Nov 7, 2006 8:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Perfectly said...so ditto for me.

by wjb1492 on Nov 7, 2006 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still not convinced

we'll be as good as we thought.

"all the girls loved BJ." -sue369

by Colossus on Nov 7, 2006 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Seriously,

and I'm not trying to get snippy, but the 'we' that is in every comment you type is way too much. We think you are a madman who identifies himself as a member of the Bulls roster.

by Paxson Jackson on Nov 7, 2006 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Get up

on the wrong side of the bed today? Jeesh, lighten up man.

Go Hawkeyes.....Beat Wisconsin!!!

by sue369 on Nov 7, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

seriously pax...

...i don't think i ever recall a post from you where you're not needling someone for something or another. although i admit it can be amusing at times, it can also be tiring... oh, by the way, "i'm not trying to get snippy".

by leeac on Nov 7, 2006 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand,

but two we's referring to two different entities in one thought was (obviously) too much for we... er... me. No offense taken at the snippiness.

by Paxson Jackson on Nov 7, 2006 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny how

I've heard countless times people claim "we're winning," "we won," "we lost," or etc....

It's simply a part of sports culture.

"all the girls loved BJ." -sue369

by Colossus on Nov 7, 2006 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hate to break it to you,

but that doesn't make it right. It could be deemed as one of the most annoying parts of "sports culture" (whatever that is), and I've chosen to ignore it up to now. Your "we thought we" comment was just a ridiculous choice of words (okay, now I am being snippy), and even if you get a pass for being a fan who can't distinguish himself from the team because of "sports culture," you certainly don't speak for every reader and commentor at blogabull.

Type away and keep using we, I'm certainly not going to stop you or comment further on it, but if you ever feel like properly communicating, dump the 'we'=Bulls statements.

by Paxson Jackson on Nov 7, 2006 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I try to

Never use 'we' (it slips occasionally, but usually only when speaking and not writing), and I agree with PaxJax: just because it's part of the 'culture' doesn't make it OK to use. There are a lot of things in sports culture that are simply retarted.

(Well, it's 'OK' in the sense that nobody can exactly forbid it, but you open yourself up to justifiable 'snippy'-ness)

PaxJax, you know you want to make a 'comment manifesto'! Don't deny it ;-)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 7, 2006 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Third Person

Mike Aparicio thinks Matt should write all future posts in the third person.

by Mike Aparicio on Nov 7, 2006 9:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the royal we

Matt could start referring to himself as 'we' like all the cool new blogs do.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 7, 2006 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just had a Big Lebowski flashback

by Mike Aparicio on Nov 9, 2006 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

I'll continue to do it just bc you and Matt hate it.

"all the girls loved BJ." -sue369

by Colossus on Nov 7, 2006 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We

think we are being a wee bit annoying, don't we.

Go Bulls!

by preverbal on Nov 7, 2006 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oui

I apologize in advance that the grammar dork in me couldn't help weighing in on this post. I have little problem with the level of presumption in the use of the pronoun we to signify the Bulls. As fans it can be a gratifying and unifying feeling to refer to one's team and oneself as 'we' and it doesn't seem to be hurting anybody. There are actually two other distinct problems with Colossus' statement "I'm still not convinced we'll be as good as we thought." Problem 1: While the first 'we' pretty clearly refers to the Bulls, the meaning of the second 'we' is completely ambiguous. What does "we'll be as good as we thought" mean? The Bulls will be as good as the Bulls thought? The Bulls will be as good as the the Blog-a-Bull bloggers thought? It's completely nondescript. Is it an inclusive or exclusive we? And if it's inclusive, why is somebody speaking for me in an unauthorized situation? The second problem is that the two instances of the word 'we' seemingly refer to different entities. My best guess is that the meaning of this statement is "I'm still not convinced the Bulls will be as good as the Blog-a-Bull community thought." If this is indeed the case, the use of the pronoun 'we' in this situation has become completely worthless. Pronouns only have intrinsic value when it is clear what they refer to. An example of this is a statement like, "He went to the store and he bought some food." If `he' refers to the same person both times, then the pronoun is useful because you don't have to keep re-writing the proper name. However, if the two `he's refer to different people, the statement becomes confusing and the pronoun becomes worthless. And yes, I AM completely procrastinating.

by Petor on Nov 7, 2006 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm impressed

anyone would waste that much energy on such a thing.

"all the girls loved BJ." -sue369

by Colossus on Nov 7, 2006 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ooooh

point colossus!

::sound of sarcasm detector exploding::

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Nov 7, 2006 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Would anyone care to...

Actually comment on the article itself?

by eddiew23 on Nov 7, 2006 6:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

boo-urns

"all the girls loved BJ." -sue369

by Colossus on Nov 7, 2006 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The first two posts

agree that Rosen isn't worth talking about. I took it as a sign of our (ha!) intelligence that we (there it is again) were no longer talking about the original article.

by tofferr on Nov 8, 2006 1:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Is there anyone Rosen really likes?

Just was wondering about that. One of the things (actually, maybe the only thing) I do like about his articles is that he's one of the few writers to criticize LeBron and some of the other "untouchables" in the league, and I get really sick of hearing nothing but how great they are. Anyone ever recall reading a truly positive review of a player/team? Seems like even his compliments are pretty back-handed.

by wjb1492 on Nov 7, 2006 6:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

it's true, he piles on almost everyone

But he does like certain players. They usually fall into the "underappreciated" catergory, guys like Udonis Haslem. He likes guys who play smart and make the most out of their limited talent. On the other hand, he's extremely hard on those with talent, endlessly searching for chinks in their armor. LaBron is a good example. Charley harps incessently about his defensive laps and sometimes poor decision making. He does, however, seem to really like D-Wade, overlooking all the turnovers and instead focusing on his efficiency. D-Wade will score 30 points while only taking 17 shots. And in that respect I think he's got a point. Sure, faily talented ballhogs like Baron Davis and (the previous versions of) Antoine Walker can stuff the stat sheet, but at what cost.

by jamestkirk on Nov 8, 2006 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Frankly

It's hard for Rosen to muster many compliments with Phil Jackson's donger in his mouth.

by CookDing on Nov 9, 2006 7:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's funny...

...because it's true.

by jamestkirk on Nov 9, 2006 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rosen watches basketball?

I thought he just ranked old-timey players based on their accomplishments in the 80s and 90s and occasionally glanced at a box score every now and then.

by Mike Aparicio on Nov 7, 2006 9:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I finally read the article

What's to complain about? We all know the guy's exceptionally harsh with his criticism, but even so he basically gave the Bulls an "A" -- except for the part about the playoffs. But hey, that's just another Rosenism: predicting a team's demise well before anyone's even considered it. It's obvious he relishes this role, but oftentimes he's right. Last year he quickly identified the Warriors' season as a mirage.

Sure, he loves twisting the knife, but if you cut through the vitriolic rhetoric he actually paints a more accurate picture than most so-called experts.

by jamestkirk on Nov 9, 2006 9:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs