2011 Chicago Bulls Playoff Thread (5/26 7:30pm CST - TNT)

[chuckywang]

Figured I'd start this since my Blackhawks playoffs thread last year worked out quite well. :D

 

Game 1: Bulls win 104-99 recap

Game 2: Bulls win 96-90 recap

Game 3: Bulls win 88-84 recap

Game 4: Pacers win 89-84 recap

Game 5: Bulls win 116-89 recap

 

Bulls win series 4-1

 

Game 1: Hawks win 103-95 recap

Game 2: Bulls win 86-73 recap

Game 3: Bulls win 99-82 recap

Game 4: Hawks win 100-88 recap

Game 5: Bulls win 95-83 recap

Game 6: Bulls win 93-73 recap

 

Bulls win series 4-2

 

Game 1: Bulls win 103-82 recap

Game 2: Heat win 85-75 recap

Game 3: Heat win 96-85 recap

Game 4: Heat win 101-93 OT recap

Edited May 26, 2011 by chuckywang

[ctcf]

CANNOT. FREAKING. WAIT.

[Exile on Waveland]

(go pacers....)

[UMFan83]

I cannot see a way the Bulls win this series in more than 5, maybe 6 if the Pacers prove extra fiesty. I'm the eternal pessimist and I cannot see any way the Pacers win this series, once less cause doubt at any point.

[tfarks]

Yeah the Pacers suck. Since I haven't got to see them in the playoffs for 5 years I hope they can keep it interesting. If they win Game 3 while I'm there that would be cool.

[Old Style]

The march to #7 begins in about 51 1/2 hours.

[SouthSideRyan]

I cannot see a way the Bulls win this series in more than 5, maybe 6 if the Pacers prove extra fiesty. I'm the eternal pessimist and I cannot see any way the Pacers win this series, once less cause doubt at any point.

 

I'm really struggling to see a way the Pacers win 1.

[Banedon]

I cannot see a way the Bulls win this series in more than 5, maybe 6 if the Pacers prove extra fiesty. I'm the eternal pessimist and I cannot see any way the Pacers win this series, once less cause doubt at any point.

 

I'm really struggling to see a way the Pacers win 1.

 

Only way I can see it is if the Bulls just get overconfident after being up 3-0 or something and start throwing the ball away a ton, but that's just really looking for something.

[tfarks]

Pacers could get really hot shooting the 3 ball one game. A simple way for an underdog to win.

[UMFan83]

Yeah the Pacers suck. Since I haven't got to see them in the playoffs for 5 years I hope they can keep it interesting. If they win Game 3 while I'm there that would be cool.

 

Question about the Pacers...they still have all that cap space this summer right? Obviously everything is up in the air with the lockout and stuff, but who do you guys plan on targeting? Hoping to get 1 big piece, or fill some needed role players?

[CubColtPacer]

Yeah the Pacers suck. Since I haven't got to see them in the playoffs for 5 years I hope they can keep it interesting. If they win Game 3 while I'm there that would be cool.

 

Question about the Pacers...they still have all that cap space this summer right? Obviously everything is up in the air with the lockout and stuff, but who do you guys plan on targeting? Hoping to get 1 big piece, or fill some needed role players?

 

They have over 23 million in cap space for next year compared to this year's cap. I haven't heard many ideas of who the Pacers are targeting. They really need 1 big piece at either power forward, point guard, or maybe shooting guard. But I'm not sure they'll be able to get that one big piece so they might have to settle for more depth. They definitely need some more big man depth as Hibbert and Hansbrough are their only big men for next year. At the end of the day though, the only thing the Pacers are missing is a star. They have lots of good rotation players. If the Pacers had been the one to get lucky in the 08 draft instead of the Bulls the Pacers could easily have been the ones to win 60 games this year. But I don't know where the Pacers are ever going to get that star.

 

I can easily see the Pacers winning one game. They play really well at stretches which is why they have wins over the Bulls, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans. But they could easily get swept and they probably won't win more than 1.

[bcl412]

I think the Pacers get one but that might be because the last game is in my mind. I don't see how they come close to losing the series unless the Bulls forget to try which won't happen.

[tfarks]

Yeah the Pacers suck. Since I haven't got to see them in the playoffs for 5 years I hope they can keep it interesting. If they win Game 3 while I'm there that would be cool.

 

Question about the Pacers...they still have all that cap space this summer right? Obviously everything is up in the air with the lockout and stuff, but who do you guys plan on targeting? Hoping to get 1 big piece, or fill some needed role players?

 

They have over 23 million in cap space for next year compared to this year's cap. I haven't heard many ideas of who the Pacers are targeting. They really need 1 big piece at either power forward, point guard, or maybe shooting guard. But I'm not sure they'll be able to get that one big piece so they might have to settle for more depth. They definitely need some more big man depth as Hibbert and Hansbrough are their only big men for next year. At the end of the day though, the only thing the Pacers are missing is a star. They have lots of good rotation players. If the Pacers had been the one to get lucky in the 08 draft instead of the Bulls the Pacers could easily have been the ones to win 60 games this year. But I don't know where the Pacers are ever going to get that star.

 

I can easily see the Pacers winning one game. They play really well at stretches which is why they have wins over the Bulls, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans. But they could easily get swept and they probably won't win more than 1.

 

I think they will try and resign McRoberts since PS&E have praised the PF duo with him and Hansbrough. Although if another team offers too much and he leaves, and depending on whether Foster comes back, I bet they bring over Stanko Barac from Europe and target a big in the draft.

Its hard to say what will happen in FA, but as far as the Pacers goes I'm assuming not much. The FA class is weak and the Pacers will not repeat Detroit's mistake of overpaying FA talent. They want to know what they will have in Paul George who has the potential to become the Pacers best player, limiting his minutes in his 2nd year in favor of an aging FA SG like Jason Richardson would be counter-productive to their long term success.

Since the Pacers haven't gotten extremely lucky in where they draft, they're best chance to acquire someone like that is to hold on to their money and use it to their advantage in the trade market. Combining their cap flexibility with numerous young/solid/cheap players, that would be their best play.

The team is most definitely on the upswing but they're still in the crucial state of an unknown future. Their rebuilding effort doesn't have a Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant. They need a player like Paul George to pan out, Roy Hibbert and Darren Collison stepping up and becoming more consistent, and a favorable trade that gets them their star. Next year will tell a lot about what the Pacers will become. It does appear that Larry Bird is up to the task.

[bukie]

Bulls-Pacers series preview by The Basketball Jones: http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2011/04/14/tbj-playoff-preview-bulls-vs-pacers/

[UMFan83]

Randomly, I was looking at some old playoff results, and wow I forgot how bad the NBA was in 2004 with regards to offense. Look at some of the point totals for teams in the playoffs:

 

56

63

64

65 (two times)

67

68 (two times)

69 (two times - one was winning team)

70 (two times)

71 (three times)

72 (two times - both were winning teams)

73 (two times - one was winning team)

74 (four times - one was winning team)

75 (three times)

76

77 (three times - one was winning team)

78 (six times - 3 were winning teams)

79 (four times)

 

So all in all, 40 teams scored less than 80 points in those playoffs in 82 total games. 9 times a team scored less than 80 and WON.

 

The worst though was the Pacers/Pistons Eastern Conference Finals. In that series, neither team scored more than 85 points in the entire series, including a thrilling 69-65 Detroit victory in game 6, a game that was surely suspended midway through the 3rd quarter due to boredom. Teams only reached the 80 point plateau 3 total times, and the Pacers couldnt get to 70 points in half of the games. Look at these ugly ass scores:

 

Game 1 @ Conseco Fieldhouse, Indiana: Indiana 78, Detroit 74

Game 2 @ Conseco Fieldhouse, Indiana: Detroit 72, Indiana 67

Game 3 @ The Palace of Auburn Hills, Detroit: Detroit 85, Indiana 78

Game 4 @ The Palace of Auburn Hills, Detroit: Indiana 83, Detroit 68

Game 5 @ Conseco Fieldhouse, Indiana: Detroit 83, Indiana 65

Game 6 @ The Palace of Auburn Hills, Detroit: Detroit 69, Indiana 65

 

Man I hope the NBA doesn't go back to this style of play.

[cl smooth]

i need to find a bulls bar in manhattan/brooklyn. i can obviously watch them in my apartment, but it's more enjoyable in a bar cheering with fellow chicagoans/bulls fans.

[UMFan83]

This was Thib's reaction when he heard about Granger's comments regarding the Bulls:

 

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/2235/img2011041300002.jpg

[Guest]

What did Granger say?

[Banedon]

What did Granger say?

 

"Boston's a different monster," Granger told the Indianapolis Star. "They don't have the best record in the East, but they won championships. They know how to do it. They have four, five guys you have to worry about, from (Paul) Pierce, (Rajon) Rondo, (Kevin) Garnett and (Ray) Allen.

 

 

"Chicago, they go as Derrick Rose goes. If you make a concerted effort to stop Derrick Rose, you have a better chance to beat them."

[rawaction]

Trying to stop Derrick Rose is a good strategy that has never been employed before.

[CubColtPacer]

Trying to stop Derrick Rose is a good strategy that has never been employed before.

 

He didn't say they'd be particularly effective at it :D

 

For once, I actually agree with Bob Kravitz's take on it though:

 

The Bulls, who won 41 games last season and were the No. 8 seed in the East, aren't just good because of Rose; you don't win 60 games with one star and a bunch of Muppets. They're good because they defend. And because they have players like Noah and Carlos Boozer. And because they're deep and exceedingly well-coached by first-year man Tom Thibodeau.

 

And yet . . . Granger is right.

 

The Pacers are better off with Chicago than Boston.

 

Not that I think it's going to make much difference.

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110413/SPORTS15/104130317/?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|p

 

And while I think Chicago is a slightly easier matchup (Miami would have been even a better matchup) than Boston that doesn't mean that I think Boston is the better team.

[Exile on Waveland]

I cannot see a way the Bulls win this series in more than 5, maybe 6 if the Pacers prove extra fiesty. I'm the eternal pessimist and I cannot see any way the Pacers win this series, once less cause doubt at any point.

 

Outside of the "anything is possible" platitudes, the Pacers really can't win this series. I'd be satisfied with a single win. The Pacers can certainly win that one game, though (game four seems the most likely). They've played well against some of the best teams in the league and their record is a bit deceiving -- they've been above .500 since Vogel took over. I'll say Bulls in five, otherwise in four.

 

As to your other post, it's been discussed, but the Pacers are very well positioned for the future. They have a veteran borderline all-star in Granger, then good young pieces in Hibbert, George, Hansbrough, Collison, etc. They also have a ton of cap space ($23 million). However, without obtaining a star-level player, even with the right moves, they're probably heading for Hawks-type territory (playoff team with the potential to win a series, but no threat at all to advance after that). I'm also unsure how the Pacers can get a star-level player. They're not going to sign a free agent star, unfortunately, and they're not likely to be in position to draft one in the coming future. The best bet would be trading for one in a salary dump type deal. They really need a power forward -- Hansbrough and McRoberts, if they re-sign him, are good rotation frontcourt players but I am very skeptical that either are true starters -- and a shooting guard (George is likely going to be a good, but he's really a small forward). Point guard possibly is an area of concern, though Collison has potential (a veteran back-up point would be nice in the meantime). The Pacers are a team that could, and should, be a good, perennial playoff team in the coming years . . . but much more than that is a lot to ask.

[Exile on Waveland]

Granger's comments strike me as basically completely innocuous.

[Banedon]

Granger's comments strike me as basically completely innocuous.

 

It doesn't matter how they strike you. It matters how they strike the Bulls, and whether they think it's a motivational tool.

[bukie]

Granger's comments strike me as basically completely innocuous.

 

It doesn't matter how they strike you. It matters how they strike the Bulls, and whether they think it's a motivational tool.

If the Bulls need a motivational tool to win the series, I'd be seriously concerned about them going forward.

 

If this series goes beyond 4, somebody got badly injured, or the Bulls lost focus defensively.