As I predicted, the Bulls would win 45-50 games without Rose...

[NumberSix]

The Bulls with Rose would be the 2nd best team in the East...and really only the Thunder and Heat could claim to be better on paper. Well, the Lakers could, but obviously that hasn't worked yet.

Nah, Heat, Knicks and Pacers would still be better. Their roster has gotten a lot weaker and Derrick Rose is seriously not that impactful of a player. Is he better than Nate Robinson? Yes. Obviously. But he's still an inefficient shoot first PG.

He's a little bit underrated as a defender, but the Bulls defensively really don't lose much from him being out.

[DMAVS41]

Nah, not better than the Knicks. Right there with Indiana probably.

And only because of Rose ... not the other talent on the roster.

This isn't the Mavs we're talking about here in terms of all around talent. Which Dirk managed to miss the entire playoffs with.

This is why Rose fans are the worst. Boozer, Deng, and Noah are all very very very good players.

Jimmy Butler is an emerging player that is very good. Hinrich is a solid backup pg. Robinson is a spark plug off the bench. Hamilton, Gibson, Belly...I mean come on. And they all fit perfectly around Rose...none of them need the ball in their hands...so Rose can take his 25 shots a game in the playoffs...LOL

Behind the knicks? Only if Rose isn't as good as Melo. Even with the Pacers? Holy shit.

I've never seen such BS come out of a fan base.

[Graviton]

Did you miss the part of my post where I explained that the roster was completely changed?

First 3-peat was from '91-'93 and second 3-peat was '96-'98.

I'm talking about the '94 Bulls, the season Jordan went to play baseball. Before Jordan's first retirement, he had three Finals MVP and three MVPs under his belt.

And besides Jordan, wasn't a big roster change between the '93 Bulls and '94 Bulls.

Armstrong, Cartwright, English, Grant, King, Paxton, Purdue, Pippen, Williams were all on the '93 and '94 Bulls roster. '94 Bulls added a rookie Kukoc.

Basically, that '94 Bulls were still good enough to make it to the playoffs but without Jordan they weren't a championship team, not even a ECF championship team.

Current Bulls without Rose is a playoff, most posters here already knew that. But without Rose, they're a 1st Round exit team. They were in the 2012 playoffs, and most likely again this upcoming playoffs.

Owned, now stfu and sit down NumberSix wannabe troll.

[DMAVS41]

Nah, Heat, Knicks and Pacers would still be better. Their roster has gotten a lot weaker and Derrick Rose is seriously not that impactful of a player. Is he better than Nate Robinson? Yes. Obviously. But he's still an inefficient shoot first PG.

He's a little bit underrated as a defender, but the Bulls defensively really don't lose much from him being out.

If you take the approach that Rose isn't a true star...that is a different argument.

But the supporting cast in Chicago is great. If you put a guy like Durant or Kobe or Lebron or Wade or Dirk on a team that good...nobody would claiming they have a weak roster. Nobody.

So maybe that is the issue...Rose isn't that good and his fans know it. Not sure...

[NumberSix]

If you take the approach that Rose isn't a true star...that is a different argument.

Well, being a star isn't only about how you play. I mean, Tim Tebow is a star and there isn't a team in the league willing to give him playing time.

But the supporting cast in Chicago is great. If you put a guy like Durant or Kobe or Lebron or Wade or Dirk on a team that good...nobody would claiming they have a weak roster. Nobody.

So maybe that is the issue...Rose isn't that good and his fans know it. Not sure...

Now, the Bulls don't have a weak roster. Weaker than it was. Not weak, weaker.

Yes, If you put a Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Durant, etc.. on that team, they would be contenders. Rose just isn't one of those guys though. I'm not saying he's a fabricated star player or something, but his impact as a player has been clearly overstated. I even think you could put Westbrook on the Bulls and they're probably a 2 seed in the east.

[DMAVS41]

And don't tell us that the Bulls are only good because they play hard. Yes, that is one of the reasons, but you don't beat the Heat like they did on effort.

They have real talent and a deep team that fits around Rose very well. They are missing a true 2nd star..and that is a real weakness, but they've got a lot of versatile players that are very very good.

[DirkNowitzki41]

Rose has such a great supporting cast. Sadly Dirk never had anything this good.

[NumberSix]

Owned, now stfu and sit down NumberSix wannabe troll.

Still waiting to hear how it's my logic that Jordan wasn't the MVP.......

[tazb]

So I see Thibodeau is still underrated as **** and Rose is overrated as **** huh. Tom could coach the ****ing Bobcats to the playoffs. He's the real MVP of the '11 season.

[DMAVS41]

Well, being a star isn't only about how you play. I mean, Tim Tebow is a star and there isn't a team in the league willing to give him playing time.


Now, the Bulls don't have a weak roster. Weaker than it was. Not weak, weaker.

Yes, If you put a Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Durant, etc.. on that team, they would be contenders. Rose just isn't one of those guys though. I'm not saying he's a fabricated star player or something, but his impact as a player has been clearly overstated. I even think you could put Westbrook on the Bulls and they're probably a 2 seed in the east.

So you agree with me.

Yes. Westbrook on that team and they are close to 60 wins. Defensively they would be unreal with him...as he's a much better defender than Rose.

That team is actually probably better for Westbrook considering his better defense.

I don't know who I would start, but a closing lineup of Westbrook, Butler, Deng, Boozer, and Noah would be absolutely deadly on defense.

And with the defensive presence of Westbrook, Deng, and Noah...you could play Hinrich and Hamilton to space the floor for Westbrook.

That is why I want Rose to come back...this team has real potential.

And Butler is going without notice. He's becoming awesome. Put up 22 and 14 tonight.

[NumberSix]

So I see Thibodeau is still underrated as **** and Rose is overrated as **** huh. Tom could coach the ****ing Bobcats to the playoffs. He's the real MVP of the '11 season.

This. Rose is by far the most overrated player in recent memory. The idea of people referring to him as a superstar player is hilarious.

Seriously, think about this. What makes Derrick Rose better than Brandon Jennings?

[Legends66NBA7]

Come playoff time, we'll see how much meaning this really has.

[SCdac]

I find it strange that some of you are using this season as proof that Rose should not have won MVP in 2011. Bulls finished with the best record in the entire league two years in a row with Derrick, and are now likely to finish 5th place in the extremely weak east without him (12th overall in the league). If anything this season should strengthen his case for winning it, not diminish it. If you don't think that Rose should have won, that's fine. Just don't use the current record of the Bulls to support your argument.

This.

We're talking about a Bulls team currently ranked 30th in PPG (92.8)

[Kblaze8855]

That people are pointout out a drop from back to back best record in the league to being a notch above average as a negative says a lot. And acting like its an "I called it..." that the Bulls ended up being a middling team is a joke. There were maaaaaaaaaany people saying the same...including me in a topic on how big a difference Nate will make on wins without Rose...

Depends. Its a huge difference far as the level of player. But due to the makeup of the team its not as big when it comes to likely wins and losses.

Kinda like how Magic is 5 levels above say...Mark Jackson. But if you give prime Mark Jackson Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper, and so on its still a good team. Not 65 wins and a ring. But really good.

You could replace Rose with a long list of worse players and not go from a 60 win pace to a 38-40 win pace.

Replace him with Terry Porter the Bulls could still win 55 or more.

Doesnt have anything to do with how good he is. You replace Jordan with Jeff Hornacek in 94 the Bulls may have won 60 games even with the hit on defense. Doesnt say a thing about MJ.

MVP level players have been on teams that did fine without them...forever.

Rick BArry...left his NBA team for the ABA in his prime and later left the warriors....they fell off 2 games the first time and 5 the next.

The Kings were on like a 55 win pace without Webber that had Peja end up 3rd or 4th in MVP voting.

The Magic one year had such a great record without Shaq polls in Orlando had fans picking Brian Hill to stay over shaq if the team had to pick between Shaq and the coach. When Shaq was gone for good they fell off 15 total games...because Penny missed 20+. In the games he played they were over a 50 win pace...no Shaq.

The Knicks lost Willis Reed...the MVP, finals MVP, and all star MVP the season before. Missed the whole season. Fell off 4 games...

No Bird? 15 games off the previous season. Similar to the Bulls.

Heat with Zo when he was a legit MVP level played(came in second in 99 I believe). With Zo...52 wins. No zo? 50.

Lakers without Magic went from 61...to 43. Bulls went from 62 and I think 60 by full season pace...to 43 now with how many games to go?

Bulls with MJ...57...no MJ...55.

76ers won 55 games after Wilt left for Philly.

Largely due to Kareem missing like 15 games his last season.....but the Bucks actually won one MORE game after he joined the Lakers.

The Lakers only fell off 13 games...when they lost Wilt who retired and Jerry West missed 50 games as well.

So no Wilt...and 50 games less of West?

Less impact on the wins and losses thn no Derrick Rose.

If you are dumb enough to think its that simple...you are beyond help.

Being....ok without your MVP level player...but nothing special...does not mean they were not in fact MVP level players.

It means winning 46 games in the NBA doesnt mean anything. Thats why you dont know shit about the 83 Nets.

There is no reason for you to.

Going from 60 something wins to 43 with a week left is a HUGE difference. Going from back to back #1 in the league to like 17-18 games back of the #1 seed...is a huge difference.

What you think of Rose winning MVP has nothing to do with that.

But a hell of a lot of MVP level players have had no greater impact on their teams Ws...nobody says it means they were overrated.

Mostly because...again...46 games dont matter. Contending matters.

And the difference between "Ok" and "They might win it all..." is huge. And being that difference is exactly what greatness is all about.

[nathanjizzle]

This is why Rose fans are the worst. Boozer, Deng, and Noah are all very very very good players.

Jimmy Butler is an emerging player that is very good. Hinrich is a solid backup pg. Robinson is a spark plug off the bench. Hamilton, Gibson, Belly...I mean come on. And they all fit perfectly around Rose...none of them need the ball in their hands...so Rose can take his 25 shots a game in the playoffs...LOL

Behind the knicks? Only if Rose isn't as good as Melo. Even with the Pacers? Holy shit.

I've never seen such BS come out of a fan base.

i dont get it. you keep judging an entire fan base off 1 poster. this is the same poster you said the same things about in another thread