thebizkit69u

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/s...ssues-2011-mvp


What a stupid thing to imply IMO, the guy must not watch many Bulls games, its so freaking clear how bad the offense has been without Rose, he doesn't take into consideration the lock out season which has just turned the league into 90% crap. There are honestly 4 good teams in the NBA right now and we are one of them.

yodurk

Yeah it is silly and pretty indicative of someone who has only marginally paid attention to the Bulls without Rose.

Aside from the fact that the Bulls' overall scoring (ppg) and scoring efficiency has taken a noticeable dip in games without Rose, there is also the fact that the Bulls entire frontcourt has stayed healthy this season. Whereas last year they were pretty much in shambles most of the time, hence Rose had to shoulder an insane load. A healthy Bulls team last year might not have resulted in Rose as MVP.

There is also the notion that the Bulls have been playing balls out for most of the games without Rose this year. You can only sustain that for so long...they already are showing signs of losing it, hence the "letting go of the rope" (per Thibs) and losing 2 in a row (and nearly 3 in a row if not for an inspired 2nd half against Boston). If we went a full season without Rose, at BEST we end up a #4 or #5 seed in the Indiana/Philly/Atlanta territory...and more likely we're in the bottom rung East playoff teams. That is not a contender.

Dornado

... not to mention we were clearly cherry-picking games to sit Rose during the early parts of the year, which makes our W-L without him misleading.

Anybody who watched last year knows that he single-handedly willed us to a decent number of victories.

__________________

DaBabyBullz

You had to know that was coming though. When a team wins without a player, people say maybe he wasn't so vital to their success as we thought. People said it last year about Ben Roethlisberger as well, when he was suspended the first 4 games, and the Steelers won 3 of the 4 if I remember correctly. It took a hell of a lot of luck (Batch throwing garbage up that should've been INT'd, but Wallace caught it for TDs for example....twice in one game that happened), and the defense was playing as good as I've ever seen any defense play during that stretch too.

So it doesn't surprise me at all, and of course I agree that it's misleading, but I expected people to say it.

thebizkit69u

My whole take on it is, if you din't watch last year, you have no right to write anything about this team.

They needed every bit of scoring from Rose, they needed every bit of offense he provided. This has been a historically bad NBA season, the amount of True contenders this year IMO is 3. The Bulls DID cherry pick who to play and the NBA has helped us out by shoveling crap after crap. I just hate this idea that they are better without Rose, heck lets see how this Roseless Bulls team would do in a long Western Conference trip, they sure as hell would not be 15-7. They are 2-5 against Western conference teams without Rose, teams that actually look like teams.

yodurk

The way I see it, these writers can say what they want. I like being the team that flies under the radar. The surprise factor can be a powerful thing. Certainly didn't hurt Dallas in the playoffs last year...I don't think anyone in the world (literally) actually thought Dallas was going to win the NBA title last year prior to the playoffs starting.

And you know what, as long as Rose comes back healthy without reinjuring that groin, maybe his being out is actually a blessing in disguise. I feel like the Bulls have more tricks up our sleeve this year provided we go into the playoffs with a healthy squad. Things like having the [still unknown] Rip Hamilton instead of Bogans, and John Lucas III as a spark scorer off the bench ("break glass only in emergency" situation player).

Not sure if it will be enough to go all the way but certainly can't hurt. Health + more playoff experience + better cohesion + better talent/players = better chances of winning.

Luke

The MVP should go to the best player in the league, which Rose is not and was not last season. So in that sense he shouldn't have won the award. But, he is a top five player in the world and anyone who sits at their computer and tries to dismiss his impact to this team clearly doesn't watch a lot of Chicago ball.

__________________
Formerly VanillaPrice

yodurk

"Should" is a lot different than "does". By that I just mean the MVP isn't and never has been about selecting the league's best player per say, rather the most valuable (whatever the hell that means). We can debate all day if that is the "right" approach for the MVP award, but the reality is the MVP is not about that, otherwise Jordan would've won 10-12 MVP awards and Shaq would've had far more than just one.

Obviously however, the league's best player in a perfect world would snag a few MVPs, even within the current system. For the most part, the system has come through in that regard. Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron...all got their MVPs.

mvP to the Wee

Most VALUABLE. VALUABLE does not equal best. I'd say Dwight Howard was probably most valuable to his team last year, but the award always takes into account value as well as overall record.

garnett

That makes no sense. Should we just give the MVP to Lebron every year because he's the best player?

Pay Ton

Eh, honestly I can see where Luke's coming from.

I had Rose as my MVP last year, but it's not like Rose had one of those MVP seasons where it's undebatable that he should have won. Very few MVP seasons are undebatable like that. In the last few years I recall Lebron's, KG's, Kobe's and one of Duncan's being undebatable.

Outside of that almost every MVP season is debatable to an extent, so I don't really mind people saying Rose shouldn't have won.

It would be one thing if his opinion came from hate, but he has his reasons for Rose not being the MVP and they are legitimate reasons.

Honestly, I used to feel like Luke as well. I used to think the MVP award should go to the best player every year, but I've sort of resigned myself to the fact that the most valuable player on a winning/successful team is going to get the award, and under that criteria, Rose was my MVP last year.

People like to complain that the MVP meant more in the 80's because the actual best players in the league won them, but I don't think people understand that it's pretty natural for awards to evolve and hold different criteria/meanings in different eras/cultures of sports. If you think about it, the 80's saw the explosion of the NBA superstar, where the NBA officially became a star driven league. So the award went to a lot of the same players during that era (Bird won it three times in a row, Magic won it a few, Jordan as well, and Moses won it twice in a row).

I think once the NBA got accustomed to the new "superstar culture" and an era where superstars dominated the game, voters naturally tried to spread the wealth a bit more, and since awarding it to the best player in the league was no longer a novelty, the criteria for voting changed a bit.

Barkley, I think, might have been the impetus for that. People started getting into the storylines a bit more. Barkley goes to a new team, and they have one of their best seasons ever. It was appealing. And you know what? Good for him. He had a great season.

I think if you look at where the MVP award stands today and it's meaning in our current basketball culture where superstars are abundant and it's no longer something fresh, it's understandable to see some of the current winners take the award.

__________________
Six ****ing devils stepped up playing brave God, had the ****ing nerve to try and enter my graveyard.

doctordrizzay

the MVP doesnt mean MVP to your team, it means MVP to the league. Kevin Love would win this award every year if it was just towards team.

Luke

LeBron should have an MVP for every year that he's been the best player in the league, or in other words, he should be collecting his fourth after this year.

With this muddiedd system we end up with all time greats like Kobe and Shaquille having as many MVPs combined as Steve Nash. How can you not see a problem here?

And I'm not coming into flame here guys, I have no problem whatsoever with the Bulls, and Derrick is my second favorite non Laker in the league. I've actually rooted for you guys in literally every series sicne that 7 game thriller against Boston. But he wasn't the best basketball player in the NBA last year, and he shouldn't have been given an award that should indicate the best player. He was merely "one" of the best, and that's what the All NBA first team is for.

__________________
Formerly VanillaPrice

DaBabyBullz

Kevin Love SHOULD win it this year. No doubt about it.

As for Rose last year, he definitely should've won.

I also don't see how the Bulls could possibly be under the radar, when they have had the best record in the NBA pretty much all year.

Luke

Well that's the stupidest thing I've read all day. What about Love even makes him a canidate? His team isn't in the playoffs, he is terrible at literally half the game and isn't an otherworldly offensive player.

__________________
Formerly VanillaPrice