Injury Perspective

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Injury Perspective

    This season's injuries Rondo, Sullinger, Barbosa really hurt. Here's some perspective:

    Bulls: True warrior team, lots of heart and true grit. But, imagine Rose goes down for the season. And then within a week Taj Gibson goes down as well. A few games later, Nate Robinson tears his ACL and he is out. Imagine at the beginning of the year, back-up Center Nazi Mohammed had family problems and went back home for the season (Darko). Do you think the Bulls could be doing this well without Rose, Robinson, Gibson, Mohammed? (on top of playable injuries)?

     

    Spurs: Imagine Tony Parker tears his ACL. Then Splitter goes. Then Neal. Does this team get out of the first round? And if Matt Bonner had family issues and didn't play this season?

     

    Other not-as-good examples:

    Pacers: No George Hill. No Hansboro. No Augustine.

    OKC: No Westbrook, but also no Collison and no Kevin Martin. 

    Knicks: No Felton, no Prigioni, no Stodoumire.

     

    I'm just saying, injuries really crippled us. The Blur was playing unbelievable basketball and I really think he would have excelled in a Nate Robinson-esqe role. He and Sullinger alone would have pushed us over the Knicks because both these guys could score on their own; Barbosa with his high speed drives to the hoop; Sullinger with his offensive put-backs. Imagine if Darko was not a little baby and had toughed out the year with us. There is no reason why he couldn't be a Pekovic. I could see it going either way next year in regards to PP and KG. Its just remarkable the amount of bad luck we've had throughout the 7 years...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Petey62. Show Petey62's posts

    Re: Injury Perspective

    R9R, good post, but I totally disagree with you here.  Injuries did not cripple us.  Mediocre and inconsistent play was what doomed of our season (and old age).  We lost Rondo, Barbosa and Sully.  We were horrible with Rondo (20-23 record) although there was "potential" to improve as the season went on.  But there were no guarantees that we would have turned things around.

    And with Sully, he would have helped but like most rookies, he was bound to hit that rookie wall and I'm sure his play would have leveled off.  Are you serious when you say "Sully could score on his own"?  But again, Sully would not have made a difference of 5 wins.  We ended up 41 - 40 and that's because we were NOT good, not due to injuries.

    I don't count losing Barbosa as a major loss because once AB would have returned, if everyone was healthy, Barbosa would not have gotten ANY MINUTES anyway.

    Also, injuries are a part of the game and you cannot blame the team's performance on that.  If that were the case, the Bulls would have a claim to that but, in spite of their injuries, they are battling in the 2nd round.  That argument goes right out the window.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Re: Injury Perspective

    In response to Petey62's comment:

    R9R, good post, but I totally disagree with you here.  Injuries did not cripple us.  Mediocre and inconsistent play was what doomed of our season (and old age).  We lost Rondo, Barbosa and Sully.  We were horrible with Rondo (20-23 record) although there was "potential" to improve as the season went on.  But there were no guarantees that we would have turned things around.

    And with Sully, he would have helped but like most rookies, he was bound to hit that rookie wall and I'm sure his play would have leveled off.  Are you serious when you say "Sully could score on his own"?  But again, Sully would not have made a difference of 5 wins.  We ended up 41 - 40 and that's because we were NOT good, not due to injuries.

    I don't count losing Barbosa as a major loss because once AB would have returned, if everyone was healthy, Barbosa would not have gotten ANY MINUTES anyway.

    Also, injuries are a part of the game and you cannot blame the team's performance on that.  If that were the case, the Bulls would have a claim to that but, in spite of their injuries, they are battling in the 2nd round.  That argument goes right out the window.



    1. Not to open the Better-With/Without-Rondo can of worms, but suffice it to say that there were a lot of new guys on the team and it took us a while to get fluid. The run after Rondo went out was purely due to Avery Bradley's return, grit from our vets, and lagging scouting reports. Rondo turns it on in the playoffs and he alone would have gotten us to the ECF to face the Heat again this year. Without a doubt.

    2. Sullinger would have made a living on the boards in the Knicks series. The Knicks do not rebound, especially with Melo at the 4. Proof? How about KG's 17-17-18. KG is a beast, but lets be honest. If we played Chicago, he would not have gotten those numbers. Sullinger is excellent at getting position on the rebound, and he can finish. He can score in that facet.

    3. Barbossa would have eaten Terrys minutes if anything. He literally was instant offense off the bench. He can get his own points, and Doc absolutely would have played him. Crawford wouldn't have been on the team, Twill, Lee would have been at the bottom of the depth chart. If we had Rondo and Barbossa, Rondo + Bradley would have started and Barbossa + Terry would have come off the bench. Without Rondo, I bet you Doc starts Barbossa during a few games of that Knicks series.

    4. This was the reason for my post. Chicago is battling injuries, but not to the extent that we  were. If Chicago lost Nate and lost Gibson, they'd be toast and BKL would have won that series.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Petey62. Show Petey62's posts

    Re: Injury Perspective

    R9R, you make some points but not so sure how valid they are.

    Regarding #1, the Celtics never "got fluid" as you suggest during the entire season.  There is no guarantee that they would have developed that chemistry that you speak of had Rondo not gotten injured.  Actually, if you look at the first 43 games WITH him, there is NOTHING to suggest they would have developed that chemistry.

    Regarding #2, Sully might not have played much in the Knicks series because there is nobody he would have matched up with.  If you remove KG, which would not have happened, Sully could play the C spot but I would not imply that he would have "made a living on the boards against Chandler and Martin".  And had he played PF, Melo would have went off for 40 every night.  So I'm not so sure Sully would have made that much of an impact in the Knicks series as you suggest.

    Regarding #3, Barbosa was a sparkplug at times but, let's not forget, he was as equally wild and out of control at times too.  You did not know what you'd get from Barbosa from one night to the next.  That's why he was our 5th guard.  He most definitely would NOT have eaten away Terry's minutes.  Barbosa was behind, Rondo, AB, Terry and Lee on the depth chart.  He got his shot because Rondo got injured.

    The Celtics injuries pale in comparison to Chicago's.  How could you argue that the Bulls injuries were not as extensive as the Celtics?  Due to injury, they were without their best player FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON.  Of course if Nate and Gibson are lost, they probably lose the Brooklyn series.  You say that as if not having Hinrich, Rose, Deng and an ailing Noah to start the series wasn't enough of a disadvantage to overcome which they did.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: Injury Perspective

    The bulls injuries far outweighed the c's injuries, IMO.

    The differences that they are younger better coached.  Thibs is just an evil genius.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hondorondo. Show hondorondo's posts

    Re: Injury Perspective

    In response to R9R's comment:

    In response to Petey62's comment:

     

    R9R, good post, but I totally disagree with you here.  Injuries did not cripple us.  Mediocre and inconsistent play was what doomed of our season (and old age).  We lost Rondo, Barbosa and Sully.  We were horrible with Rondo (20-23 record) although there was "potential" to improve as the season went on.  But there were no guarantees that we would have turned things around.

    And with Sully, he would have helped but like most rookies, he was bound to hit that rookie wall and I'm sure his play would have leveled off.  Are you serious when you say "Sully could score on his own"?  But again, Sully would not have made a difference of 5 wins.  We ended up 41 - 40 and that's because we were NOT good, not due to injuries.

    I don't count losing Barbosa as a major loss because once AB would have returned, if everyone was healthy, Barbosa would not have gotten ANY MINUTES anyway.

    Also, injuries are a part of the game and you cannot blame the team's performance on that.  If that were the case, the Bulls would have a claim to that but, in spite of their injuries, they are battling in the 2nd round.  That argument goes right out the window.

     



    1. Not to open the Better-With/Without-Rondo can of worms, but suffice it to say that there were a lot of new guys on the team and it took us a while to get fluid. The run after Rondo went out was purely due to Avery Bradley's return, grit from our vets, and lagging scouting reports. Rondo turns it on in the playoffs and he alone would have gotten us to the ECF to face the Heat again this year. Without a doubt.

     

    2. Sullinger would have made a living on the boards in the Knicks series. The Knicks do not rebound, especially with Melo at the 4. Proof? How about KG's 17-17-18. KG is a beast, but lets be honest. If we played Chicago, he would not have gotten those numbers. Sullinger is excellent at getting position on the rebound, and he can finish. He can score in that facet.

    3. Barbossa would have eaten Terrys minutes if anything. He literally was instant offense off the bench. He can get his own points, and Doc absolutely would have played him. Crawford wouldn't have been on the team, Twill, Lee would have been at the bottom of the depth chart. If we had Rondo and Barbossa, Rondo + Bradley would have started and Barbossa + Terry would have come off the bench. Without Rondo, I bet you Doc starts Barbossa during a few games of that Knicks series.

    4. This was the reason for my post. Chicago is battling injuries, but not to the extent that we  were. If Chicago lost Nate and lost Gibson, they'd be toast and BKL would have won that series.




    Excellent reply. However, I think another issue is the one to focus on here. When you mention that Barbosa was helpful but Bradley would have taken over all his minutes, you know what that says... Doc sucks! You are right. Barbosa, who would supply some much needed offense, would have rode the pine. Doc is great at X's and O's but the poorest coach ever at utilizing players individually and in combinations.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share