Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Why are they bad?
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=92347
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Beardown [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Why are they bad?

Fuck. I don't get it. They have talent. They'll pull this one out vs. the Suns. But still, being bad for the last month, in wins or loses, is unbelievable.

Author:  Nas [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Derrick Rose. Thibs basically said last night he wasn't committed.

Author:  IkeSouth [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Pull ur head back just enough to let go of Burnsies penis, beardown. Watch the games. Bulls arent bad they just should be better. Derricks play is the fulcrum of this team.

Author:  Hussra [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Dunno, but fading the Bull is a solid play right now. I won @ +210 last night taking DET and then took PHX and the +8.5 tonight cuz the Bulls rarely cover at home these days.

Taliban looking like they might bring in my +1100 wager on them to take down Sr Lanka:

http://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricket-sc ... d-cup-2015

Cricket's been good so far (4-2). Have had two underdogs come in (Ireland over West Indies (+400) and then West Indies over Pakistan last night (+175)) and 2 favorites win as well: Sheepies over Poms, Curries over Pakis.

Lost a small in-match/half-time long-shot wager for England to chase down Australia in their first match. And lost a larger wager on the Taliban/Afghanis to IED the Tigers of Bangladesh.

After the Taliban stole 4 early wickets (outs) tonight, Sri Lanka keeping it in check, trying for singles and doubles and not risk more wickets this early in the match trying for boundaries.

At some point, Sri Lanka will need to swing-away, but then they could end up making 10 wickets before they finish all 50 overs--which would be perfect.

Was able to double up on the West Indies last night (at -200 tho) in-match via Bovada's live betting. For some reason, Bovada doesn't have an in-match line on the Afghanistan v Sri Lanka match. Overseas books (Ladbroke etc) won't take action from US customers but they were still giving good odds for Afghanistan to win even after Sri Lanka got 3 quick wickets. Not sure what the action is now.

Author:  bigfan [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

even I wouldnt bet cricket. Dont those matches sometimes take like a week?

Author:  Hussra [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Depends on the format?

Dunno. Razor close-call but a loss-is-a-loss-is-a-loss on the Taliban vs Sri Lanka last night.

Luckily India cleaned up vs odds-on favorites to win it all South Africa.

Author:  bigfan [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

....and at least the Bulls can turn it on and beat teams when needed, hawk ON switch not working most of the time.

Author:  Powerhouse233 [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Beardown wrote:
Fuck. I don't get it. They have talent. They'll pull this one out vs. the Suns. But still, being bad for the last month, in wins or loses, is unbelievable.


Not sure why it's so difficult to understand. You do watch the games, right? Rose has been mediocre all year, Noah has been nowhere near as good as he was last season, Gasol will get some blocks but other than that he's a statue on defense, Gibson has regressed, Hinrich has been horrible, they've had an abundance of injuries and their depth isn't terribly impressive.

Author:  bigfan [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Gibson hurt and will be for the remainder of the season. Can see it in a lack of explosiveness when he picks up boards, curtailed all trade talks on him.

Got that KC!

Author:  IkeSouth [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Powerhouse233 wrote:
Beardown wrote:
Fuck. I don't get it. They have talent. They'll pull this one out vs. the Suns. But still, being bad for the last month, in wins or loses, is unbelievable.


Not sure why it's so difficult to understand. You do watch the games, right? Rose has been mediocre all year, Noah has been nowhere near as good as he was last season, Gasol will get some blocks but other than that he's a statue on defense, Gibson has regressed, Hinrich has been horrible, they've had an abundance of injuries and their depth isn't terribly impressive.


this is right on but i think its exaggerated. they have been up and down, so there shouldnt be any alarm. rose at times has looked like mvp derrick. if they have a bad playoff series then you start questioning things, but even at that point you bring the band back for at least another year.

Author:  Ron Wolfley [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

I think in the NBA it's common for teams not to play with the same intensity every night because there's too many games during the season. It's been fun watching Derrick go up against great teams with great point guards (Washington, Portland, Cleveland, and Golden State). In those games, he's pushing a little harder on the gas pedal. I'm really anxious for the playoffs to start because one -- every game in the Western Conference is going to be awesome -- and two, watching Derrick Rose when it matters for the first time since 2012. I think he desperately wants to get to games that matter.

I still think the Eastern Conference comes down to the Chicago and Cleveland. Whenever they meet, unfortunately, I think it's going to look similar to the 2011 Eastern Conference Finals because you still only have "one guy." But, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. This is the best team Derrick's had. Keith Bogans isn't your starting shooting guard and Kevin Love still doesn't know how he fits.

Author:  Nas [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

I don't buy that. You can't expect Rose to go from being a mediocre good player in the regular season to a star in the playoffs. There needs to be some consistency.

Taj ankle is probably still injured but his energy off the bench is huge most nights. If all were equal Brooks would start over Rose.

Author:  IkeSouth [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

in way you can though. nba ball requires 100% effort or you look like shit. when rose has an off night he looks terrible, but theres been quite a few games hes looked amazing so im really not worried. like i said if he sucks in the playoffs then we have something to talk about.

Author:  St. Louis Bull Man [ Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Rose has cut down on his turnovers. Remember the game 2 weeks back when he had 11 TO's and only 1 assist? MLBTV covered the shit out of that (to Derrick's obvious disgrace) and he's been passing less. I cringe whenever he brings up the ball. He still hates to pass it. When he gets to the top of the key and there's only one man on him there's no way he's gonna look for a cutter, 'cause there ain't one. Why bother? Rose is a classic ball hawg, rivaling only MJ himself.

I swear, I would rather see the fucker come off the bench, but that ain't gonna happen. We sure as hell were a better team when Buckets was running the offence. Better outside shooter and he gets to the line (or used to) when Rose is sitting. He was 2nd only to Harden at one point this season.

And am I the only one that thinks Brooks is BETTER than Rose?

Author:  Nas [ Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why are they bad?

Right now I also think Brooks is better. That's why I said he would be starting if everything was equal.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/