Derrick Rose

i think the reality that you are trying your hardest to interpret what i posted as being unbelievably stupid when in fact it was not.

case in point, you quote me saying that rose is great but without boozer and thibodeau, they probably wouldn't crack 50 wins and that what put them over the top is thibodeau and boozer. and yet you interpret that to mean that i don't think rose contributed to the success of the franchise.

 

It means that you stated that Rose either didn't improve in 2010-11 or else that his improvement had no significant effect on the team, which is particularly funny since he got the MVP and was praised widely by analysts precisely because they said that his own personal improvement was what caused the team's 21 win increase.

You're a piece of shit liar who can never admit to any mistakes and will make excuses for anything you get wrong. As wossa noted, I've said dumb shit from time to time too, but I'm not a coward who hides from it. I came on here and mocked myself over the Stepheson thing, while your bitch-ass invents reasons to avoid admitting that you made two monumentally stupid posts about Derrick Rose:

 

wait, what? you're saying there are legitimate analysts who say the bulls going from 41-41 in one year and 62-20 in the next is due entirely to derrick rose? and this might come as a shock to you, but you'll find a lot of people criticizing his mvp award as not entirely deserving.

speaking of mvp and recognition of achievements... tom thibodeau won the coach of the year award. which i find peculiar given that so many experts find him to be superfluous to the bulls' run to the top of the league.

the team's record without boozer was worse than its record with boozer. so i think it's pretty safe to say he provided positive results.

despite what you claim, i never said rose didn't contribute to the bulls winning more games. i suppose this is the part where you admit your mistake, right?

 

Evidently Rose can't dance.

 

LeBron James probably deserved the MVP more, but Rose was 1A because he elevated his team.

You're a piece of shit liar, but I'm going to keep quoting your idiotic posts over and over and over again until the end of time. You clearly said that Rose didn't have much to do with the Bulls' improvement and that their record wouldn't have gotten much better without Boozer and Thibodeau.

This is what you wrote:

It was fucking stupid, which you already know, but you're such a huge pussy and irredeemable coward that you can't just admit that.

 

and? i stand by that statement.

 

so you're saying rose deserved to be "1a" in the mvp race because he elevated his team. and of course, you're pointing to his mvp title as evidence that he's the sole reason they got better. thelt would be proud of your circular logic.

rose is mvp because the bulls did better than people thought they would. by any objective measure, rose comes up short. is he tremendously talented? yes, of course. is he the best player on the team? yeah. is he top 10 in the league? hard to argue that. did he drag the bulls to 62 wins by himself? hell no.

please, quote away. i never said rose didn't have much to do with the bulls improvement. i said there were other factors involved.

i could tell you it was stupid, but that would be a lie and i know how much you hate liars.

the bulls defense was the best in the league (or you could maybe make the argument it was 2nd best). it was middle of the pack the year before. was it rose who did that? is having the best defense in the league inconsequential to winning?

 

I never said he was the "sole reason," just that he was by far the biggest one, which is what everyone else on the planet said. You're the only dumbass in the entire world who said that Thibodeau and Boozer were more important than Rose's improvement.

That's fucking exactly what you said you cowardly douchebag:

 

i never said they were more important than rose's improvement. i singled them out because they were not with the team the previous year.

you realize that 50 wins is better than 41 wins, right? but more to the point because you seem to have no concept of how a basketball team works, adding quality players/coaches isn't a linear thing -- if you take boozer and put him on team X he'll get you 5 wins. that just isn't how it works. boozer is a good compliment to rose's game that the bulls severely lacked (a low post threat). thibodeau's system made the bulls an exceedingly good defensive team. their offense lacked punch (and variety) but their defense won them some games.

take boozer out of the offense and suddenly there's even less variety and more is put on rose's shoulders (you can see the bulls record without boozer is well off their 62 win pace). take away that stifling defense and rose must score that much more (opponents scored 5 fewer points per possession compared to the previous year). similarly, you can remove rose and get even worse results. (who the fuck would run that team?)