Roseless

The biggest basketball news over the weekend was the loss of Derrick Rose for the season and into next season.  While this is disappointing and severely reduces the Bulls chances of a championship, I am strangely excited about the opportunity for the Bulls to show how good they can be even without the reigning MVP.  I'm probably in denial, but I'm still excited to see what they can do.  If they can continue to win in the post season they have the chance to be one of my all time favorite teams; winning with defense, hustle, and a deep bench.  I can't remember a team with a bench as deep.

Should Rose have been out there?
The biggest question was did Rose have to be out there and the answer is no.  With a 12 point lead with about 90 seconds left, the game was in pencil in the win column.  The 76ers had come back a little and momentum can change fast, but this game was probably over.  However, I'm with Coach Thibs on this one.  (BTW check out this article about him that was sent to me by my friend Art about Coach Thibs).  Rose did not have to be out there, but I'm okay with the judgment call of leaving him out there to finish the game.   Over the course of the season, Thibs has left players in too long in my opinion.  I would have like to see Thibs use the bench more often to see if the bench could carry the Bulls the rest of the way in some blowout victories.  In this situation, however I probably would have done the same for multiple reasons.  One, this is the playoffs and you want to ensure the victory, it would have been inexcusable to let the 76ers steal this game at home in the last minute.  Two, this is the playoffs and you don't want the other team carrying any positive momentum into the next game if they are able to get a few steals or if they are able to get a few more shots to fall.  Stuff like that can sometimes carry over into the next game.  Three, Derrick came in late in the 4th quarter and had not been in unusually long.  Coach Thibs has played his guys with a philosophy  to ensure each and every victory.  He's created a culture where losses seem unusual and nearly catastrophic.  When the Bulls lose, it seemed as though an intervention is necessary.  There must be something wrong with this team and it couldn't just be an off night.  If you didn't like Rose being out there, then you should be prepared to surrender the title of best record in the NBA for the past two seasons.

How far can they go?
I still expect this team can go as far as I originally predicted, the Eastern Conference Finals.  They have won all season with different guys stepping up.  While the regular season and the post season are definitely two different animals, I still believe they can get past the 76ers and Celtics/Hawks.  The 76ers are already one game down and as long as the Bulls defense is solid, I believe they can produce enough offense (maybe with messy possessions and Joakim Noah tips) to get past the 76ers.  I think the Hawks are too unreliable to count on.  The Celtics would be the most dangerous match up, but if the Bulls can contain Rondo and Allen I think they can move past them.  A Celtics-Bulls match up would be interesting parallel to the 2009 playoffs where a Garnett-less Celtic team took on a full strength Bulls team.  In a matchup versus Miami, the Heat clearly have the advantage and would be heavily favored to win however the Bulls do have a few things going for them.  All the pressure would be on the Heat to win.  With Rose out of the picture and the Heat have no excuse not to get to the Finals and win.  The Bulls have no pressure on them now.  They can play loose because there are no expectations and a team without anything to lose is very dangerous.

Who steps up?
Very simply everyone will have to, but specifically it will have to be Watson and Deng.  Watson will have to be the player we saw glimpses of last year, a player who yearns to play 40 minutes because he believes he can play 40 minutes better than 4 minutes.  Last year, CJ seemed to play well when given more time.  This year, he has gotten more time than he knows what to do with, but has seemed lately to get lost out there, seemingly pounding the ball into the ground.  He has to be the guy that's a legit offensive threat to have breakout 20-30 point games if you don't attend to him.  Deng simply has to step up and carry this team on his back.  This is his team now and he has to show that he can get it done when it counts.  The front line will need to have monster games on the board and Lucas and Korver will need to provide that instant offense.

The biggest question now is who step up in winning time.  I don't know if I have an answer for that, but I'm strangely excited to find out.  My favorite basketball teams win with smart play, defense, and effort.  That is what I'm hoping to see in the Bulls; to prove these qualities win championships and can overcome superior talent.

Chicago the New Boston?

I read a couple articles in the past week which made me realize how much Chicago sports teams have taken from Boston teams in the past year or two.  The connections I am aware of:

Bulls - Coach Thibodeau, assistant under Doc Rivers with the Celtics
Cubs - President of Baseball Operations Theo Epstein and crew, former GM of the Red Sox
Bears - GM Phil Emery, who's scouting philosophy is "rooted in the 'Patriot system'"

Now I know the Boston teams have been successful in the past decade...
Celtics - 2008 NBA Champions; 2010 Eastern Conference Champions
Patriots - 2001, 2003, 2004 Super Bowl Champions; 2007, 2011 AFC Champions
Red Sox - 2004, 2007 World Series Champions
Bruins - 2011 Stanley Cup Champions

But something just makes me cringe a little bit when I read articles like this.  Bears GM Phil Emery is rooted in Patriotic approach or Emanuel’s ‘Fenway Plan’ for Wrigley is a hit at Fenway.

I think Belichick bothers every non-Patriots fan with his Patriots hoodie and cutoff sleeves.  Part of it is jealousy, which I admit, part of it is annoyance with commentators crowning him a genius, and part of it is SpyGate.  The Belichick  - Genius thing just gets under my skin because you know that its partially true, that the Patriots have been successful and his unconventional thinking has seemed to work.
 

The example of the Patriot system in the Bears article bothered me because it just reminds me of the Genius - Belichick thing again.  From the article,    

"When the Patriots stacked their draft board, Belichick often would get frustrated because the game had changed, emphasizing and de-emphasizing different positions. The third cornerback, for example, could play 60 percent of the defensive snaps in a game."  

“So the third corner is a starter in today’s game,” Pioli said. “We were talking about guys who were third corners and weren’t given high-enough grades.


“It’s not anything that’s genius. It’s just trying to look at today’s league and understanding matching value versus just saying, ‘He’s a starting running back.’ ”


I would have hoped that the Bears had taken examples like this this into account before.  Like it says, "It's not anything that's genius."  It seems like a common sense philosophy, not a Boston or Chicago Philosophy.  

I also have to mention a classic Lovie Smith quote from the article:


“I don’t know what the Patriot Way is,” coach Lovie Smith said. “But I know about the Bear Way, and I’m excited about that."

You wouldn't even have to tell me it was Lovie.  It sounds like a classic Lovieism.  You have the (1) side step of the issue and (2) the ending of the quote with a positive but general sentiment.  But its the last part I agree with.  I would be excited about the Bears being successfully following the "Bear Way".  I'm just less excited about the Bears following the "Patriot Way"  

Really, its the Bears and Cubs connections which bother me.  Although Thibs is associated with Boston, I feel that his coaching method seems in line with the Bulls overall philosophy of player accountability and character.  With the Bears and Cubs its seems as though we are just trying to replicate the Boston success in Chicago.  I would love to see a World Series or Super Bowl champion, but it just seems like we are selling out to win a championship.  Don't get me it seem like the smart thing do to, I just wish we would do things the "Chicago way" (cue Sean Connery well the phrase, not exactly the actions) rather than the Boston way.

Random Vids of the Day

I couldn't really think of anything to post so I thought I would just post some random videos.  The first is of course "The Shot".   It seems that most teams are trying to get across the finish line for the playoffs (And the Bulls barely surviving by hitting two three pointers to send the game to overtime in the past two games.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaIkHtUwtjQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekmH7V1Bdbc) so maybe this will provide a little more excitement for the playoffs.  It's odd, Craig Ehlo scored 15 points in the fourth quarter including two 3 pointers and a layup to take the lead at around the 3:00 minute mark of this video.  If Jordan would have missed the shot, which starts at around the 5:00 minute mark of this video, this would have been known as the Ehlo game, but Jordan made it and the rest is history.  

The second is the Taxman by the Beatles for obvious reasons.

The third is a probably the most intense scene from Clear and Present Danger which was on this weekend.

Mistake of the Day

If you are going to shop at Target or Meijer, do not wear a red polo.

My Week in Chicago

I spent last week working downtown and commuting from my parents house in the suburbs by Metra.  I've worked in the city before, but usually just for one day.  It was odd that I was able to do it for an entire week.  Before I went, I viewed it as an unusual opportunity to catch up with a few friends that live and work in the city.  But the experience was odd for a different reason.    

I think its partially because when I was young I always saw people standing at the Metra stop and it seemed like a very grown up thing to do.  It seemed like that something business people did.  It's definitely not something I ever dreamed of doing.  It's more like a childhood conception than a childhood dream.  It's something you picture yourself doing when you get older.  

That conception died a long time ago and I've gotten used to what my modern day conception of work is, well because I live it everyday.  But for a week I was able to live my childhood conception to see if it matched reality.

For the most part it did not.  I pretty much felt like I was secretly posing as a member of a group which I did not belong.  There were many reasons for this.  First of all, everyone knew where to stand; which platform and where the doors would open.  Second, I didn't have a monthly pass, which set me apart from everyone else.  Third, everyone seemed to know what to do; where to find the open seats and not to pick the seats that directly faced the sun while on the train.  For the most part, I felt like a tourist who is trying to fit in which is ironic because this was my hometown.  I was doing enough to just fit in.  

My second impression of commuting was how herd-like it was.  People walking out of the train station seemed like cattle being herded through specific gates then subdivided at each intersection.  Some would split off left, some would go right, and some would go straight.  All of which was decided by red lights, green lights, blinking orange hands and white walk symbols.    

And that leads me to my third impression, "What do all these people do?"  I remember that after campaigning in a town of less than 10,000 I drove into Springfield and I thought briefly, "Wow, Springfield is actually a pretty big town.  You can go to a Target and Best Buy.  They have a lot of restaurants you can try too."  It was like adjusting your eyes to the darkness after being in a bright room.  So after a while things seemed normal.  I had the same reaction when I was walking to work one day, "Wow, Chicago is a large city."  But instead my reaction was,  "What do these people do?  What jobs do they have?  How can this many people have jobs down here?  Is there really that much work to be done?"  Then, you realize that you only see the people in one of the Metra stations and this doesn't include car commuters or EL or Pace riders.  It's at this point where I start to realize maybe I've spent too much time in Springfield, because Chicago just seems to large.    

Which leads me to my final realization that while I've grown older the commuter life and life working in a big city still remains a conception, just a different one from my youth.  I can't live it just for a week.  To me, I was still just an outside posing as a commuter.  It's a conception which was interesting to see and experience, but I'll be okay with my 10 minute walk to work tomorrow, rather than the 2 hours of commuting per day. 
       

Homeland

This week I went through the whole season of the Golden Globe winning Homeland.  I had to because it was about to expire on Showtime On Demand.  It's an interesting way to watch a TV series because it feels like a need, instead of a want.  It reminded me of the weekend in college when I watched the whole first season of the Sopranos.  It was the exact opposite situation, I wanted to watch the whole thing.  Every episode would end and I would hesitantly turn off the TV only to turn it back on and play another episode.  The situation I found myself for Homeland felt different, it felt more calculated.  I needed to watch a certain amount of episodes each night or not be able to see the whole season.  That being said I enjoyed the first season of Homeland.

Homeland is definitely a show that is not afraid to run through plots or story lines.  In topic, it reminded me of the failed AMC show Rubicon, which I loved in concept.  It unfortunately was uneven.  It was about a group of intelligence analysts working in this nondescript building.  I loved the set, because it wasn't fancy with 3D graphics or streamlined design, it looked like it had been lived in since the 60's.  Rubicon thrived on conspiracy theories and questions who was on who's side, much like Homeland.  However, Homeland began its series the exact opposite of Rubicon.  In Rubicon, the show slowly and painstakingly built momentum, to the point where the audience is asking "When is something going to actually happen?" It would just leave these points that had to mean something, but nothing would come of it for episodes at a time.  Homeland, on the other hand, is a show that is not afraid to run through plot.  They would drop a small hint, like a glance or a small line, in one show and completely resolve it in the next.  

***Spoiler Alert:  If you haven't watched any of this season this is where I will start talking about the plot.***  

For example, in Episode 4 Carrie and Brody have a small flirtation.  Something I expected the writers to develop over the course of the season, but by Episode 6 they are together and by Episode 7 the relationship is over.  I can see why they did so fast because it entangles the two main characters for the rest of the series.  It connects the two halves of the show, something Rubicon failed to do until too late.  

Homeland also accomplishes something remarkable, it gets the audience to see things from the eyes of a terrorist.  It presents a 360 view of Brody's journey.  Brody is not a some automatized, one-dimensional character set on destroying the world.  He has reasons and struggles and is not always sure he is doing the right thing.  You can tell that he is struggling to fit back in, like anyone who has been held captive for 8 years would, but more so he is dealing with the reality of what he has vowed to do.  It helps that the audience is unsure of whether or not he is a terrorist throughout the season.  I, like most viewers, suspected it all along, but the show does enough to leave doubt in your mind and makes Carrie just Beautiful Mindish enough to believe that maybe she's chasing ghosts and creating plots.  In this way, it is like Rubicon, where you guessing who is on who's side.           

The Characters/Actors

Damian Lewis plays Brody with just the right amount of oddity that gives viewers the correct amount of suspicion.  Lewis has an unsettling, unnaturally natural look, which plays right into who his character is.  Claire Danes is wonderful as Carrie a driven, bipolar intelligence officer who as set her sights unknowingly on the right person.  To her, her job is not a job its a calling.  In a way, she has as much motivation as a terrorist.  It is a matter of life and death to stop the next attack and she is willing to sacrifice her career, social norms, and practically everything else to do it.  When she is playing by the rules it feels like a dog that is leashed but not happy about it.  As a Firefly fan, its always good to see Inara (Morena Baccarin) in a TV show.  She plays a wife (Jessica Brody) struggling to deal with the fact that her husband (Damian Lewis), who was presumed to be dead, is now alive when she, not so secretly, had moved on in her life with his best friend.  This plot, which is secondary to the main Carrie-Brody plot, is seamlessly integrated into the story.  The best character is Saul (Mandy Patinkin).  He is the character everyone wants to be; a smart, weathered intelligence veteran who is always composed and looked upon for advice.  The only answers he doesn't have are the ones at home.    

Season Conclusion

I did not at all see it coming that Tom Walker was still alive.  I also loved that after Tom Walker's capture was botched, it was Carrie who saw him as a ruse and that there was a larger objective in Abu Nazir's mind, something which made a lot of sense to me.  This elevated the whole show in my mind, the masterstroke Abu Nazir was trying to accomplish perfectly complimented Brody's guardedness and Carrie's growing paranoia and insecurities.  It was fun to see it all come together, to the point where Brody is in the room with a bomb and his finger on the trigger.  Now, and this is definitely a spoiler, I knew that he couldn't do it.  I think.  When I was watching the show I was thinking there is no way he does this, you can't kill a main character in Season 1.  But the show dragged it along enough for my mind to wander and think, we'll maybe they are pulling Dexter with a season long protagonist/special guest star.  I think this is an example of how the show puts that little bit of drama and doubt in your mind.  It's odd but in a sense, you almost want him to pull the trigger because everything works out for the main characters.  Carrie can prove she not insane.  Brody would get his revenge.  But this doesn't happen and Brody's daughter talks him off the edge.  Carrie is utterly destroyed and Brody convinces Abu Nazir of a grander plot.  Brody survives and Carrie loses.  

Final Thoughts

It will be interesting where they take the show next season.  There is no longer a guessing game on whether Brody is with Abu Nazir or not.  He is.  There is also not going to be a threat of a bomb or attack, because Brody's plan is more sophisticated than a crude weapon.  Next season will have to be smarter in that sense.  The question of where Carrie fits in is the biggest.  Without a job and some of her memories, what will she do.  I'm sure become more obsessed with Brody is the answer further complicating her "I'm in love with him, but I suspect him of being all I'm here to protect against" feelings for him.  I'll be watching, but I'm not ready to embrace this show like Breaking Bad or Dexter through the first 4 seasons.  I'm not sure, but there is something that hasn't convinced me yet that this is a show that belongs in my top tier.  Hopefully next season will convince me.