Not that is should be too surprising at this point...

...but Vinny Del Negro seemingly only knows one inbounds play from half court. He runs the play every single time the Bulls are in a late game situation after a timeout. I'm using some hyperbole here, because to call what the Bulls ran from two consecutive inbounds plays (after timeouts no less) a "play" is generous to say the least. Here is the ideal outcome from VDN's late game inbounds play. Free up Rose at the top the key and.......that's it. That's where the play ends. After that it's up to Rose (when he is lucky enough to get the ball) to make something happen. Oddly, as a Bulls fan this is OK to me...would I rather put the game in Rose's hands or in the hands of a scripted VDN play? That's an easy call. But this also begs the question, if that's the optimal result of the inbounds, why even call the timeout...Rose generally has the ball when you call the timeout and then you run a play to try and get it back into his hands? Does that seem dumb to anyone else? You already have the desired result of your "play" (Rose with the ball) but you're going to take your chances on getting it back to him with the same play twice in 10 seconds? It doesn't make any sense to me.



My main issue is that he runs the same set literally every time the Bulls have an inbounds play at half court with a game on the line (again, liberal use of "play"). As a point of reference, my 7th grade basketball team had eight variations of inbounds plays....eight. On VDN's master stroke, Rose sets up on just inside the 3 point line, gets a screen (usually from Noah or Miller) and runs toward mid court. From here there are no more moving parts to the play, no semblance of a set play they have been practicing since the preseason. It becomes "OK let's see what Rose can do here"...which, like I said above, with this team/coach, isn't the worst option. This "method" worked with 19 seconds left last night when Rose was able to take Courtney Lee off the dribble and hit a runner for a 100-99 lead...but with 14 seconds left, it not only didn't work but there wasn't any effort to get the ball back into Rose's hands when it didn't work even though there was ample time to do so. Instead, Salmons did his best Ben Gordon impression (it's easy to do....dribble (x 5) without moving anywhere, chuck up a 3 with a defender in your face) and practically handed the Nets the game.

You can give some of the blame to Rose who should have ran to Salmons and torn the ball from his hands...he apparently still isn't completely stepping into that "take charge" role the Bulls need him to as an elite PG (would CP3 or Nash allow someone else to run the show in that moment? Nope....I almost said Billups too, but he has Melo and it's ok to defer to Melo). Whoever deserves the most blame, the Bulls just lost to the 2-19 Nets at home. And that's indefensible.




Nick Friedell's Blog - ESPNChicago.com

The Bulls head coach didn't speak for a few moments. What was he going to say? How was he going to explain that his team had just lost to the worst team in the NBA? How could he explain that the team's best player didn't get the ball when the game was on the line? What about his job security?



The problem with a loss like the one the Bulls suffered on Tuesday night is that it's the kind of loss that brings all these bad questions to the forefront. It's the type of loss that sticks with a team for a while. And, most importantly, it's the type of loss that can get a coach fired.

Rockets' Chuck Hayes agrees that LeBaby's in-game dance moves are inappropriate

“To showboat another professional, it's disrespectful. If you feel disrespected, do something about it within the game, nothing dirty. Eventually, all the dancing and acting will stop. They only do it when they're up big.”