In this week's issue, Sports Illustrated pro basketball writer Marty Burns profiles the Pacers' clutch shotmaker, Reggie Miller. After Indiana lost Wednesday night's game to fall behind 3-2 in the Eastern Conference finals, Burns spoke with CNN/SI about Reggie, the Bulls and the Western Conference champion Utah Jazz:

BURNS SOUNDS OFF:

The Michael-Reggie rivalry (380K)
Reggie's nickname for Michael (327K)
Reggie against the world (390K)

CNN/SI: Did the losses in Games 3 and 4 serve as a wakeup call for Chicago?

Marty Burns: To some extent it was a wakeup call. I think the Bulls respected the Pacers going in, but they took away so many of Indiana's offensive options in the first two games that they may have let up a little bit going into Game 3 figuring, We've got these guys solved. But Larry Bird did a great job mixing up the matchups, and the Pacers played hard and they played well—they put themselves in good position, they got a couple breaks, and, bingo, the Bulls had lost two games by two points. When the Bulls walked out of Market Square Arena on Monday they realized, These guys won't go away, and if we're not careful they got the finisher in Reggie Miller to put us away.

CNN/SI: How serious was Miller's injury, really?

Burns: His right ankle was legitimately hurt. Granted, he's running around, jumping around after the shot on Monday, pirouetting and all that, but people have to give him a break. When your adrenaline is pumping, that's what adrenaline does, it covers pain, it masks pain. I don't think you can make too much of that. The reality is, he missed practice Sunday, a very important practice—they needed him there, and he wasn't able to do it. He was getting around-the-clock treatment. I saw him in the training room getting worked on. His wife, Marita, told us on the morning of Monday's game that he was in so much pain he originally told her, 'I don't think I can go today.' He got dressed, he went out to the car, and at one point he came back in and he was really upset because he didn't think he could go. Up until the time he took the floor, I think he wasn't sure he was going to play. Yes, he made all those shots at the end, but you could see it on defense, that he really couldn't plant against Jordan when Jordan posted him up a little bit, like Wednesday night. And you could see when he drove the lane, he really didn't have any explosion off his feet like he normally does. Clearly he's hurt, there's no question about it, but he's trying to play through it, and he's doing a pretty good job. If the Pacers can stay close, he can make the shots at the end of the game—that's what they need him for, anyway.

CNN/SI: What surprised you most, that Utah swept the Lakers or that Chicago lost two games?

Burns: I'm more surprised that the Jazz swept the Lakers. L.A. had been playing the best basketball of any team at that point in the playoffs, and you figure with Shaq in the middle that Utah was going to have some problems stopping him, or at least keeping him under control. I thought it was going to go seven games. As for the Bulls, people forget that at the end of the regular season, Indiana beat Chicago in the United Center and everyone was talking about how tough the Pacers had played the Bulls.

CNN/SI: Was everyone just too quick to jump on the Lakers' bandwagon?

Burns: A little bit. Sometimes people see the flash and the dash in basketball and they don't really understand how much of a team game it is. The Jazz aren't fancy, but they've been together a long time—each guy knows what the other guy's going to do, they know the system very well, and they run it with mind-numbing efficiency. Whereas the Lakers, they have a lot of talent and they get up and down the floor very well, but that's not always what wins in playoff basketball. Part of it was that the Lakers went so easily through the Sonics, but the Sonics weren't playing very well.

CNN/SI: Does Utah have a chance in the Finals?

I think Utah's got a real good chance. They played the Bulls tough in last year's Finals—three of those games were decided by a few points—and this year the Jazz have homecourt advantage and the experience of having been through the Finals once. Also, Chicago is a little bit older. Utah's older too, but the Bulls have a shorter bench than the Jazz do. All of that shapes up pretty well, especially since Utah has a week or more to get ready for the Bulls. A lot of people talk about the rest that they're going to get—it's not only the rest, it's also the preparation time. The Bulls are the only team that runs the triangle offense and teams can't really prepare for it in the regular season that well. This gives the Jazz a week to go over what they learned last year in the Finals, and gives them time to hone some of the finer details of defending against the Bulls.

Now, the time off could hurt the Jazz, too. We've seen it many times: a team that has a week off can be a little flat in the first game, but after Game 1 of the Finals I think the Jazz will have a big advantage.

CNN/SI: Sounds like you're conceding the East to the Bulls.

Burns: Yeah. I'd be shocked if Chicago lost two games in a row, including a seventh game at home, with Michael—not unless he sprains an ankle or something.

Tell us what you think. Sound off on the CNN/SI Basketball Message Board.