Ahhh! More garbage from Rosen? Say it ain't so! Funny he thought that was a foul, since the Bulls' own coach, Skiles, clearly stated that it was "nowhere" near a foul, and was a "good non-call". Rosen amuses me...well, slightly so.
Yawn. These "Play Steve Novak" posts are really boring. Novak can't defend or rebound as well as Padgett. When you're trying to protect a lead, you do it with defense. You don't put in your inexperienced, turnover-prone (V-span), non-defending (Novak) rookies. Use some common sense, please.
you are contradicting yourself !!! u just said that u do it with Defense, well VSPAN is one hell of a defender (he's better than rafer as far as I am concerned), and yet u say "you dont put in your turnover-prone Vspan.. turnovers and on Offense... and inexperienced? the guy played in Europe and he understands the game, I know that he is "inxeperienced" in the NBA, but how do get him to become "experienced"? u play him 6-15 minutes every game especially when u have Ben Gordon going D-Wade on us..
Yes, VSpan's a hell of a defender alright. He really showed it during pre-season, I mean wow, he showed he's a great defender during pre-season, man. We talkin' about pre-season, man. Bruce Bowen style. We talkin about pre-season, man.
No, follow closely. When you're protecting a lead, you need players who (a) won't turn it over, and (b) will defend well. Spanoulis is a good pressure defender, not necessarily a particularly good team defender yet. But, more importantly, he can't be trusted with the ball ... he's a turnover machine. It doesn't make sense to put him in the game when you're protecting a lead. You think it makes sense to give your rookie experience by putting him in the games in pressure situations where the cost of failure is very high? Sorry, that's completely backwards. If the Rockets continue to struggle with their second unit after a decent period of time (let's say 3 weeks), then I'd support ramping up Spanoulis's minutes. But you don't thrust him into his first action in the fourth quarter of a close game against quality competition.
This was my opinion of the article as well. He talked basketball strategy on who generally should inbound the ball and described how the Rockets looked on offense late in the game, appearing sensible. But then the foulness couldnt be contained and went ahead smothering it in, even ending with the backhanded compliment "Otherwise, they're a hell of a ball club." Me, I'll take 6-3 all year long. And though its cause for alarm, I'll take last night's type of win 4 times in a row in an NBA Finals. I do want Novak and Bonzi in and won't change my tune on that yet but it's hard to argue AGAINST who is in the rotation, even Howard. The team needs to figure out its identity and how to close out games better with the people they have, and the coach they have. I'm just a bit concerned that 'killer instinct' might be something that will not be easily attained..
waelhakmeh is right. All you ever really need to know about Charley Rosen is that he wrote this: A note to long-suffering Cavaliers' fans: Don't get caught in the LeBron James pipe dream. The best King James can ever be is an average NBA player
Phil Jackson. Actually Rosen finds something to criticize about EVERY player in the NBA. If you only read his columns, you'd think there were no good basketball players in the NBA.
No, I don't think it's a bad article. Sure, he exaggerates on the flaws and creates some out of thin air, but he has some valid points. The team is by no means there yet, and I don't think it should be this early in the season either. But criticism is always good, even if it's not perfect, or in areas we agree with it, right? As in, don't dismiss the valid points, for the not valid ones. After all he does praise the team in thinking it can be there if a few things are fixed, to which we prolly all agree, even if we disagree which these things are, right? Like a book, maybe it's not what you expect, but there are ways to benefit from it still.
