Does Derrick Rose have "it"?

[brett05]

Well your definition isn't what the OP was talking about so your declaration of DRose not having "IT" by your standard isn't necessarily relevant. Now whether Rose has "IT" in your definition can be another discussion topic in itself, and it's one that you could probably win, but as far as having a "killer instinct" goes, Rose has "it" no question.

I see it still relevant. Guys with killer instincts play.

 

[brett05]

Why does it bother you so much?

It doesn't bother me at all. You asked a a question, I answered it.

Did you really believe with him coming off that ACL the Bulls would beat Miami? Isn't that what its all about.

I don't believe a Healthy Rose would have beaten them, so no, that's not what it's about.

Why does it bother you he was over cautious with his body, to insure he will be healthy moving forward.

There is no such assurance.

Bulls have a short window

I agree and I think it's already closed.

and Rose is now bigger, stronger and maybe faster because of his choice.

As you said, MAYBE

How is this a bad thing?

He's paid to play when healthy.

Wasn't Deng cleared medically when he was out with the shin frature? Didnt it turn out to be broken?

Let's stick with Rose, but quickly, this was a medical misdiagnosis like RGIII, not a declared medically eligible after recovery, right?

Yes Rose isn't a doctor but the doctor isn't Rose.

Gotta trust someone. For hitting a jump shot, Rose. For being medically cleared, the doctors.

You seem bitter over a choice that Rose made

I'm not.

to give his team a better chance moving forward, and i dont understand that.

That's pie in the sky thinking because you never know when they will have that chance again. The best chance was for him to play last year. You have no idea what if anything the future will hold.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I see it still relevant. Guys with killer instincts play.

Well there's only so much I can argue the point. I guess Rose's past play in the clutch doesn't matter because he didn't play one season after a serious injury. Ok then.

 

[brett05]

Great point

Actually it is not a great point at all. The point was that Andrews initially said don't go back in. Then there was something that happened (misdiagnosis, shannahan, who knows) that has RGIII come back the following week. No one knows if RGIII would be healthy or not right now or playing better right now. Nor would more rest make him what he was prior to the injury. All wild guesses. Again, the doctors said he's recovered to play in 2013-14. That's the only fact we have.

 

[brett05]

Well there's only so much I can argue the point. I guess Rose's past play in the clutch doesn't matter because he didn't play one season after a serious injury. Ok then.

All I am doing is distinguishing those that have IT and those that don't. I don't see the big deal.

 

[Bear Pride]

Bulls have a short window

I agree and I think it's already closed.

What? Rose is 25, one year older than Butler. They've got Mirotic on the way. They still have Charlotte's 1st. And we're coming into a big FA year. This is laughable. How the heck has the window closed on the Bulls????

You might be worth an iggy!

 

[brett05]

What? Rose is 25, one year older than Butler. They've got Mirotic on the way. They still have Charlotte's 1st. And we're coming into a big FA year. This is laughable. How the heck has the window closed on the Bulls????

You might be worth an iggy!

Check back with me when they win one. I feel the window has closed and other teams have caught up and in some cases passed up the Bulls. My statement stands.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Actually it is not a great point at all. The point was that Andrews initially said don't go back in. Then there was something that happened (misdiagnosis, shannahan, who knows) that has RGIII come back the following week. No one knows if RGIII would be healthy or not right now or playing better right now. Nor would more rest make him what he was prior to the injury. All wild guesses. Again, the doctors said he's recovered to play. That's the only fact we have.

You're jumping to the conclusion that Andrews said don't go back in. That report came after he reinjured himself. Perhaps if he doesn't get injured again, no one says anything except that he wasn't playing as well as he used to. Now, do you mean to say that if he was not coming off a second ACL surgery this year that he would still not be playing at the level he was before he sprained his knee and that he'd still be playing as poorly as he is now? I'd say that's a very strong statement.

There is another fact that tends to be overlooked and that's that doctors can be wrong. I know many doctors treating athletes are experts in their field and the best of the best, but it happens. Someone brought up Deng's leg injury that ended up being a stress fracture that kept him out of the playoffs, it's a valid example. Now you're right in saying that we don't know exactly what would happen, but it stands to reason that an injured player staying out longer is less likely to reinjure themselves and more likely to play at a high level sooner. There is a certain point where a player's level of play is hurting the team more than helping. In Rose's case, if he's not 100% and is left hoisting jumpers all game long because he can't get to the paint, is that helping us? He can have all the mental fortitude in the world, but if the result is 8/30 shooting, what good is it? Of course, those 8 shots could all be shots in the 4th and perhaps that wins the game, but even at that point you wonder a little if it's really worth it for him to be out there.

 

[brett05]

You're jumping to the conclusion that Andrews said don't go back in.

I am jumping to nothing. Andrews said it. He's quoted as saying it. Given his reputation he has nothing to cover up even if he makes a mistake so I am choosing to take him at his word then assume something else.

 

[clonetrooper264]

All I am doing is distinguishing those that have IT and those that don't. I don't see the big deal.

IT by your definition as the only correct definition. You're free to think what you like, but a mentality of "I believe this is this and everything else is wrong because it disagrees with my definition" isn't going to fly.

 

[Shepard]

Check back with me when they win one. I feel the window has closed and other teams have caught up and in some cases passed up the Bulls. My statement stands.

No it doesn't.

 

[brett05]

IT by your definition as the only correct definition. You're free to think what you like, but a mentality of "I believe this is this and everything else is wrong because it disagrees with my definition" isn't going to fly.

I did no such thing. A question was posed and I answered it against the popular belief of the respondents. If the question had no other answer why was it even asked or answered by anyone? Sorry, the only ones saying it's my way or the highway seems (and notice I said seems) to be you and others

 

[brett05]

No it doesn't.

Wow. thanks for that nugget.

 

[Shepard]

Wow. thanks for that nugget.

Its a more valuable nugget than "check back with me when they win one"....

 

[brett05]

There is a certain point where a player's level of play is hurting the team more than helping.

We agree

In Rose's case, if he's not 100% and is left hoisting jumpers all game long because he can't get to the paint, is that helping us?

Key there is "IF"

He can have all the mental fortitude in the world, but if the result is 8/30 shooting, what good is it? Of course, those 8 shots could all be shots in the 4th and perhaps that wins the game, but even at that point you wonder a little if it's really worth it for him to be out there.

If only there was a way to tell if he could hit shots with other players on the court. They could even give it a name that starts with the letter "p".

In all Seriousness, his teammates said he looked great in practice and they even ran early season drills just for Rose so he could get back

 

[brett05]

Its a more valuable nugget than "check back with me when they win one"....

You bolded My statement stands,..want to try again?

 

[clonetrooper264]

I am jumping to nothing. Andrews said it. He's quoted as saying it. Given his reputation he has nothing to cover up even if he makes a mistake so I am choosing to take him at his word then assume something else.

Actually...he just apparently never got the chance to say anything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-griffin-iii-knee-injury/1811689/?sf8376776=1

Interesting note though, is that RGIII passed all their tests and functional things. I assume that is probably equivalent to being medically healthy.

There's also this in the context of players wanting to come back too soon

Andrews described the team's responsibility toward the rookie quarterback — "to make sure he's OK for the next 15 years," Andrews said. "That's what you have to watch out for for players, because they don't know."

If a player is on the cautious side rather than demanding to play, is that player really any less of a competitor considering that person has to do everything for their team upon their return and that if they're not truly 100%, they're not going to be helping their team necessarily win more?

 

[Shepard]

You bolded My statement stands,..want to try again?

You've been critical of Rose because the Bulls haven't won it all....which is absurd.

 

[brett05]

You've been critical of Rose because the Bulls haven't won it all....which is absurd.

Yes that's it. You got me.

Back to Clone...

 

[brett05]

Actually...he just apparently never got the chance to say anything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-griffin-iii-knee-injury/1811689/?sf8376776=1

Right, he wasn't cleared to play. By the same token he seemed to purposely avoid Andrews so he could go right back in. For me that would be "IT."

Interesting note though, is that RGIII passed all their tests and functional things. I assume that is probably equivalent to being medically healthy.

equivalent to a bad diagnosis. Why that was done is another question, but again, not the same as a long recovery and being cleared.

There's also this in the context of players wanting to come back too soon

I liked your quote. Shows the doctor needs to make the call not the player because you are right they don't know what is best.

If a player is on the cautious side rather than demanding to play, is that player really any less of a competitor considering that person has to do everything for their team upon their return and that if they're not truly 100%, they're not going to be helping their team necessarily win more?

Again, this isn't comparing someone after a recovery. You want to compare RGIII at that moment to Cutler as an example.