Gordon holding back Rose??

[Kush77]

I've heard this argument from quite a few people since last night. Online, at work, on the radio etc.. The idea that Gordon was holding Rose back, and now that he's gone Rose can blossom (pun intended).

But didn't Derrick Rose win rookie of the year last year? Didn't he exceed all of our expectations? If Ben Gordon wasn't on the team last season would Rose have been the MVP or something?

And even if Gordon stayed, I would assume Rose would take over the reins and not sit by and cater to Ben Gordon. Rose was going to be the man regardless of BG staying or going.

Yes, Gordon dominated the ball a lot, but I don't think Rose was hurting for opportunities. He got his. And he had chances to win ball games in the clutch too, he just didn't come through.

 

[charity stripe]

The people that say this believe that Rose should get every shot, bring the ball up the court 100% of the time, and every teammate he has would ideally be a defensive specialist, with low ability to score the ball.

 

[Diddy1122]

If anything BG's ability to space the floor for Rose made Rose better last season than he would've been say playing next to Hinrich. Probably the only silver lining to this whole thing, other than cap space which means nothing if you don't do anything with it, is that Rose will now be forced to be the man & it should speed up his developement. Though it could also backfire too.

What I don't get is this entire year was all about who can play well with Rose & there was no one on the team who played better with him than BG.

 

[PJ Brown]

I sure don't think Gordon did anything to hold Rose back. Bringing him back would've been good for Rose.

I can see the argument that now that he's gone, however, a positive might be that Rose had to assume the attitude that he's responsible for making the big plays and shouldn't look to defer, but that doesn't mean that having Gordon return wouldn't have been good for the team.