If we get Bowen...It's all over, we win...

[EJPLAYA]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

[Cman]

Assuming the Cs get Daniels (but not assuming anything about BBD), I'm with the crowd that believes the Cs need a 4th big man (which could very well be BBD) and a backup PG before adding another wing.

[pearljammer10]

I still like the idea of Sheed Daniels and House coming in to play with Rondo and KG then using Daniels at the point in bringing Bowen in to fill in the rest of the minutes at the three. If worse comes to worse Scal can take up a few minutes in the big man rotation. Im still hoping for a BBD sign and trade to boost the front court however.

[Fafnir]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

If it wasn't effective, why would we often finish games with House on the floor. And why was the unit with House at PG able to come back from a double digit deficit against the Lakers?

You still didn't answer why can't House be in at the 1, and guard the opposing one. Then have another player handle the ball? Because we have done that quite frequently with this team.

[EJPLAYA]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

If it wasn't effective, why would we often finish games with House on the floor. And why was the unit with House at PG able to come back from a double digit deficit against the Lakers?

You still didn't answer why can't House be in at the 1, and guard the opposing one. Then have another player handle the ball? Because we have done that quite frequently with this team.

picking out one good game against the lakers, and then throwing out a lot of wins that we would have won anyway (many against bad teams) doesn't solidify that argument. Why did DA and Doc feel the need to go out and sign not one but 2 real PG's the last 2 years at the deadlines to get House out of that situation?!

As far as him defending the two I am fine with his pesky style of defense, however we need someone handling the ball that can create off the dribble to cause a collapse in their defense which will free House for open shots. Daniels can't do that anymore than PP could when he would sometimes fill that role. Teams don't have to leave their man to cover the dribbler beating theirs. It isn't that it can't work at times, but isn't as effective as a true PG who can create off the dribble and can defend. Bowen isn't needed anywhere near what a PG and a backup C is.

[Fafnir]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

If it wasn't effective, why would we often finish games with House on the floor. And why was the unit with House at PG able to come back from a double digit deficit against the Lakers?

You still didn't answer why can't House be in at the 1, and guard the opposing one. Then have another player handle the ball? Because we have done that quite frequently with this team.

picking out one good game against the lakers, and then throwing out a lot of wins that we would have won anyway (many against bad teams) doesn't solidify that argument. Why did DA and Doc feel the need to go out and sign not one but 2 real PG's the last 2 years at the deadlines to get House out of that situation?!

As far as him defending the two I am fine with his pesky style of defense, however we need someone handling the ball that can create off the dribble to cause a collapse in their defense which will free House for open shots. Daniels can't do that anymore than PP could when he would sometimes fill that role. Teams don't have to leave their man to cover the dribbler beating theirs. It isn't that it can't work at times, but isn't as effective as a true PG who can create off the dribble and can defend. Bowen isn't needed anywhere near what a PG and a backup C is.

I picked out one game because it was a good example. Eddie was our backup point and we were the best team in the league.

I'm not sure what you're really arguing, that we would be better with a true backup point? I'll give you that. We'd also be better with better backups at a lot of positions. I just don't think there are any FAs left of sufficient quality that will do any better than Eddie in that role.

I think you're overrating his "pesky defense". Eddie is a bad defender at the one, for all of his effort. He's a disaster at the two.

[BudweiserCeltic]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

If it wasn't effective, why would we often finish games with House on the floor. And why was the unit with House at PG able to come back from a double digit deficit against the Lakers?

You still didn't answer why can't House be in at the 1, and guard the opposing one. Then have another player handle the ball? Because we have done that quite frequently with this team.

House couldn't get off the bench against the Piston's that year. Their press kills House. So yeah, there are numerous circumstances which House can't handle being the PG. When the pressure is on, he has a ton of trouble.

With the Lakers, their press and PG defenders weren't good.

[Fafnir]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

If it wasn't effective, why would we often finish games with House on the floor. And why was the unit with House at PG able to come back from a double digit deficit against the Lakers?

You still didn't answer why can't House be in at the 1, and guard the opposing one. Then have another player handle the ball? Because we have done that quite frequently with this team.

House couldn't get off the bench against the Piston's that year. Their press kills House. So yeah, there are numerous circumstances which House can't handle being the PG. When the pressure is on, he has a ton of trouble.

What other circumstances? Lindsay Hunter ate Eddie up that series with his ball pressure. He also can't defend super quick PGs like Rondo/Parker/etc. But those are the only two things I can think of.

I still don't think any other backup PG we can get as a FA will be better in that role. Especially when our backup wing can handle, as can both Ray/Paul.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What other circumstances? Lindsay Hunter ate Eddie up that series with his ball pressure. He also can't defend super quick PGs like Rondo/Parker/etc. But those are the only two things I can think of.

Let's add 3 more.

He can't guard bigger guards, like Billups and ones that post up. If his shot is not falling, he's useless since he provides little else as a PG. When paired up with small PG/SG's, he can be taken advantage of.

And no, it wasn't just Lindsay Hunter. With anyone they had on the court, they would half court press House, messing up our whole offense. If I remember correctly, they used Hamilton in that role too.

So no, House is not good enough as the primary back-up PG. He needs to be surrounded by other ball handlers (Daniels) or another PG.

I'm not arguing about us being good enough in the guard position right now, particularly with Daniels in here, I'm just pointing out the flawed logic used with your Lakers' example to support House as a primary backup PG.

[EJPLAYA]

2 years ago I agree with the pro-Bowen crowd, but if he can't get in front of Daniels in the line-up then why? We need to go after a backup center vs. yet another wing. PG before that as well. He just won't see the floor enough to bother. I'd rather have a prospect than him because at least we can maybe end up with something.

I don't see why we would need Bowen to get in front of Daniels. I think the idea is to have Daniels play the bulk of the wing minutes, and have Bowen take the minutes that are lefts at SF (Since Daniels is more of a SG). House and Daniels would share the point guard responsibilities. In my opinion, what the team needs is a 4th wing (preferably one who can shoot the 3ball), and a 4th big (preferably one who can play center) as you said. Signing one shouldn't hurt our ability to get the other.

House or Daniels at point is NOT going to be a good thing. House is a two and when he plays the point it takes away everything that he does exceptionally well and turns him into a mediocre player. Danies should be backing up PP and getting all those minutes. We need a true pg who can get the ball up the floor quickly and defend. This will allow us to run. If Daniels or House is at point we are a slow walk it up second unit. With no low post game we would be in trouble.

Why can't House guard the one and play the two on offense?

House was pretty effective in 07-08 anyways, so I think your claim that it takes away everything he does well is overblown.

Don't think so, and neither does Danny and Doc. Why else would they have gone out towards the end of the season and taken a chance on a guy like Marbury who was a career problem child and hadn't really played ball in a year plus. They knew the guy wasn't going to come back and step right in without a lot of rust. They knew that if they could get him at least bringing the ball up it would free up House to do what he does well and that is float to the outside and hit threes. When he's bringing the ball up the floor he can't do that. It was VERY obvious in games last year and the year before as it takes him an extra 3-4 seconds to get the ball up and into the offense due to his limited ball handling skills. Not sure why that is hard to see at all...

If it wasn't effective, why would we often finish games with House on the floor. And why was the unit with House at PG able to come back from a double digit deficit against the Lakers?

You still didn't answer why can't House be in at the 1, and guard the opposing one. Then have another player handle the ball? Because we have done that quite frequently with this team.

picking out one good game against the lakers, and then throwing out a lot of wins that we would have won anyway (many against bad teams) doesn't solidify that argument. Why did DA and Doc feel the need to go out and sign not one but 2 real PG's the last 2 years at the deadlines to get House out of that situation?!

As far as him defending the two I am fine with his pesky style of defense, however we need someone handling the ball that can create off the dribble to cause a collapse in their defense which will free House for open shots. Daniels can't do that anymore than PP could when he would sometimes fill that role. Teams don't have to leave their man to cover the dribbler beating theirs. It isn't that it can't work at times, but isn't as effective as a true PG who can create off the dribble and can defend. Bowen isn't needed anywhere near what a PG and a backup C is.

I picked out one game because it was a good example. Eddie was our backup point and we were the best team in the league.

I'm not sure what you're really arguing, that we would be better with a true backup point? I'll give you that. We'd also be better with better backups at a lot of positions. I just don't think there are any FAs left of sufficient quality that will do any better than Eddie in that role.

I think you're overrating his "pesky defense". Eddie is a bad defender at the one, for all of his effort. He's a disaster at the two.

What?! YOU were the one asking why it wasn't feasible to have House guard the one and now you are saying the guy can't defend! Then you agree with me that we need help at the other spots?! I think you're just trying to argue because you aren't even sticking with your own points. Based on everything you've said you agree that we need a better defender at the one, someone who can bring the ball up the ball and create better than House which will allow him to play the two, and that we need a better backup at the C spot. That's what I said. Why are you arguing?!

[Fafnir]

What other circumstances? Lindsay Hunter ate Eddie up that series with his ball pressure. He also can't defend super quick PGs like Rondo/Parker/etc. But those are the only two things I can think of.

Let's add 3 more.

He can't guard bigger guards, like Billups and ones that post up. If his shot is not falling, he's useless since he provides little else as a PG. When paired up with small PG/SG's, he can be taken advantage of.

And no, it wasn't just Lindsay Hunter. With anyone they had on the court, they would half court press House, messing up our whole offense. If I remember correctly, they used Hamilton in that role too.

So no, House is not good enough as the primary back-up PG. He needs to be surrounded by other ball handlers (Daniels) or another PG.

I'm not arguing about us being good enough in the guard position right now, particularly with Daniels in here, I'm just pointing out the flawed logic used with your Lakers' example to support House as a primary backup PG.

Pairing him with a small SG isn't an additional circumstance that he's ineffective at the point. Rather pairing him with another PG doesn't work because of his size. He has trouble guarding larger players, which is why he has to be a point mainly. You are definitely correct that he needs to be making shots to be effective.

I'm not arguing about us being good enough in the guard position right now, particularly with Daniels in here, I'm just pointing out the flawed logic used with your Lakers' example to support House as a primary backup PG.

I already said that was just a quick example. He was our primary backup point guard that entire season. We won the title that year, so its pretty clear he was good enough. I don't see what flaws you've poked in that argument.

House has some pretty large holes in his game, that's why he's a bench player. But he works just fine as the backup PG for our team.

[Fafnir]

I picked out one game because it was a good example. Eddie was our backup point and we were the best team in the league.

I'm not sure what you're really arguing, that we would be better with a true backup point? I'll give you that. We'd also be better with better backups at a lot of positions. I just don't think there are any FAs left of sufficient quality that will do any better than Eddie in that role.

I think you're overrating his "pesky defense". Eddie is a bad defender at the one, for all of his effort. He's a disaster at the two.

What?! YOU were the one asking why it wasn't feasible to have House guard the one and now you are saying the guy can't defend! Then you agree with me that we need help at the other spots?! I think you're just trying to argue because you aren't even sticking with your own points. Based on everything you've said you agree that we need a better defender at the one, someone who can bring the ball up the ball and create better than House which will allow him to play the two, and that we need a better backup at the C spot. That's what I said. Why are you arguing?!

How am I not sticking to my own points? You argue that Eddie needs to be at SG to be effective. I disagree and I don't think I've varied what I've said about that.

Eddie isn't a good defensive player, that doesn't mean he can't be our backup point guard. He's an even worse defender when asked to defend the two, so he needs to play at the one. Someone else on the floor needs to be able to help him break pressure.

I never really talked about our backup Center situation. For what its worth I think we're fine there because Sheed is a much a C as he is a PF at this point in his career. We just need a quality fourth big, whether at the PF or C.

[EJPLAYA]

I picked out one game because it was a good example. Eddie was our backup point and we were the best team in the league.

I'm not sure what you're really arguing, that we would be better with a true backup point? I'll give you that. We'd also be better with better backups at a lot of positions. I just don't think there are any FAs left of sufficient quality that will do any better than Eddie in that role.

I think you're overrating his "pesky defense". Eddie is a bad defender at the one, for all of his effort. He's a disaster at the two.

What?! YOU were the one asking why it wasn't feasible to have House guard the one and now you are saying the guy can't defend! Then you agree with me that we need help at the other spots?! I think you're just trying to argue because you aren't even sticking with your own points. Based on everything you've said you agree that we need a better defender at the one, someone who can bring the ball up the ball and create better than House which will allow him to play the two, and that we need a better backup at the C spot. That's what I said. Why are you arguing?!

How am I not sticking to my own points? You argue that Eddie needs to be at SG to be effective. I disagree and I don't think I've varied what I've said about that.

Eddie isn't a good defensive player, that doesn't mean he can't be our backup point guard. He's an even worse defender when asked to defend the two, so he needs to play at the one. Someone else on the floor needs to be able to help him break pressure.

I never really talked about our backup Center situation. For what its worth I think we're fine there because Sheed is a much a C as he is a PF at this point in his career. We just need a quality fourth big, whether at the PF or C.

Because you made this big stink about me not replying to why Eddie couldn't guard the one and have someone else bring the ball up the floor. Then you go and say the guy can't defend. I think that Eddie does a better job being a pesky ball denial defender on the 2 guard than manning up 1-1 the PG. You say he can't defend either. Why then would you throw out the idea that he should be defending the one and someone else bring the ball up so we don't have to go after a PG?! Wouldn't it be smarter to get a solid PG backup that could defend and not have an issue pushing the ball up like I said in the first place? Let me answer that for you. YES IT WOULD...

[ManUp]

You guys are picking out all of Eddie's flaws. He's can't handle the ball well enough to play point, and he's way too short to play shooting-guard.l You either pick to play him as a point, and sacrifice a bit of offense, or you play him as 2guard and sacrifice some defense. To be honest I was a little dissapointed when he didn't opt out of his contract. A more traditional PG or SG would have helped.

[Jon]

2 years ago, Eddie House at point guard was problematic as Rondo was unproven.  That's not a problem anymore.  Moreover, Rondo is insanely athletic and has Havlicek-like endurance that will allow him to play close to 40 mpg (and perhaps more in the playoffs).  Who plays the whopping 5-10 mpg behind him in meaningful games is not of enormous consequence. 

Thus, while I don't love Eddie as a PG, given what he can do shooting the ball, and how good the team will be around him, I think we can get by with House (or PP or Allen or Daniels) bringing the ball up the court for 5-10 mpg.