Would you rather? Riley or Rose

Take Riley with his attitude of play at all cost :sick: (60%) or prefer Riley to have Derek Rose's attitude where he's been cleared for over 2 months to play but he's still sitting out :utard: ?



Rose has been practicing 5-5 for a while now I think and doctors cleared him months ago to return to the court. The Bulls have a shot with a healthy Rose but likely will be out of in the first round without him now.



I understand it's a different situation where a college player like Riley knows he loses his eligibility at years end while a player like Rose needs to consider his next 10 years of playing.

I'd rather not talk about it. :)

Taysom Hill.

BerliNY wrote:
Taysom Hill.

^^^ THIS^^^

Ok got it. Nobody wants to play. (Maybe this is too similar to a Riley/Heaps thread) If I was a Bulls season ticket fan right now I'd be going crazy though. I was also going crazy as a BYU season ticket holder so I've been thinking about what would be better.



In any case you guys are right. Taysom is the answer. (Maybe we can compare him to Allen Iverson?...... :P)

I'd take Riley. Rose is very talented - but. My understanding is, he's been practicing since Feb. That is total B.S.

Superficially, you'd definitely go with Riley.



I don't claim to know what either of these 2 are going through or went through. But just because Rose is "cleared" medically doesn't mean he's even close to 100%. It just means he's not going to jack anything up by playing. If he's 50%, then he's probably doing the team a favor by having hinrich play. If riley on the other hand was 60% and trying to be tough, (he was a marginally good QB anyway) he was probably hurting the team.



But, like I mentioned, hard to know without knowing the entire story. I'm sure it's killing Rose to watch the bulls play this year without him.

I doubt it's killing Rose to not be playing and watching the Bulls play. The only thing he's thinking about it himself.

hawkwing wrote:
I doubt it's killing Rose to not be playing and watching the Bulls play. The only thing he's thinking about it himself.

??? link???

BroncoBot wrote:

I doubt it's killing Rose to not be playing and watching the Bulls play. The only thing he's thinking about it himself.

??? link???

I'll I've heard (and I don't claim to have followed this story that carefully) is that he's been cleared and he's 100% but mentally he's not 100%. Injuries are hard and I can see how mentally it would be hard to trust it.



To me his situation is very much like Boozer's was during his time with the Jazz. It's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt because of what he says. He shouldnt have strung everyone along for the last 2 months.

Stirfry wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
I doubt it's killing Rose to not be playing and watching the Bulls play. The only thing he's thinking about it himself.

??? link???

I'll I've heard (and I don't claim to have followed this story that carefully) is that he's been cleared and he's 100% but mentally he's not 100%. Injuries are hard and I can see how mentally it would be hard to trust it.



To me his situation is very much like Boozer's was during his time with the Jazz. It's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt because of what he says. He shouldnt have strung everyone along for the last 2 months.

Except I don't think many people want to miss the playoffs. And Boozer "miraculously" healed up for the playoffs didn't he?

Meg Ryan.

While Rosé could probably throw a tighter spiral, I'll take heart over timid

Really?

I like Riley. I think Riley got a bad rap at BYU. He did not deserve the fan abandonment. 99% of the problems we had with Riley Nelson at quarterback was not his fault. They were (in my humble opinion) in order of fault as follows: 1. No offensive line development. 2. Lack of effective coaching. 3. Lack of talent behind him after Hill went down. 4. Riley's attitude.

Notice, I didn't say that we didn't have talent at the offensive line. The primary problem was lack of development of that talent. So, in effect, the problem with the offensive line was coaching.

So, why did lack of effective coaching fall to #2. That is in reference to specifically coaching of the quarterback position. As injured as Riley was, you don't send him in to the Utah and Boise games and then allow him to stay in once it becomes evident that he can no longer function in the position.

As to lack of talent behind him after Hill went down, that is once again a coaching issue. It constantly begs the question, why do we not find game situations to develop potentially talented second and third string quarterbacks? Why do we not send in the second string quarterback during "garbage time" and have him run real offense rather than just hand the ball off. I understand "not running up the score." However, if you can't beat the second string, there is a problem. I'm not saying that they should throw it downfield every down, however, maybe it would be helpful for them to go in and do something. It is much better than Lark coming in with the game on the line and being expected to do something.

As to Riley's attitude, that once again is a coaching issue. Players need to understand that the coaches make the decisions and that allowing players to dictate when the quarterback should avoid contact and when they should come out of games, etc. is the sign of a coaching breakdown.

As to whether or not I would rather Riley or Rose, I would take Riley Nelson, with the desire to win at all personal costs, over anyone in the NBA and their elitist attitudes. I don't have much use for last year's offensive coaching staff however.

I agree with you about the deveopment issue. I remember when Edwards would have a freshmen/sophmore coming in for a junior/senior when the game was under control. By the time the first stringer graduated the next guy had had quite a bit of time to deveope. I hope we get back to that kind of progression.

rblack wrote:
I like Riley. I think Riley got a bad rap at BYU. He did not deserve the fan abandonment. 99% of the problems we had with Riley Nelson at quarterback was not his fault. They were (in my humble opinion) in order of fault as follows: 1. No offensive line development. 2. Lack of effective coaching. 3. Lack of talent behind him after Hill went down. 4. Riley's attitude.

We didnt' have much O-line development in 2011 either, same coaches and the same Riley attitude. But Riley was successful in 2011. The level of opponents were about the same. The difference was Riley's injuries. He was good in 2011 because he played when healthy - he played when hurt in 2012. But he is still responsible for his own performance and production. He was good in 2011 and bad in 2012.

nuk13 wrote:
I agree with you about the deveopment issue. I remember when Edwards would have a freshmen/sophmore coming in for a junior/senior when the game was under control. By the time the first stringer graduated the next guy had had quite a bit of time to deveope. I hope we get back to that kind of progression.

This is something BYU has really struggled at under Bronco - younger player development.



For instance, in 2009, Max Hall threw 406 attempts and his back-up, Riley Nelson, had 10.

But BYU played in nine games that were decided by 17 or more points, including six decided by 24 or more. There had to have been more opportunities to get Nelson more live game reps.



BYU needs to get younger guys more reps in games to see if they can play at this level. Maybe in 2009, if they had played Riley more coaches realize what they had in him (a gritty player who could be effective in spots, but simply wasn't durable enough for the D1 game). So maybe they decide to split reps between Lark and Heaps instead?



So many what ifs. BYU's QB mis-management didn't start in 2010, it started in 2009.

Blah, blah, freakin, blah. So, now its not Riley's fault at all? I mean 1% for Mr "I'm not changing" is so beyond any realm of reality or responsibility that I can't believe I a wasting time posting. THe pattern of hiding injury to the detriment of the team is self-centered its astounding. In 2010, he didn't want to lose ground to the frosh. In 2012 he didn't want to lose out on his legacy. He lost both! And no re-attributing blame is going to resurrect his fallen status.

But, back to the OP..........as Preposterous as the comparison is, I will take Rose. Look what a team (Cicago) has done to rally together and step up to get to the next level instead of what happens when Rose (like Riley) plays, they wait around and wait for the "alpha dog" to make plays with an injured body rather than all stepping up. Now, granted, Rley was a huge leadership improvement over Heaps, but when Rose is in, it was all about Rosé. When Riley was in, it was most often all about Riley and how he was "tougher than all of us".

THe coaches and lack of development AND most Especially, NOT reining in the ego-maniacal "I'm not changing" dude, was a big coaching problem as well. But, Riley's seemingly impressive but perishable running ability masked a problem with this offense that was not going to be dealt with. So, credit Riley for giving up everything he had to this team, except his glory seeking ego that has now vanished. But let's not treat him like a peewee football player who doesn't know better. He made his bed, not only in the dark corners of the locker room and the more laudable special teams and no green jerseys stunts, but also on the field in a lot of gritty effort, a few miracles, and well, a lot of giveaways.



Give credit and responsibility where it is due, but let's not start getting soft and sappy and start confabulating about his lack of legacy.