We all know what Eddie House does well--he spreads the floor and shoots lights out when uncovered. But are those 2 things (which are really one thing with two components) worth the compromises we make with the rest of the lineup in order to put him on the floor? Just think, this is what playing Eddie House makes us give up:

1. Using Rondo as the bridge to the 2nd unit: The no-brainer move designed to keep Ray/Paul from being overplayed, while also keeping our best playmaker on the floor with the 2nd unit that has no point guard--unfortunately, we can't do it because House's presence on the court leaves us too short in the backcourt.
2. Any semblance of play-making on the 2nd unit: This leads to contested jump shots and makes us perimeter-oriented to the detriment of overall team offensive balance. Of course, House's jack-at-all-cost offensive game itself makes us over-reliant on three pointers, above and beyond what his presence at point does to the offense. Not only do we have an over-abundance of 3 point shooters, we have a bad point guard doing bad point guard things which leads to contested 3s as the clock winds down. It's a feedback loop of perimeter dependence.
3. Solution to House-at-point takes our best backup 2/3 and moves him to the point: Of course, Daniels is MUCH better at point than House, and Daniels does a good job at point relative to House, but in essence we're weakening our 2/3 position in order to find a way to get House on the court, while at the same time increasing the minutes of Ray/Paul. So, yes, we can substitute around House's deficiencies at point, but it makes Daniels/Ray/Paul de facto facilitators to the detriment of what they do best. Sure, they can play point from time to time, but we've made it the rule all so we can get House on the court.

So, that's what we give up to get House on the floor.  Are his floor space-ability and occasional eruptions from deep (when left unguarded) worth the compromises we must make in other areas?

I say NO. I say, we have enough 3 point shooters that we don't need him to space the floor. I say that defense and point guard competence are much more important to the second team than what House brings. We're crippling ourselves in 3 areas all just so we can 'space the floor.' It's retarded.

Solution: I wouldn't bench House outright, but instead curtail his minutes to specific situations. The way we have it now, he's easy to defend. Limit his minutes a bit, and maybe the other team doesn't game plan for him as much and then perhaps we can spring him on other teams unawares. The reason he's had 5 bad games in a row is simple--he's been given defensive attention. And when the other team scouts him and defends him, he'll be stopped almost every time. That's why he never performs well in the post-season.

In order to use Rondo as bridge to 2nd unit, either Hudson, TA, Scal, or Walker have to step up and fill in at 2/3. So, while limiting House's minutes, I'd give extra to that foursome. Also, when Rondo needs a break in the mid-2nd quarter, I'd use Hudson for a 3-4 minute stretch, right about the same time the starters come back in. 

The thing with Hudson v. House is simple--Lester Hudson can hit the three, and also defend his position, dribble against pressure, create his own shot, and get to the rim. He could probably even defend some twos, depending on the situation. His youth would give us a nice jolt of energy, something this team could use right now.  Best of all, his presence would remove all the inconveniences of playing Eddie House. Of all the possible moves to get this team on track, Hudson to backup point makes the most sense, if only for a few games. 

Here's what I think I know about KG's knee:

There are two separate, unrelated issues regarding KG's knee: 1.) a bone spur and 2.) a strained tendon.  It's the tendon that might require surgery after the season, but it's the lingering tendon strain that's keeping him out right now. 

Apparently, they thought the tendon strain would heal faster than it did (or didn't, as the case may be) and that's why we've been subjected to a moving timeline (FYI: I'm not a nut who thinks the Cs hid anything--medicine is an art, and there are no absolutes).  For now, KG's out for at least the 1st round, probably the playoffs.

I understand the necessity of Doc wanting to move past the distraction and basically proceed at this point like KG is not going to come back.  That's the smart move.  Rally the troops and don't let them have ANY expectation that KG will come back and make everything better.  Great coaching move.  But it seems like he's drastically downplaying the possibility that KG's knee improves in the next 4 weeks.

From what the papers say, KG's 70% right now.  Who's to say that doesn't improve in 2-4 weeks?  At what point is he healthy enough to come back?  80%?  85%?  90%?

It's not impossible for him to get healthy enough to make another comeback.  Hell, he already came back once this season.  Why can't he do it again?  Why not keep him in your back pocket, like a joker, and pull him out when the chips are down?  If there's nothing structurally wrong, it would seem like you could bring him back for a game here or there as needed, doesn't it?

Personally, I think KG will make at least one more appearance on the court this season, perhaps in a surprise move at the beginning of the Cleveland series in an attempt to steal one on their homecourt.  Presumably, the Cs could keep continue to treat KG's injury, not devulge whether he's getting better or not (at this point, it's wise for them to just not say anything), and then, once he has a couple good days in a row, spring him on the Cavs.  Just a thought.

And here's another thought, which I hope some of the medically-minded posters will answer for me (like Wahz or cordobes, who seems to know everything): why can't KG inject some Autologous Conditioned Plasma like Hines Ward did to help speed up the healing of his strained tendon?  If we're just waiting on that tendon to heal, why not help it along?