Mike D'Antoni Discussion: RESIGNS AS LAKERS COACH (184)

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby therealdeal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:40 am

The Rock wrote:Borri, Ebanks and Morris are lost causes. Ebanks specifically never found any PT under Phil, Brown and now MDA when we are DESPERATE for SG/SF defense. This guy and Morris are posting average numbers when they play in the D-league that says it all, if you cant beat up D-League competition you dont belong in the NBA.

This. Those guys had ample time and opportunity. They suck.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:59 am

The Rock wrote:Borri, Ebanks and Morris are lost causes. Ebanks specifically never found any PT under Phil, Brown and now MDA when we are DESPERATE for SG/SF defense. This guy and Morris are posting average numbers when they play in the D-league that says it all, if you cant beat up D-League competition you dont belong in the NBA.


1. Ebanks has shown he can play D.
2. Morris sucked on O when he played (showed some flashes), but was active and able to stay in front of his man on D.

Again, you have beent Antoni-ized. LOL. Think D, not O. Teams sub guys in for defensive purposes all the time.

Play them. Give the starters a blow for 2 stinking minutes per quarter. D up until the starters get in again.
User avatar
borri

 
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:01 pm

therealdeal wrote:
The Rock wrote:Borri, Ebanks and Morris are lost causes. Ebanks specifically never found any PT under Phil, Brown and now MDA when we are DESPERATE for SG/SF defense. This guy and Morris are posting average numbers when they play in the D-league that says it all, if you cant beat up D-League competition you dont belong in the NBA.

This. Those guys had ample time and opportunity. They suck.


They suck on offense.

1. Is Morris a better defender than Nash/Duhon/Meeks? --- Yes.
2. Is Ebanks a better defender than Meeks/Kobe? ---Yes.
3. How much worse is Ebanks as a defender compared to Ron? ---The falloff isn't that bad.

You can sub in for defensive purposes too you know.
User avatar
borri

 
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby The Rock on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:02 pm

borri wrote:
The Rock wrote:Borri, Ebanks and Morris are lost causes. Ebanks specifically never found any PT under Phil, Brown and now MDA when we are DESPERATE for SG/SF defense. This guy and Morris are posting average numbers when they play in the D-league that says it all, if you cant beat up D-League competition you dont belong in the NBA.


1. Ebanks has shown he can play D.
2. Morris sucked on O when he played (showed some flashes), but was active and able to stay in front of his man on D.

Again, you have beent Antoni-ized. LOL. Think D, not O. Teams sub guys in for defensive purposes all the time.

Play them. Give the starters a blow for 2 stinking minutes per quarter. D up until the starters get in again.


Just think about it if Ebanks and Morris showed any signs of D wouldn't they be playing? There was a time earlier in the season that Jamison was benched like 6 games in a row because he couldn't play D and because Hill was the exact opposite & he earned those minutes. Im just saying if these guys can truly contribute on D they'd he playing right now
Image

Props to sidthekid871
User avatar
The Rock
CL Twitter Team
 
Posts: 19991
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:10 pm
Location: Smackdown Hotel

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:04 pm

The Rock wrote:
borri wrote:
The Rock wrote:Borri, Ebanks and Morris are lost causes. Ebanks specifically never found any PT under Phil, Brown and now MDA when we are DESPERATE for SG/SF defense. This guy and Morris are posting average numbers when they play in the D-league that says it all, if you cant beat up D-League competition you dont belong in the NBA.


1. Ebanks has shown he can play D.
2. Morris sucked on O when he played (showed some flashes), but was active and able to stay in front of his man on D.

Again, you have beent Antoni-ized. LOL. Think D, not O. Teams sub guys in for defensive purposes all the time.

Play them. Give the starters a blow for 2 stinking minutes per quarter. D up until the starters get in again.


Just think about it if Ebanks and Morris showed any signs of D wouldn't they be playing? There was a time earlier in the season that Jamison was benched like 6 games in a row because he couldn't play D and because Hill was the exact opposite & he earned those minutes. Im just saying if these guys can truly contribute on D they'd he playing right now


1. Ebanks never got a chance period.
2. Again, is Morris a better defender than Nash/Meeks/Duhon?

Stop focusing on offense. I too was there watching games when Morris played alot. He was at the very least able to stay in front of his man. And was fast enough to rotate.
User avatar
borri

 
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Chillbongo on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:26 pm

With Meeks being virtually useless out there the last couple of games, there is no harm in playing Ebanks for 7 MINUTES a game. 7.

He can do no worse of a job then our other guys, defensively. We don't NEED Kobe in the game for offense. We have Pau, Dwight, Jamison, Clark. They can handle the scoring load for 4-6 minutes a HALF.

While I do think a lot of our defense issues stem from turnovers and thus transition D, I think there's no harm in putting better defenders out there. How many times did Butler torch us when the game was close? You don't think 2 minutes of Ebanks that quarter would've helped keep Kobe more fresh?

What about Morris for a couple minutes? Would Blake have had the legs to hit those open 3's late in the game that were short? Short because he was tired from guarding CP3 all game?
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3241
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Chillbongo on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:29 pm

I'm not advocating keeping those guys on for next year, but god damnit, they're on our bench. Those guys haven't seen minutes in a long time. What was the excuse then? We were in "must win" mode the whole season but that's hardly an excuse to play Kobe 40+ minutes.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3241
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby therealdeal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:40 pm

borri wrote:
1. Ebanks never got a chance period.
2. Again, is Morris a better defender than Nash/Meeks/Duhon?

Stop focusing on offense. I too was there watching games when Morris played alot. He was at the very least able to stay in front of his man. And was fast enough to rotate.

borri you're out of your mind about Ebanks man. He got a few chances under Phil in garbage time. He STARTED games for Brown. He didn't make the impression he had to and then he went and messed around with a DUI during the season.

He got plenty of opportunities. Period.

I'm not just focusing on offense at all, I'm saying neither of these players can positively impact a game consistently. Is Morris a better defender than those three? Maybe, but does that mean enough to play him? No. Morris was NOT a great defender by any means. He was maybe (really just maybe) better than Meeks defensively. I think you're romanticising Morris and Ebanks ability a little bit.

I wanted to believe in them too, but they're garbage players.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:50 pm

therealdeal wrote:
borri wrote:
1. Ebanks never got a chance period.
2. Again, is Morris a better defender than Nash/Meeks/Duhon?

Stop focusing on offense. I too was there watching games when Morris played alot. He was at the very least able to stay in front of his man. And was fast enough to rotate.

borri you're out of your mind about Ebanks man. He got a few chances under Phil in garbage time. He STARTED games for Brown. He didn't make the impression he had to and then he went and messed around with a DUI during the season.

He got plenty of opportunities. Period.

I'm not just focusing on offense at all, I'm saying neither of these players can positively impact a game consistently. Is Morris a better defender than those three? Maybe, but does that mean enough to play him? No. Morris was NOT a great defender by any means. He was maybe (really just maybe) better than Meeks defensively. I think you're romanticising Morris and Ebanks ability a little bit.

I wanted to believe in them too, but they're garbage players.


1. Ebanks was a rookie under Phil. Of course he didn't get PT. How quickly we forget.

2. Under Brown, a defensive minded coach, finally saw what Ebanks can do defensively and started him when Kobe was injured with a shin problem....INSTEAD of Blake. And if you recall, Ebanks did just fine. Go look at the box scores.

3. Ebanks even got PT come playoff time. Ebanks showed what he can do defensively against KD on 4/22/2012. Ebanks messed up with the DUI, what's that got to do with his ability to play basketball and defend?

Is thinking the obvious...Morris is a better defender than Nash/Meeks/Duhon...over-romanticising? You can't be serious. You are the LAST person on this board that I would even fathom would dispute this point. I am actually kind of amazed you are debating me on this point.

Simply put, subbing in players doesn't have to be for offensive purposes only. WTF is wrong with using them for 2-3 minute stretches! No one here wants them to play 10-15 mins a night. DOn't jump to conclusions.
Last edited by borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
borri

 
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Chillbongo on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:51 pm

therealdeal wrote:Is Morris a better defender than those three? Maybe, but does that mean enough to play him? No. Morris was NOT a great defender by any means. He was maybe (really just maybe) better than Meeks defensively. I think you're romanticising Morris and Ebanks ability a little bit.

I wanted to believe in them too, but they're garbage players.


I dunno real, I just don't see how what we're doing now is any better. We're still getting torched defensively.

Meeks plays 20-30 minutes a game. I'm suggesting Morris or Ebanks for 7 minutes. For rest. You can't be serious when you're telling me Kobe and MWP and Blake getting 5 more minutes of rest through the first half won't make a difference in the 2nd half.

We're running our guys like they're 26. They're not. Having them come in for 4 minutes a half is not going to brutally detriment our team, and for people to think that way is ridiculous. You play the starters and remove Blake and use at the end of the 1st Q at the 2:00 mark. Keep Dwight in and rest him at the beginning of the 2nd. If anything, keeping Kobe and Blake in the whole game is making their defense garbage.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3241
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:57 pm

Chillbongo wrote:
therealdeal wrote:Is Morris a better defender than those three? Maybe, but does that mean enough to play him? No. Morris was NOT a great defender by any means. He was maybe (really just maybe) better than Meeks defensively. I think you're romanticising Morris and Ebanks ability a little bit.

I wanted to believe in them too, but they're garbage players.


I dunno real, I just don't see how what we're doing now is any better. We're still getting torched defensively.

Meeks plays 20-30 minutes a game. I'm suggesting Morris or Ebanks for 7 minutes. For rest. You can't be serious when you're telling me Kobe and MWP and Blake getting 5 more minutes of rest through the first half won't make a difference in the 2nd half.

We're running our guys like they're 26. They're not. Having them come in for 4 minutes a half is not going to brutally detriment our team, and for people to think that way is ridiculous. You play the starters and remove Blake and use at the end of the 1st Q at the 2:00 mark. Keep Dwight in and rest him at the beginning of the 2nd. If anything, keeping Kobe and Blake in the whole game is making their defense garbage.


Good lord thank you. WTF is so hard to understand? Run those guys Morris/Ebanks for short periods of time just to play defense. For god sakes how hard is this to get?

I mean really. Antoni should have been doing this all year long. Hey...I am subbing you in to play DEFENSE. MAN UP. BOX OUT. HUSTLE and REBOUND. Do that and you will get PT. Isn't this what a coach is supposed to do?
Last edited by borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
borri

 
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby therealdeal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:02 pm

borri wrote:
1. Ebanks was a rookie under Phil. Of course he didn't get PT. How quickly we forget.

who's forgetting? he was given the same opportunities that a 2nd round pick with potential would normally get: a roster spot and garbage minutes. In those minutes he showed some athleticism and defense, but almost no jump shot and terrible offensive instincts.

borri wrote:2. Under Brown, a defensive minded coach, finally saw what Ebanks can do defensively and started him when Kobe was injured with a shin problem....INSTEAD of Blake. And if you recall, Ebanks did just fine. Go look at the box scores.

I did. And I also watched almost every game he played. Last season I championed the bandwagon asking him to play more, but when he got minutes he was inconsistent. What is the difference between Ebanks and Hill? Or Ebanks and Clark? When Hill and Clark get an opportunity they never stop working on the court. Ebanks would take plays off, fall asleep on the floor, and fade away into nothingness. There were games when he'd go 1-6 from the field in 20+ minutes; all while not making an impact on the glass or defensively.

Then there's the issue of getting a DUI during the season. That's absolutely unacceptable, especially if you're trying to make an impression on the team/break the rotation.

I wanted him to be effective as much as anybody, but he's just not.

borri wrote:3. Ebanks even got PT come playoff time. Ebanks showed what he can do defensively against KD on 4/22/2012.

And what has he done since? He got playing time in those playoffs and did almost nothing with it.

borri wrote:4. Finally, answer this question: Is Nash/Meeks/DUhon a better defender than Morris? U have got to be joking if you think the answer is yes.

I gave you my answer: maybe. He's better than Nash in one-on-one situations obviously. But is he a whole lot better than Meeks or Duhon? Not really. Not enough to counter how absolutely horrendous he is offensively. You must have forgotten the silly fouls he'd give up a la Vujacic back in the day. You think Meeks is bad? Morris was worse.

borri wrote:Is thinking the obvious...Morris is a better defender than Nash/Meeks/Duhon...over-romanticising? You can't be serious. You are the LAST person on this board that I would even fathom would dispute this point. I am actually kind of amazed you are debating me on this point.

Simply put, subbing in players doesn't have to be for offensive purposes only.


I think you're romanticising their overall impact. One of those things can be true (Morris can be a better defender than those three) but does that mean he's a better basketball player/more deserving of minutes than Meeks/Duhon/Nash? Does his improved defense justify him playing when it costs us on both ends of the floor?

Here's the thing: with Meeks/Duhon we've got proven outside shooting. Not great, but proven to be adequate. Morris doesn't have that. Meeks/Duhon have shown they can score with other guys and can likely play a team even off the bench. Morris has shown that offensively he creates more turnovers than assists, misses more shots than he makes, and CANNOT make up for it defensively. If you're terrible offensively, then nobody better be able to score on you (see Tony Allen). Morris is no defensive stopper, he's just better than our other guys. He can't stop guys consistently and he consistently gives the ball up.

Substitutions can't be JUST defense, especially if that defense isn't consistent and isn't overwhelming.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Vasashi17 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:10 pm

FYI: Under Phil, Ebanks was a rookie backing Metta, Barnes and Luke at the 3. When Barnes went down, Ebanks was brought up from the D-League and played. He fractured his leg a month in and was shelved.

You move on to where he played under Brown and again, dude was 3rd on the depth chart....on to this season, again 3rd on the depth chart behind Metta and Jamison.

Now with injuries and playing small ball, you would think the guy would get some PT. I understand he was initially punished for his DUI....but playing Kobe full games on with a sore ankle is irresponsible. I don't care if the Mamba says he can do it....the onus is D'Antoni to play Kobe responsibly. You want Kobe to be ball dominant...then tell him, I need 35-38 minutes of you going hard on BOTH sides of the floor and try to capitalize on each possession with good shot opportunities and taking care of the ball. I would rather have that from Kobe instead of playing him the entire ball game, while having an able body sit there to witness it.
Image
User avatar
Vasashi17
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13008
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:38 am
Location: Anywhere Purple & Gold

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby borri on Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:10 pm

therealdeal wrote:
Here's the thing: with Meeks/Duhon we've got proven outside shooting. Not great, but proven to be adequate. Morris doesn't have that. Meeks/Duhon have shown they can score with other guys and can likely play a team even off the bench. Morris has shown that offensively he creates more turnovers than assists, misses more shots than he makes, and CANNOT make up for it defensively. If you're terrible offensively, then nobody better be able to score on you (see Tony Allen). Morris is no defensive stopper, he's just better than our other guys. He can't stop guys consistently and he consistently gives the ball up.

Substitutions can't be JUST defense, especially if that defense isn't consistent and isn't overwhelming.


"Proven outside shooting".

"Morris has shown that offensively he creates more turnovers than assists, misses more shots than he makes, and CANNOT make up for it defensively."

Offense, offense, offense. Again. You are missing the point.

As a coach, Antoni can easily say...go in there and focus 100% of defense. Why do you assume that Morris is out there to run the offense? Again you are focusing on offense!!!!

Why does Morris and Ebanks have to be Tony Allen to play. Tony Allen get major PT. Again, I repeat, NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING PLAYING MORRIS/EBANKS FOR OVER 10 MINS EACH!!!!!!!

Short spells of 2-3 minutes each per quarter/half. That's all we want. And yes it makes a difference when your team is older than dirt. Give them some stinking rest.
User avatar
borri

 
Posts: 8035
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Chillbongo on Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:12 pm

I'm not saying they are more deserving of minutes than Duhon or Meeks. All I'm saying is that our starters need rest. With MWP back, the Kobe issue is solved.

Ok, since you get outside shooting with Duhon -- given our pg situation right now, it wouldn't hurt to play Duhon for a few minutes a half would it? Just to rest our guys? Maybe then Blake hits one of those open 3's in the 2nd half?

Substitutions CAN be just defense. Phil did that all the time. Because he had a system! Something MDA doesn't.....he would fill the void of challenged players by mastering his rotations. Flaws of one player masked by strengths of others.

There was a reason Sasha got burn when his shot wasn't falling...defense. Not only that but we never suffered with him in the game. Just an example, not saying it perfectly applies to this team but is no reason to run our starters to the ground.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3241
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby therealdeal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:30 pm

I know what you're saying, but with one ONE person capable of creating for others on the team right now coupled with the bone spurs, playing Kobe those minutes is just flat out necessary.

I'm with you guys. I wish we could play those guys and against inferior competition I would agree they should play. But with things being what they are, we're outside looking in for the playoffs. Sitting Kobe means allowing those bone spurs to start aching and that means Kobe comes back in pain. If we had just ONE more person capable of creating for others, I'd be with you.

But when Kobe sits our offense isn't just anemic, but our defense DOESN'T improve AND our offense takes a step back.

If we had Nash, sure, let him sit and if he gets sore that's alright he can figure something else out as long as the team is successful. But we don't even have Nash.

Those guys just don't provide enough for me to feel comfortable putting them in the game. Ever.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby JSM on Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:45 pm

Earvin Magic Johnson ‏@MagicJohnson 2h
Laker Nation: Coach D'Antoni has to find rest for Kobe in the first 3 qtrs so he can be fresh and ready to close in the 4th.
User avatar
JSM
ClubLakers.com Administrator
 
Posts: 94033
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:40 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby lakersyunowin on Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:06 pm

JSM wrote:
Earvin Magic Johnson ‏@MagicJohnson 2h
Laker Nation: Coach D'Antoni has to find rest for Kobe in the first 3 qtrs so he can be fresh and ready to close in the 4th.

that's assuming we're within striking distance heading into the 4th
the artist formerly known as fklukewalton, fksteveblake, and fkmikebrown
User avatar
lakersyunowin

 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby XXIV on Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:06 pm

It'll be easier to find rest for Kobe once MWP and Nash return. Boy I wish we had a more formidable bench.
XXIV

 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:20 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby JoelMyersScrotalSack on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:36 am

You don't play a guy for "defensive purposes " if his defensive impact is going to be massively offset by atrocious offense. This need to distinguish between offense and defense makes no sense to me. Our scrubs may suck less on defense because of their athleticism but they are so worthless offensively that it is a total net negative for us to play them.
User avatar
JoelMyersScrotalSack

 
Posts: 6778
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:10 am

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby OX1947 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:39 am

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:You don't play a guy for "defensive purposes " if his defensive impact is going to be massively offset by atrocious offense. This need to distinguish between offense and defense makes no sense to me. Our scrubs may suck less on defense because of their athleticism but they are so worthless offensively that it is a total net negative for us to play them.


Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman say hi.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby therealdeal on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:45 am

OX1947 wrote:
JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:You don't play a guy for "defensive purposes " if his defensive impact is going to be massively offset by atrocious offense. This need to distinguish between offense and defense makes no sense to me. Our scrubs may suck less on defense because of their athleticism but they are so worthless offensively that it is a total net negative for us to play them.


Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman say hi.

Read closer: massively offset by atrocious offense.

Those two weren't "massively offset by atrocious offense". They just weren't great offensive players. Doesn't mean their impacts on that end of the floor were so awful that they cost the team games.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Chillbongo on Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:07 am

OX1947 wrote:
JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:You don't play a guy for "defensive purposes " if his defensive impact is going to be massively offset by atrocious offense. This need to distinguish between offense and defense makes no sense to me. Our scrubs may suck less on defense because of their athleticism but they are so worthless offensively that it is a total net negative for us to play them.


Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman say hi.


So do Bruce Bown, Tony Allen, and Raja Bell.

Few players in the NBA are truly atrocious on offense. For people to think only the Lakers have such players is the negative reciprocal of homerism.
Last edited by Chillbongo on Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3241
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby OX1947 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:09 am

Chillbongo wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:You don't play a guy for "defensive purposes " if his defensive impact is going to be massively offset by atrocious offense. This need to distinguish between offense and defense makes no sense to me. Our scrubs may suck less on defense because of their athleticism but they are so worthless offensively that it is a total net negative for us to play them.


Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman say hi.


So do Bruce Bown, Tony Allen, and Raja Bell.


Bruce could score 3's. Tony Allen has a shot, and Raja Bell was a 40% three point shooter. Ben Wallace and Rodman looked like amateur wrestlers trying to play basketball on offense.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Postby Chillbongo on Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:13 am

And Rodman and Wallace could dunk and set dirty screens. They're hardly effective on offense. Their role in the game was to defend.

Anyways don't know why you felt the need to comment, this was a response to "you don't play a guy for defensive purposes".....yeah, you do.

Obviously Morris/Ebanks/Duhon are not elite defenders, but this discussion has taken a different route.
User avatar
Chillbongo

 
Posts: 3241
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles

PreviousNext

Return to The Graveyard

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.