Jump to content

Justin Jaudon

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Justin Jaudon

  1. If not Stan, Who?

    What exactly is a SVG homer? Like people who live in his neighborhood or something. On a serious note, why is it so easy to continually forgive Dwight for missing more free throws than he makes, but Stan playing Duhon warrants firing. At what point does a coaches benefits outweigh his faults, if not with Stan. Stan can put together a pretty darn good defense, and when there was less drama and turnover in the lineups, he was doing a good job with the offense. The defense he put together was amazing, considering that never have more than two starters for this team been good defenders. So who else could do with this lineup better than what he's done and is doing? Not a guess, give me some evidence that the person is at least a good coach.
  2. Are you saying you think another coach would be cleaning up with this roster, or that you just can't wait until we clean up this roster? I'm confused.
  3. If not Stan, Who?

    I'm not saying Mike Brown is a great coach or anything, I'm just saying he got the job over Shaw, a guy who the organization knew better than anyone else, and that has to be taken into account when thinking about Shaw. It's not a total deal-breaker or anything, but as an outside spectator, it gives me a lot of pause.
  4. If not Stan, Who?

    I agree. But people work full-time in Charlotte as well. And in Toronto. I'll support the new coach (if in fact they get one). I just would not get rid of a guy with one of the best track records in the business simply because Dwight is not happy with him. This whole season has been a zoo, from before it began. But winning heals a lot of wounds. My hope is that Stan and the boys find a way to get out of the first round of the playoffs, so maybe even Dwight will give him another shot. I think Dwight needs to buy into being part of a team again, not trying to carry a team (I think the rest of the team needs to buy into that as well). This team was at its best when everyone listened to Stan and everyone played a part. The problems really started when they started shaking up the whole roster every 6 months and no one was on the same page. Dwight has not handled the transitions as well as a more veteran player would, and he's aimed his frustrations at the coach. From all that has been reported over the last couple years, Stan has bent over backward to make the guy happy, but Dwight is obviously not appeased. I still have hope that healing can happen, though. To get back on topic, I doubt getting some random assistant without head coaching experience is a good way to keep Dwight, even if there's good reason to think he'll be good. I mean, Brian Shaw got passed up for Mike Brown, and the Lakers organization is not usually stupid. If you want to win now, and Orlando needs to if they want to keep Dwight, you get someone with experience.
  5. If not Stan, Who?

    Who said D'Antoni was a bad coach. He's had his moments. I wouldn't be so quick to blame everything on Melo. And the Lin era was too short to mean anything. And I do remember how good those Suns teams were. They had the two-time MVP and the games most dominant scoring big man, and yet he didn't win a championship with them. Never got to the finals. So why is he better than Stan? Because you think Dwight would like him? How long do you think Dwight would put up with no one even being asked to help him out on D? Do you think maybe D'Antoni's tendency to ignore defense in favor of Run-n-Gun might cause some eventual tension, there?
  6. If not Stan, Who?

    Okay. Assuming Barkley would want to be a coach, and agreeing that he does in fact tell it like it is, and would probably be a "players' coach", what makes you think he has the deep understanding and knowledge of the game, the ability to translate that into an effective gameplan, the necessary player management skills, the understanding of player rotations, and the ability to communicate all this not only with his assistant coaches and players, but with his GM and ownership? The fact that you like him? DA was a gutsy player. The kind of guy you love to watch. And he was a smart player. Assuming that he will be a great coach based on this is like thinking Magic Johnson was going to be a great coach. There was no reason to think he wouldn't be, right? Or Michael Jordan? Why don't we just promote Ewing, at that? Coach K is 150 years old. Bill Self is a thought, if maybe a little premature, so I'll get back to you on that one. Jim Boeheim is as much a college coach as there is in today's world. Tom Izzo would be a decent replacement if we absolutely had to do it, but I don't think there's any reason to think he'd be better than Stan, and I am all but certain he wouldn't come to Orlando if he wouldn't go to Cleveland to coach LeBron. Jim Calhoun is dead. John Calipari has not shown a lot in the NBA. And Roy Williams is the most overrated coach in college basketball history. As for Mark Price, just combine my comments on Barkley and DA. Not bad, though. A couple of decent thoughts with the college coaches. We're getting somewhere, at least.
  7. If not Stan, Who?

    I get it. I do. You're thinking that he has to be good, because he coached under Phil. Well, so did Rambis. He's a players' coach. So is D'Antoni. "Players' coach" is just another term for "empty suit", most of the time. Dwight liking him shouldn't really factor so much into it. I'll put it this way. Phil Jackson and Kobe got along so well that when Phil wrote a book about his first stint in L.A., he basically painted Kobe as a petulant child. But Kobe grew up eventually, and they got back together "Jerry Maguire" style. Phil was like, "You had me at hello." Orlando needs to have the best coach available. In my opinion, right now that is Stan. Dwight needs to see that.
  8. If not Stan, Who?

    Barkley? Really? I love Armstrong, but another assistant with no real reason to think he would be better. And didn't he just get arrested recently? Which college coaches, exactly? Billy Donovan didn't really work out (even though I actually think he would do well with the current Orlando roster). Mark Price? The shooting coach? You want to promote the shooting coach to head coach over Stan Van Gundy? Barkley? Really? Why not Hakeem? Or Kenny the Jet? Or Clyde the Glide? Maybe Sam Cassell? How about Robert Horry?
  9. If not Stan, Who?

    Okay. Two names so far. Not bad. Moving quickly. I don't see any reason to believe either of those guys would have more success than Stan. Neither have any experience to speak of. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that people who use Stan not playing an unproven journeyman point guard as an excuse to fire him would suggest unproven assistants. So far I'm not impressed.
  10. Van Gundy - voted least popular coach in NBA

    Now he's Allen Iverson? Calm down man. That's going too far.
  11. Van Gundy - voted least popular coach in NBA

    Exactly. Wade loved him. The only guys who hate Stan are guys who think they should shrink their offense down to "give me the ball". Stan wants to move the ball and have guys create off of pick and rolls. I think that is why he came out and outed Dwight. He wants out, because he feels like if Dwight stays he'll get stuck doing post and repost 85% of the games. If he leaves, the Clippers should pick him up. They would win a REALLY good shot at a championship then. Paul is the kind of guy who doesn't care who takes shots, so long as they're good shots. That is Stan's mindset. This is the only reason I can see that he keeps putting Duhon in the games. Duhon doesn't take a lot of bad shots. Unfortunately, that's just because it's hard to shoot with your back to the basket 45 feet from the rim. I am on board with the thinking that Duhon must have inflammatory pictures of Stan or something (not nudes; Stan wouldn't care). It doesn't make sense otherwise that a guy who has shown repeatedly to be a good coach would keep giving this guy minutes. Or it's just that Ish looks like garbage in practice and doesn't listen, or something like that (not saying this is the case; I don't know how Ish is outside of the couple of games he's been in for Orlando).
  12. Game of Thrones

    As far as Game of Thrones, I love what they're doing with the show. I won't give any spoilers, but Martin kinda made me mad with Dance with Dragons, and the way it ended. I can't even imagine how the studio will deal with that much crazy. The TVland people don't have the patience that readers do. And there is WAY too much forced sex in the show. There was plenty in the books, yes, but the absurd amount added to get pervs to watch kinda makes me mad, because instead of having great characters like the Blackfish, or even giving more screen time to the books' most interesting character (The Hound), we have Esme Bianco being used for the dual purpose of getting the pervs to stick around and to give more screen time to Littlefinger and the "big star" that is Aidan Gillen. The overuse of the gay scenes with Renly and Loras are a bit much for me as well. It's not that I have an issue with gay stuff in the show (makes me gag, but I'm not gay so I suppose that doesn't make me a bigot or anything), it's just that these characters are more ambiguous in the books, and at least for Renly it made him more interesting. You aren't sure what to think about him. Honestly I think it's just art suffering for the sake of getting the gay people to watch the show, but I'd rather replace those scenes with more of the Hound and the Direwolves. Or just even more Tyrion (i guarantee, if Dinklage hadn't taken the role, the show would never have been picked up). Speaking of the Hound, does anyone notice that that is the "Yarp" guy from Hot Fuzz. Awesome. Also, I don't like the way they are portraying Sam. I can't think of the show's version of him without thinking he's just creepy. Overly concerned with girls. The book Sam wasn't like this at all. We don't really get in the show that he is really smart. That all being said, it's a great show, far more interesting and fun than any other fantasy show done on TV to this point. The best character jobs so far: Arya, and in her short time on the show so far Melisandre (there could have been no other choice for this role than Carice Van Houten)
  13. Game of Thrones

    There is no shame in being super excited about Legend of Korra. I'm a grown ass man, and I honestly think that The Last Airbender might me my favorite show of all time (My nerdiness trumps your nerdiness, haha). My 3-year-old watches it on Netflix now, and every time it's on, I find myself sitting down with him and just enjoying what a great show, with such a unique sense of humor, that was.
  14. Van Gundy - voted least popular coach in NBA

    Because JJ had lots of playing time his first year?

    I literally love Jameer Nelson tonight. Like ROMCOM love.

    I am not tired of seeing Stan praised as a coach. Stan has the very difficult job of massaging Dwight's ego. I hear the stuff Stan says when he's mic'd up and Dwight is in the game, and he's telling the guys to move the ball, run the pick and roll, and get the ball down to Dwight. Getting the ball to Dwight is not a bad idea. The problem is that Dwight is supposedly a leader on this team, and he calls for the ball and cries like a baby when they don't get it to him every play. Why do you think Dwight hates Stan so much. If Stan were calling for the stagnant offense they play by handing him the ball over and over, Dwight would love him. I am hoping that Orlando pulls off a miraculous win streak and then win a playoff series if nothing but to either humble Dwight or get Orlando to choose Stan over Dwight. Call me crazy, but if I had to choose between firing Stan and trading Dwight, I would trade Dwight. Duhon is awful. Don't get me wrong. He sucks hard. He is the opposite of the Dos Equis guy. Mosquitoes bit him above all else (mostly cause they get a buzz off the alcohol content in his blood). But Stan playing him is not a deal-breaker for me. That is the one major problem I see with him this season. (that and I selfishly want my boy JHarp to get more minutes; especially now, when they're short-handed)

    Ok, so magic D sucks so bad without Dwight. And water is wet.

    JRich can dunk?

    I just really hope Nelson goes off tonight. He has been playing so well recently, and I think if this team can end the season strong without Howard then I think they keep playing hungry come playoff time, with or without Dwight.
  20. 2012 Election thread

    Thanks for the understanding. As I said, I'm not much of a political afficionado, but I think the writing has been on the wall for a while. Since we left the gold standard, at least. my whole point with this opinion is trying to be as optimistic as I can be. I think collapse is inevitable, and I don't see a better solution. Anything else seems like either we become totally socialist, which is only a stopgap, as socialism wouldn't cure the failing dollar worth. It might postpone the inevitable, but the end will be either a military dictatorship or the same thing I've been saying above. Or we get attacked, and WWIII, and that's just bad. Or we just go into all out economic collapse, and refuse to change anything, which seems unlikely, since I can't imagine Americans just, what, giving up. I know I don't have everything figured out in this scenario, but I hope I'm right compared to the alternatives that I see.
  21. 2012 Election thread

    My wife is now going to vote for him. She's obsessed with space travel. What do you do, right? Ah well, she's got big boobs, so I'll overlook it.
  22. 2012 Election thread

    Ha. No I prefer the 90's. I'm more comfortable there. I can still pretend America is the center of the universe. Yugoslavia. That's deflating. Sorry.
  23. 2012 Election thread

    That seems to contradict what my western civ. book says, but you seem sure, and it seemed unlikely when I read it there, so I'll concede that point. They didn't give a number. Maybe the book was just comparing it to the loss of life when they turned agriculture over to the state during the Five Year Plan under Stalin, or somehow separating the civil war with the actual coup. Shows me for not fact checking. Here is one of the reasons I hate to debate politics, though. I'm by no means a political science expert. I'd be happy to be wrong about the whole thing, though I'm not convinced I am. Politics is something that for some reason makes me irrationally passionate when debating, especially considering my overall lack of interest. I will say that history has been kind so far to this country so far. I can't think of another government that has lasted this long without radical revolution. I guess maybe England, but they are a lot smaller. We flirted with disaster in the 1860's, but here we are. I just feel like we're due for some major revolutionary change.
  24. 2012 Election thread

    Sigh... Ok here goes. I should have explained that the federal military, in this scenario, would not be what it is today. I thought that was obvious, but, I'll explain more if it's necessary. Basically,we would have individual militaries somewhat beholden to one another, with funding from the individual states' taxes for whatever oversight and facilities are needed. It has been done before where military operations have been supported by more than one country. In fact, that's usually the way it works everywhere but here. But I didn't explain, that before, so I'm sorry. As for the rest of your comments: I never implied this would be totally peaceful. I don't think it will be; sadly, people will die, there will be some amount of chaos and violence. I don't expect full on revolution, but that's more because I think americans would rather let politicians legislate a revolution. It's just the way we do things these days. Still, I could be wrong; revolution on a massive scale could happen. But whatever it is, it will be something somewhat new. Yet not entirely new. You need to brush up on your history. Plenty of small European nations separated themselves from parent nations, and not all were terribly violent in the achievement. Canada separated itself from Great Britain without much violence. In fact, other than the US and a couple of other exceptions, the fall of the British Empire was relatively peaceful. The most glaring example, however, is the Russian Revolution. While it was called revolution, the death toll was quite low until the new government actually took over, and that death toll was mostly because they had to control that huge country, so the crazy people leading the new government started assassinating anyone they thought might try to stir up the old regime. That would be difficult to recreate in a legislated national dissolution, as it would be seen as legally done, the will of the people. And honestly, most Americans can't even be bothered to vote anymore, much less try to form a military counter-revolution. In the end, yes, it would be something somewhat new, as I can't think of a large country dissolving itself in this way before, but not entirely new, as it is only a step further than what we have seen elsewhere before (and nearly happened here, 150 years ago). What I find amusing is that you seem to think that the federal government can afford to support the Wyomings and other such states. Where do you think al this national debt comes from? My point is that we won't have a choice. If they are too sparsely populated, then how much help will they need? If there're not enough people to support their own population... Wait a minute... Are you saying that a country needs to be big to be self-sufficient? If there is no one in these states, who are we paying so much to? One thing the federal government likes to do in these places is pay people not to farm. Yep, that's crazy. Actively keeping people from working. Their economic downturns and crises would be less tied to Wall Street and more to production levels of agriculture and industry. I think heavily populated states would have their own set of problems under this scenario. While the less populated states would be forced to grow, the more populated ones would probably shrink a little, as the new job opportunities would bring people into the smaller states. That wouldn't be the problem, though. They would need to become more productive, as it would be difficult to continue such consumerist economies. As I said in my first post, the American way of life will change. What bothers me is that you seem to think that the American way of doing things is the only way. Who keeps the rat poison out of German food, or British, or Yugoslavian? They are all in the same continent, they all buy stuff from each other. They are separate countries. What is hard to grasp, here? NASA? Really? Why do I care? I'm confused as to why these things can't be replaced more locally. As to why I believe a localized government would be more efficient, if it is not obvious, I'll explain... Wait... I already did in my first post. And then clarified further already, above. Smaller governments will be less prone to paying millions of dollars to see if a shrimp can run on a treadmill, I would think. Smaller governments would be better able to recognize the specific needs of their region. Imagine what your state government could do with your federal taxes. If you're in a large population, they could stop supporting the smaller ones and spend more on local social projects. Or even... Gasp... lower your overall taxes. If you're in a smaller population, they may not have the luxury of all the social programs at first. Time would be needed to modernize and grow. During that time, taxes and tariffs would exist in more abundance to exported agricultural goods, bringing food prices down locally. Housing prices are already low in these places. It goes on and on. The other thing that bothers me is that you argued with very little of what I said. You made assumptions about what I said, then argued with your own assumptions. I want to commend you, though, for your politeness in the response. I appreciate debate. I abhor rudeness.
  25. 2012 Election thread

    I'm probably going to regret even opening this can, but how exactly is this insane? I'm not saying you have to agree that it's even likely, but "insane" insinuates that it would be outside rational thinking. I don't think that the idea of a large wealthy government collapsing due to economic failure is even far-fetched. It seems inevitable, looking through history, that a country this size will go through a radical, if not revolutionary change at some point. Why not soon? Because it's inconvenient and will probably not be a pleasant experience? I doubt the fates care much what we think of their work. Personally, I think once the dust settles, we will be happier for it. More localized governments will be able to better understand local job markets and social needs, so I think the reaction time to economic downfall will be much swifter. I'm not trying to get into all the things I think would be better. My point is that I would like to hear a polite explanation of why this concept is lacking a base in reality.