Jump to content
AddiFB

Offseason Thread Part VII: The Fall of The Lockout

By AddiFB, in The Thread Hall of Fame

Recommended Posts

Secretly Space Jesus    670

Secretly Space Jesus
Posted

Interested in what? that actual trade? lol Im not saying the trade was great but cmon its not that bad lol Atleast in my opinion

 

 

You know, D12CP3: "lol" is an abbreviation, and like most abbreviations, the phrase being abbreviated has an actual meaning.

 

No one believes that you actually laughed out loud twice in the time it took you to write, terribly, "I'm not saying the trade was great but, c'mon, it's not that bad, at least in my opinion."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Berto    338

Berto
Posted

And I nearly missed this.

 

Were you a big fluffer in high school? Because you've yet to to actually tell me how I created a straw-man. I hope you realize that accusing someone falsely of a straw-man is a straw-man in itself. It's like inception, or something. The fact that you're leaning so heavily on a term that's so impertinent to what I've said is a sign that you're just dying to grasp at something, however meagerly applicable it is.

 

 

 

Either you lack all senses of intuition, or you're deliberately trolling. You don't suppose his last preseason game was even a minor catalyst to the recent spike of "trade/bench" Jameer comments? I suppose 90% of the board suddenly got visions of Jameer performing badly against the Hawks and decided to trash him. Yes, that must have been it.

 

Jameer has posted seven quality NBA seasons in this uniform. Were they elite? No, but also not the paltry play you're describing. He has a career regular season PER of 16.1 and a post season PER of 17.3. By contrast, guys like Billups and Rondo have posted 19.1/19.4 and 17.1/17.5, respectively. Hardly the landslide you were conveniently alluding to. I await your rebuke of the "Yeah, but those guys were elite defenders" variety, which would be another laughable misconception.

 

 

 

Sure, let's dismiss two of the team's three playoff opponents in an effort to highlight the only one he didn't dominate that post season. Bottom-feeding? You mean the Bobcats that won the season series against the Lakers/Cavs/Heat and the Hawks that won season series against the Celtics? Oh, I see. Using that line of reasoning, I suppose you can also dismiss practically any of LeBron's post season accolades because he failed against the opponent that mattered, or Rose's last season, or Durant's, Chris Paul's, etc. and you could spin that however you'd like (I look forward to the impending "sraw-man" claims).

 

But hey, let's not shy away from the topic at hand: Jameer failing against Rondo. I mean, Rondo did post 14.3/8 on 42.3% FG while holding Jameer to 17.0/4.4 on 42.7%.

 

What? You mean, it was practically a wash? My goodness.

 

I won't however dodge the point regarding our Finals run. Rafer Alston did carry us through the post season that year.

 

Hold on...you mean he averaged 12.4/4.1 on 38% FG and 31% 3FG? You mean to tell me that our post season success was largely a product of Dwight and Shard's dominant playoff performances as well as our collective team effort and not simply Alston's fine play? You mean the reason we lost convincingly to the team we otherwise swept in the regular season was because we were missing the guy who posted 28/7 on 59% FG in our match-ups?

 

This doesn't look so good for you.

 

 

 

Just about everyone got "pounced on" by Billups back then to the tune of his 18-20 points on sub-efficient shooting.

 

And yes, you used small sample sizes per usual because you (purposely) failed to highlight any of Jameer's great performances in the post-season. How else are you gonna manage to overtly misconstrue factual data for blind, unabashed hatred?

 

Who died and made you king of the *****ing too short point guards?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

D12CP3    2

D12CP3
Posted

You know, D12CP3: "lol" is an abbreviation, and like most abbreviations, the phrase being abbreviated has an actual meaning.

 

No one believes that you actually laughed out loud twice in the time it took you to write, terribly, "I'm not saying the trade was great but, c'mon, it's not that bad, at least in my opinion."

Wow people are pretty grumpy today I see. I didn't realize I had to answer to the grammer police.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

jec    427

jec
Posted

Wow people are pretty grumpy today I see. I didn't realize I had to answer to the grammer police.

 

Are you real?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

30Assists    342

30Assists
Posted

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Pretty much, yeah. I guess my argument is that I'd be ecstatic if we had Lopez....BACKING UP DWIGHT. He's got a good shot, he's a legit 7' tall, he's young.

 

But as a trade FOR Dwight? No. No, no, no. Not without a lot of other pieces thrown in. Lopez is a starter on a crap team (ie. Nets), or a backup for a contender.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

30Assists    342

30Assists
Posted

You know, D12CP3: "lol" is an abbreviation, and like most abbreviations, the phrase being abbreviated has an actual meaning.

 

No one believes that you actually laughed out loud twice in the time it took you to write, terribly, "I'm not saying the trade was great but, c'mon, it's not that bad, at least in my opinion."

....rofl

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my PTSD.    92

I love my PTSD.
Posted

You know, D12CP3: "lol" is an abbreviation, and like most abbreviations, the phrase being abbreviated has an actual meaning.

 

No one believes that you actually laughed out loud twice in the time it took you to write, terribly, "I'm not saying the trade was great but, c'mon, it's not that bad, at least in my opinion."

 

 

I think he thought it meant "Lots of Love".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go To Topic Listing The Thread Hall of Fame

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×