2012 Offseason

[Makin' Cutestory Bacon 24]

This is a logic that, honestly, I don't get at all, and it seems to only ever be presented by idiots.

 

A coach dictates rotations. That is, by definition, what a coach is supposed to do. When people earlier this year were calling for Larry Hughes to get playing time at point guard? Those people were morons. Chris Duhon is terrible every time he steps on the court.

 

Same thing with Orton. Just because he's a center doesn't mean that he ipso-facto deserves minutes. If the guy isn't good, and the one time I've seen him on the court he was awful, then why play him?

 

I'm 6'2". If Otis were to inexplicably sign me to a contract, should I be granted back-up minutes at point guard just because I'm there?

 

I understand that a coach dictates rotations.

 

I understand that, just because a player is signed, doesn't mean they are granted minutes.

 

I understand that the "above him would say something" statement is ridiculous. I can accept that wrong. Not that it means anything now but I mean't it more towards his stubbornness of not rotating the rookies in, even when the game is too lopsided to see-saw back the other way. Then with a minute and some change left, finally put them in. I assumed management would care enough to at least tell him to try to give the rooks more time to better our team as a whole come playoff time. I didn't say they should control him like a sock puppet.

 

In my previous post, the subject was addressing a backup center. If we did make the effort to address that problem and signed a backup center, would it not be absolutely moronic to not play him considering that's something we sought to fix? Or do we just take up a roster spot and hand out money?

 

If your PG skills are as impressive as your display of ego on this board then, absolutely, he should. Get Otis on the phone. It wouldn't surprise me if Otis signed it and it wouldn't surprise me if you outplayed Duhon for backup PG.

[Stu Bronsilino 313]

If your PG skills are as impressive as your display of ego on this board then, absolutely, he should. Get Otis on the phone. It wouldn't surprise me if Otis signed it and it wouldn't surprise me if you outplayed Duhon for backup PG.

 

this is fucking hilarious.

[KandiKane 136]

this is fucking hilarious.

 

That could be the best post I have ever read on here.

 

Edit: I kind of wish Maple would edit the rest of his post out just to leave that.

[Crazyhorse81 242]

It should of happened at the Trade Deadline, already.

 

 

No, it should have happened last offseason, when he was no longer under contract with us.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

In my previous post, the subject was addressing a backup center. If we did make the effort to address that problem and signed a backup center, would it not be absolutely moronic to not play him considering that's something we sought to fix? Or do we just take up a roster spot and hand out money?

 

You said, and I'll quote you again:

 

I hope Stan is told to play him whether he likes it or not. Backup center is much needed. I don't like that Stan's stubbornness is completely controlling the rotations. I figured someone above him would say something.

 

 

So explain to me how that is you suggesting ANYTHING other than that the coach of the team should not be able to dictate rotations? You explicitly say that you don't like the idea that "Stan's stubbornness" involves him "completely controlling the rotations," which the rest of us would typically refer to as "what the man does for a living, and does better than all but maybe 4 people on the planet".

 

Seriously, the idea that you would actually complain about my ego, while in the very same post suggest, to any degree, that you have a better understanding of coaching and player development than Stan Van Gundy is too stupid to contemplate. Seriously, do one or the other. Doing both makes you look like, I don't know, PEC.

 

And back to your original point: who cares what you view as a position of need? Just because we sign a backup center doesn't mean that guy should get to play just because he exists, which in your last post you managed to say was not your point,

 

I understand that, just because a player is signed, doesn't mean they are granted minutes.

 

and then say was your point.

 

If we did make the effort to address that problem and signed a backup center, would it not be absolutely moronic to not play him considering that's something we sought to fix? Or do we just take up a roster spot and hand out money?

All the while acting like I was the one saying dumb things.

 

And in the grand scheme of things it's not all that important, but Glen Davis is only giving up an opponent's PER of 16.8 at center, which isn't ideal certainly, but it's hardly a huge dilemma for the playoffs when he'll only be playing there 6mpg at that point.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

That could be the best post I have ever read on here.

 

And people wonder why I can't stand half this board.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I also think it's worth pointing out that playing the rookies so that they will be "ready for the playoffs" is a bad argument considering most teams will have an 8 or 9 man rotation by that point. Also, the rookies, at the level they are playing now, will not be seeing a minute in the playoffs, unless the game is well put away late.

[Makin' Cutestory Bacon 24]

So explain to me how that is you suggesting ANYTHING other than that the coach of the team should not be able to dictate rotations? You explicitly say that you don't like the idea that "Stan's stubbornness" involves him "completely controlling the rotations," which the rest of us would typically refer to as "what the man does for a living, and does better than all but maybe 4 people on the planet".

 

I understand that the "above him would say something" statement is ridiculous. I can accept that wrong. Not that it means anything now but I mean't it more towards his stubbornness of not rotating the rookies in, even when the game is too lopsided to see-saw back the other way. Then with a minute and some change left, finally put them in. I assumed management would care enough to at least tell him to try to give the rooks more time to better our team as a whole come playoff time. I didn't say they should control him like a sock puppet

 

Seriously, the idea that you would actually complain about my ego, while in the very same post suggest, to any degree, that you have a better understanding of coaching and player development than Stan Van Gundy is too stupid to contemplate.

 

To any degree, by me attacking a players bad performance such as J Rich on a bad night, does that suggest that my ego has me believing I am better than him?

 

And back to your original point: who cares what you view as a position of need? Just because we sign a backup center doesn't mean that guy should get to play just because he exists, which in your last post you managed to say was not your point,

I understand that, just because a player is signed, doesn't mean they are granted minutes.

 

and then say was your point.

 

If we did make the effort to address that problem and signed a backup center, would it not be absolutely moronic to not play him considering that's something we sought to fix?

 

You're absolutely right: who cares what I think is much needed? The point there was this: If my guitar is missing a low e string and I feel it's absolutely necessary for my playing, then why would I buy a low e and still not use it?

 

All the while acting like I was the one saying dumb things.

 

I wasn't suggesting any thing you said was dumb, I was defending what I said and also agreeing that I said something dumb(above Stan thing). I have never read anything you have posted and thought to myself, "this Drunk On Mystery guy is a complete moron."

 

And in the grand scheme of things it's not all that important, but Glen Davis is only giving up an opponent's PER of 16.8 at center, which isn't ideal certainly, but it's hardly a huge dilemma for the playoffs when he'll only be playing there 6mpg at that point.

 

Okay.

 

I'm not doing this quoting thing again. It's extremely tedious.

[Makin' Cutestory Bacon 24]

I also think it's worth pointing out that playing the rookies so that they will be "ready for the playoffs" is a bad argument considering most teams will have an 8 or 9 man rotation by that point. Also, the rookies, at the level they are playing now, will not be seeing a minute in the playoffs, unless the game is well put away late.

 

Point taken. Nice to see you at least didn't say it's an argument only presented by complete idiots but instead just claimed it is a bad argument. Not that it matters, but I respect that.

[Franchero MVP 391]

fire otis

[KandiKane 136]

And people wonder why I can't stand half this board.

 

Amazing! this post shows how valid his was. Common admit that it was funny.

[Bang Gundy 17]

 

can we sign him?