If not Stan, Who?

[DanA_TBDP 12]

Magic Man's rant right now is exactly why I can't stand the "bundling" of threads that occurs on this board. Instead of talking about the merits of coach A and what he's done/may do, it's turned into some stupid debate about whether Monta Ellis can play in the triangle. But if someone were to create a thread about how Monta Ellis plays and whether he can play in the triangle, they'd be told to just keep it in the "2012 offseason" thread or if it were related to Shaw, "keep it in the "If not Stan..." thread.

 

I know that you don't want 1,000,000 threads, but it's hard to get any real conversation going because too much stuff is piled together.

 

And I'm on the Mike Malone bandwagon.

Edited April 21, 2012 by DanA_TBDP

[The Magic Man 81]

Magic Man's rant right now is exactly why I can't stand the "bundling" of threads that occurs on this board. Instead of talking about the merits of coach A and what he's done/may do, it's turned into some stupid debate about whether Monta Ellis can play in the triangle. But if someone were to create a thread about how Monta Ellis plays and whether he can play in the triangle, they'd be told to just keep it in the "2012 offseason" thread or if it were related to Shaw, "keep it in the "If not Stan..." thread.

 

I know that you don't want 1,000,000 threads, but it's hard to get any real conversation going because too much stuff is piled together.

 

And I'm on the Mike Malone bandwagon.

My bad,I appoligize to all the board members,I got caught up in the moment.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Magic Man's rant right now is exactly why I can't stand the "bundling" of threads that occurs on this board. Instead of talking about the merits of coach A and what he's done/may do, it's turned into some stupid debate about whether Monta Ellis can play in the triangle. But if someone were to create a thread about how Monta Ellis plays and whether he can play in the triangle, they'd be told to just keep it in the "2012 offseason" thread or if it were related to Shaw, "keep it in the "If not Stan..." thread.

 

I know that you don't want 1,000,000 threads, but it's hard to get any real conversation going because too much stuff is piled together.

 

And I'm on the Mike Malone bandwagon.

 

At the bottom of every post, there is a "report" button.

 

If someone is derailing a thread and that bothers you, report their post. If you don't want to do that, then either go to another message board or stop complaining about this one.

[DanA_TBDP 12]

At the bottom of every post, there is a "report" button.

 

If someone is derailing a thread and that bothers you, report their post. If you don't want to do that, then either go to another message board or stop complaining about this one.

I'm not complaining about the post. Honestly, whether Ellis fits in the triangle is an interesting topic and may be worth discussion. My complaint is that there's so much thread hording on here where everything gets pushed into one thread, no good discussion is brought forth.

 

This Ellis thing deserves its own thread but looking around, I bet within 2-3 posts, someone would've complained it belongs on an off-season thread and it would've been locked.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'm not complaining about the post. Honestly, whether Ellis fits in the triangle is an interesting topic and may be worth discussion. My complaint is that there's so much thread hording on here where everything gets pushed into one thread, no good discussion is brought forth.

 

This Ellis thing deserves its own thread but looking around, I bet within 2-3 posts, someone would've complained it belongs on an off-season thread and it would've been locked.

 

So to summarize: the Ellis thing is an interesting topic worth discussion, but the way things are done here means that no good discussions are brought forth.

 

I'm glad we have cleared up that you don't understand how "words" work, which appears to be the vast majority of your problem.

 

As for an Ellis thread, I think it's far more likely someone would tell you to take it to the Around the NBA forum, since Ellis doesn't play for the Magic and the Magic don't run a triangle offense.

[DanA_TBDP 12]

So to summarize: the Ellis thing is an interesting topic worth discussion, but the way things are done here means that no good discussions are brought forth.

 

I'm glad we have cleared up that you don't understand how "words" work, which appears to be the vast majority of your problem.

 

As for an Ellis thread, I think it's far more likely someone would tell you to take it to the Around the NBA forum, since Ellis doesn't play for the Magic and the Magic don't run a triangle offense.

Obviously I've touched a sore point on you as you've resulted to insults but I'll try to keep this civil.

 

The discussion is whether Monta Ellis can fit in the triangle under a Brian Shaw scheme with Dwight being the "Shaq" of sorts with Ellis playing the "Kobe" role. Seems like it's combining a lot of different ideas such as "Shaw as a coaching candidate", Ellis fitting the triangle "Around the NBA" in your mind, Orlando's ability to acquire Ellis "one of the 2012 or 2013 off-season threads".

 

It's an entire scenario along with an idea of at least two players being able to fit into a scheme. Seems like something that deserves it's own thread. Instead, it takes up 2-3 pages on this thread and any discussion of other coaching candidates (or even Shaw in general) gets lost.

 

Too much hording going on. Just my .02.

[NittanyBuc 757]

Obviously I've touched a sore point on you as you've resulted to insults but I'll try to keep this civil.

 

The discussion is whether Monta Ellis can fit in the triangle under a Brian Shaw scheme with Dwight being the "Shaq" of sorts with Ellis playing the "Kobe" role. Seems like it's combining a lot of different ideas such as "Shaw as a coaching candidate", Ellis fitting the triangle "Around the NBA" in your mind, Orlando's ability to acquire Ellis "one of the 2012 or 2013 off-season threads".

 

It's an entire scenario along with an idea of at least two players being able to fit into a scheme. Seems like something that deserves it's own thread. Instead, it takes up 2-3 pages on this thread and any discussion of other coaching candidates (or even Shaw in general) gets lost.

 

Too much hording going on. Just my .02.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=25&sid=f9eaa1ef9637426a542f75b868430f31

[Ibn Battuta 127]

this board keeps outdoing itself.

 

first we had Ish as a championship piece, now it's Monta Ellis running the triangle. I can't even keep a straight face typing the words "Monta Ellis" and "triangle offense." The next logical step is the merits of hiring Kurt Rambis I suppose.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Obviously I've touched a sore point on you as you've resulted to insults but I'll try to keep this civil.

 

The discussion is whether Monta Ellis can fit in the triangle under a Brian Shaw scheme with Dwight being the "Shaq" of sorts with Ellis playing the "Kobe" role. Seems like it's combining a lot of different ideas such as "Shaw as a coaching candidate", Ellis fitting the triangle "Around the NBA" in your mind, Orlando's ability to acquire Ellis "one of the 2012 or 2013 off-season threads".

 

It's an entire scenario along with an idea of at least two players being able to fit into a scheme. Seems like something that deserves it's own thread. Instead, it takes up 2-3 pages on this thread and any discussion of other coaching candidates (or even Shaw in general) gets lost.

 

Too much hording going on. Just my .02.

 

I thought you said you weren't complaining about it.

 

And pointing out that you managed to completely contradict yourself in back to back sentences isn't an example that I've "resulted to insults" for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that "resulted to insults" doesn't mean anything at all.

 

You meant "resorted to insults", but that just further drives home the idea that you don't understand that resorted, resulted, complaining, worthy, and discussion are all words, and like most words, they all have definitions. Definitions, it seems, that you are bent on ignoring at your whims.

 

But the thing is: pointing out that you don't understand what those words mean and that you keep contradicting yourself? That's not insulting you. Like the aforementioned examples, "insult" is also a word with a specific meaning. Saying "DOM is a jerk" is an insult. Pointing out that whatever point you're trying to make here is, at best, inconsistent to the point of having no clarity or purpose, isn't insulting you. It's acknowledging the very nature of your posts.

 

And again: if you honestly think I'm insulting you, there is a report button right there at the bottom of each post. Rather than complaining about it and wasting everyone's time, just hit the report button, and tell all the MODs how upset you are with me for pointing out that your complaints contradict each other. Or if you don't like that this thread is having that Monta Ellis tangent, which you clearly don't since you've complained about it multiple times now, then report THAT.

 

Or better yet, just create that ridiculous Monta Ellis thread if you want it to exist so *****ing badly but just not in this thread, and save your complaints about what the MODs do with your Monta Ellis thread for when they've actually done something with your Monta Ellis thread.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

And for the record, bull**** like this is why I don't participate in discussions on this board anymore.

[DanA_TBDP 12]

:partypepsi:

 

I'm not going to report you because that whole business is childish.

 

I mixed up "resulted" and "resorted". Woops, please forgive me.

 

I don't care if there's a thread or not. Your inability to understand my argument that there is a lot of "thread hording" on here where there's so much other dribble in here that god knows how hard you have to look to find actual discussion about a possible SVG replacement.

 

Monta should be its own thread, not about who should replace Van Gundy.

[NittanyBuc 757]

Go to RealGM's board and look at how cluttered it is. That's why every single twist in a conversation doesn't need it's own thread