Printable View
I've never understood what's dirty about flopping. You may not like it, for whatever reason, but there's nothing about it that even comes close to violating any rules. If it's a flop, the official retains the right to call a foul on the flopper or to make no call. If a player flops he can hurt his own team as much as the other team. What about that is dirty?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
I think it borders on cheap shot. I've seen Fisher try to blindside charge and it can injure a player. Again, I hate because it killed my Suns. I give Manu props for as long as it lasts. Wish some player on the Suns was that skilled at acting :)
Well, contesting a shot at the rim carries the same risk, but it's hardly cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
JMark, I really am interested in reading your thoughts about the issues in my post at #62. I appreciate your knowledge of the Suns and those questions have bothered me all summer in watching the Suns transactions. Anything?
D'Antoni has said that the Suns will continue to use the small lineup for large parts of the season. This is why they stalked up on wings to help replace Johnson and Richardson. How it all works remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
When they do switch to a conventional lineup, I think the change will be for specific matchups, both individually and team.
Agreed. But I've always thought Marion's true value was as a small forward who can score 20 and grab 10 without being a focal point. In the conventional lineups, he'll now get to play the lanes and help with weakside blocks, rather than trying to muscle up the likes of Nazr or whomever...Quote:
I mean, part of what made Marion such a tough cover last season was the fact that he was basically playing an offensive power forward and routinely was matched up with PF's who had no chance to keep up with him in transition or off-the-dribble. Move forward one year and Marion, it seems, is moving back to SF, where he'll still be good, but might not be quite as dynamic in creating defensive headaches for opponents (see, generally, 2005 WCF, where Spurs treated Marion like a SF).
For the times they go small, Marion will have the impact you mentioned. When they go conventional, he becomes the third potential 10-rebound per night forward. I like that A LOT as defensive rebounding absolutely killed the Suns last season.
With Thomas, He'll be playing the baseline about 18 feet out on offense. He'll stretch the floor plenty. I don't see Grant playing much, maybe 10-15 minutes per or Hunter-type minutes. I think with Grant, things willslow a bit, but with Thomas, I think nothing will slow. Why? Last season Thomas thrived in the Suns style, putting up averages of 14-17 inthe two 120+type games vs. the Suns. There will be lots of rebounds and lots of open jumpers. Also, as shown by San Antonio last year, you don't need five players to run the fast break effectively, so when they do conventional, I think Thomas rebounds and outlets immediately to Nash or Bell or he takes the ball out if a basket is made.Quote:
I thought that part of what made the Suns so difficult last season was not just their willingness to launch from wherever and their success with that strategy. It was the inability of teams to find a way to defend Marion, Stoudemire, Richardson, and Johnson at the same time. If the Suns play with a more "normal" lineup, I wonder if they'll get the same mismatches when they have to slow it down -- when they can't just launch from distance? It seems to me that two bigs (particularly with undersized 2nd bigs in Grant and Thomas) makes it much easier for teams to double Amare in the post and rotate without creating even worse problems.
Not much difference than when Amare or Marion had to take the ball out. In fact, it could make things easier with both able to run.
Again, I think the Suns have taken a small step backwards without Johnson while Dallas stays the same and Houston moves up a few spots.Quote:
I'm honestly curious about how Suns fans see that issue playing out.
I think these three duke it out for second place, IMO, going Phoenix, Houston, Dallas.
San Antonio took a small step forward, but they were already one big step ahead before Finley and Van Exel, so it's a good distance, save injury.
I'm just as curious. Stats only say so much.
But I think the Suns 3-point shooting may even be better percentage wise than last season and IF Nash plays similer, I think if a healthy Phoenix squad meets a healthy San Antonio squad, that because of the rebounding and depth, Phoenix is in better situation to challenge the Spurs, though right now, I wouldn't have them winning.
They just bother me (period).Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
**i still respect the Spurs though.
Amare has lots of potential, but to expect him to develop into a dominant defensive force when after he has failed to do so in three years and develop a reliable low post game is quite a bit to ask. Based on these trajectories, isn't it just as reasonable to say that LeBron James will be as good as Jordan was at his prime in 3 years? A lot of people say that, but given the choice between a James now, or a 29 year old Jordan, who would you have taken? I am not dismissing the potential of Amare, but I would rather take a sure thing for 5 years, than potential for 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
I'm not going to read through the whole thing so if someone has posted this already I'm sorry. Shaq's an ahole. That is all.
First off, HE SHOULD BE A SENIOR IN COLLEGE.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
Now that that is out of the way, he's got a full range of low-post moves. I don't know which Amare you've been watching, but as a fan who literally tapes every game and studies film for a career, I can tell you he is unstoppable in single coverage and a very tough guard with double-teams.
How many years did it take Hakeem to peek? And you're saying Amare's hardly going to improve in any area from this point forward? Amare works as hard as any player in the League. Maybe harder. He spent all but three weeks this offseason at training and practicing. Tell me why this won't help him improve?
I don't know if Amare will ever be a great defensive forward. But again, last season Amare's offense and court presense was worth more to the Suns than him playing tough, hardnosed, foul-prone defense.
Style certainly factored in.
Now that they have actual depth, I think he'll get better. Not great, but he won't be guarding too many center man-to-man, but will instead be the swat team along with Marion and perhaps Diaw on help and weakside.
He'll get better rebounding wise. Just look at the playoffs last year. When he needed to, he averaged 11+ per game.
This year I expect around 25-10.5 from him.
Wow, look who's talking. After taking only one sentence of my postQuote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
Ridicule it withQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
and not even went on to hint on how Duncan having 11 different teammates in two of his championship teams was onlyQuote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
How about your side of the comprehension skills? The main point of the post was to address your assertion that Duncan won with largely similar teams, which is just known to be false.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
I went on to say that it is laugable for you to compare Amare to those players, which you refused to admit, but directly did so with quotes like this
Don't just say that you are comparing situations, you are drawing a direct parallel. Kareem was great, Duncan is great, Hakeem is great, and therefore you are predicting Amare to have levels of greatest at similar to Hakeem. That's a direct comparison. Unless you are saying that there is a huge difference in the talent between Kareem and Duncan.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
And taking in account the risks of an unknown element is nothing shocking. You predict Amare will average 30/12/3, and I can just as easily predict him to average 23/9/2, there is absolutely nothing to back it up. It just so happens that you predicted the earlier and decided that there is a high likelihood of that happening, and is willing to forgo a known quality today for it. I predicted the later, and is not willing to forgo a known quality for it.
I don't think you want to start something. When I was wrong, I backed away.
I'll still hold that the mainstays were your driving force and that mostly just the role players changed. But hey, if you say untrue, then I guess you know best.
My beef is when people dice up a post, maybe using a sentence or a half a sentence and create some alternate meaning for it.
I compared situation only. I gave an example of this great, but older player or this great and younger player for the duration of their careers. I chose two players. Simple as that. I chose two great players who played the same positions. Again, this is situation.Quote:
Don't just say that you are comparing situations, you are drawing a direct parallel. Kareem was great, Duncan is great, Hakeem is great, and therefore you are predicting Amare to have levels of greatest at similar to Hakeem. That's a direct comparison. Unless you are saying that there is a huge difference in the talent between Kareem and Duncan.
And taking in account the risks of an unknown element is nothing shocking. You predict Amare will average 30/12/3, and I can just as easily predict him to average 23/9/2, there is absolutely nothing to back it up. It just so happens that you predicted the earlier and decided that there is a high likelihood of that happening, and is willing to forgo a known quality today for it. I predicted the later, and is not willing to forgo a known quality for it.
I do feel that Amare is very similer to Hakeem, but only at the same point in their careers. You'll never find it where I said Amare was better than Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem or Shaq. I never even compared their skills or anything of the sorts.
Wanna try again?!
I don't care what age he is right now. You draw Hakeem, one of the latest bloomers in the league? I will draw up Bill Walton, better yet, find somebody who didn't have his career derailed due to injuries, Terry Cummings, or Bob McAdoo, or Spencer Haywood. There is no telling where he is heading. The current trend is up, and I am not going to argue that, but saying that he is going to keep improving because Hakeem did the same is pure speculation. I am not even saying that he can hardly improve, trying taking some of your own advice and try to read, he doesn't play any defense right now, and you expect him to become a player who can carry his team? A player has to at least play GOOD defense. Very few player become good defensive players after sucking early on in his careers. And his lack of low post move is continuously noted as a weakness. He is KNOWN to have a midrange shot and drive right and dunk. His unstoppability has nothing to do with his arrange of shots, just like you can't stop Shawn Kemp during his heydays, but that still doesn't change the fact that he had very little variety on his lowpost moves.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
Also, I never faulted any single Spurs fan for them taking Duncan over Amare. I simply defended Shaq's stance as some were playing the "Shaq's an idiot" or "Shaq is just a hater" card.
For me, I'll take Amare.
ambchang, I mentioned earlier "barring injury". Your argument against Amare can be used equally (if not greater) with Duncan. It's not like Timmy's been the example of perfect health, now...
Also, Kemp never even averaged 20 points per game. Don't tell me he couldn't be stopped.
Want to try this logic test?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
A:B::C:D, A similar to C, guess what the relation B and D is? Now substitute A with Kareem, C with Duncan, B with Hakeem and D with Stoudamire. Unless you are saying that A and C are extremely far apart, you are saying B and D are similar. I never said you said Amare better than anybody, but to compare them in their career trends, to me, is laughable.
Besides, Hakeem is known for his great footwork and defensive abilities, even early on in his career, Amare was known for his atheleticism, two very different players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
Of course he did
1999 - 20.5. Yeah yeah yeah, it's shortened season, he only got over by 0.5 points, but he still did it over a season.
It should also be noted that in the playoffs, he had the following averages
95 - 24.8, 96 - 20.9, 97 - 21.6, 98 - 26
I am sorry, my argument was poorly stated. I first stated Bill Walton, then realized that his career was derailed because of injuries, so I found examples that didn't have their careers derailed due to injuries, but simply peaked early and went down hill from there. My argument is that there is no telling if Amare is "Hakeem-like", or he would be like the other guys where he peaks early, and does not get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMarkJohns
Hakeem was a great shot-blocker, not a great man-to-man defender. But he did get better with age.
How is it laughable to compare or predict a great player or a great players numbers to other great players or their numbers? The point never changed, you can insert any vast number of names for those situations. Replace with scrubs if you want. I was simply saying you can have an older player for a shorter time or a younger player for a longer time. That's it, that's the intent.
What you read into it is on you.
Replace with any name. Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton... Stephon Marbury or Tony Parker... Rasheed Wallace or Tyson Chandler?
It doesn't matter the player. It was the situation I was comparing.
Fine, lock-out shortened season... he was still far from unstoppable as he had no real moves, except for the power slam and didn't have the jumper Amare has now. He was a great athlete who got the most from his ability, but limited skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
But your argument against me is different than my initial argument. You can't hold that against my posts when it was never being considered.Quote:
I am sorry, my argument was poorly stated. I first stated Bill Walton, then realized that his career was derailed because of injuries, so I found examples that didn't have their careers derailed due to injuries, but simply peaked early and went down hill from there. My argument is that there is no telling if Amare is "Hakeem-like", or he would be like the other guys where he peaks early, and does not get better.
The question was posed, which player would you take to start a team with. Any player, but you only get that playe for as long as he lasts, starting from this point forward.
I added barring injury, there's no reason to discredit Amare as he's a great player on track for even better things.
It's been fun. Thanks for the banter. I'm all about the banter.
Duncan is the greatest, San Antonio is the Champ, but Amare is the future.
He will be an "Of All-Timer"
Do not doubt that. I just pray it's on Phoenix.
I think it's time to hand the Suns the "real" championship.
No idea what this means, but I hope you're not trying to put words in my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
That would be incredably weak-sister of you.
You guys here, your team and its players got nothing but respect coming from me. Nothin' but love....
Irrelevant because everyone that season had the same thing. People tend to use that as an excuse like the Spurs were the only ones who had to play less games.Quote:
Fine, lock-out shortened season...
I think Duncan shld start looking around the league and when his current contract expires, he'll consider playing for other teams before he retires.
Forget being so loyal to the fans like Robinson bec. some of them are not loyal to him either.
Then i wish Amare signs with Spurs and Tim will win in the playoff over him & end SA's title hopes.
that would be a nice :angel .
dude...you are either joking or really high.
what is your sense of purpose on earth?Quote:
Originally Posted by milkyway21