Printable View
Is this the first act of playoff Poop? :lol
Please someone tell Forbes isn't getting trotted out in in 2nd quarter of Game 6 when we're down 2-3 vs the Rockets. How the hell you don't give your point guard of the future an opportunity to feel the postseason even in garbage time?
all forbes has to do is shoot. murray has to run an offense. it's much easier for forbes to come in and do his task for a few minutes than dijon
Murray just didn't get run at the end. No chemistry with teammates whatsoever.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
There will be a point in this playoffs that Pop will need a spark and might seen if Forbes or Bertans can hit a 3 or two in limited minutes. Murray has a different skill set.
Right on!! Honestly, I would be surprised if we saw him again before the Summer League tipped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by SAGirl
this makes no sense...we have enough 3 point shooters...murray can do what no one else can...break down a defense at will...speed up the game at will...thats like saying let's bench a rookie tony parker because he cant shoot. he is infinitely better than forbes...especially on defense...plus he has played more with the team than forbes has...he is our PG of the future...why not give him a taste of the playoffs? i have a feeling pop doesnt think highly of him, and either his growth will be stunted, or he will go to another team and we will regret it. im still baffled how ppl cant see he is exactly what we need RIGHT NOW!Quote:
Originally Posted by CGD
Neither Murray or Forbes are getting minutes unless the Spurs are up 25 in the fourth. Not sure why you care so much. I mean by the time Forbes got in the game, it was junk time and junk time in the playoffs is no different than junk time in the regular season. So it's not like Murray missed out on valuable playoff experience.
Forbes probably earned the right to be the last benchwarmer on the team given his play and Murray's injury. But Pop will probably mix up who suits up on the last roster spot each game. I'm sure Murray will get a chance to play a little junk time too.
Lol you being baffled at a completely obvious situation tbh..Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan2k5
To me this is a perfect rationalization for choosing Forbes over Murray. Still I am not sure it is the best decision. Moreover, it explains why Pop would go with Forbes in the playoffs, but I still wonder about Murray's inactivity for that long of a stretch at the end of the season. I am not completely convinced that it was a groin/hip injury. It seems to have taken Dijon an inordinate length of time to recover from his injury. Makes me a little suspicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by SAGirl
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by cd98
Hopefully Murray works on his D this summer. Actually, he should get with Anderson or whomever Kyle got with. Imagine if DeJounte could learn how to use length and timing like Kyle can while still having his athleticism.
In any event it sucks he doesn't have much of a role outside energy guy for now. Still a rawer Simmons.
They're both shitty, but Forbes is a three point threat. QED.
Nah. not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by sasaint
He really got injured worse than they thought.
He didn't play at all the last month, barely at all after the AS game. You just wouldn't be able to know how he'd play at all without any garbage time reps with teammates at all.
It was unfortunate. His season was basically over with the injury. I saw in twitter that it was a pelvic bone at some point so it wasn't just a groin thing.
Also, yeah for the guy who mentioned the junk time experience... it couldn't hurt to get him some if there are any to be had. Maybe Pop will switch him with Forbes or alternate, but I also would not be surprised if he doesn't.
Murray definitely needs the time in the Playoffs for next year. Forbes isn't a cog for the future, but Pop was playing his best bet to win yesterday. Pop will give Murray garbage minutes if it allows. These are the playoffs after all.
WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Murray needs to stay as far away from Anderson as humanly possible.
No joke. I think Kawhi would be the better option. Holy hellQuote:
Originally Posted by Kawhi m8
:rolleyes I hope Murray doesn't think like you do. That Kyle "Molasses" Anderson can be as good on that end as he is takes a number of mental tricks and a great feel for the game on that end. You better believe Murray could stand to learn from Slowmo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawhi m8
Slo-mo and Murray.....thats some length. If they can work well together.....and learn to shoot.....lookout.
This is exactly right. Idk what is wrong with the other poptards on this thread... murray looks like a young tony parker, but with more length. Is he raw? Of course he is. But everyone seems to be underestimating the value of being able to break down a defense, something murray has shown exceptional ability to do. He can get to the rim at will and has shown decent finishing ability already. Forbes has shown some promise, but a backup pg is his absolute ceiling. Murray has serious potential...Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan2k5
I hope this isnt another classic case of pop falling in love with jaque vaughn or matt booner while better options sit on the bench and rot.
Murray needs burn in the next 3 rds, when sa needs scoring. if Murray plays against gsw spurs will win, but I could see poop playing dedmon, gasol, parker, lee, green at the same time.
I agree...we NEED Murray vs the warriorsQuote:
Originally Posted by tholdren
forbes is bad ass..fo
Murray has Shaun Livingston style game which really translates well into the playoffs. Still don't get why Livingston never learned to shoot from 3 unlike anyone else, he might be the only non- three point shooting guard left in any NBA team's rotation, tbh.
I hope it's just a health issue because it kills me to not see Murray getting at least a few garbage time minutes in the playoffs.
slomo has a high basketball IQ if nothing else. and that's not discounting the value of such an asset, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Slomo does not have a high bbiq faggot. :lmao
Why do you just go around posting garabage and calling everyone fa**ot? It's annoying as hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
fag discourse typically suggests a self-assurance of one's masculinity (usually associated with adolescents in high school). the more one uses it the more that individual requires such assurance. either that, or a very limited vocabulary.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
My vocabulary is higher than yours, faggot. :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
You don't need to read it. :lol :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
You used the word incorrectly, and then the post was deleted. MOD? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
i was just making a generalized observation; only you would know if it was tautological.Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
And then you post the comment. :wow
:lol
FYI, you're using the word wrong. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
what word? antecedent?Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
tautologicalQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
now that's tautology in the grammatical sense (the first one, by the way, was tautology as in formal logic).Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
do i really have to be didactic about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
Doesn't matter what form. You're using it wrong. And I'm not gonna be an english teacher and solve that for you. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
And by the way, unless there was a skip in the matrix, you somehow deleted your earlier comment. MOD MUCH? :lmao
I have a reply from you on my replies tab, but you deleted your comment. :lol
Hey dude can you bold me? K thanks.
i simply made an observation of your propensity to engage in fag discourse, which is just a sociologically observed pattern among high school boys. you retorted with fag discourse. my initial observation was merely generalized. whether or not, in your case, the statement "dabom engages in fag discourse because he is deficient in his masculinity" is true in every possible interpretation (i.e., tautological) is only something you would know.Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
Again, you're using it wrong. :lmao
well you can take it up with wittgenstein or quine if you're convinced of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
This guy is a MOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
You can tell when he completely ignores the assertion. :lol
see now that proposition is not tautological. it just begs the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by dabom
I take that back.
I have evidence because it shows you replied on my "replies tab". :lol
Keep sweating. :lol
But now it;s deleted. :lol
forbes being active over murray is backwards. shouldn't happen again.