Don't tell me Matt Bonner is starting C again

**Mel_13** · 10-22-2009

How can you be so sure that Thomas and Oberto wouldn't have gotten it done? Or even Gooden for that matter. If the spurs had gotten a halfway decent game from their starting center in GAME 1 (and by decent I mean more than the zero pts & 1 rebound in 18 mins that Bonner logged) they could have very well won that game, and then gone to Dallas up 2-0 then who knows.

The real question is why are you still obsessing over this? Let it go, watch the season unfold, pull for your team.

**Agloco** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by TJastal

How can you be so sure that Thomas and Oberto wouldn't have gotten it done? Or even Gooden for that matter. If the spurs had gotten a halfway decent game from their starting center in GAME 1 (and by decent I mean more than the zero pts & 1 rebound in 18 mins that Bonner logged) they could have very well won that game, and then gone to Dallas up 2-0 then who knows.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Pop did limit Bonners minutes in Game 1...... 18 minutes is hardly anything to gripe about, starter or not.

Going up to Dallas 2-0? Yeah who knows? But I say Mavericks in 6......

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

The real question is why are you still obsessing over this? Let it go, watch the season unfold, pull for your team.

I like how you wanted it to end so quickly. Were talking about Mavs / Spurs 2009 playoffs cause of Matt Bonner starting. He's not obsessing over the lost, he is noticing a trend that could well carry into the future. Namely, once again Matt Bonner starting at C, when Superior Talent is available and has been for sometime now including last season.

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by Agloco

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Pop did limit Bonners minutes in Game 1...... 18 minutes is hardly anything to gripe about, starter or not.

Going up to Dallas 2-0? Yeah who knows? But I say Mavericks in 6......

He limited Bonners minutes because he had to. Bonner in 18 minutes had 4 fouls.

**Mel_13** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by portnoy1

I like how you wanted it to end so quickly. Were talking about Mavs / Spurs 2009 playoffs cause of Matt Bonner starting. He's not obsessing over the lost, he is noticing a trend that could well carry into the future. Namely, once again Matt Bonner starting at C, when Superior Talent is available and has been for sometime now including last season.

**benefactor** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

Something Funny???

**HarlemHeat37** · 10-22-2009

portnoy FTW!!..

**benefactor** · 10-22-2009

I didn't realize the playoffs started Wednesday. Curse you Pop!

**benefactor** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by portnoy1

Something Funny???

Umm...yeah...you.

**Mel_13** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by portnoy1

Something Funny???

That sound you hear is the joke going way over your head

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

Just trying to make a point, but whatever.

**DaBears** · 10-22-2009

Bonner might in the beginning of the season start, while the adjustment while they wrinkle out the chemistry issue. Then either someone will out play him or POP will do what he did last year and bench him for awhile letting someone else step up.

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by DaBears

Bonner might in the beginning of the season start, while the adjustment while they wrinkle out the chemistry issue. Then either someone will out play him or POP will do what he did last year and bench him for awhile letting someone else step up.

That is the only reason I could see Bonner getting playing time. But after a month I want him out of the starting lineup. And after 2months I want him out of the rotation.

**Agloco** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by TJastal

How can you be so sure that Thomas and Oberto wouldn't have gotten it done? Or even Gooden for that matter. If the spurs had gotten a halfway decent game from their starting center in GAME 1 (and by decent I mean more than the zero pts & 1 rebound in 18 mins that Bonner logged) they could have very well won that game, and then gone to Dallas up 2-0 then who knows.

He took one shot...... Kurt Thomas? He took two. Oh yeah, he also had zero points.....

So you're left with dusting off Fabs and throwing him into the fray? Fail.

Originally Posted by portnoy1

I like how you wanted it to end so quickly. Were talking about Mavs / Spurs 2009 playoffs cause of Matt Bonner starting. He's not obsessing over the lost, he is noticing a trend that could well carry into the future. Namely, once again Matt Bonner starting at C, when Superior Talent is available and has been for sometime now including last season.

Superior Talent is available now. It wasn't last year.

Originally Posted by portnoy1

He limited Bonners minutes because he had to. Bonner in 18 minutes had 4 fouls.

Possible, but I don't buy it. There's still two fouls to give there. In addition, Bonner also played 20 minutes in Game 3........He had zero fouls BTW. In no game except Game 2 did he play more than 22 minutes (he played a decent game as I recall). Regardless of what you guys think, Pop IS limiting Bonners minutes when he doesn't produce. You guys are in panic mode for absolutely no reason at all.

**bless1187** · 10-22-2009

... and in 3 month i want him out of the team.

**Agloco** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

Originally Posted by benefactor

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by bless1187

... and in 3 month i want him out of the team.

AMEN, I actually want that now. But im prepared to wait.

**CGD** · 10-22-2009

I'm telling you that Matt Bonner is starting at C again.

**portnoy1** · 10-22-2009

I believe you, thats why all the debate. I'm scared, and some of the guys around here are putting veils over their eyes and laughing it up cause they dont want to see the truth.

**Mel_13** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by portnoy1

I believe you, thats why all the debate. I'm scared, and some of the guys around here are putting veils over their eyes and laughing it up cause they dont want to see the truth.