Are you serious? So virtually every person with the requisite expertise to render an opinion on the subject comes to be virtually the same conclusion, yet attaching credibility to such a vast consensus makes one a drone?
I suppose you're a rebel just because?
Let me make something clear, I don't want Bonner back. Period.
But let's also make something clear, if your argument against bringing him back is that there's no way he'd play behind Duncan, Splitter, Blair and 'Dyess, then the Spurs have bigger problems than who their fifth Big is.
You better be hoping for a Pop opt-out . . .
I don't even want there to be a chance that Spurs play him more than he deserves SO LET HIM LEAVE.
GMAFBor the playing for a coach that inspires confidence role
or the playing for a team that runs an actual offense role
or the fact that almost half of the teams in the league will be better than the Spurs over the next few years...
It's not Pops responsibility to inspire confidence per se. How much emotional head does this flake need anyway?
The guy has no argument. In fact, at some points he sounds like he's making an argument against Bonner.
"The Spurs need shooters, and defense, so let's sign Bonner so he can brick open shots and play no D!"
Yeah, that makes so much sense. Sure, you can use the "but Bonner will be there for depth purposes" cop-out, but we all know Pop will play the choker.
Yo Bender, if Bonner goes to another team will you follow him? Hope so.
that's hardly the reality, most of the people you believe to be "experts" are probably far from it, how many of them have ever coached a pro team successfully? who are these experts? talking heads on TV networks?you think they'd even be allowed to express an opinion like that?
no, 4 rings means that anyone who cares even the slightest about his own public image isn't going to say anything but the highest praises about Pop
Last edited by vander; 07-01-2010 at 01:26 PM.
Boner sucks.
but still, if other coaches are able to do it, then they are better coaches.
the responsibility is winning, and whatever that might require
Flawless logic as usual. Why don't you tell us again how keeping Manu hurts the team's chance in 2010-11?that's hardly the reality, most of the people you believe to be "experts" are probably far from it, how many of them have ever coached a pro team successfully? talking heads on TV networks?
no, 4 rings means that anyone who cares even the slightest about his own public image isn't going to say anything but the highest praises about Pop
never said that.Flawless logic as usual. Why don't you tell us again how keeping Manu hurts the team's chance in 2010-11?
but you seem pretty fixated on it, does the NBA close up shop after 2011?
and way to refute the current argument again, you're really good at that, rarely do you run away or try to change the topic
never said that.
but you seem pretty fixated on it, does the NBA close up shop after 2011?
and way to refute the current argument again, you're really good at that, rarely do you run away or try to change the topic
See, your problem is that you think you made an argument worth refuting.
When you do, I'll refute it.
Until then.....
Flawless logic as usual.See, your problem is that you think you made an argument worth refuting.
When you do, I'll refute it.
Until then.....
and here we have yet another universally applicable canned retort from the witty expert Mel_13
but you do keep replying to say I'm wrong, just with no reasons ever given.
Except we're not cutting Bonner... his contract expired. So long!so who didn't suck against the Suns? time to cut the Big 3
If you haven't figured out... who is the drone, parrot?
The posts are there for all to read.Flawless logic as usual.
and here we have yet another universally applicable canned retort from the witty expert Mel_13
but you do keep replying to say I'm wrong, just with no reasons ever given.
Your argument can be distilled down to "All recognized experts can be ignored because they're intimidated by Pop's rings".
While you may think that represents a valid argument, you'll find that you're quite alone in that view.
Come up with something worth a response and I'll be happy to comment.
Mel_13 >>>>>>>>>>> vander
Pretty much. Bonner's alright in the RS and he knows the system. If Splitter comes over, Matt won't play in the playoffs anyway. Any more than the vet min would be a joke, though. There might be teams willing to pay him at least a bit more than that, I guess (he always seemed like a player who'd fit into Nellie's Warriors to me).
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000
People say "it's ok, as long as he is deep in the bench at the vet min"
THAT. He is still taking up a space that someone else could use and help Spurs. Bonner will never show up for Spurs in the playoffs. NEVER. Get his ass out!!!!
Matt Bonner is a paradigm of over hype for one certain "skill". He doesn't offer much, if anything, beyond that one skill. He's a flat footed defender that practices standing perpendicular to his man and holding his arms high as defense. He's slow, can't rebound and if isn't wide open, can't hit his 3 balls. And for some strange reason Coach Pop has an infatuation with this guy. He being on the roster will surely deprive the player with severe upside, heart, hustle, talent and tenacity, DeJuan Blair, with fewer mintues and take away the rebounding, inside scoring, hustle and defense Bonner has never been able to provide. To me, it makes little sense to sacrifice everything the undersized PF with heart and talent brings to the table in favor of 3 point shooting and "spacing". Not to mention the kid is working incredibly hard this off season, what is Bonner doing? Traveling the Hill Country in search of the best gas prices and cheapest sandwiches?
Matt Bonner just doesn't bring anything beyond his one "skill" that is only useful when it doesn't matter and his presence on the bench is likely to stunt the growth of a guy who truly has the talent, desire and heart to become a truly great player in this league. And I don't understand the "spacing" issue. How did the Spurs do before Bonner and Horry? Tim played besides guys like Rasho, The Admiral in decline, Nazr Mohammed and Kevin Willis and took home two les. I don't see why there is dependence upon a "stretch" big man if you can successfully stock the bench with 3 point shooters. Hopefully Manu, Tony, Anderson and an improved RJ can take up the slack, maybe spend the LLE on a 3 point specialist. I just truly believe Bonner doesn't deserve to be on the roster nor is he needed on the roster.
Now Vander knows how angel_luv and ploto felt when people wanted Rasho out.
and yet here you are commenting away, then saying you don't feel the need to comment.The posts are there for all to read.
Your argument can be distilled down to "All recognized experts can be ignored because they're intimidated by Pop's rings".
While you may think that represents a valid argument, you'll find that you're quite alone in that view.
Come up with something worth a response and I'll be happy to comment.
and yes, you seem to like to distill down arguments and put them in your own words in order to not refute them.
hey, If you only want to think only what you think everyone else thinks, I don't have a problem with that, it was not me who attacked you for your opinion on Pop. you attacked me, and then ran away, claiming nothing I said is worth a response from you
raise the bar
Last edited by vander; 07-01-2010 at 02:08 PM.
you got me all wrong, I just enjoy the arguing with idiots, I don't even want Bonner back, we have too many big men, and add to that the fact that Pop likes to play 3's at the 4...Now Vander knows how angel_luv and ploto felt when people wanted Rasho out.
What the ?? then what are ya'll arguing about then??you got me all wrong, I just enjoy the arguing with idiots, I don't even want Bonner back, we have too many big men, and add to that the fact that Pop likes to play 3's at the 4...
And when did you jump off the Bonner bandwagon?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
