Reply With Quote
chaz lookin' like a fool.
benefactor with the persistent pwnage.
Quick, ben, quote that in your sig in red so everybody merits your posting credentials.
chaz lookin' like a fool.
chaz is obv a troll. No one can be that dumb obviously.
koolaid man says 'sup
The Pwn-age of Chaz in this thread was indeed epic.
it's funny how Chaz took sarcastic posts from people on here and put it on his sig thinking that they believe he's the #1 poster.
And his only argument to when people make valid points against him is "Whatever. I owned you in this thread."
Uh no. Look at your thread le. It clearly states that "We Need RMJ Back". Notice the word "Need" which means Roger Mason is a necessity to the Spurs' success. So, yes indeed you are trying to argue his necessity to the team. You fail.
Yea someone looks back on my 300+ posts, finds one false statement, the masses come out and say 'haha! see! you aren't as good as you think you are! benefactor owns you cause he found out one false statement!'
hahahahaha you guys are great. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of kinder gardeners. The entertainment factor for me when I'm owning people in threads is through the roof because I think the average IQ of people on Spurstalk is around 57. I mean, honestly, people don't say A WORD in my threads until someone comes along and quotes me on something that I said was false, then everyone explodes and acts like THEY'RE the smart ones in the whole situation.
Go back and read this entire thread. Actually, I know you won't do that, but my point is go back and find a discussion point where I didn't have a valid response to it. People throughout the thread made some great counter-points, and I gave them credit. I do not mind being wrong if someone makes a good point and proves me wrong.
Was I wrong about the Neal/Mason contract? Yes. Good job, you waited until I said something that was not fact and jumped on it, and now you are just quoting it saying it's wrong and acting like you are the more educated person in the discussion. In fact, anyone with half the thinking capacity of a normal human being (about 11.4% of Spurstalk posters) would realize just how stupid that makes benefactor in particular look. The other 88.6% will side with benefactor cause, hey, he knew more about Gary Neal's contract then Chazley did! Since this is the one time he's been 100% wrong, let's jump all over it and take the chance to say I told you so!
I enjoy having educated discussions with people, I enjoy the debate, and in the end the majority of us love the Spurs and just like talking about them. I understand that 88.6% of posters just aren't smart when it comes to basketball and are merely fans. I respect that.
I do not intend to be a troll. When people have discussions with me, I am more than happy to just have the discussion. The fact is, people resort to grade school name calling when they realize they cannot beat me in an argument. This, unfortuneately, happens approximately 99.1% of the time. I will obviously respond to these name calling by promptly owning them once more.
To those of you who are educated basketball fans, you will, at the very least, respect my opinions even if you completely disagree with them. The rest will simply read my posts, and will wait until someone quotes the one false thing I have posted in over 300 posts, and try to jump on the Chazley-haters bandwagon and post in my threads then.
Honestly, the only think I can't stand if when someone makes a posts that consists of a quote from me, and then has a stupid, short reply that does nothing to enhance the discussion. This happens regularly because people like benefactor are unable to keep up with me in a discussion, and shows his weakness.
To the people who at least respect my opinions and have responded by actually trying to have discussions with me, I respect you as well and I enjoy the debate. To all the others, I really don't care what you have to say.
So, you're trying to argue that 7/8th men on a team aren't 'needed'?
Also, I didn't say 'he was a necessity to the Spurs' success'. His skillset is nice to have as a 7/8/9th man on a championship team.
It seems like you don't get it. He is not even a legit 9th man. He is suited to be wearing a suit on the inactive list with his atrocious performance last season. How is that a necessity or nice to have as a 9th man in the NBA? A shooter who can't shoot and can't defend is a 9th man in the NBA? Provide me more laughs.
It is also pretty obvious that a 9th man can be easily found and replaced via free agency, and any player, which is explained by other posters, have a higher chance of being better than RMJ.
Just because you have a differing opinion from the norm doesn't make you a "Number 1 Poster", or so you would like to claim. Of course, Roger Mason was a necessity to the Spurs' lack of success.
Chazley may not be RMJ but Chazley sounds like some little kid who met RMJ's agent at a dinner once and was dazzled by the glamor of it all.
Chaz RMJ is this seasons Vinnie Del Negro. A small guard who could occasionally shoot the ball well, could never be counted on when it counts in the playoffs, was a horrible defender, and lost his way trying to fill the PG role.
Del Negro was better than RMJ in just about every facet of the game though.
RMJ was not helping this team. His defense alone is what prevents him from ever playing with the Spurs on a championship run. There is no question that the lack of ability to defend is what prevented him from seeing the floor consistently. Even if he were a 12 points a game player. The Spurs should still get rid of him.
Last edited by DespЏrado; 10-21-2010 at 03:27 AM.
Everyone pretty much has the same point here... RMJ sucks and he isn't better than any person we have on our team at the moment. Why would we need that.
First off, I am the #1 poster.
Also, try playing with a broken bone in your SHOOTING HAND, as a SHOOTER. Because that is exactly what RMJ did last year, not to mention he was thrown out of whack because at a certain point last season he was ONLY getting minutes as a backup PG. At his peak, he was starting alongside Tony as a SG. Last year, Tony was barely in the lineup so he lost his PG that knew exactly what he wanted, where he wanted it. No one in their right mind believes that RMJ can play PG, which is what Pop wanted him to do, and he CANNOT do it. Pop ruined his confidence last year.
This year, I expect that if he gets 20+ minutes on that Knicks team he will produce adequate numbers.
Also, like I have said before, if I had asked you in January of 2009 if RMJ was capable of being a starter on a playoff team, people would've emphatically said yes. The problem is, sports fans have unbelievably short memories. So if the question is, can RMJ be a valuable member off the bench for a contender? Without a doubt in my mind.
Worst comparison ever?
Dude, Chaz most likely wasn't born when Vinnie played for the Spurs, doubt that example would help.
Alive? Yes. Remember? No. Only been a Spurs fan since I moved to San Antonio around 8 years old (98), don't really remember before about 2001 or 2002 though. Didn't really become a REAL fan until probably 2004 or 2005 though.
Yeah, kids these days. Don't go to school much less old school.
So if not Vinnie Del Negro? what other Spurs guards could we compare RMJ too that were SGs who made a living off of htting shots off the bench:
- Hmm Jaren Jackson was better as a one hit wonder in every way and it would be a disservice to Jaren for "shutting down the forum" to make that comparison.
- Steve Kerr could actually play defense and is legendary for lighting it up in the playoffs.
- Steve Smith might be closer to RMJ in terms of just being a shooter who couldn't play D, but I think Smitty at least hit a few shots in the playoffs, and he had many good years already behind him.
- Antonio Daniels wouldn't be a horrible choice either except AD was a standout defender (provided he wasn't within 10 feet of Kobe) and he could play the point passably.
- Loyd Daniels - oh I guess that would be too old school again.
- The Coyote- fan appeal alone discounts him as a potential comparison.
- Monty Williams- never saw a shot he didn't like and at least entertained me while not actually managing to win enough games for his team to screw up drafting Tim Duncan. So Monty Williams was in that respect far more valuable to the franchise than RMJ ever could dream of being.
- Mario Elie - wouldn't have let RMJ wipe his ass for him much less allow himself to be compared to RMJ.
Nope the only valid comparison is Vinnie Del Negro.
But let's take a closer look at that comparison:
Vinnie averaged 11.03 ppg with us over 6 years
For his career he shot .359 % from 3pt land and improved that to .431% in the playoffs. He played 433 games for the Spurs from 92-98 and averaged 3.6 ast/g.
RMJ scored 1470 points for the Spurs in 161 gamess for 9.13 pts/ game. hitting 37% of his 3 pointers in the regular season and a dismal .307 % in the playoffs going 8 for 26.
You're right I would be being unfair to Vinnie than to compare him to the failure that was RMJ on the Spurs
Last edited by DespЏrado; 10-21-2010 at 03:10 AM.
31% over a 26 shot sample? Wow!!!! Thanks for that overly convincing evidence that RMJ was a choker, I mean all those clutch shots he hit at end of big games in the regular season in 08-09... ALL luck, and those 26 were ALL skill, or lack of it.
Did you gloss over the reason why I was comparing him to Vinnie? It starts with a De and ends with a thing like this upright thingy in the smiley.
That's right Chaz you win. Because you selectively gloss over anything even remotely resembling a counter argument.
You have been proven wrong so many times in this thread I have lost count.
It should be put in the classics section it is so bad how you were pwned like the noob that you are.
But just for arguments sake his entire playoff career 3 pt percentage including his time before he was with the spurs a jaw-droppingly bad 24.5%.
When he was a bit player on the Wizards? You're honestly gonna give me numbers for that and use that as proof? Laughable. Fact is, he sucked in 09 playoffs because of playing out of position and having to be the third best player on the team. The Mavs literally camped out at the 3-point line, and refused to let RMJ get going. It is not easy when your only skill is shooting to have someone glued to you, and then you finally get free, it's only 4-5 feet of space before you even start to set your feet. RMJ isn't Ray Allen, obviously.Did you gloss over the reason why I was comparing him to Vinnie? It starts with a De and ends with a thing like this upright thingy in the smiley
That's right Chaz you win. Because you selectively gloss over anything even remotely resembling a counter argument.
You have been proven wrong so many times in this thread I have lost count.
It should be put in the classics section it is so bad how you were pwned like the noob that you are.
But just for arguments sake his entire playoff career 3 pt percentage including his time before he was with the spurs a jaw-droppingly bad 24.5%.
Again, go ahead just quote once from this thread where I got 'owned' other than the Gary Neal comment.
Do I need to point out he averaged more minutes with Washington in the post season then he did on the Spurs? Too obvious? But I guess you just like the obvious pointed out to you.
24.5% as a career playoff three point shooter out of someone who can do nothing but shoot is not just bad...it's horrendous.
Dennis Rodman managed to hit 23% of his threes for his career, you know the guy who used to throw up three pointers for the Spurs so he could lose the game early and go back to Vegas? Yeah he was almost as good shooting three point shots as Mason was in the playoffs.
Look, I've responded to all of these comments already and crushed you and everyone else. If you wanna see my response, go back and read the thread.
Narcisistic Personality Disorder Test
DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy. The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:
An exaggerated sense of self-importance
Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or ins utions).
Requires excessive admiration
Has a sense of en lement.
Takes advantage of others to achieve
Lacks empathy
The patient is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him.
Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or narcisistic
Just one more thing, you talk about sample size with Roger Mason...
How many game winning shots did he hit for the Spurs? Do you know the exact number?
The answer is 4 during his big year for us as of March of that year.
linkMason has made four winning shots this season, some on plays designed for him. He has fit in nicely for a sometime patchwork team that has quietly hummed along and now seems poised for another breakout.
In November, Gregg Popovich, the long-time coach of the Spurs, drew up a play for Mason in the waning moments against the Los Angeles Clippers.
“That was the first time he actually directed that play at me,” Mason said.
Mason saw a seam and shot the Spurs to victory with 8.3 seconds remaining.
Then, at Christmas, the Spurs defeated the Suns on Mason’s buzzer-beating 3-pointer. That play was not designed for Mason, but the ball somehow gravitated into his hands.
After those theatrics came a 3-point play that gave the Spurs the edge over the Los Angeles Lakers and another 3-pointer with 20.4 seconds left against the Boston Celtics after he corralled a rebound and Popovich yelled for him to race upcourt before the Celtics could set themselves.
I'm glad he hit those 4 shots they were exciting and fun but they were 2 years ago. And if you want to talk about sample size and 4 just isn't that big of a deal. And anybody can get lucky 4 times. The bigger sample size is the Playoff shots and he's missed about 75% of them.
Talking about a sample size of game winning shots and a sample size of 3-pt percentage is COMPLETELY different. There's no such think as being in a 'slump' in game-winners. You get your chance once, and if you miss it as a role player, you aren't getting another chance for a long time.
Also, his first game winning shot was less than 2 years ago. Again, sports fans in general have very short memories. I'm sure if there was a stat out there that showed splits between his time playing PG and playing SG, if would be incredible how well he played as a SG instead of a PG. Mason is a spot up shooter who can occasionally come off a screen and hit a long-2... that is the extent of his offensive game. Throw him in there as a PG, what were you guys expecting?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
