Reply With Quote
Didn't you say that you were unsure if Thornton could play well for a winning team? What made you change your mind?Oh, and probably the biggest reason is that NO has a coach.not playing Thornton.
Maybe a little of both A&B perhaps?
Props to them though.
Didn't you say that you were unsure if Thornton could play well for a winning team? What made you change your mind?Oh, and probably the biggest reason is that NO has a coach.
Nothing. But he clearly should have played on NO as they are a bottom dweller in the playoffs for the West.
Why should he have played Thornton then if the Hornets are a bottom feeder? I don't know why you're criticizing Monty Williams for not playing Thornton, when you appear to have the exact same opinion on Thornton as Williams does.
I'm a Rocket fan tonight. Beat the Heat!!
No, I don't have the same opinion. Saying "I'm not sure if he can do it" is not the same as a coach not playing him over guys that clearly can't do it. I think Thornton has shown enough to warrant a chance in NO, but the ty coach didn't play him.
What I am not sure of is if he can be a contributor on a winning team because I haven't seen it. I have seen that he has enough talent to warrant a chance. Especially when Bellineli and Willie Green are in front of you
Why is this up for debate? Of course the #2 seed Rockets are gonna make the playoffs. Rocket fans wouldn't be dumb enough to say and not back it up.
Oh, I agree with you that he should have played over Belinelli and Green. I don't understand why it's such a big deal that Williams didn't play Thornton, if the Hornets are a bottom feeder and you are unsure if he can turn that around in the first place. If Thornton was traded from a winning team like Chicago, I would see your point. But not giving him a chance on a bottom feeder team is supposed to be laughable? Do you think it was possible for him to make the Hornets a winning team?
The Hornets are a winning team. I said they are a bottom feeder "playoff" team. Meaning, they make the playoffs, but have no real shot at anything. It's not a "big deal" and it's not like Thornton has enough upside to make them a legit contender. But that is not/was not the point. The point was that Monty is not a good coach. Not only do the Hornets have a mediocre team, but they have a bad coach that doesn't/didn't maximize what they do have.
One of your reasons why Monty Williams is a bad coach is because he didn't play Thornton, correct? That's what you posted. Apparently, it's a big enough deal for you to bring it up as a reason why Williams is a bad coach.
Spurs best record in the league and 4 les with their coach. If NO had the best record and didn't play Thornton, you would have a point. As things stand, you don't.
You're a smart guy...you know Pop's refusal to play him will be the Spurs undoing against LA. You've alluded as much in the Spurs forum.
Let us proceed...
I'm not arguing semantics. You are laughing at Williams for not playing Thornton and claiming that it isn't a big deal at the same time. If the decision to not play Thornton is the difference between being knocked out in the first round or being knocked out in the conference finals, then it obviously is a big deal.
The Spurs, with or without Tiago, don't stand a real chance against LA. That doesn't change with or without Tiago. Not playing Tiago won't be the reason the Spurs don't advance in these playoffs.
That is one minor mistake amongst a bunch of great ones for Pop. Pop is the COY
It's not a big deal because the Hornets are a non-issue. It is a big deal when you are looking at NO in isolation and evaluating them.
I guess when I say a big deal I am referring to le aspirations. With or without Thornton, NO had ZERO chance. So in that regard it's not a big deal.
It is a big deal in evaluation the team and their coach and their ceiling.
Not playing Tiago more during the regular season could come back and haunt the Spurs for sure, I think Coach Pop is great coach but he does make decisions, like many others, that make you scratch your head.
I have said this quite bit, that Tiago is underrated; like Fabricio was, he is just more athletic, his offensive game needs alot of refinement though and I think the coaches know this and will work with over the off season.....I hope.
Thibs is COY, tbh.The Spurs, with or without Tiago, don't stand a real chance against LA. That doesn't change with or without Tiago. Not playing Tiago won't be the reason the Spurs don't advance in these playoffs.
That is one minor mistake amongst a bunch of great ones for Pop. Pop is the COY
In only limited time Splitter has shown the ability to defend some of the better PF's in this game (LA, Pau, etc). The Spurs undoing in the playoffs will be a weak frontcourt. Thus we can deduce: A battle-tested Splitter = much better chance of winning in the playoffs.
You all were blinded by the fool's gold record, and Pop couldn't see the forest from the trees. I'm sure there's a few more mixed metaphors I could throw in there, but whatevs...
How many teams are truly "contenders"? If a team "stands no chance" against the defending champs, can they be called contenders?
If the Hornets were a non-issue when Thornton was being played and a non-issue now that he's gone, I don't see what the problem is. The ceiling is a zero les with Thornton and zero les without, according to you, so it's not like the decision to let him sit on the bench is so laughable.
This. He is great, but he is not w/o fault. The underdevelopment of Splitter this season is directly his fault.
No. Pop is. I'll make a wager with you if you'd like? Splitter has shown nice ability. You talking about Pop's coaching is laughable. 4 rings, *aggot. Remember. Took a team that looked dead and leads them to the best record in the league. Even if it is an inflated record (which you couldn't argue due to their SOS, win % against +500 teams, yada yada), it would still be an elite record.
Spurs likely aren't beating LA with or without Tiago. Would I like to see Tiago play? Sure. But I also understand that we aren't going to have a better front line than LA even with him, so you have to beat them another way: Get hot from 3 and spread the floor. Is it a strategy that you can rely on? Nope, but it is the right thing to do. It is how you can beat LA.
The decision in isolation is laughable, but it wouldn't have made them a contender. It could have meant advancing past the first round though. So it just depends on what you consider a big deal.
Monty sucks. Sorry.
Popovich could take lessons from coach Thibs on developing a big man over the course of a season. Omer Asik started out a flat out rookie scrub his first couple of months. He was a soft finisher at the rim and made dumb fouls often from being out of position. Despite all that Thibs kept giving him consistent playing time on the 2nd unit throughout the season and he's made tremendous improvement and learned how to play "big" in the NBA. Now he's altering and blocking shots, dunking with authority in the paint, and hustles for everything. Asik's confidence is up and he gives the Bulls depth if Noah or Taj get in foul trouble. I no longer cringe when he comes in the game.
I'm not saying that Monty sucks or does not suck. I'm not saying that Thornton can help a winning team or not.
You are uncertain that Thornton could contribute to a winning team. You also believe that it is laughable that Thornton wasn't given playing time on a winning team. I am trying to understand how one could believe the former and the latter at the same time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
