Reply With Quote
I watched enough Grizzlies games before Rudy's injury to know what kind of defender he is. Have you?
Not really. RJ isn't a good defender. He sucks ass. The numbers say he's as good as Artest and better than Kobe.
Do the numbers show missed rotations? Out of position on the inbounds? Going around screens? Not boxing out?
I watched enough Grizzlies games before Rudy's injury to know what kind of defender he is. Have you?
See the Phoenix Suns since 2005. Gimmick, 54-60 win team almost every season...no finals appearances.
Remember me posting fool's gold pics all year while you guys were masturbating to your inflated record? You'll probably say you don't, but I can bump the threads if you like.
He's a decent defender, but those numbers are pointless for your argument. They create more problems than they solve.
They played better. No excuses.
Bynum wasn't the player that he is now. I'm not saying he's a beast now, but he wasn't half of what he is now. He isn't nearly as important as Manu is to the Spurs. That would be like DeJuan Blair going down, or McDyess going down and saying the same thing. Of course I would never use that as an excuse. Manu is a different story.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the Lakers shouldn't ever be able to make excuses after the way they were gifted Pau Gasol for nothing.
What delicious irony
Spurfan still questioning the merits of that trade after watching Marc Gasol send Timmy into early retirement.
Please continue, this is too good
I've watched enough of Rudy Gay to know he's the modern day Shareef Abdur-Rahim.
lol playing redhead re 20mpg and expecting defense
lol sitting out starters against lakers then getting one injured the last meaningless game
lol tanking to get the Spurs and being right about it
lol Pop "I wouldn't change a lick"
lol excuses
See 6 years ago. Every year isn't every 6 years. A high win team that loses in the playoffs isn't a gimmick. They played the Spurs pretty tough.
Someone needs to cement these goalposts. Everyone seems to want to move them.
Not a gimmick, just not good enough to win a ring. You act as if any team who does really well but doesn't win it all is a gimmick. That's called a false dilemma.Gimmick, 54-60 win team almost every season...no finals appearances.
I do remember it. You would have claimed a victory on that even had the Spurs went to the Finals. The odds of one specific team winning it all are not nearly as good as one specific team losing. You were simply playing the odds. No one predicted the Spurs would be one game back of the league leaders at the end of the season. No one predicted them to be in the Finals. The Lakers were predicted to win. The sweep by Dallas killed a of a lot more predictions than anything did, by people who get paid to predict.Remember me posting fool's gold pics all year while you guys were masturbating to your inflated record? You'll probably say you don't, but I can bump the threads if you like.
I can call fools gold to any team in the lead, and rest comfortably knowing the odds are in my favor.
I was about to say, you must be face-palming reading these gnsf posts
Kinda how I felt after Kool and cobb were making excuses, tbh
Rudy not playing was a net positive for Memphis, but his defense has nothing to do with it. The only reason is that he demands touches, which means guys like ZBo and Conley would get less touches when they were playing out of their minds.
We've been getting beat by a better team for 3+ seasons, which coincides with Bowen losing a step and Pop thinking Bonner is the next Horry. The rest are excuses.
I can't say I take your opinions seriously considering you've already said Gay hasn't proven himself as a good defender.
First and foremost, if you think Marc Gasol wasn't a complete afterthought in that trade and they struck gold with it, you're completely delusional. I'm sure you do realize it, but I'm sure you've been lying to yourself trying to justify that trade for years, so you may even be starting to believe your own lies after all of this time.
What delicious irony
Spurfan still questioning the merits of that trade after watching Marc Gasol send Timmy into early retirement.
Please continue, this is too good
Further, Duncan was hardly 'owned' by Marc Gasol. Tim played better than he did. He wasn't prime Duncan, but he was better than Gasol. People became accustomed to Duncan being so consistently excellent for so many years, that when he finally starts to look human and is no longer a focal point in the offense, they misconstrue it as someone else outplaying him.
We've had this discussion and your viewpoint loses every time, then it gets reintroduced.
What delicious irony
Spurfan still questioning the merits of that trade after watching Marc Gasol send Timmy into early retirement.
Please continue, this is too good
Pau won the Lakers 2 rings. Marc got to the 2nd round. Your argument worked better when Memphis was still in it. Also, there needs to be a statute of limitations for "good trade". How many years have gone by since the Gasol trade? How many years did Marc Gasol not do anything? Having a good year does not equal being Pau Gasol.
2008 Pau with Zach and those guys would have probably made the Finals.
By your reasoning, one could say that any trade that allowed a team to get a 1st over pick like Robinson or Duncan was a good trade, if that pick led the team to a successful season eventually, even if that trade was to trade away a star caliber player for a basketball and a bus ticket because it allowed the trading team to lose all their games.
It can be taken to absurdity pretty easily, and you guys go there anytime you act like the Pau trade was a good move for the future of Memphis.
It's not about odds, dumbass. It's about knowing that a particular brand of basketball never wins you championships (unless we're talking pre-90's), and stating the obvious. The Spurs were 3-point shooting team with OBVIOUS frontcourt deficiencies.
Anyone with half a ing brain could see the Spurs were fake. This is about admitting that, and not being a blind, dumb homer
gnsf is the gift that keeps on giving
It's exactly about odds. If it's fake, how did it win 61 games? Why don't other franchises who've never done anything do some fake shooting? Why didn't Mike D's team in NY fake a 61 win season? In fact, why didn't any team who lost in the 1st round fake a 61 win season other than SA?
Fall back on the Lowest Common Denominator when your argument fails, and get used to it.
You're right, god forbid we take into account that the Memphis GM may have had some forethought and was thinking of the future when he made that trade.
I'm sure he thought javaris crittendon, marc gasol, kwame brown, and co would have an immediate impact and wasn't thinking ahead.
I can see why you think that way, cause Pop and RC have shown no interest in the future
tbh, a dominating front court is not going to win the 'ship this season either. So that right there is debatable. I mean, the Lakers got swept from the 3 point line. The biggest issue for the Spurs was the complete lack of defense in general (not just inside, but also on the perimeter) compounded with the fact that we have 2/3 guys given a major role who have shrinking vaginas.
I sense some great hypocrisy right here. You were the biggest blind, dumb homer in that Kobe defense thread a few months ago. I recall you were the one strongly claiming Kobe was a great defensive player when it was clear to everybody his defense was putrid.
You really are a dumbass. This is like talking to a rock.
"We won 61 games, that means we're legit"
It's all I need when you consistently live up to the gnsf code.
Explain to me how you think the Spurs were a legit contender with Bonner, Blair, and RJ in the rotation.
Please, explain.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
