LMAO at people calling T Park stubborn. The only ones stubborn are the people who think Gary Neal can play point guard and can run the offense. He's not and he can't. You're probably the same people who thought/believed George Hill was the future at PG. Yikes!
Fisher is old as rocks but he's still a POINT GUARD with veteran leadership and would only be used in very small doses, if he came here, to allow Tony to rest. As for his defense, if you're fine with Neal at PG with his awful defense, what's the difference?
I don't deny being stubborn
I;m 100% stubborn in certain arguments, but this one I don't think theres a clear cut right or wrong argument. Both sides have merit, I just feel he's not as washed up as some think for a 15 minute a night back up who can still bring a 3 or 2 a game.
This
I like Neal, but as a SG. Yea he can play PG, but he doesn't look like one. I rather have Fish for 8 minutes at PG than Gary.
I simply have trouble taking the opinion of people when they tell me that Fisher is completely washed up and can't play defense. If he was so bad, then Steve Blake would have gotten his starting job. He didn't. If he was so bad, then the Lakers wouldn't be a top five team in the west. They are.
There's a reason why Laker fans are celebrating getting Ramon Sessions like he's Michael Jordan.
If he was good, they wouldn't have given up a first round pick to dump him so they can get the greatness of Jordan Hill.
Watch the games. That's all I can say.
Fisher is done and has regressed badly on D.
Again, getting Fisher wouldn't be for his services as a PG. In LA I hear every ing day about how terrible he is.
The benefits to having Fisher is a championship caliber presence in the locker room for the younger guys. Also his renown ability to hit big shots.
Fisher at best would be serve the Steve Kerr role where hes a catch and shoot player. He would help with some point guard duties (like bring the ball up) but he won't be making plays (he hasnt done this consistently in a long time).
When you find out what it is, please let me know. It has nothing to do with his ability to play defense.
Nope, got all that intangible in spades, thanks. Just need someone to run the point for a few minutes while Parker rests. Let's not make this more than it is.
Watch some laker games. They're both terrible right now. And Blake was injured for a portion of the season.
What? The point is they're celebrating getting a relatively average point guard to replace him.
And as DPG said, why would the Lakers (One of the best FO in the league) dump a 1st rounder to get Jordan Hill?
Which is why I wouldn't disagree with the signing. I actually think as a leader, Fisher is better than anyone we have because hes outspoken.
Duncan doesn't say , Manu doesnt say unless hes in the moment, and they say that Parker is becoming more vocal. But fisher is already there. Pop is by far the best leader on the team but sometimes hes blinded by age and stubbornness.
Would love to have Fisher but like you said, some posters need to not make it more than it is.
OV.. From Hollinger FWIW: Recent scouting report on Fish:
Fisher comes off a season in which he shot 38.9 percent from the floor and ranked in the bottom 10 point guards in both TS% and usage rate -- in other words, he struggled to create shots, and he couldn't make the ones he created. This is difficult for fans to grasp because physically he looks like the same player, but he's not: His 40-minute scoring rate is barely half what it was three years ago. Defensively, he allowed a 17.7 PER to opposing point guards and had the worst Synergy numbers on the team. His rebound rate was very nearly the worst in the league (see Jamal Crawford comment). At times, it seemed the only thing keeping him in the starting lineup was the fact that Steve Blake was even worse.
Fisher's physical defense against big guards still has value, as does his overall savvy, but this needs to be put into context -- the guy averaged 9.4 points per 40 minutes, shot 38.6 percent on 2-pointers, can't create off the dribble, and can't keep quick guards in front of him. It's become increasingly difficult to defend the idea that Fisher should remain a 30-minute starter. If we're being brutally honest, on many rosters he wouldn't even be the backup.
Best of luck getting fisher to accept a 10 min role on spurs of all the teams, considering our history, when even the lakers would have trouble getting him to take a lesser role.
Fish will become an assistant coach somewhere.
Okay, I have league pass. I'm watching the Wizards game now, their last loss.
Fisher had 9 points, 5 assists and 2 steals while John Wall went 1-8 and scored 4 points with 5 turnovers. The Lakers were up by 21 midway through the third quarter. When Fisher came back in halfway through the fourth quarter, the Lakers were up by 2.
Am I the only one watching games? The only thing more ridiculous than saying Fisher is done as a defender is saying that Sessions is going to be an improvement.
So you think the Lakers FO are stupid?
On many rosters he wouldn't even be the backup. The Spurs are not one of those rosters. You can talk about all the things he isn't, but what he is as a Spur is the second best point guard the second his plane lands in San Antonio.
Yep. I'll keep watching games. I don't see Derek Fisher guarding Kevin Seraphim.
Right now, as in March 2012, Neal is a better point guard than Derek Fisher.
Although, Fisher would be great insurance as a 3rd pg for the vet minimum.
Watching the Detroit game now. Rodney Stuckey scored 34 points so it must have been Fisher giving up all those baskets. Updates in a bit.
Right now, Neal is not a point guard any more than Matt Bonner is a power forward.
So far, Fisher's guarding Brandon Knight and Kobe's guarding Stuckey. I'm sure Fisher is the reason they're giving up all those offensive rebounds though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
