Reply With Quote
O_V, the best thing I can say to help you see what I see would be to turn your logic towards Richard Jefferson. Fisher was LA's RJ. They won despite them and the numbers bear that out.
O_V, the best thing I can say to help you see what I see would be to turn your logic towards Richard Jefferson. Fisher was LA's RJ. They won despite them and the numbers bear that out.
I'd take him. And I think the Spurs should go for it if he gets bought out.
walk off home run post.
I never said the Spurs won despite Richard Jefferson. That would be stupid. The Spurs were on a 70 game win pace last year when RJ was playing well and being aggressive. Laker fans saying "well he sucked" when they're clearly ignoring the fact that Kobe Bryant takes more bad shots than he ever has before is not enough to convince me.
I'm sorry, the same advanced metrics that LJ used to say that Matt Bonner was a good player on both ends of the floor are just as curious when used to say that Derek Fisher is bad on both ends of the floor. No amount of watching the games can make those stats make sense. If you have other number to "bear that out" I'd love to see them. Here's a stat: The Lakers are one of the best defensive teams in the league, and it for goddamn sure isn't because of Steve Blake.
Therefore I gotta go with what I see, and what I see is a guy who's more than capable of being the second/third/emergency point guard for the Spurs.
Yeah, cause Fisher was their staring pg getting big minutes. In SA he'd get 10 minutes a game.
Again, this point cannot be stressed enough and said enough.
Were not asking him to be a damn starting SG. We just want him to play some sop up minutes helping Tony be fresh for the PO and in the playoff 4th quarters.
If they started a guy for 37 games who isn't even good enough to be the third point guard on the Spurs, then yes I think they're stupid.
Having 2 7 footers probably helps that out, OV.
The Spurs would take Steve Blake as their backup in a second. Blake couldn't take the starting job from Fisher. What's the flaw in that perspective?
Pretty sure all the bandwagon Laker fans that live in San Antonio would start coming out to the games (or at least his first game) and cheer him on. This isn't necessarily a dig on San Anotnio specifically, by the way. I'm sure you'll find hordes of bandwagon Laker(Kobe)/Miami (Bron/Wade)/Chicago (Rose) fans in every city.
10 minutes of turnstile PG defense is still too much, especially when the league is stacked with fast elite point guards.
no!
I've always been against playing Neal at the point as opposed to at SG, so that much I agree with. What I disagree with is that I would rather have Gary get those 8 minutes than Fisher. Gary isn't as bad at running the point as ST would have many believe, though he isn't great. I would just rather have Gary on the court than Fish, even at PG. He has a future with this team, Fisher wouldn't, and I don't want him losing out on minutes. He could be a playoff beast, empower him, don't limit him.
I'm sure it does. They're near the top in blocks and rebounds and near the bottom in steals. I'm not in denial of reality, which is why I'm trying to convince some of you who are.
Nobody's fast enough to stop a fast elite point guard by himself, even the fast elite point guards. You need team defense to do that. Besides, if you don't like turnstile defense, then you shouldn't be trying to make a case that the Spurs stick with Gary Neal.
It was more of an attempt to "mask" Fisher's deficiencies much the same way the spurs try to mask Blair's.
Lakers realized this strategy was not going to be successful and made appropriate moves at the trade deadline to fix things. Spurs otoh have yet to attain a replacement for Burger Time.
Okay, the league is stacked with fast point guards. JJ Barea looked like an all star against Fisher in the playoffs.
And if we're forced to have someone with turnstile defense then give me the guy who can shoot.
Okay, now you're just making up. If you're willing to say anything to get me to give in to your position, no matter how re ed, then I won't bother having debates with you. Stating supposition as fact when you can't possibly know what's in their head is nothing short of absurd.
If you have an agenda in this debate, go ahead and come clean. I don't particularly like Fisher but I'll be damned if I can find any reason to think that he's a bigger cause of the Lakers' problems than either his backup, his backcourt partner, or his new coach.
I'm sitting here watching the Lakers play the Cavs. Fisher is in the passing lanes, is the first one back on defense (sometimes the only one back on defense) and is working extremely hard to get the ball to Bynum and Gasol because he knows where the high percentage shots come from. Three plays in a row he was the only one back on a Cavs fast break and picked up his second foul. There's nothing I've seen in any of the three games I've watched in the last few hours that convinces me that he's incapable of being a backup point guard for the Spurs.
The Lakers would take Tiago in a second and Tiago can't take the starting spot from Blair.
Yes he did, in one game. He did the same thing three times against Oklahoma City. So by your logic, Russel Westbrook is three times as bad, right?
Give me the guy who can run the offense. Also, Fisher is ten times the defender that Gary Neal is.
That said, nobody in the league wouldn't take Dejuan blair for the minimum as the second or third 4 or 5.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
