Reply With Quote
i really do hope this guy is frye jr..it would make us unstoppable
Right. The sixers are historically bad. I really can't see pop even entertaining the thought of using day in POs unless it's a situational point in a game. Btw stromile swift, what a waste... I lived in bossier city/Shreveport for 5 years where people thought he would make it big. Spurs have been very good at getting the most out of players. If anything Daye has accepted what he needs to do to get on the floor and looks to be an awesome teammate. Hope for the best next year.
i really do hope this guy is frye jr..it would make us unstoppable
That's what I hope for too! Daye appears to being used for end of the game plays. He was inserted in the game twice.
First time was in the end of the 1st quarter. He drove to the basket and then passed to nobody. Not sure if he has the green light to do that.
Second time was in the end of the 2nd quarter. He spaced the floor with Danny Green. Parker had too options, pass to Green or Daye. Green took the shot.
If all Daye ever does this season is to play in special situations and making uncontested 3 point attempts, then I would consider that a success.
His relative sloth was really exposed by Denver.
Daye joined the shoot-around ten minutes late, for some reason. I was thinking Erler got it right, and maybe he would sit the bench for some Popish reason, I was even looking for him in a suit behind the bench, but was on the other side of the arena. Could not make out much.
Daye didn't have a good game, if you can call two minutes a game.
You will have to explain how he was "exposed" during those two minutes. I was at the game. He played all of 2:08 minutes. The first time he came in, I seem to remember there were all of 14 seconds left in the quarter and we were on offense. He was involved in about 4 plays, some coming out of time outs, at end of quarters, like Bonner is sometimes used, to stretch the floor and/or get an open look at a three to close the quarter.
He had about a 10 footer that he missed. He came on court during half-time and shot from the position that he missed from about 2-4 times, getting the ball-boy to pass him a couple balls until he made a few from that place on the court. Then he went down to the other end and joined the team.
He took an open three, that missed.
He got the ball late on another three point attempt, and went right around the defender that was coming out to him...got underneath the basket with ease from the 3-point arc, and made a poor attempt at a pass underneath the rim that was stolen. I wish he would have shot the ball, but he has been an adept passer, thus far, and I don't second guess his decision in the moment. A shot, or a better pass would have been a better choice, in retrospect, of course.
He had a defensive set where he bit on an up-fake, and came down on top of the offensive player, from what I could see from my end. Personal foul, Austin Daye.
Those possessions at up a significant portion of his 2:08 minutes of play. I would guess 1:30 minutes.
The offensive drive to the basket, when he made the bad pass, showed plenty of quickness.
What other plays, that could only cons ute 30-60 seconds, could he have been exposed on? Denver made their biggest run with our starters in the (during the third and fourth quarters - Austin was not on the floor at all during this time) game fumbling away the ball with 21 turnovers on the night and lots of missed shots up close...again, there is only about 30-60 seconds of time remaining where he could have been "exposed" outside of the plays I have mentioned above...which weren't great, but didn't really "expose" him.
He bit on an up-fake. He's shown some shot-blocking ability. Lots of shot blockers sometimes bite on an up-fake. Every Spur has. Unfortunate, hardly an "exposing". And, he missed some shots, but we know he can shoot. It's a strength. So, missing two shots can hardly be called an "exposing".
I have about 30-60 seconds of unaccounted for missed time that I can't remember off the top of my head. That must be where he was exposed? He MAY have given up a layup, but I don't really remember any other plays that he was involved in. And, I am obviously not trying to ignore the bad play, because in his two minutes, he really didn't have ANY good plays. They were all bad. My question, if you can come up with some tremendous "exposition" that occurred during that 30-60 second time frame is: Can a person be exposed in 30-60 seconds even if he plays like total ? Really? The whole team played like in the second half. I think I am going to give him a pass on that 30-60 seconds even if you can illustrate what defenses lapses he had for those 30-60 seconds I don't recall anything significant happening. Maybe I missed some big stuff.
But, I doubt that illustration is forthcoming.
Truth is, he almost didn't play at all.
hes Dirk 2.0 Ultimate Edition es
neal with that
"...2nd coming of Dirk?"
Again, no one is saying this. Names of people that have said this? Dates they've said it? Times? Links? Anything. This is the digital age. If so many people are saying this, it should be easy to root them out. Truth is, really no one is saying this. Most people are saying the obvious thing you point out at the end. But, you state the obvious, again. Yes, his most likely optimistic scenario is that he could become a bench player for us. As a matter of fact, no one is even arguing that he is going to displace any starters, much less displace them with such upside as "Dirk" caliber play. I have enjoyed reading about him, as he was our only trade, so I've read just about everything written about him, and I can't say that I have seen anyone with that sort of expectation...much less a large contingent of people.
Hey, CE...wassup...
"...then passed to nobody."
People on the wrong team are somebodies!
There's a reason he almost didn't play at all.
Look, I like the guy. I think he can be a part of the team -- but he's slow. That's all. It's not a deal breaker.
Palangi, I must agree. Some of his other posts seem reasonable. But, he is in a kerfuffle, here. He does have a strange definition of the word SPAM, too. Not how the word was derived, or has been traditionally used since the internet's nascency. But, he gets to make the rules, apparently. While not SPAM, my posts may be a little repe ive. They would not sound so repe ive if there weren't wave after wave of people saying similar unfounded things showing up in the thread every day. There were two more, today, claiming we are all claiming Daye is the next "Dirk", etc.
He calls me intellectually dishonest and insufferable, then can't defend those statements where he claims that people are calling Daye a Durant "STOPPER" and the next "Durant". He knows that people aren't saying that. He knows that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that. Granted, given his history with SPAM, he may be operating under a different definition of the word "intellectually dishonest", maybe a definition where the definition is equivalent to the definition of "intellectually honest" in our world. He can't give names, dates, times, and links to where people were saying those things, even when asked twice, he just ignores it. He can't admit to intellectual dishonesty just after accusing me of it.
For the record, I will reserve the right to quote him if it is relevant in a conversation. I wouldn't want to paint myself into any corners. And, he can call me names as retribution, I guess...I'm good.
Also, you were right, though, thank you. I didn't mention anyone by name. ABC pointed out that my summary of the negative criticisms of Daye's defense wasn't a direct quote. ABC was right. No one had said exactly that...I was just answering ABC and providing footnotes as evidence of what had been said, and that I agreed, it was not a direct quote, but a summary of those things. It was a weird request...he didn't want me to quote him saying bad things about Daye?
I would think the most sure-fire way of not having people quote you saying bad things about Daye, is not say bad things about Daye? Am I weird? Otherwise, I think it's fair game to quote it. Same goes with the numbers. I am pretty sure if some other guy can post links to Melissa engaged in sexual activity, I can quote a post about Daye? I don't think that's ban-able, is it?
And, I quoted everyone. I didn't single him out, by quote, much less by name. He was still clearly sour over our previous exchange, which was relatively polite. I even ceded a point or two to him. I made an error in reading, about a PER 36 comment, and apologized.
The fact that Durant's numbers, the ones he claimed were the lynch pin in showing Daye could not play defense at an acceptable level, were so damn close to Daye's it's uncanny? That fact probably didn't help him warm up to me any. And, they have similar body types and positions...3/4 tweeners. You won't find Durant banging in the low post, either. And, he's a starter. We're just looking at a bench guy with those numbers. But, heck, proves the point that those numbers alone are nothing to preclude Daye from being a starter, either. Or, an All-Star, for that matter, or maybe even, arguably, the best player in the NBA. They didn't hinder Durant from those discussions. Of course, that is not to say that Daye will be a starter, an All-Star, or, arguably, the best player in the NBA, but you KNOW I'll be accused of saying that a week from now.
Anyway, I get it. He doesn't want to discuss point for point. He wants to make claims that we aren't allowed to refute, and he doesn't like me. I'm good.
I agree, he's slow. That's been quite a topic of discussion. His lane agility time is only slightly faster than Kevin Durant's, and Durant's is slow. And, his 3/4 sprint time is only 10/100 of a second slower than Kevin Durant's sprint time. And, Kawhi's and Danny Green's lane agility times are pretty slow, too. They're all pretty slow. That's established, and I agree with you. That is not the equivalent of saying that their times are too slow for them to be successful defending in the NBA, the three others mentioned do a fine job.
My question was not: Is Daye fast?
It was, in that 30-60 seconds that I can't account for off of the top of my head, where did Denver "expose" him, last night? That was your claim. Because he wasn't "exposed" in the 1:00-1:30 that I have accounted for. And, a follow-up question is, if someone is exposed for 30-60 seconds, is that definitive? I can answer the second one for myself. If so, the whole Spurs team was exposed for 20 minutes of the second half. I don't believe it is definitive. But, the illustration never manifested itself, because I don't believe it occurred.
Looks like Pop is running Daye in the Bonner role, which makes sense with Matt out. That's probably about where he should be. With LJC not coming over next year, Daye has a legitimate chance to stay on as the fifth or sixth forward. Whether he gets into the regular rotation will depend on his ability to defend the four at least as well as Bonner can. Tall order as far as post defense goes, a possible improvement as far as rim protection goes.
I agree, he's slow. That's been quite a topic of discussion. His lane agility time is only slightly faster than Kevin Durant's, and Durant's is slow. And, his 3/4 sprint time is only 10/100 of a second slower than Kevin Durant's sprint time. And, Kawhi's and Danny Green's lane agility times are pretty slow, too. They're all pretty slow. That's established, and I agree with you. That is not the equivalent of saying that their times are too slow for them to be successful defending in the NBA, the three others mentioned do a fine job.
My question was not: Is Daye fast?
It was, in that 30-60 seconds that I can't account for off of the top of my head, where did Denver "expose" him, last night? That was your claim. Because he wasn't "exposed" in the 1:00-1:30 that I have accounted for. And, a follow-up question is, if someone is exposed for 30-60 seconds, is that definitive? I can answer the second one for myself. If so, the whole Spurs team was exposed for 20 minutes of the second half. I don't believe it is definitive. But, the illustration never manifested itself, because I don't believe it occurred.
Also, something I wanted to mention, but got caught having to actually work, was that THE KID HAS NOT BEEN PLAYING BASKETBALL. Baynes has made himself infamous for getting winded and he is playing fairly regularly in comparison to Daye. I am sure the kid is NOT in game shape, so that may account for some of the "eye-test" slowness that is being attributed to him. I don't know.
OK. When you drop an identical long winded boring post twice, an hour and a half apart, it's obviously not a double post. That is officially spamming.
No, that's a response A DIFFERENT PERSON with a similar misguided claim. If people stop making unsupported hyperbolic claims, and then I guess problem solved!
By the way, Chinook already called me a spammer, so you calling me a spammer, isn't that a little bit like an identical post? Stop spamming the board Spammer McSpamster. Spam was traditionally referred to with regard to advertising. I'm not advertising. I am not Daye's PR guy. I guess you can create a new definition to include repe ive conversations you don't want to hear, if that's the case, every thread about jersey changes, Amused injuring people, twss, tbh, and hyperbolic posts about how lame Tiago is because he got blocked is spam, under that definition. I get tired of reading that , too. But, what I don't do is whine about it.
I don't cloud other threads with this; I limit it just to the people that are initiating conversation, a lot of it, poorly thought out.
Palangi, I must agree. Some of his other posts seem reasonable. But, he is in a kerfuffle, here. He does have a strange definition of the word SPAM, too. Not how the word was derived, or has been traditionally used since the internet's nascency. But, he gets to make the rules, apparently. While not SPAM, my posts may be a little repe ive. They would not sound so repe ive if there weren't wave after wave of people saying similar unfounded things showing up in the thread every day. There were two more, today, claiming we are all claiming Daye is the next "Dirk", etc.
He calls me intellectually dishonest and insufferable, then can't defend those statements where he claims that people are calling Daye a Durant "STOPPER" and the next "Durant". He knows that people aren't saying that. He knows that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that. Granted, given his history with SPAM, he may be operating under a different definition of the word "intellectually dishonest", maybe a definition where the definition is equivalent to the definition of "intellectually honest" in our world. He can't give names, dates, times, and links to where people were saying those things, even when asked twice, he just ignores it. He can't admit to intellectual dishonesty just after accusing me of it.
For the record, I will reserve the right to quote him if it is relevant in a conversation. I wouldn't want to paint myself into any corners. And, he can call me names as retribution, I guess...I'm good.
Also, you were right, though, thank you. I didn't mention anyone by name. ABC pointed out that my summary of the negative criticisms of Daye's defense wasn't a direct quote. ABC was right. No one had said exactly that...I was just answering ABC and providing footnotes as evidence of what had been said, and that I agreed, it was not a direct quote, but a summary of those things. It was a weird request...he didn't want me to quote him saying bad things about Daye?
I would think the most sure-fire way of not having people quote you saying bad things about Daye, is not say bad things about Daye? Am I weird? Otherwise, I think it's fair game to quote it. Same goes with the numbers. I am pretty sure if some other guy can post links to Melissa engaged in sexual activity, I can quote a post about Daye? I don't think that's ban-able, is it?
And, I quoted everyone. I didn't single him out, by quote, much less by name. He was still clearly sour over our previous exchange, which was relatively polite. I even ceded a point or two to him. I made an error in reading, about a PER 36 comment, and apologized.
The fact that Durant's numbers, the ones he claimed were the lynch pin in showing Daye could not play defense at an acceptable level, were so damn close to Daye's it's uncanny? That fact probably didn't help him warm up to me any. And, they have similar body types and positions...3/4 tweeners. You won't find Durant banging in the low post, either. And, he's a starter. We're just looking at a bench guy with those numbers. But, heck, proves the point that those numbers alone are nothing to preclude Daye from being a starter, either. Or, an All-Star, for that matter, or maybe even, arguably, the best player in the NBA. They didn't hinder Durant from those discussions. Of course, that is not to say that Daye will be a starter, an All-Star, or, arguably, the best player in the NBA, but you KNOW I'll be accused of saying that a week from now.
Anyway, I get it. He doesn't want to discuss point for point. He wants to make claims that we aren't allowed to refute, and he doesn't like me. I'm good.
^Pretty much.
I apologize, I do see where that was double posted, however, not intentionally, and I will not lose any sleep when the mods correct that error. I have never seen my posts duplicated before, not to say they haven't, but I never saw it before. It can't be such a common occurrence that calling it spam is appropriate.
what mods?
LMAO, complaining that it's too long, and then reposting it all, after ing about it being posted too much...I would post a circular logic epic fail .gif, but it would make this post longer.
Now, I'm gonna open my fly and you're gonna swallow what I give ya to swallow.
Well, introducing that would keep things appropriately short in here.
Took you better than half an hour to come up with that? Perhaps you should have left that one on the cutting board.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions