Nazr didn't close out on the open jump shooter early but started to close out later in the game. Also, Lebron got an easy layup in transition because he was focused on Ilgauskas, which resulted in him being screened out. I agree with timvp about his defensive intensity. He isn't playing Spurs type of defense yet.
I do like his length, especially when he rebounds.
Overall, I am happy with what I have seen. I just hope he doesn't freak the first time Pop screams at him.
And we all acknowledge Malik's heart and effort, but the reality is for every 19 and 11 in 29 min. game there was an 0 and 2 in 25 min. game.
I'm not saying Nazr is a lock to solidify the rotation, but if that happens the trade is a positive. Kurt Thomas probably would've been better than either, but we have money earmarked for Scola.
Are we really that sold on Scola? It doesn't seem like he's a lock to be a great NBA player yet (unless we're just looking for a solid NBA player).
I do think I would take issue with his game's not changing as well. For whatever reason, he doesn't seem to finish as strong around the basket as he once did; seems to get stuffed alot more in traffic. There are still alot of things I really like about Maliks game. He's still a good rebounder and a pretty versatile defender for alot of matchups. We're going to have to switch up some offensive sets to accomodate the loss of Malik's jumper (all those folks who said he should never shoot that were off base to say the least).
I still can't say exactly how well he would've done against the Lakers if used extensively. You can argue anything is better than Rasho, but Rose didn't shoot particularly well against the Lakers last year. I don't know if a few rebounds would've saved us after .04 anyway.
It doesn't matter if we are sold on Scola.Are we really that sold on Scola?
The Spurs are.
The proverbial other side of the coin you mentioned earlier...
That's very much a here and now type outlook...Most players do have another side of the coin...There are very few Tim Duncans in the NBA.
That's the life of a bench/hustle player Chump...Malik never did that in start and prior to last season, he didn't do that in the playoffs either.
The lack of consistent minutes definitely hurt Malik's game...he is a clutz and needs heavy minuted to lose that clutziness.
But it's all a moot point anyway, since I don't think Mohammed is a stiff(and that label has nothing to do with numbers)...but if he had been...there'd be no defending this trade just on the basis of "size".
Shouldn't that be the outlook? And you agree it's been that way all along, right?That's very much a here and now type outlook.I agree, which is why a system maniac like Pop couldn't stand it. That's why Rose has been supplanted at times by Horry, Willis and Massenburg. He traded that off the feast or famine that is Rose's game in search for consistency, hopefully from Nazr but the bigger hopes are pinned on Scola. I can't say it's right or fair; it just is.That's the life of a bench/hustle player Chump.
Whottt,
Malik is gone. Goodbye. Adios. Really? WGAF what you think about Malik? He sucked, he still sucks and now New York is paying his stupid ass salary Pop gave him.
Move the on.
Malik never got enough consistent PT to play out of his clutziness last season.....if you think about it...he didn't have too many 0-2 in 25 minutes the year we won the le. When he was starting last year? He played very well.
As for Rasho VS Malik and Malik's shooting...you over look one major difference in their games...Malik would take it inside...Malik gets to the FT line a of a lot more than Rasho. Rasho put no offensive pressure on Shaq...and neither did Horry. The only guy that was really trying to make Shaq defend was Manu.
You cannot put any aspect of that Lakers loss on Malik...he'd been rusted out on the bench and did not get any meaningful minutes in that series.
When are you going to realize Malik is not, was not, couldn't be, wouldn't be comparable to any center in the NBA?
Malik is a clutz, because Malik sucks. Straight up. Point Blank. Bullseye. You can't hide that fact. I don't give a how many minutes you give him.
Malik is gone.
I don't, but I also don't see him as a panacea to everything that went wrong either.You cannot put any aspect of that Lakers loss on Malik.
Hey Segu...suck a ing .
If you read the ing thread...all I said was Trading Malik for a stiff would have been a mistake...Other people want to argue it...I think it's pretty stupid argument if you ask me.
If you guys want another stiff you're dumbasses.
If that's not good enough for you...then go yourself.
I'm not going to be a Pop Nazi...
Had we defended our championship last season, instead of choking it away based on Pop's projects? I might be one now...as it is...we choked ass and got our ass kicked in the ing playoffs so stop acting like we ing won the le last year because of Pop's brilliance. We didn't.
We choked...and his two boys choked..Hedo and Rasho. I don't do blind trust after a ing choke job.
Good. I am glad to see that you got half of that right. Rasho was definitely to blame. Hedo? Manu was to blame as well.
How about the fact that we had no one to give Tony a breather. Also, as for the last four games against LA........ the whole team went into the tank.
No adjustments. But don't blame Pop. He is to worthy.
At least Manu was taking it into Shaq when his shot wasn't falling...something Malik would have done a lot better than Rasho or Horry.
I mean just how much do we want to rewrite history here? We gonna pretend Malik was leading the entire NBA in FTA when Duncan was injured in the early part of the season? We gonna pretend Malik was afraid of physicality and to take it into heart of a tough defense? We gonna pretend he didn't get to the line pretty effectively? We gonna pretend he didn't try to get to the line?
Don't tell me he would not have made a difference in that series...for 3 ing years he pulled major to spot duty on Shaq, and Shaq didn't go off on us...Kobe did. Most of it was due to Drob...but there was one year where Malik played him more than anyone...and he still didn't go off...and he had still had to work on both ends of the court.
I'm not gonna dumb myself down.
FWIW...I don't think Nazr is a stiff after reading the comments...the only thing we are arguing about now is retroactively altering the type of player Malik was...and I'm not gonna do it.
The new guy will get respect(like I am sure he cares anyway) when he earns and not before then. Malik had earned it...
The trade looks good...even this guy is supposed to do well against Shaq...and obviously he will make him work on D...but I am not gonna sign off on it until I get a better look at this guy.
Whottt,
Malik did NOTHING last year. That wasn't a fluke. Malik shoulda been traded last year but Pop got hosed. The Lakers were the better team last year.
Lets see........ Shaq vs. Rasho??????????
Lakers all the time.
Difference? Sure.Don't tell me he would not have made a difference in that series.
Enough? Not sure.
I like that Nazr has done well against some good teams, teams we could easily see in the playoffs. But yeah, he's got to prove it.
You know, they didn't look like the better team in the first two games of that series...
Phil Jackson said in his book that he didn't think it was possible to beat the Spurs last year...especially 4 times in a row.
Rasho didn't have to be our only option against Shaq...we had others...others that had worked very effctively on the way to two other championships...I didn't ever see one of those options cease to work...I saw us stop using it...because we didn't want to mess up our rotation.
Enough? Not sure.
You and Phil can believe whatever you want. If you check the scoreboard, the Spurs lost.
Lakers > Spurs.
The Scoreboard said so and actually if most of you would realize, thats all that matters.
Well I am not sure either...but geeesh we dominated them the first two games and then lose 4 in a row? Might have been a good idea to try some of our older options. I'm one of the biggest Horry defenders on the board...but he was mismatched on Shaq. That was fugly.
I haven't heard that he's done good against good teams...I've heard that he's done well against the guys he is supposed to do well against(weak fronts), and has a habit of disappearing in big games...The exception to the rule is Shaq, he is supposed to play Shaq well and it's supposed to be a trend going back 3 or 4 years...I like that Nazr has done well against some good teams, teams we could easily see in the playoffs. But yeah, he's got to prove it.
I'll give him a pass for now on the disappearing in big games with the Knicks though...he has won an NCAA le before...and with the way the Knicks offense is structured this season, I can kinda understand why he wouldn't get many scoring opportunities in a big game.
Yeah, they got scoreboard...but we didn't try everything we could have tried...and that is the truth...We did not make Shaq work on D other than Manu. Parker maybe could have done more...but he wanted no part of that paint after Malone and O'Neal smacked him around a couple of times.
Then just repeat after me,
"POP is a ing turd"
That solves the problem right there. Until he wins another one and then validates it without David Robinson, he is about the same as Bob Hill.
I just checked the game log. I think some observers you queried might have an east coast bias, but seeing that he seems to have done well against Dallas, Sacramento and Houston (1 out of 2 games for each one, but there you go) makes me think he could do the same for us.I haven't heard that he's done good against good teams.
I don't think he's a turd, he's probably the best at what he does in the NBA, he's just not as good as I would be
...and I'm just not gonna blindly endorse alla his damn moves because he's almost done some stupid ones. Chris (choking, plays 43 games a season, ) Webber...
He's good because of Tim Duncan. Get the credit in the right place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
