Reply With Quote
I'm not trying to argue about anything, but I'm just pointing what I've noticed through out my years of watching the NBA.
Tuesday is a long time away.
I'm not trying to argue about anything, but I'm just pointing what I've noticed through out my years of watching the NBA.
Goodness. It's not like the Kings weren't motivated to win this game.
In my years of watching the NBA, few things piss an opposing team off more than a center with no outside shot chucking threes at the end of a blowout. That's all I'm saying. It's just not a good idea with at least three more games to play.
It's a minor gripe, but a gripe. Nazr had a good game.
Changing the subject...the Kings only had 14 assists and Brad Miller had 0 assists. That is telling, considering the Kings are a top-5 assist team.
If he had done that with time on the shot clock, you would have a point.
Again, can you recall a single instance of a team purposely letting the SC run out at the end of a blowout?
Who was questioning my "Three Headed Monster"?
How can you tell? Just keep passing.
Not intended to be as argumentative as this sounds, just playing devil's advocate.
a.) Who really gives a if the Kings are pissed? If a 30 point assbeating isn't enough to make them angry enough to play with some pride, a cheap ing uncontested three isn't going to make a blip on their radar.
b.) In all my years of watching the NBA, I have never seen a team intentionally take a 24 second violation and hand the ball back. I've also never seen a team not play defense and just expect someone NOT to take a shot.
c.) Their ing starting small forward guaranteed a victory in the series. The three by Nazr is a drop in the bucket compared to that.
d.) I agree that it's a minor gripe. So minor, in fact, that it doesn't need anyone to try to make a mountain out of it.
EDIT: Sorry, please feel free to proceed with the subject change...
wow, yep I've gotta tip my hat to the spurs. they played a -of-a-game, but they aren't going to shoot that way every game. I expected the kings to come out with more energy. TP Owned bibby, but i sence i comeback on tuesday.
No doubt, the Kings will use that as material.
It was a blowout and you chuck 3s? Bad bad form.
Sorry Nazr, great game, but was tainted by that bush league play.
You'd be surprised. This is the playoffs, there's no reason to start any .Who really gives a if the Kings are pissed? If a 30 point assbeating isn't enough to make them angry enough to play with some pride, a cheap ing uncontested three isn't going to make a blip on their radar.I've seen plenty of teams overpass the ball, and it's kind of odd having Nazr hang out at the arc anyway.In all my years of watching the NBA, I have never seen a team intentionally take a 24 second violation and hand the ball back.Yes, we're better than that. I agree.Their ing starting small forward guaranteed a victory in the series. The three by Nazr is a drop in the bucket compared to that.As you bullet point post clearly illustrates.I agree that it's a minor gripe. So minor, in fact, that it doesn't need anyone to try to make a mountain out of it.
If the Spurs are that agressive, and take it to the rack like they did?they played a -of-a-game, but they aren't going to shoot that way every game
Why not....
It's bad form to talk about how you're going to win the series and the entire championship before the start of the series. man, who cares? Seriously. That team needs more than being pissed about Mohammed shooting a 3 with the shot clock running down in garbage time.
You sense that you will be back on Tuesday to eat more crow?
Good, maybe they'll show some ing heart next game. It's too bad that the first 47 and a half minutes wouldn't give them any incentive to try. I think the whole series is going to turn because of a three pointer.
Just out of curiosity, why is it okay that the Kings were jacking up threes early in the shot clock but it's not okay that Nazr did it at the end of the shot clock?
I really don't think Nazr expected to make that shot.
Considering the personnel on the floor, he was the probably the small forward. I think Rasho and Oberto were in the game.
To adress the latter part of your arguement, because they were down 30, and trying anything.Good, maybe they'll show some ing heart next game. It's too bad that the first 47 and a half minutes wouldn't give them any incentive to try. I think the whole series is going to turn because of a three pointer.
Just out of curiosity, why is it okay that the Kings were jacking up threes early in the shot clock but it's not okay that Nazr did it at the end of the shot clock
So you want the Kings to play hard and try and beat the Spurs??
That makes sense....
Good start. The Spurs won't shoot like that in future games, but at the same time, I can't believe how bad the Kings defense was. They have a lot of different issues, but defense is the biggest problem there. They are soft inside and out; Artest is the only quality defender they have that plays big minutes.
But it could still be a long series, and a lot of different things could happen. Great start though.
If the Kings don't want to show up, that's their choice. The Nazr play was a microcosm of the game; if you don't even bother to cover somebody, does he really have a choice other than to knock down the shot?
Just to bring some sense of reality to this discussion, I think I'd be more pissed if my opponent just rolled the ball to the official with 2 seconds left on the shot clock.
If the Spurs decide it's over it could very well be a long series. The Kings aren't nearly as bad as they looked. The Spurs shooting was extraordinary. They will more than likely have to win a game with their defense in this series. Sacramento's shooters are that good.
Exactly. That's showing them up.
And quite a few spurs were jacking up threes when they were up by alot.
And didn't Nazr throw down a dunk and hang on the rim for like a minute? Oh, that's just making a statement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
