Reply With Quote
Addressed my question? No, you haven't. You're just a parrot that keeps repeating the same thing over and over.
But at least now Manu4tres is trying to answer it for you, and save your rep.
Could you point out your vehement objection to his playing against the Wolves? I didn't read many posts here that day.
Addressed my question? No, you haven't. You're just a parrot that keeps repeating the same thing over and over.
But at least now Manu4tres is trying to answer it for you, and save your rep.
Look up, coach. I said the same thing before he did.
Once you get that through your head, why don't you answer this:
I didn't object.. I had no idea his ankle was that gimpy. That's the job of the coach/trainers to know that kind of thing. Obviously it didn't take much to re-tweak the thing. So it was a very costly loss for a "throwaway" game. I guess we can sit and argue that Pop didn't know how gimpy the ankle was, but I can trump that by using your own argument .. that it was a "throwaway" game so he shouldn't have even taken the risk of playing him.
Check. Mate.
Too late, I already trumped you with your argument for getting reps.
Check. Mate.
And you didn't even notice it.
Bonus.
Thanks for leading with that, btw.
Check. Mate.
Twice.
Damn, I'm good.
Not really, you're just easily bested.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-15-2010 at 06:20 AM.
lol whatever makes you feel better, Chump
I used your own faulty logic to win the argument and now your all butthurt.
lol whatever makes you feel better, coach.lol whatever makes you feel better, Chump
I used your own faulty logic to win the argument and now your all butthurt.
I used the only real logic you presented to win the argument and now you're all butthurt.
Remember:No, you didn't.
I didn't object to him coming back against the wolves because I figured the spurs were actually trying to win games and move up in the standings to play a banged up jazz team. You know, maybe it might be worth the risk then...Remember:No, you didn't.
Apparently that wasn't the case however.
If I was going to throw a game like you say Pop's plan was I would have sat Hill. So all this proves is that Pop might not have been throwing the game all the way. It was a calculated risk that backfired. Like many of his "calculated risks" have this season. (See: Raptors game 1/3/2010)
I think Pop is actually hurting Mason by playing him, since Mason is just not responding...
Playing any player at any time is a calculated risk.
I doubt Hill was scheduled to play much more than he did in Minnesota. They probably had it all calculated.
Like you said, coach: he was getting some reps.
Calculatedly.
Horray! He got a few reps with guys he probably won't see much of in the playoffs. (Mason/Boner). I'm glad Pop's thinking ahead at least.
Playing any player at any time is a calculated risk.
I doubt Hill was scheduled to play much more than he did in Minnesota. They probably had it all calculated.
Like you said, coach: he was getting some reps.
Calculatedly.
I concede. You are superior.
Reps are reps, coach. Last I checked five play at a time.
Since you tried to argue a game where Manu Ginobili and Time Duncan (I used their full names in case you need to Google them) were held out was not a throwaway game, I must agree with your declaration that I am superior to you, coach.I concede. You are superior.
You simply gotta get me hooked up with some of that good sheeit Chump.. then when I watch the games and Pop's all agitated and yelling and parading around ripping new asses apart and risking playing key guys with gimpy ankles or whatever it will actually look like Pop being laid back with a big ol' smile and a What, me worry "I could care less because this is a throwaway game" at ude..
Pop knows Mason can shoot. When a shooter is in a slump, you tell him to shoot more. Pop knows that we are a better team with all of our players performing up to their potential. Mason wouldn't have found his stroke sitting on the bench. It's a shame that he can't seem to find it on the floor.
As for Mason being in a contract year - the Spurs have always treated players well. They have stuck with injured players that most teams would have cut loose. Pop has made calls to help players land a spot with another team, when there weren't roster spots for them here. When they make a trade, they often try to find a team that is a good fit for the player as well.
It makes a difference to me to support a team that has character. And it makes a difference to the players, too. And it has an impact on being able to sign quality players who have character themselves.
Did you find out who Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili are yet, coach?
So if a player is in a slump you move him to the starting lineup so not only he feels more pressure to perform, but when he doesn't the team's chemistry goes to pot. Yep this makes perfect sense.
Did you try watching the games sober, yet?
I always watch them sober.
Why can't you answer my question, coach?
As usual, you have no answers to the hard questions.
lol "hard" questions.
What is your point, again? That Pop didn't care about the game? Sure didn't appear that way but then again, I'm not baked over here either...
You certainly haven't answered it. You sure don't like having your words thrown back in your face, do you, coach?
My point is you haven't shown any knowledge of the Spurs players named Tim Duncan and Manu GinobiliWhat is your point, again?
No, you just aren't very intelligent, coach.That Pop didn't care about the game? Sure didn't appear that way but then again, I'm not baked over here either...
Do you know who Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili are?
lol Chumpdumper grasping at his straw man...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
