Reply With Quote
Your reading comprehension is as weak as your arguments. You are to be pitied.
What does not make sense is playing Finley too much or Bogans when they have no upside and do very little on the court.
Your reading comprehension is as weak as your arguments. You are to be pitied.
I agree with this, but not with the dubious assertion that he plays favorites based on players ages exclusively. I think he appreciates poise/confidence, and if a player looks unsure (Hairston, Beno, Tolliver) or plays beyond himself (Rose, Mahinmi, Bonner), he can go consider it in the doghouse of woe.
Unless they're both better than Hairston, and then it doesn't seem so incomprehensible. Dwayne Schnitzus had plenty of upside and got plenty of burn... but he always sucked.
So did Malik clear waivers and no other NBA team wanted him?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
I know he was a favorite of yours; some fans like certain players over other players. Don't even try to deny it!
Players below 30 that get some minutes with Spurs but failed to get a consistant role these past 5 years:
Alex Scales
Melvin Sanders
James White!
Jackie Butler
Darius Washington
Jeremy Richardson
DerMarr Johnson
Ian Mahinmi
Bobby Jones
Keith Langford
Marcus Williams
Blake Ahearn
Pop Mensah-Bonsu
Desmon Farmer
Anthony Tolliver
Malik Hairston
Marcus Haislip
Cedric Jackson
Among these 18 players, only one (Tolliver) can be considered as a legit NBA player. These guys are certainly owning the league right now...
Anyway, Pop. He should have played these young guys and been able to turn lead into gold. What an awful coach, fire him.
How many players under 30 were members of championship teams in the past 5 years?
At least in a contributing role, obviously.
at taking it to extremes. Just because a player like Malik beat out Bogans, yet Bogans started 50 games and Malik was given very little time to prove himself, does not mean Pop sucks.
Even great coaches make mistakes. Like not giving a player like Ian, who most likely is a bust, time early in a season to prove himself. It just made no sense not doing something like that. It was low risk, high reward.
Over playing guys like Bogans and Finley was a low risk, no reward.
Even great coaches make mistakes. Like not giving a player like Ian, who most likely is a bust, time early in a season to prove himself. It just made no sense not doing something like that. It was low risk, high reward.
Over playing guys like Bogans and Finley was a low risk, no reward.
Tony Parker for one...
If Malik didn't start all those games, then Malilk did not beat out Bogans.
I recall Hill watching from the bench while Finley was sucking up a storm in 2009. You don't?
Or Blair minutes going from 20 to 10 once the playoffs came around?
When has Pop played a good rookie over a bad veteran?
I expect Manu and RJ to get the bulk of the minutes there. I would only call RJ a relatively bad veteran based on what he displayed last season though (he wasn't as bad as, say, a completely over the hill Finley).
Who do you think Pop is going to hand the minutes to?
So what? You are missing the point. When the option is a player like Bogans or Finley, then not giving some marginal prospects some extra time makes little sense.
It is a mistake. It is not some catastrophic mistake, but it would be nice to get more of a sample. A guy like Malik would do no worse than Bogans. It would be nice to see what Ian had to offer when the risks were low. That is all.
Pop is still a great coach.
That is just silly. Malik out played Bogans in limited sample size. Coaches choose certain players over others all the time.
See Barea over Roddy B.
It's hard to just blame Pop. Most coaches have fetishes with certain players like that. Even other great coaches, like Phil Jackson or Larry Brown.
So Roddy B. didn't beat out Barea.
I agree your saying a player who didn't beat out another player beat that player out is silly.
Good stuff
So no one who out played someone statistically ever played behind another player, Chump?
I am missing the point....Teams like the clippers, warriors,etc. (non-winning teams) have been trying your formula for years with little success.
This is really getting to be comically ridiculous in spectacularly gratuitous fashion. Like humongously humorous and stuff.
Malik didn't beat out Bogans.
If he had, he would have beat out Bogans.
I really do appreciate the proper spelling of James White!
In all seriousness though, look at each and every one of those players and think to when they were on the team, the position they played and their chief compe ion. Different time and cir stance -- alot of those were championship teams and those players were playing positions predominantly the same as the Spurs' best players.
Pop's a great coach, deserving of all the praise one wants to heap on him, but he isn't perfect, nor would he ever claim to be. He made his decision with regards to Malik last year, and he had some legitimate reasons why he did (wanting a known quan y and some veteran consistency on the court complimenting the stars and being somewhat of a stabilizer for a roster in flux), but Bogans simply couldn't be the player he needed him to be. He rolled the dice with a vet, which is something that usually bears fruit more often than with a young player, but he crapped out. The logic wasn't terrible, the player pretty much was.
There's no reason that Hairston shouldn't have been given the opportunity to see if he could help the team. We're not talking about being Bowen, an offensive force or a top 5 or 6 player on the team, we're talking Keith Bogans here. There has to come a point in time where you come to the conclusion that Bogans isn't good enough to accomplish what you want and since you've got this pretty decent player sitting on the bench, one you witnessed with your own eyes outplay Bogans in the pre-season and show flashes in limited minutes, you've gotta say to yourself: "Well, let's see what he's got. Couldn't be worse and he might just help us out."
It's no secret I'm a fan of Malik but my fandom has in no way deluded reality.
When it really comes down to it, the Spurs went about as far as they should've last year under the cir stance. Malik playing instead of Bogans wasn't going to make them a championship contender, so it's obvious the argument has devolved into a "I'm right, you're wrong" sitch-e-ation. It's not even about basketball anymore it's a pissing contest.
Great coach, bad decision, it's time to move on.
And just to let you know ...
I win.
Nah, the legend of Wouldacouldashoulda Hairston will live on. His fans will be mapping out the alternate timeline where he is a rotation player this season and tell us how the Spurs are doing with him.
It will happen whenever someone scores on Neal or some other dude Malik kept from scoring once makes a basket.
Just wait.
I really do appreciate the proper spelling of James White!
In all seriousness though, look at each and every one of those players and think to when they were on the team, the position they played and their chief compe ion. Different time and cir stance -- alot of those were championship teams and those players were playing positions predominantly the same as the Spurs' best players.
Pop's a great coach, deserving of all the praise one wants to heap on him, but he isn't perfect, nor would he ever claim to be. He made his decision with regards to Malik last year, and he had some legitimate reasons why he did (wanting a known quan y and some veteran consistency on the court complimenting the stars and being somewhat of a stabilizer for a roster in flux), but Bogans simply couldn't be the player he needed him to be. He rolled the dice with a vet, which is something that usually bears fruit more often than with a young player, but he crapped out. The logic wasn't terrible, the player pretty much was.
There's no reason that Hairston shouldn't have been given the opportunity to see if he could help the team. We're not talking about being Bowen, an offensive force or a top 5 or 6 player on the team, we're talking Keith Bogans here. There has to come a point in time where you come to the conclusion that Bogans isn't good enough to accomplish what you want and since you've got this pretty decent player sitting on the bench, one you witnessed with your own eyes outplay Bogans in the pre-season and show flashes in limited minutes, you've gotta say to yourself: "Well, let's see what he's got. Couldn't be worse and he might just help us out."
It's no secret I'm a fan of Malik but my fandom has in no way deluded reality.
When it really comes down to it, the Spurs went about as far as they should've last year under the cir stance. Malik playing instead of Bogans wasn't going to make them a championship contender, so it's obvious the argument has devolved into a "I'm right, you're wrong" sitch-e-ation. It's not even about basketball anymore it's a pissing contest.
Great coach, bad decision, it's time to move on.
And just to let you know ...
I win.
Yeah, you're probably right. I could definitely see myself saying Malik would've held Kobe to 3-27 and been the difference maker the team needed to get #5.
The Lakers have Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Bynum while the likes of Miami has LeBron, Wade and Bosh. Seems inevitable that Malik will be the difference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
