PDA

View Full Version : Rebuilding is for losers !!!



larry
08-01-2007, 09:25 PM
I don't believe in rebuilding. For what, to hope you get a team like KG & Boston? You could build through draft after draft & if you came up with 3 players like the Celtics have now you would throw a giant party. The Celtics were awful. They were being accused of tanking & going for Oden! Take a look now. We may have actually been worse. After the All-Star break we had to be the worst team. Don’t refigure stats by taking out the giant losing streak, because this team had that giant losing streak and to ignore it is retarded!! If I was a GM it would be my goal to win a Championship every year! Some may say I am unrealistic, but I say to those people that you have already lost! You don't need to make blockbuster trades every day, but trading your best players for unproven kids in hopes that they will get to the level of a guy like J.O. is retarded. I know we got J.O. off a move for D. Davis, but that was after members of that team retired or signed with other teams. Plus, Double D was like Foster. He was the cleanup man of those teams and not the main guy.

P.S. I hold those teams w/ Smits, Davis, & Jackson as the best Pacers teams of my lifetime. Yes, I think Dale is > than Foster by a wide margin. I was saying in terms of roles on the teams for which they played.
<o></o>
In closing, I do not want to trade J.O. I’m not ****ed that <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Boston </st1></st1:city>made out like a kid running out of CVS with a box of Snickers.
I’m saying keep the team and let them develop some chemistry. Perhaps they may remember that losing streak and get charged up.
Don’t deal your best player for a bunch of unproven young cats in hopes that 1 of them grows up to be J.O. in 5 years. Get some outside shooting, perimeter D, & quickness. Inside-outside works in the NBA and you have half of it now. If you trade it away you will be truly lost. Remember, the outside part is easier to pick up than getting a big man that is a beast.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Pacersin2033
08-01-2007, 09:27 PM
Not rebuilding is how you get the Knicks and Yankees, what have they won exactly in the last 7 years.

Shade
08-01-2007, 09:28 PM
Well...yeah. Not too many winners feel the need to rebuild. :-p

Smashed_Potato
08-01-2007, 09:28 PM
Rebuilding is not for losers. it gives you a better opportunity to win later than right now it also gives you a better chance because by the time you're team is ready.... Boston will have no future... New Jersey will rebuild in Brooklyn... Knicks are still the Knicks..

LoneGranger33
08-01-2007, 09:29 PM
Well...yeah. Not too many winners feel the need to rebuild. :-p

Hahah, nice one.

Rebuilding is for small-market losers.

larry
08-01-2007, 09:30 PM
Oh yeah,
A good example of a team that gets draft picks and still sucks is Atlanta.
They may finally pass up the Pacers if we trade J.O.

And I shouldn't of said "charged up", "fired up" is much safer.

Kegboy
08-01-2007, 09:31 PM
Hahah, nice one.

Rebuilding is for small-market losers.

Exactly, and that's what we are.

Pacersin2033
08-01-2007, 09:32 PM
Oh yeah,
A good example of a team that gets draft picks and still sucks is Atlanta.
They may finally pass up the Pacers if we trade J.O.

And I shouldn't of said "charged up", "fired up" is much safer.

I am actually beginning to agree with this statement, not because I have changed my mind on JO. But really because Larry has made sure to ship out anybody capable of putting this team on there backs.

larry
08-01-2007, 09:37 PM
Not rebuilding is how you get the Knicks and Yankees, what have they won exactly in the last 7 years.


Yankees laugh at teams rebuilding .
They are maybe the most successful team in all of sports.
How can you even bring them into this?

The Knicks just trade & trade more which is what we have done lately.
I am convinced that you need to develop chemistry.
That article I read here on Boston needing some time to gel may well be very accurate. You don't win from how good your roster is on paper.
Still, I want to hear Stephen A. Smith's take on Boston since he always blasts Ainge.

LoneGranger33
08-01-2007, 09:52 PM
Exactly, and that's what we are.

Nah, Speak for yourself.
I'm just a teenage dirtbag, baby.



And remember the money situation with the Yankees - we can't do that.

Eindar
08-01-2007, 11:24 PM
Oh yeah,
A good example of a team that gets draft picks and still sucks is Atlanta.
They may finally pass up the Pacers if we trade J.O.

And I shouldn't of said "charged up", "fired up" is much safer.

The difference is, the Hawks have consistently made the wrong choice over that span.

I'm still confident in our ability to pick the right kid.

Y2J
08-01-2007, 11:29 PM
Rebuilding is for losers. If a team isn't a loser, it has no reason to rebuild. I hate to break it to some of you, but we're losers.

All you need for a successful rebuilding process is to make good draft selections, and once you make said draft selections, sign them to reasonable contracts. It's also nice to have capspace, but it's not a requirement.

JayRedd
08-01-2007, 11:31 PM
Not rebuilding is how you get the Knicks and Yankees, what have they won exactly in the last 7 years.

I agree that the Yankees have no business in any discussion of rebuilding (nor does a sport without a salary cap, really, either).

But, for the record, the Yankees have won 9 straight AL titles. I'm a Sox fan who isn't generally one to hand out any praise to the Bronx *******s, but I definitely am aware of that.

maragin
08-01-2007, 11:37 PM
Fine, don't call it rebuilding... but we clearly need a major change in direction. A change of this sort isn't a coaching thing, or a top brass thing... it's players and talent. We need to find a way to take what we have (little) and find a way to turn that into something greater. What teams in this situation often do is benefit on other teams wanting short term gains, in exchange for long term gains.

I think the Pacers need long term gains.

I hate tanking, and want our guys playing hard every night, but properly managing our talent is what DW and LB should concern themselves with... even if that means building a team in a slower manner.

Peck
08-02-2007, 01:25 AM
I don't believe in rebuilding. For what, to hope you get a team like KG & Boston? You could build through draft after draft & if you came up with 3 players like the Celtics have now you would throw a giant party. The Celtics were awful. They were being accused of tanking & going for Oden! Take a look now. We may have actually been worse. After the All-Star break we had to be the worst team. Donít refigure stats by taking out the giant losing streak, because this team had that giant losing streak and to ignore it is retarded!! If I was a GM it would be my goal to win a Championship every year! Some may say I am unrealistic, but I say to those people that you have already lost! You don't need to make blockbuster trades every day, but trading your best players for unproven kids in hopes that they will get to the level of a guy like J.O. is retarded. I know we got J.O. off a move for D. Davis, but that was after members of that team retired or signed with other teams. Plus, Double D was like Foster. He was the cleanup man of those teams and not the main guy.

P.S. I hold those teams w/ Smits, Davis, & Jackson as the best Pacers teams of my lifetime. Yes, I think Dale is > than Foster by a wide margin. I was saying in terms of roles on the teams for which they played.
<o></o>
In closing, I do not want to trade J.O. Iím not ****ed that <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Boston </st1></st1:city>made out like a kid running out of CVS with a box of Snickers.
Iím saying keep the team and let them develop some chemistry. Perhaps they may remember that losing streak and get charged up.
Donít deal your best player for a bunch of unproven young cats in hopes that 1 of them grows up to be J.O. in 5 years. Get some outside shooting, perimeter D, & quickness. Inside-outside works in the NBA and you have half of it now. If you trade it away you will be truly lost. Remember, the outside part is easier to pick up than getting a big man that is a beast.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


Larry you are going to find my response to your post one of the weirdest things you've ever seen.

The reason? Because I will so adamantly disagree with you and adamantly agree with you all at the same exact time.

I'm with you, tearing your franchise down and hoping to build through youth is at best a crapshoot and at worst it cripples your franchise for years if not decades at a time.

When was the last time the Hawks weren't rebuilding? How many years did Denver rebuild before they finally drug themselves up from the bottom? How about Chicago, the Clippers, etc., etc.

So I'm not only with you on that level I'll help you carry the flag and sound the trumpet.

However where we will part ways is over Jermaine O'Neal.

I know that most, if not everybody but a couple of people on here, will agree with your assesment of him. But I hold this one thought as a nugget of gold.

The Indiana Pacers will never be free or a true contender until Jermaine O'Neal is either A. gone B. a secondary player in a role that he embraces.

Well we all know B. ain't happening.

I'm sorry but the guy is just not that good.

Now hold on before anybody has a seizure let me be clear, is he good? Yes, he's very good.

But the guy is NOT a franchise player. That is my entire problem with his throng of fans on here.

He is a 20 & 10 guy. Now that is not shabby by any sense of the imagination, but it's also not something you try and forcer your entire team around.

What's funny is that Naptown Seth (he often invokes my name in his conversations so I think I'll return the favor here for a change;) ) was listing Det Schremphs last season as a Pacers stats in an argument about who was more important to the team Reggie or Det. In listing his stats he was trying to say that Det, who was either still coming off of the bench or he might have been starting then I can't remember, was providing more than Reggie.

He was right. However in doing this he also, IMO, provided another little glimpse into why I believe that J.O. is vastly over rated on here.

Jermaine O'Neals stats last season

PPG 19.4

FG% .44

Rpg 9.6

Apg 2.4

Bpg 2.6

Detlef Schremph stats his last season with the Pacers

PPG 19.1

FG% .48

Rpg 9.5

Apg 6.0

Spg .96


Why do I care about this above? Simple please tell me why Jermaine O'Neal is considered a franchise superstar player and Det is just an after thought based on any of the stats from above?

Also for those that are going to proclaim J.O.'s shot blocking as the differance maker, well first I'll just disagree but then I will ask are his 2.6 bpg reall that much better than Det's 6 assist per game? 6 Dimes a game folks is close to what our starting p.g. avg.

Now I'm not even a big Det fan but I am always stunned by people that jock this guy when he just really hasn't shown that he is a true franchise player.

So to me losing him and getting something decent back in return is not rebuilding. It is as maragin stated, a new direction.

I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that if given the time this season that Diagu will be a 16 ppg & 8 rpg guy.

Is J.O.'s 3 more points and one more rebound really worth not getting a new center, a young guard and a draft pick?

Not to me it isn't.

Young
08-02-2007, 01:54 AM
There are some parts of your post that I agree with, Larry.

For instance, keep the team and let them develope some chemistry. That is very important to do, and it takes time. To tell you the truth, from what it seems we have been offered for Jermaine, we are better off keeping him. The guy that needs to go is Dunleavy. Nice player but as I have said many times before we have to many small forwards.

However your whole point about no re building is just flawed. When you are at the top you are going to fall some day. And when you fall from the top you will fall fast and fall to the bottom. It's just the way it works.

Re building is essential in sports. Another thing that is so very important to having a championship team is some luck, something you can't really control. You either have to get lucky in the draft or get lucky in a trade.

You look at the Spurs and their 3 best players they have gotten lucky with in the draft. They happened to land the number 1 pick to land Tim Duncan and they happened to draft two all stars at 29 (Tony Parker) and 52 (Manu Ginobli). That is luck. The Lakers trading Vlade Divac for the 13th pick to draft the best perminter player in the game today, Kobe Bryant, required some luck. The Pistons were lucky to get Rasheed Wallace for salary fillers and a 1rst round draft choice. Rasheed is what put the Pistons over the top to win the championship in 2004.

If you look at the teams that have success they have gone through some tough years to get there. The Lakers did it before Shaq and Kobe, the Spurs did it the year before Tim Duncan, the Pistons did it before Joe Dumars came on board, and so on.

And your not unrealistic for thinking you can win a championship every year, your ****ing nuts lol. It can be your goal but no way would you be able to put a team together year in and year out that can win a title. What the Spurs have done is amazing almost what? A 10 year time period of having a team that can win a title. But hey, they had some luck to do that.

No matter what anyone wants to think or say we are re building. We defiantly are not contending therefore we are re building. We have been doing so since trading Ron Artest. I understand that fans hate to lose, and everyone wants to win year in and year out but if you really want to win the big prize it takes some sacrafice and that may invole some years in the lottery.

Oh and by the way, the Yankees ****ing suck. 6 games or so above .500 and they have a 200 million dollar payroll. LMAO you don't need to be paying 200 million dollars for a .500 ball club. As for a team like the Hawks just wait until some of their young guys develope. They will probably be trading two of their young talents in a year or two and the Hawks will be a force. Law/Johnson/Childress or Smith/M. Williams/S. Williams or Horford

Yeah i'll take those guys over what we have because that team is gonna be something as long as Law turns out to be something. Re building ain't a bad thing.

Pacersin2033
08-02-2007, 10:32 AM
I agree that the Yankees have no business in any discussion of rebuilding (nor does a sport without a salary cap, really, either).

But, for the record, the Yankees have won 9 straight AL titles. I'm a Sox fan who isn't generally one to hand out any praise to the Bronx *******s, but I definitely am aware of that.

Well if the point of the season was to win their division I would say they didn't need to rebuild(although thats in serious jeopardy now), but the simple matter of the fact if they have been on that cusp of pretty good for a long time, and no amount of signing overpriced people was going to get them over that hump. The goal is to win the world series, they haven't done that even though EVERY season every expert is wrestling with the others to be the first to jump on the bandwagon.

Naptown_Seth
08-02-2007, 05:19 PM
I agree that the Yankees have no business in any discussion of rebuilding (nor does a sport without a salary cap, really, either).

But, for the record, the Yankees have won 9 straight AL titles. I'm a Sox fan who isn't generally one to hand out any praise to the Bronx *******s, but I definitely am aware of that.
HA HA!

As a lifer Yanks fan from pre-Bucky days I will say that George's effort to throw money at stars who can't get it done with other teams is the biggest problem, and still they keep winning despite his efforts. A better example would be the Braves who do spend but don't do it like the Yanks or the Sox do really. They are a team that just keeps in the mix. They have tons of success spread over many variations of the roster.

Lakers didn't have to rebuild, at least in a clean-house and lose manner post-Magic years. I don't remember, did they win anything after Magic left?

Still waiting on that Pats rebuild season too.


And honestly the Pacers didn't rebuild after missing the playoffs in 97 to follow-up a first round loss the year before. How'd that work out?

Reload is what winners do, rebuild is what losers console themselves with while they keep losing.

Naptown_Seth
08-02-2007, 05:20 PM
He was right.
You just blew my mind!! :eek:
;)



Detlef is treated this way for one reason only, he wasn't on board when they finally broke through. Some will say that McKey was the difference maker, but I disagree. I really enjoyed McKey's game, much of which wasn't in the stat book, but say that Larry/Rick/Harter come on board instead of Brown and keep Detlef with the team, I think that team wins just as much, maybe more. Were that the case people would want Detlef's jersey in the rafters. People forget how impressive he was, especially with Indy.

But in JO's defense I think Det also had a better matched roster around him. Personally I wouldn't trade either of them and I hate that they did move Detlef to this day, ECF be damned.

JayRedd
08-02-2007, 06:42 PM
HA HA!

To someone that watched Kevin Brown get shelled in Yankee Stadium on October 20, 2004....your comments are meaningless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOSCeIcP2rA

Start spreading the news, my man.

speakout4
08-02-2007, 07:12 PM
HA HA!

As a lifer Yanks fan from pre-Bucky days I will say that George's effort to throw money at stars who can't get it done with other teams is the biggest problem, and still they keep winning despite his efforts. A better example would be the Braves who do spend but don't do it like the Yanks or the Sox do really. They are a team that just keeps in the mix. They have tons of success spread over many variations of the roster.
.
The Yankees are rebuilding and doing it with their ptiching staff most of who are still in the minors. They have the best crop of minor leaguer pitchers in baseball. The problem is that they sign guys who are no longer in their prime and mostly can give them one or two years. When you can spend 3 times what every one else is spending you can at least be ok which is what the yankees have been lately.

ChicagoJ
08-02-2007, 07:23 PM
Ha! I wished they'd have moved Det the year before when the scapegoated the wrong guy (Rifleman).

I liked Det, but the team didn't improve until he was gone.

Just goes to show that "spacing" is more important to "team chemistry" than attitude. Det, unfortunately, was in the way of both Reggie and Rik. Physically, on the court. Their sweet spots were all too close to each other.

Peck,

You realize you are comparing Det's best numbers on the Pacers with JO's worst numbers in six years (because, in part, JO has been deferring to teammates that haven't capitalized on the opportunities he's giving them.) Nice try, though.

Pacersin2033
08-02-2007, 09:06 PM
Ha! I wished they'd have moved Det the year before when the scapegoated the wrong guy (Rifleman).

I liked Det, but the team didn't improve until he was gone.

Just goes to show that "spacing" is more important to "team chemistry" than attitude. Det, unfortunately, was in the way of both Reggie and Rik. Physically, on the court. Their sweet spots were all too close to each other.

Peck,

You realize you are comparing Det's best numbers on the Pacers with JO's worst numbers in six years (because, in part, JO has been deferring to teammates that haven't capitalized on the opportunities he's giving them.) Nice try, though.

So why do you have such an issue when one does. You have a problem with others doing well AJ, but you also have a problem with JO deferring and them not doing a good job. Which is it.

Not to mention that JO does not defer to his teammates, hes a blackhole

ChicagoJ
08-03-2007, 12:03 AM
So why do you have such an issue when one does. You have a problem with others doing well AJ, but you also have a problem with JO deferring and them not doing a good job. Which is it.

Not to mention that JO does not defer to his teammates, hes a blackhole

Where did I say I had a problem with JO deferring? I was just point out that Peck was cherry picking his way through the stats.

The offense, based on previous rosters, needed to run through JO. And back out of JO when he was swarmed. His points were under twenty last season as he hit a career high in assists. The blackhole comment and your other comments over the past few days are putting your credibility at nearly 0.

To be honest, I don't intend to respond to absurd comments very often in the future. You remind a lot of someone we've previously banned, so I've go to go check an IP address to make sure you aren't Destined4Banning.

ChicagoJ
08-03-2007, 12:32 AM
And, as it turns out, you were Destined4Banning. :wave:

JayRedd
08-03-2007, 12:46 AM
And, as it turns out, you were Destined4Banning. :wave:

Hahaha....That's awesome. I knew that dude seemed familiar.

naptownmenace
08-03-2007, 09:49 AM
Ha! I wished they'd have moved Det the year before when the scapegoated the wrong guy (Rifleman).

I liked Det, but the team didn't improve until he was gone.

Just goes to show that "spacing" is more important to "team chemistry" than attitude. Det, unfortunately, was in the way of both Reggie and Rik. Physically, on the court. Their sweet spots were all too close to each other.

I'll go down to my grave declaring that trading Detlef Schremph for Derrick McKey ultimately was the worst move that DW ever made. Whether or or not it's true is irrelevant to me - Detlef was the freakin' man!

I sure wished we had Det against the Orlando Magic in 95. :grumble:


Peck,

You realize you are comparing Det's best numbers on the Pacers with JO's worst numbers in six years (because, in part, JO has been deferring to teammates that haven't capitalized on the opportunities he's giving them.) Nice try, though.


Good point. When JO is healthy (and yes I know it's not often enough) he is a top 5 PF. The fact that he's been able to average what he averages while playing with a busted shoulder (2006) and a busted knee (2007) shows that he's more than just an ordinary player, IMO.

ChicagoJ
08-03-2007, 10:20 AM
The shoulder was 2005. He tore his groin in 2006. And that always gets a big "ouch" from me.

Kegboy
08-03-2007, 11:49 AM
I sure wished we had Det against the Orlando Magic in 95. :grumble:

That's funny, because I remember Derrick winning a couple games for us in that series. That was arguably his best series ever for us.

Naptown_Seth
08-03-2007, 12:05 PM
To someone that watched Kevin Brown get shelled in Yankee Stadium on October 20, 2004....your comments are meaningless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOSCeIcP2rA

Start spreading the news, my man.
See what I mean, more wasted money. Clemens, hated the dude day 1, even if he did win games. Moose I've almost gotten used to, but just barely. Guys like Pavano, Brown....man the list of hacks that steal from George's ego is endless.

They were at their best when they built with the farm system (Jeter, Rivera, Bernie, Posada) or modest trades/FA signings that did seem to be much at the time - Paul O'Neal looked like a bad deal for the Yanks, Scott Brosious was no bid deal, Tino Martinez wasn't a big deal.

Best money the Yanks ever spent - KEEPING THEIR OWN GUYS. Spending big to keep Jeter, Mo, Bernie, Pettite originally, that's worked far better than chasing FA solutions. I'd still like to punch Chuck Knoblauch and his bubble of gum.

To me that's how a good team works and avoids a rebuild. You keep it together and just constantly TWEEK at the edges, you don't put yourself in a "OMG gotta have a major fix now" position in the first place. The Pacers were their best when Reggie, Rik, Dale had all played a ton together and even Jax had been around for the better part of 5 years.

Naptown_Seth
08-03-2007, 12:16 PM
That's funny, because I remember Derrick winning a couple games for us in that series. That was arguably his best series ever for us.
And to double clarify, I did love what McKey was as a Pacer. I hated the price to get him.

Detlef was my favorite player in the NBA BEFORE the trade to get him. I went out of my way to watch Mavs games because of him. So when he joined the team...well that was like a miracle to me, and then he made good on it.

Spacing, maybe, but I don't buy it. No more than you buy that Person and Reggie were redundent. That stupid freaking trade was terrible also, and I liked Mitchell as a player. But that was all about chasing a NAME PG when they had a strong no-name PG in house with Michael Williams. Guy was a steals monster and a very steady, smart PG.

That team had enough passing ability to make all those options (Williams-Reggie-Chuck-Dale-Rik with Det playing 2-4 off the bench) work just fine. What they needed was a coach just a bit more talented than freaking Bob Hill.

I mean Det wasn't a 3pt guy and wasn't the low post guy, how's that different from Nash-Marion-Amare? In fact I'd say the Suns overlap more, but still their offense flows perfectly.


Anyway, water under the bridge now. I just wish that freaking DVD set wasn't just a "best of Reggie" DVD. No Rik vs Magic, no Chuck vs Celtics (game 5, but game 4 which they won in MSA would be nicer actually), and nothing showing Detlef in action. Definitely time for a Volume 2, no Reggie miracles edition. ;)

ChicagoJ
08-03-2007, 02:15 PM
There is no selling price I won't pay for Game #4 of 1991 on DVD.

Synced up with Mark and Slick's audio would be perfect.

Don't get me wrong, when Det played for the Pacers, I always considered him part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Donnie blew that team apart too early. And he has overcompensated with "patience" ever since. I'm not sure that Det and Larry Brown were going to work out at all, but I'd love to see how much better Brownie could've done with MWill, Reggie, Rifleman, Dale and Rik, backed up by Vern, Sealy, Derrick and AD. If Williams "needed" to go, you could still package him and Sealy and Piatkowski for Mark Jackson.

Peck
08-03-2007, 04:09 PM
Ha! I wished they'd have moved Det the year before when the scapegoated the wrong guy (Rifleman).

I liked Det, but the team didn't improve until he was gone.

Just goes to show that "spacing" is more important to "team chemistry" than attitude. Det, unfortunately, was in the way of both Reggie and Rik. Physically, on the court. Their sweet spots were all too close to each other.

Peck,

You realize you are comparing Det's best numbers on the Pacers with JO's worst numbers in six years (because, in part, JO has been deferring to teammates that haven't capitalized on the opportunities he's giving them.) Nice try, though.

Ok, let's compare best to best here.

J.O. I'm going to assume that you will say that the 02/03 season was his best? Or if you would prefer the 04/05 season let me know

02/03

ppg 20.8

rpg 10.3

apg 2.0

bpg 2.3

Det's best year we'll stick with the 92/93

ppg 19.1

rpg 9.5

apg 6.0

spg .96

J.O. outscores him by a whole point and grabs one more rebound per game, he does block the ball 2 more times per game but doesn't even compart in the assist department.

Look, I'm not trying to say that Det is a franchise player at all. I never believed he was. However I am saying that neither is O'Neal

Very very similar stats in their best seasons and I know that Det was just part of the offense that season, not the focus of it like J.O. is.

I'm just saying he is vastly vastly over rated on here.

Looking at the numbers above tells me that there is little to no differance between the two.

However, like you, I do not believe stats are the real way to judge a players value. However, just like you, I was at all of the games with both of them in their best seasons so I can say without a doubt I don't believe that J.O. is millions upon millions of dollars more that Det was and certainly neither is worth building your entire team around.

BTW, for the sake of speed can I refer to you from now on as Jay Dude?;):D

ChicagoJ
08-03-2007, 04:28 PM
I'm just saying he is vastly vastly over rated on here.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, you and I know that.

We're each going to extremes to counterbalance "over-the-top" views we don't agree with.

Kegboy
08-03-2007, 08:55 PM
The truth is somewhere in the middle, you and I know that.

We're each going to extremes to counterbalance "over-the-top" views we don't agree with.

I don't care about either of them, what we should have done is start Tank and had Rik play SF.

Or Travis. I'm flexible.

Peck
08-03-2007, 09:01 PM
The truth is somewhere in the middle, you and I know that.

We're each going to extremes to counterbalance "over-the-top" views we don't agree with.

Wheeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!

Thank God, I was starting to think you actually believed all of this. :cool:

To Hyperbole :buddies:

BlueNGold
08-03-2007, 09:37 PM
JO is a below average franchise player (maybe #15 at best)...on a below average team: Hence our record last year.

People forget that veterans like R. Miller, B. Miller, Artest, Jackson, Harrington, Croshere...and even backup PG Anthony Johnson were propping up JO and this team. Now he has a bunch of young inexperienced players largely picked late in the draft....and it certainly shows.