PDA

View Full Version : Freddy Jones for Pacers Backup PG



Anthem
06-24-2004, 12:48 AM
Sure, bring back Johnson for the third string. But what are the chances of seeing Freddy get some burn at PG this year? He spent all of last summer there, so the coaching staff has at least thought about it.

Wouldn't you rather have Freddy than AJ as your backup PG? Freddy may not be great at running a team, but then neither is AJ.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 12:50 AM
I want Freddy at STARTING SG!!!!!! WOO!!!

Dr Huxtable
06-24-2004, 12:50 AM
For a minute there I thought you meant SG.

He's got the body of a PG mostly. Isn't he around 6'2?

Hey, he worked at PG on ESPN NBA 2004 when Tinsley was injured. :D

Young
06-24-2004, 12:50 AM
I would rather have AJ running the team over Freddy.

Only for the reason that Freddy would be able to do more things with the ball more by playing the 2 instead of bringing it down and setting things up.

I have high hopes for Brewer as our backup point guard. With AJ gone somewhere else.

Kstat
06-24-2004, 12:51 AM
question: why does everyone think freddie can play PG, let alone START there? II have yet to see any real PG skills out of him.

Young
06-24-2004, 12:54 AM
question: why does everyone think freddie can play PG, let alone START there? II have yet to see any real PG skills out of him.

Because he has point guard size.

Honestly, go look up some 2-guards in this years draft [Tony Allen, Rick M, others] and I bet the scouting report will mention something about being able to play the point or they won't succeed in this league if they can't play some point. Or something along those lines.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 12:55 AM
I want Freddy at STARTING SG!!!!!!

Anthem
06-24-2004, 01:14 AM
question: why does everyone think freddie can play PG, let alone START there? II have yet to see any real PG skills out of him.

Because he's more of a PG than our current backup.

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2004, 10:17 AM
Ya, the size thing is crap. Fred is not a PG, he's a SG.

Here's a short SG for ya: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3094

Tell me Fred can't be a 2! And Fred is 6'4", 210 lbs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3612)... built like an ox.

He's actually the exact same size as Dwayne Wade, who technically is a PG, but plays more like a shooting guard who just happens to run the point sometimes.

ChicagoJ
06-24-2004, 10:25 AM
Ya, the size thing is crap. Fred is not a PG, he's a SG.

Here's a short SG for ya: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3094

Tell me Fred can't be a 2! And Fred is 6'4", 210 lbs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3612)... built like an ox.

He's actually the exact same size as Dwayne Wade, who technically is a PG, but plays more like a shooting guard who just happens to run the point sometimes.

No he's not. He's 6'2". Therefore, he's a combo guard.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/fred_jones/index.html

ChicagoJ
06-24-2004, 10:47 AM
Alright, I shouldn't have said it that way. :cool:

He doesn't have the full set of skills for either guard position. He's not proven to be a distributor. His shot, although improving, is still shaky at best. He's too small to defend many of the SGs in the league who can simply shoot over him (even with his outstanding vertical leap.) Defensively, he *can* lock a SG down because he's quick enough to play 'smother' style defense and deny the passing lanes. But if his man gets the ball, there isn't much he can do to stop him.

Now its appropriate to make the same conclusion: He's a combo guard.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 11:06 AM
It's not shaky at all. The guy just doesn't have confidence. that is ALL it is. Once he starts shooting more often, that confidence will come, and with it more buckets. I have no quarles with his shooting.

Roy Munson
06-24-2004, 11:29 AM
Ya, the size thing is crap. Fred is not a PG, he's a SG.

Here's a short SG for ya: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3094

Tell me Fred can't be a 2! And Fred is 6'4", 210 lbs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3612)... built like an ox.

He's actually the exact same size as Dwayne Wade, who technically is a PG, but plays more like a shooting guard who just happens to run the point sometimes.

No he's not. He's 6'2". Therefore, he's a combo guard.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/fred_jones/index.html

Roy Munson
06-24-2004, 11:32 AM
You guys who think Freddie is 6-2 just don't know. You've been deceived by some profiles that started listing him at 6-2 the summer he was drafted.

He was 6-3 1/2 as a HS sophomore, and he was 6-3 1/2 or 6-4 as a high school senior. There is no disputing this. I've stood next to him countless times. In fact, I will see him today. I might just bring a tape measure with me to resolve this.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 11:41 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3612

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 11:43 AM
http://www.nba.com/draft2002/profiles/fred_jones.html

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 11:45 AM
And Finally....


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3612

able
06-24-2004, 11:47 AM
Is there a way you guys can just post links ?

it looks groovy but you seem to forget that in order for this thread to load, not only does it need to open the dbase, read the date, show all the images (avatars, sigs, emoticons and only gos knows what more, but in addition to that it has to open a link to another server somewhere else int the world, load thieir database, data and pictures and that in a thread like this for multiple sites.

cut & paste is another option, but really, in a argument like this the NBA site is the final say-so, since that is the "official" measurements database.

Just my opinion, but you should really try to think of people on this forum who are less blessed with broadband which is I was told lastly about 80% of the US and the rest of the world.

OH yeah, and DO agrivate that by "quoting" the same bloody thing all over

absolutely ridiculous.

MagicRat
06-24-2004, 11:54 AM
http://www.nba.com/media/pacers/team_photo_0203.jpg

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 11:57 AM
Was that really necessary?

MagicRat
06-24-2004, 12:00 PM
Was that really necessary?

Who? Me?

Unclebuck
06-24-2004, 12:16 PM
There is nothing more overrated than the height of an NBA player.

ChicagoJ
06-24-2004, 12:28 PM
I lost a reply to PacerMan due to one of those critical error thingies.

Sorry able, and non-broadband users, but I thought inserting the page was 'preferred' to cut-and-paste. Another Wookie mistake, I guess. I'll stop.

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 12:36 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Hicks
06-24-2004, 01:10 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Silly Macs.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 03:01 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Silly Macs.


Macs. :puke:

Kstat
06-24-2004, 03:08 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Silly Macs.


Macs. :puke:

do Macs even count as computers?

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 03:09 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Silly Macs.


Macs. :puke:

do Macs even count as computers?

No. They are more like accessory devices. Pretty colored computer wannabes.

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2004, 04:21 PM
Ya, the size thing is crap. Fred is not a PG, he's a SG.

Here's a short SG for ya: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3094

Tell me Fred can't be a 2! And Fred is 6'4", 210 lbs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3612)... built like an ox.

He's actually the exact same size as Dwayne Wade, who technically is a PG, but plays more like a shooting guard who just happens to run the point sometimes.

No he's not. He's 6'2". Therefore, he's a combo guard.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/fred_jones/index.html

See that "6'4" 210 lbs" in my original post? Click on it. It's ESPN -- it says 6'4".

Eindar
06-24-2004, 04:29 PM
Seems like he's 6'4" to me. Brewer is listed at 6'4", and in the picture, Fred Jones is just about as tall as him. Especially when you add in Brewer's hair.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 04:32 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3612

http://www.nba.com/draft2002/profiles/fred_jones.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3612

MagicRat
06-24-2004, 04:36 PM
Somebody else might be able to help me remember this, but I'm pretty sure Barkley said during the dunk contest that there was no way he was 6'4".....

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 04:37 PM
Somebody else might be able to help me remember this, but I'm pretty sure Barkley said during the dunk contest that there was no way he was 6'4".....

I don't remember, but Barkley is also a bit of a moron (in a good way) :laugh:

MagicRat
06-24-2004, 04:38 PM
Somebody else might be able to help me remember this, but I'm pretty sure Barkley said during the dunk contest that there was no way he was 6'4".....

I don't remember, but Barkley is also a bit of a moron (in a good way) :laugh:

But he would know something about the difference between actual height and listed height, as he has some experience in the area.....

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 04:48 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Silly Macs.


Macs. :puke:

do Macs even count as computers?

No. They are more like accessory devices. Pretty colored computer wannabes.

Macs are simply better machines than PCs. Faster, more user-friendly, far more cutting edge with better software programs. PCs are for the huddled masses who don't know any better, or can't afford a good machine. Step into the 21st century, my friend.

MagicRat
06-24-2004, 04:51 PM
Do you guys realize that when you post windows to other sites (especially nba.com) that it wreaks havoc on some computers?

Silly Macs.


Macs. :puke:

do Macs even count as computers?

No. They are more like accessory devices. Pretty colored computer wannabes.

Macs are simply better machines than PCs. Faster, more user-friendly, far more cutting edge with better software programs. PCs are for the huddled masses who don't know any better, or can't afford a good machine. Step into the 21st century, my friend.

I'd love to hate those comments, but I really just find them argumentative..... :P

Hicks
06-24-2004, 04:52 PM
So much better it can't handle what a web forum can throw at it. Be it java menus, or iframes to other websites.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 04:53 PM
It may be easier to use for some people, but simply the PC can do much more. Macs are NOT cutting edge...:rolleyes:

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 04:55 PM
So much better it can't handle what a web forum can throw at it. Be it java menus, or iframes to other websites.

Depends what operating system you're using. I'm on 10 right now and I'm having no problem. I tend to work in 9 because I write in Quark and I don't want to pay $800 for Quark in 10.

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2004, 04:58 PM
Because the majority of consumers much prefer inferior technology.... :rolleyes:

Roy Munson
06-24-2004, 05:00 PM
It may be easier to use for some people, but simply the PC can do much more. Macs are NOT cutting edge...:rolleyes:

Right.

As an IT professional, I say tell you that Mac's are slower, more expensive, less versativle, and more hassle on a network. The new OS x is approaching "computer" status, but it is just a clone of Free BSD, which means it's nothing more than Linux users have been accustomed to for about 6 years.

But they look cool, have shiny blue lights on them, and their supporters all drink the kool-aid.

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 05:03 PM
It may be easier to use for some people, but simply the PC can do much more. Macs are NOT cutting edge...:rolleyes:

You have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think all the Hollywood post-production studios use (special effect houses, editorial houses, animation studios, etc.)? Macs. Why? Because they're far more powerful and versatile machines than PCs. Moreover, PCs are always borrowing technology and programs from Macs, and then they turn around and do a marginal and adequate job at best of recreating them. Why? Because PC users have learned to settle for less. You need to get out of the midwest and travel more. Or at the very least, leave your college campus once in awhile.

Hicks
06-24-2004, 05:04 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2004, 05:07 PM
Yep, Macs are for video and graphics... everything else PC. For the small percentage of folks out there who do video/graphics, the Mac is better. If it was the other way around it would be Macs in everyone's bedrooms. Why isn't that, huh?

Oh right, 'cause everyone is stupid. :rolleyes:

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 05:10 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Yeah, that's exactly what all the post houses in Los Angeles and New York are doing: dabbling. :rolleyes:

Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Suaveness
06-24-2004, 05:11 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Yeah, that's exactly what all the post houses in Los Angeles and New York are doing: dabbling. :rolleyes:

Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Hicks
06-24-2004, 05:14 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Yeah, that's exactly what all the post houses in Los Angeles and New York are doing: dabbling. :rolleyes:

Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Yeah, because Macs are superior for graphics work. I've said that. Others have said that. Pay attention.

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 05:14 PM
Yep, Macs are for video and graphics... everything else PC. For the small percentage of folks out there who do video/graphics, the Mac is better. If it was the other way around it would be Macs in everyone's bedrooms. Why isn't that, huh?

Oh right, 'cause everyone is stupid. :rolleyes:

Oh, that's right, mass-produced = quality. I'm still trying to figure out why there's not a Lexus in every garage even though they consistently score the highest in constomer satisfaction.

ROCislandWarrior
06-24-2004, 05:15 PM
You guys do realize you are fighting over computers...right?





















relax :unimpressed:

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 05:16 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Yeah, that's exactly what all the post houses in Los Angeles and New York are doing: dabbling. :rolleyes:

Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Yeah, because Macs are superior for graphics work. I've said that. Others have said that. Pay attention.

I think you referred to it as dabbling.

Hicks
06-24-2004, 05:18 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Yeah, that's exactly what all the post houses in Los Angeles and New York are doing: dabbling. :rolleyes:

Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Yeah, because Macs are superior for graphics work. I've said that. Others have said that. Pay attention.

I think you referred to it as dabbling.

Quit whining over semantics. You know what I meant, and if you didn't you do now, so please get over it. Point is Macs are the best for graphics/video, but not much else.

Hicks
06-24-2004, 05:19 PM
For someone who threw a fit over being nominated for most argumentative, bullet's doing a pretty good job of showing it was the right call, with his obsession with "telling people how it is" in all things, which apparently extends to the PCvsMac debate. :unimpressed:

Last word is yours, since you love to argue so much.

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2004, 05:21 PM
Yep, Macs are for video and graphics... everything else PC. For the small percentage of folks out there who do video/graphics, the Mac is better. If it was the other way around it would be Macs in everyone's bedrooms. Why isn't that, huh?

Oh right, 'cause everyone is stupid. :rolleyes:

Oh, that's right, mass-produced = quality. I'm still trying to figure out why there's not a Lexus in every garage even though they consistently score the highest in constomer satisfaction.

Macs and PCs are the same damn price, lol... a Lexus is a very expensive automobile; that is why there are less of them. That argument holds no water.

*ahem* http://portfolio.iu.edu/bmweidma/mp3/mac.wmv Enjoy. :)

.

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 05:22 PM
Macs are better if you want to dabble in video and graphics. For general use, It's PCs baby.

Yeah, that's exactly what all the post houses in Los Angeles and New York are doing: dabbling. :rolleyes:

Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Yeah, because Macs are superior for graphics work. I've said that. Others have said that. Pay attention.

I think you referred to it as dabbling.

Quit whining over semantics. You know what I meant, and if you didn't you do now, so please get over it. Point is Macs are the best for graphics/video, but not much else.

What's the word I'm looking for to describe that remark...oh yeah, ignorant. If you ever saw what a Mac is truly capable of doing (that would require you to venture outside the midwest first) you wouldn't make such dumb remarks.

Kstat
06-24-2004, 05:23 PM
BP is HARD at work getting early votes for next year...... :laugh:

ROCislandWarrior
06-24-2004, 05:26 PM
BP is HARD at work getting early votes for next year...... :laugh:


:rotflmao:












:lurk:

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 07:57 PM
BP is HARD at work getting early votes for next year...... :laugh:

Well, I can't let you beat me out again for Most Hated Poster, dammit.

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 10:56 PM
Macs are in no way more powerful than pc's, by any comparative measure I've seen.
If hollywood still loves macs I'd wager it has more to do with the legacy of macs 10 years ago, of mac software learned and used by graphics people back when. And people trained on one are likely to stay on one. Even if the benefits aren't really there anymore.
I've never seen non mac mag reviews saying macs get better software. it's been quite the opposite for some time now. Macs are lucky when one of the powerful new software programs are ported to macs. Many aren't.

Do you work in the entertainment industry? Ever been in a post-production house? What are you basing that on? Personal experience?

Next.

Anthem
06-24-2004, 10:59 PM
Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Actually, I believe it was a 1000-node Linux cluster. But thanks for playing. ;)

Seriously, thanks for hijacking my thread, people. :mad: Macs are fine, just don't use that crappy Safari browser. FireFox runs on a Mac every bit as well as Windows or Linux.

The #1 thing that killed Macs was that they have historically been TERRIBLE at entertainment. More recently that's changed, with iLIfe and whatnot, but they're still the anti-gaming platform. Gaming drives consumer sales, and consumer sales drive corporate sales.

There's no question, though, that Mac has the technologically superior platform. But it really doesn't matter. The breakdown is something like this:

PowerPC >> x86
OSX >>>> Windows XP
Application Selection on Mac <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Application Selection on Windows.

If my computer can't run my programs, then it's worthless.

bulletproof
06-24-2004, 11:19 PM
Was that what they were doing on your beloved LOTR trilogy? All that post work (and trust me, that's 90% of the film) was brought to you by Macs.

Actually, I believe it was a 1000-node Linux cluster. But thanks for playing. ;)

Seriously, thanks for hijacking my thread, people. :mad: Macs are fine, just don't use that crappy Safari browser. FireFox runs on a Mac every bit as well as Windows or Linux.

The #1 thing that killed Macs was that they have historically been TERRIBLE at entertainment. More recently that's changed, with iLIfe and whatnot, but they're still the anti-gaming platform. Gaming drives consumer sales, and consumer sales drive corporate sales.

There's no question, though, that Mac has the technologically superior platform. But it really doesn't matter. The breakdown is something like this:

PowerPC >> x86
OSX >>>> Windows XP
Application Selection on Mac <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Application Selection on Windows.

If my computer can't run my programs, then it's worthless.

Nothing killed the Macs. They will be around for a loooong time. Good article. Read it.

http://www.webtalkguys.com/article-pcmac.shtml


And actually, various programs are used for visual effects, but the vast majority of all special effects work is done on Macs.

Read on (oh, and thanks for playing):

Apple's Shake Credited In Special Effects Oscar Win
by Staff, 10:30 AM CST, March 1st, 2004

Last night the 76th Annual Academy Awards aired on television, and for the first time since Titanic, a film took home 11 Oscars (tying the record). "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" took home an Oscar in every category it was nominated in, including Achievement in Special Effects. The winning team at Weta Digital credited Apple's Shake as a key element in the creation of the effects for the film. From the press release:

Last night’s 76th Annual Academy Awards presentation marked the seventh consecutive year Apple’s Shake® compositing software has played a crucial role in the film winning the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. The 2004 winners in this category from Weta Digital credited Shake as a key element in the creation of “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”

“We’re thrilled that for seven years in a row, movies created with Shake have won the Oscar for best visual effects,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Shake is helping Hollywood film editors communicate their vision and deliver their art at an Academy Award winning level. We couldn't be happier.”

“We could not have done ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy without Shake’s fast compositing speed, quality and extensibility,” said Joe Letteri, Weta Digital’s Academy Award winning visual effects supervisor. “Shake was the cornerstone of our visual compositing pipeline.”

Weta Digital used Shake to blend numerous visual effects components in “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” including live action set passes, digital characters and creatures, set extensions and digital environments. Shake rendered incredibly huge shots and was key in fine-tuning the overall look and feel of every aspect of a shot including colors, composition and camera movement.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/03/01.6.shtml

Hoop
06-24-2004, 11:24 PM
http://members.cox.net/clyqz/macs.html

Hoop
06-24-2004, 11:24 PM
EDIT: Double post, that's never happened before. :blush:

Anthem
06-24-2004, 11:28 PM
Read on (oh, and thanks for playing):

It was a joke. The client was apple, but the render farm was a frickin huge Linux cluster. We're both right.

And the article is nice but it doesn't apply to me. I'm not anti-mac, I like them a lot. I'm actually in the process of buying one for my parents. I'll install FireFox immediately, of course. :devil:

Mac will be around for a long time as a niche market only. They'll never be a major player, and in fact they have no desire to be. They'll keep on keepin on with their 5% market share, and that will be fine.