PDA

View Full Version : ATTENTION, ATTENTION, Yes Brad Miller is an allstar player



Unclebuck
02-03-2004, 01:39 PM
Last summer I argued strongly that Brad Miller was not really an "allstar player". Yes he made it last season, but many players make it once but to be considered a true allstar player you have to make the team more than once.

Well Brad made it again this seson, so I can never say again the Brad Miller is not an allstar

He is an NBA Allstar.

Good for Brad


Peck, is that good enough, or do you want more

Shade
02-03-2004, 01:42 PM
That Sacramento offense does make him look good. It's perfectly fitted to his abilities, and they run the offense through the PF position. Couldn't ask for a better situation for any player.

If Brad were still a Pacer, he would easily have been an East All-Star again over Magloire.

Either way, Brad is a deserving All-Star.

Cactus Jax
02-03-2004, 01:44 PM
That Sacramento offense does make him look good. It's perfectly fitted to his abilities, and they run the offense through the PF position. Couldn't ask for a better situation for any player.

If Brad were still a Pacer, he would easily have been an East All-Star again over Magloire.

Either way, Brad is a deserving All-Star.

This year, if he were on the Pacers, it would've been more like default, like Magliore, but he EARNED it with Sacramento.

arkman40
02-03-2004, 01:55 PM
That Sacramento offense does make him look good. It's perfectly fitted to his abilities, and they run the offense through the PF position. Couldn't ask for a better situation for any player.

Well that's true for pretty much any All-Star...their teams have systems to maximize the abilities of their best players. Even then, all a system can do is put a guy in position to succeed; the player still has to go out there and perform every night. Brad has performed at a consistently high level this season.

sixthman
02-03-2004, 01:58 PM
Good for Brad


Peck, is that good enough, or do you want more

You may have crossed over. But I still think Scot Pollard is a better fit for the money. :D

Ragnar
02-03-2004, 01:59 PM
Good for Brad


Peck, is that good enough, or do you want more

You may have crossed over. But I still think Scot Pollard is a better fit for the money. :D

Oh yeah I would much rather pay a little less for a third stringer than a center. Hey it had the added bennifit of using that money to sign a point guard we dont even use anymore. Wow what a bargain. we traded and All star for two third stringers. I know I am happy.

arkman40
02-03-2004, 02:02 PM
That's HARDLY true for every player. Brad has filled in admirably for Webber in the first half of the season, and deserves recognition. Do I need to say that 1,000,000 more times?

Never said every player, but pretty much every All-Star, you betcha. Are you saying that it's common for teams to NOT have systems aimed at maximizing the abilities of their best players?

Ragnar
02-03-2004, 02:03 PM
Good for Brad


Peck, is that good enough, or do you want more

You may have crossed over. But I still think Scot Pollard is a better fit for the money. :D

Oh yeah I would much rather pay a little less for a third stringer than a center. Hey it had the added bennifit of using that money to sign a point guard we dont even use anymore. Wow what a bargain. we traded and All star for two third stringers. I know I am happy.

So it's your money the Simons would spend?

:D

What money? where is this pahntom extra money? I dont see where it is could you point it out for me because I guess I am blind.

Are you ignoring what Pollard and Kenny are being paid? Do you somehow think that are the keys to the future?

How am I wanting them to have wasted this "extra" money to keep Brad an all star instead of Pollard and Kenny for the SAME MONEY?

Ragnar
02-03-2004, 02:10 PM
Sorry it just still pisses me off when I think about it. I try to tell myself that Jeffs rebounding and D are worth loosing Brad's offense. Never mind that Brad actually gets more rebounds.

But I just know we could have been even better than we are with him in uniform and belive it will cost us the championship in the end. I could be wrong we might not face the Lakers in the finals. Heck the Kings might knock them out in the west finals.

But if we do I think Shaq will kill us. We now have no answer for him we did and we threw it away.

Unclebuck
02-03-2004, 02:13 PM
Please, let's not debate all thoise issues we have debated to death.

DisplacedKnick
02-03-2004, 02:22 PM
Please, let's not debate all thoise issues we have debated to death.

Exactly. Good post btw UB.

Doug
02-03-2004, 02:22 PM
I'm surprised. He's earned it. I thought (note I said thought, not hoped) he'd have a harder time of it in the west.

As a side note: Jamaal Magloire? All-star?

His numbers are pretty good, but an all-star, I'm not sure I buy that. Screw the position stuff for reserves.

DisplacedKnick
02-03-2004, 02:26 PM
I'm surprised. He's earned it. I thought (note I said thought, not hoped) he'd struggle a bit more in the west.

As a side note: Jamaal Magloire? All-star?

His numbers are pretty good, but an all-star, I'm not sure I buy that. Screw the position stuff for reserves.

I wish they COULD get rid of that position crap, but they won't. I guess he's better than anyone else as a back-up center in the East.

If Knick fans have an argument it isn't Marbury IMO - it's KT not being a backup C.

ABADays
02-03-2004, 02:28 PM
Wow - no Lebron. I thought that would have almost been dictated by the NBA with the game being in such a media center.

ROCislandWarrior
02-03-2004, 03:19 PM
Wow - no Lebron. I thought that would have almost been dictated by the NBA with the game being in such a media center.

WOW...I should go check out the cavs board....that outta be a riot

ChicagoJ
02-03-2004, 03:22 PM
I was really hoping Erick Dampier would be the ex-Pacers center in the all-star game. :devil:

fwpacerfan
02-03-2004, 04:55 PM
Brad Miller is no Scott Pollard! :D

bulletproof
02-03-2004, 05:31 PM
Sorry it just still pisses me off when I think about it. I try to tell myself that Jeffs rebounding and D are worth loosing Brad's offense. Never mind that Brad actually gets more rebounds.

But I just know we could have been even better than we are with him in uniform and belive it will cost us the championship in the end. I could be wrong we might not face the Lakers in the finals. Heck the Kings might knock them out in the west finals.

But if we do I think Shaq will kill us. We now have no answer for him we did and we threw it away.


36-13—best record in the league—and you're still pissed off. Hmm. Guess some people are never happy. :unimpressed:

And if we get to the finals, that's a damn sight better than what we did last year. You can't speculate how the season would've turned out had we kept Brad. I could just as easily contend that we wouldn't be where we are right now had we kept him. I know we wouldn't have been able to fire Isiah and hire Carlisle, so I know we wouldn't be here.

Ragnar
02-03-2004, 05:34 PM
Well clearly the difference is the coaching change. I didnt for a minute believe that Isiah would last the entire season and if he did he would have been gone after one more year no matter what.

I could have lived through another year of Isiah if it meant we ended up with a very good coach like Rick afterwards and we were able to keep last years team together. I just think they were and still are on the verge of great things. Its just that now we are a lot weaker at C, a position we were not week at last year.

Peck
02-04-2004, 09:11 AM
Last summer I argued strongly that Brad Miller was not really an "allstar player". Yes he made it last season, but many players make it once but to be considered a true allstar player you have to make the team more than once.

Well Brad made it again this seson, so I can never say again the Brad Miller is not an allstar

He is an NBA Allstar.

Good for Brad


Peck, is that good enough, or do you want more

I want just a little more.

Peck
02-04-2004, 09:18 AM
Ok, ok I have come up with it.

Here are your options.

Option # 1. Whenever you post the name Brad Miller from now till the all-star game of 05 you must put the words All-star in bold letters in front of his name.

option # 2. Whenever you see Donnie Walsh you must think to yourself "cheap *******". Then you must think "but wait didn't he pay Austin Croshere a lot of money"? Then you must think to yourself "buggeyed *******". :dance:

Option # 3. Whenever you address me in a post you must put the title "Omniciant one" before my name. :)

Personnaly, I hope you choose option # 3. :dance: :rolleyes:

ChicagoJ
02-04-2004, 10:09 AM
Ok, ok I have come up with it.

Here are your options.

Option # 1. Whenever you post the name Brad Miller from now till the all-star game of 05 you must put the words All-star in bold letters in front of his name.

option # 2. Whenever you see Donnie Walsh you must think to yourself "cheap *******". Then you must think "but wait didn't he pay Austin Croshere a lot of money"? Then you must think to yourself "buggeyed *******". :dance:

Option # 3. Whenever you address me in a post you must put the title "Omniciant one" before my name. :)

Personnaly, I hope you choose option # 3. :dance: :rolleyes:


Note to self: Never make a promise to Peck if I've been drinking... ;)

naptownmenace
02-04-2004, 11:33 AM
Told ya'll so...

To Peck - :highfive:

Now, the argument of whether or not he's really that good can officially be laid to rest. Don't be fooled. If he played on a team where he was the first or second option his numbers would be even more impressive.

naptownmenace
02-04-2004, 11:46 AM
Option # 3. Whenever you address me in a post you must put the title "Omniciant one" before my name. :)

Personnaly, I hope you choose option # 3. :dance: :rolleyes:

Except when you refer to him by his new title, you must spell it correctly - "Omniscient".

LOL :D

Natston
02-04-2004, 02:30 PM
Option # 3. Whenever you address me in a post you must put the title "Omniciant one" before my name. :)

Personnaly, I hope you choose option # 3. :dance: :rolleyes:

Except when you refer to him by his new title, you must spell it correctly - "Omniscient".

LOL :D

He's all knowing except for how to spell omniscient... :rolleyes: :flirt: