LoPo
Well-Known Member
I said Rudy was great in the OKC series, but I didn't think he was a star like Mitchell clearly was. For some reason, you wanted me to give Rudy more credit than I was willing to give. It's okay. I didn't take it personally that you had your stance and I guess you took it personally that I took mine.I don't think it's the unpopular stances in a vacuum that you take heat for. It's the fact that you're very frustrating to debate with.
Off the top of my head, I recall you saying that Gobert was not a star in the OKC series. I pointed out how our defense held them to league worst levels of offense in that series. You attributed that to the whole team, not just Gobert. I pointed out that the team without Gobert in the regular season was bottom 5 on defense in the games Gobert missed and #1 by a mile in the games Gobert played, and you replied with "We're not talking about the regular season.".
When I asked you to explain why you felt Gobert didn't carry our defense in the playoffs when all evidence showed he did in the regular season, you made a strawman argument about me trying to discredit Mitchell when I never even mentioned Mitchell.
That is frustrating. And that is a good representation of how most debates go with you.
I still stand by the fact that we did so well in the OKC series because we played as a team against OKC. We don't do that now because we play some stupid hybrid defense with worst defensive pieces around Don and Rudy.
It doesn't matter. We won that series 4 years ago now.