"Team not intentionally designed to fail"
Yet we have what, 7 rookies on roster?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Youngest roster in the NBA, having played the fewest games together in the NBA, and having the best defense in the NBA for 6 weeks now (via Locke). With Hood being a complete non-factor for one reason or another for most of the season, Burks sitting out most of the season, Trey Burke being mostly sun-baked dog ****, Exum playing alarmingly timid for the vast majority of the season, Enes Kanter being a ****ing baby, and having a bunch of D-Leaguers/scrubs fill out the roster on top of all of that. Richard Jefferson and Marvin Williams aren't world-beaters, but as supporting cast players, they're better than Joe Ingles, Elijah Millsap, and the revolving cast of non-NBA players that have spent time in the rotation because they've been short two or three NBA players for pretty much the entire season. What a ridiculous statement.
Utter bull ****! You two arguing that starting a roster with a rookie point guard in a historically ****ty draft class and JLIII, Tinsley, & Garrett, and a backup big man rotation behind an unproven Enes and patently inconsistent Favors being Jeremy Evans and Marvin Williams at the 4, and a raw as they come rookie and Andris Biedrins at the 5, with no stretch four whatsoever, and chucking, no defense Burks as the 6th man off the bench wasn't one of the worst constructed teams of all time, but this one was?
Talk about grasping at straws to support your pov. A little more intellectual honesty is expected of you two.
Add me to the list. I know the title of the thread and I know the point he tried to make. Whether it's a real opinion or a misadventure in devil's advocacy, the point he tried to argue (and is trying to continue to argue) is ****ing burning wreckage. Group-think is stupid, but to suggest that there's somehow a laurel to be granted for contrarianism strictly because it's contrarianism is half-baked and equally stupid.
I became a fan when the numbers proved all the criticisms about Ty Corbin to be nothing more than fan angst from half-witted mid-20's men who never grew out of teenage know-it-all syndrome.
I don't see any reason the rest of you continue ignoring what the numbers have shown.
That's fine. And in this case he was wrong. Dead wrong. As wrong as one can possibly be wrong. And the idea that he was done sort of innocent guy who didn't dish out his fair share of antagonism is comical.
That's nice. I've never seen you be right about anything. In fact, I've never seen you post anything besides jumping from one anti-coaching tirade to the next. Hell, you've even been on Quin's *** already for not doing what Nate thinks best. It's only a matter of time before you start calling for his head as well, and flipping on this group of players as fast as you've flipped on everyone else in the past.
At least you're predictable.
I would love to hear franklin call in to a radio show with knowledgeable hosts to discuss his current view that QS is only a +1.5 to Ty. I really would. Most folks know that when they can barely see the top of the hole and the dirt keeps falling back in on them to stop digging that hole.
They would all agree with me. Any talk show host worth me talking with understands the minimal impact coaching has on this game. On the open air they may argue with me to appease fans like you, but once the mic's were off they'd agree, thank me for the insight and stimulating conversation, then invite me back whenever I felt like coming.
I'd say that is about 3-4 years off if the Jazz are winning and thenonly if players start grumbling. If they start losing and the players object we could see it as early as next season.
Either way it'll be nonsense. Sloan never ran off anyone chasing a paycheck and neither will Quin. But that won't stop the bitching and moaning.