Author Topic: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).  (Read 48379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #165 on: March 03, 2009, 02:27:14 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
One can always use upgrades at every position.

But our backup wings are both injured for at least another month, one of them is more of a tweener who's, due to being relatively slow-footed, is better suited to play small and perimeter oriented PFs than big wings, the other is more of a guard, who's been inconsistent and injury-prone his all career and that even defensively has been underwhelming this season, accordingly to the team's coaching staff and that is a bad fit when paired together with the starting PG because they both lack a reliable jump-shot.

  I heard Doc say that Tony's defense wasn't what it could be, which is outstanding. He didn't say that it was poor, I don't know that he even said it was as bad as average. Just not what it could be. He's still a good defender.

Did I say Tony's defence was poor? Did I say Doc said that?

Tony Allen hasn't been doing his job consistently on the defensive side, that's all.

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #166 on: March 03, 2009, 02:31:21 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
One can always use upgrades at every position.

But our backup wings are both injured for at least another month, one of them is more of a tweener who's, due to being relatively slow-footed, is better suited to play small and perimeter oriented PFs than big wings, the other is more of a guard, who's been inconsistent and injury-prone his all career and that even defensively has been underwhelming this season, accordingly to the team's coaching staff and that is a bad fit when paired together with the starting PG because they both lack a reliable jump-shot.

  I heard Doc say that Tony's defense wasn't what it could be, which is outstanding. He didn't say that it was poor, I don't know that he even said it was as bad as average. Just not what it could be. He's still a good defender.

Did I say Tony's defence was poor? Did I say Doc said that?

Tony Allen hasn't been doing his job consistently on the defensive side, that's all.

  When you said "underwhelming defense" you meant better than average defense?

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #167 on: March 03, 2009, 02:37:56 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
let's try this BBall.

we had two "clear" needs based on losing PJ and Posey.

Things don't work that way, sorry. It ignores improvement on players already on the roster for example... no matter how the columnist might want you to buy into it.

  It also ignores things like players getting older. Once again, since you refuse to see things like Cassell being below Pruitt on the depth chart or the fact that people like Pierce and Tony Allen often run the offense when Eddie's playing as a sign that we might need a backup pg, only because we scraped by with them last year, this discussion is a waste of time.

the craziest thing about this whole thing BBall is that your line of inquiry is into the Mar signing. a signing i actually support, and totally ignores the one i don't support...

you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end? I support the signing. I'm just not as enthused as you...



  I hate having to keep summarizing the discussions because you lose track of the subject. I'm pretty much done with this one, but this snippet will give you the gist of what it was about:

so you defend the Mar signing because he was the better player, but you defend the Moore signing because he more filled the need?

  Which part do you disagree with?

choosing "need" in regards to signing Moore because i'm not even sure that he fills the need.

  Does Joe Smith fill our need for length at backup center? Does Brian Skinner? Does Robert Horry?

well, no...that's the point I'm making in relation to Marbury. If you can't fill a need, then at least target the better player..

  So, again, you were saying (and have said since) that Marbury didn't fill a need, he was just an acquisition based on talent. You finally (somewhat) agreed that we did have a need at backup pg, no doubt because you lost track of the point you were making.

talk about circular.

I've laid it out repeatedly. If you can't follow it then move on.

your obsession with what qualifies as a "need" has no other relevance than simply trying to win a battle of semantics...

Mar is an upgrade over what we had. but it was not a "clear need" in relation to other aspects of our bench.

gotta say, it's pretty hard to steer clear of your snide remarks, BBall....

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #168 on: March 03, 2009, 02:40:52 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
One can always use upgrades at every position.

But our backup wings are both injured for at least another month, one of them is more of a tweener who's, due to being relatively slow-footed, is better suited to play small and perimeter oriented PFs than big wings, the other is more of a guard, who's been inconsistent and injury-prone his all career and that even defensively has been underwhelming this season, accordingly to the team's coaching staff and that is a bad fit when paired together with the starting PG because they both lack a reliable jump-shot.

  I heard Doc say that Tony's defense wasn't what it could be, which is outstanding. He didn't say that it was poor, I don't know that he even said it was as bad as average. Just not what it could be. He's still a good defender.

Did I say Tony's defence was poor? Did I say Doc said that?

Tony Allen hasn't been doing his job consistently on the defensive side, that's all.

  When you said "underwhelming defense" you meant better than average defense?

I meant he has failed to impress with his defence, because he hasn't been doing his job consistently.

Why? Does "underwhelming" mean bad or worse than average? Honest question, English is not my primary (or secondary) language.

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #169 on: March 03, 2009, 02:47:02 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
One can always use upgrades at every position.

But our backup wings are both injured for at least another month, one of them is more of a tweener who's, due to being relatively slow-footed, is better suited to play small and perimeter oriented PFs than big wings, the other is more of a guard, who's been inconsistent and injury-prone his all career and that even defensively has been underwhelming this season, accordingly to the team's coaching staff and that is a bad fit when paired together with the starting PG because they both lack a reliable jump-shot.

  I heard Doc say that Tony's defense wasn't what it could be, which is outstanding. He didn't say that it was poor, I don't know that he even said it was as bad as average. Just not what it could be. He's still a good defender.

Did I say Tony's defence was poor? Did I say Doc said that?

Tony Allen hasn't been doing his job consistently on the defensive side, that's all.

  When you said "underwhelming defense" you meant better than average defense?

I meant he has failed to impress with his defence, because he hasn't been doing his job consistently.

Why? Does "underwhelming" mean bad or worse than average? Honest question, English is not my primary (or secondary) language.

nope. it is actually a fine word to describe the play of TA this year....it just means that he fails to impress...

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #170 on: March 03, 2009, 02:54:18 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
One can always use upgrades at every position.

But our backup wings are both injured for at least another month, one of them is more of a tweener who's, due to being relatively slow-footed, is better suited to play small and perimeter oriented PFs than big wings, the other is more of a guard, who's been inconsistent and injury-prone his all career and that even defensively has been underwhelming this season, accordingly to the team's coaching staff and that is a bad fit when paired together with the starting PG because they both lack a reliable jump-shot.

  I heard Doc say that Tony's defense wasn't what it could be, which is outstanding. He didn't say that it was poor, I don't know that he even said it was as bad as average. Just not what it could be. He's still a good defender.

Did I say Tony's defence was poor? Did I say Doc said that?

Tony Allen hasn't been doing his job consistently on the defensive side, that's all.

  When you said "underwhelming defense" you meant better than average defense?

I meant he has failed to impress with his defence, because he hasn't been doing his job consistently.

Why? Does "underwhelming" mean bad or worse than average? Honest question, English is not my primary (or secondary) language.

  It means unimpressive, but it generally conveys a meaning of weak or below average effort IMO. I'd say your use may have been correct but easily misinterpreted. Kind of like the point I was making. Doc said something about Tony's playing worse defense than they expect from him but many took that to mean that his defense is poor.

  Hope that helped.

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #171 on: March 03, 2009, 03:03:33 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
In my opinion he's done a good job defensively... at worst adequate.

Interesting that, even though I don't care for this stat, the opponent per is quite good. Might be the lowest in our team. And that stat in particular suggest that he's better defending SF's (although it's a small sample size at the position in those stats).

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #172 on: March 03, 2009, 03:04:00 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
let's try this BBall.

we had two "clear" needs based on losing PJ and Posey.

Things don't work that way, sorry. It ignores improvement on players already on the roster for example... no matter how the columnist might want you to buy into it.

  It also ignores things like players getting older. Once again, since you refuse to see things like Cassell being below Pruitt on the depth chart or the fact that people like Pierce and Tony Allen often run the offense when Eddie's playing as a sign that we might need a backup pg, only because we scraped by with them last year, this discussion is a waste of time.

the craziest thing about this whole thing BBall is that your line of inquiry is into the Mar signing. a signing i actually support, and totally ignores the one i don't support...

you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end? I support the signing. I'm just not as enthused as you...



  I hate having to keep summarizing the discussions because you lose track of the subject. I'm pretty much done with this one, but this snippet will give you the gist of what it was about:

so you defend the Mar signing because he was the better player, but you defend the Moore signing because he more filled the need?

  Which part do you disagree with?

choosing "need" in regards to signing Moore because i'm not even sure that he fills the need.

  Does Joe Smith fill our need for length at backup center? Does Brian Skinner? Does Robert Horry?

well, no...that's the point I'm making in relation to Marbury. If you can't fill a need, then at least target the better player..

  So, again, you were saying (and have said since) that Marbury didn't fill a need, he was just an acquisition based on talent. You finally (somewhat) agreed that we did have a need at backup pg, no doubt because you lost track of the point you were making.

talk about circular.

I've laid it out repeatedly. If you can't follow it then move on.

your obsession with what qualifies as a "need" has no other relevance than simply trying to win a battle of semantics...

Mar is an upgrade over what we had. but it was not a "clear need" in relation to other aspects of our bench.

gotta say, it's pretty hard to steer clear of your snide remarks, BBall....

  I'll end this too, but c'mon. You claim that Marbury doesn't fill a need, we argue for a while about whether we have a need at backup pg, and then you say "you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end?"

  One of us veered off course in that discussion. It could have been me, but I'm not going to review all of the posts to figure it out.

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #173 on: March 03, 2009, 03:15:16 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
let's try this BBall.

we had two "clear" needs based on losing PJ and Posey.

Things don't work that way, sorry. It ignores improvement on players already on the roster for example... no matter how the columnist might want you to buy into it.

  It also ignores things like players getting older. Once again, since you refuse to see things like Cassell being below Pruitt on the depth chart or the fact that people like Pierce and Tony Allen often run the offense when Eddie's playing as a sign that we might need a backup pg, only because we scraped by with them last year, this discussion is a waste of time.

the craziest thing about this whole thing BBall is that your line of inquiry is into the Mar signing. a signing i actually support, and totally ignores the one i don't support...

you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end? I support the signing. I'm just not as enthused as you...



  I hate having to keep summarizing the discussions because you lose track of the subject. I'm pretty much done with this one, but this snippet will give you the gist of what it was about:

so you defend the Mar signing because he was the better player, but you defend the Moore signing because he more filled the need?

  Which part do you disagree with?

choosing "need" in regards to signing Moore because i'm not even sure that he fills the need.

  Does Joe Smith fill our need for length at backup center? Does Brian Skinner? Does Robert Horry?

well, no...that's the point I'm making in relation to Marbury. If you can't fill a need, then at least target the better player..

  So, again, you were saying (and have said since) that Marbury didn't fill a need, he was just an acquisition based on talent. You finally (somewhat) agreed that we did have a need at backup pg, no doubt because you lost track of the point you were making.

talk about circular.

I've laid it out repeatedly. If you can't follow it then move on.

your obsession with what qualifies as a "need" has no other relevance than simply trying to win a battle of semantics...

Mar is an upgrade over what we had. but it was not a "clear need" in relation to other aspects of our bench.

gotta say, it's pretty hard to steer clear of your snide remarks, BBall....

  I'll end this too, but c'mon. You claim that Marbury doesn't fill a need, we argue for a while about whether we have a need at backup pg, and then you say "you're trying to force me to admit that PG was a huge need...to what end?"

  One of us veered off course in that discussion. It could have been me, but I'm not going to review all of the posts to figure it out.

I think it became pretty clear early on that we simply were not using "need" in the same way. I was using it in a "relative" sense and you were using it in a "strict" sense...

you even conceded at one point that SF might be more of a need than PG.

And i conceded that in a "strict" sense you could look at PG as a need, but it didn't change my overall point which is that the Mar signing did not really fill a need in terms of what were the most pressing holes in the bench and was instead more about getting the BPA...

anyway...onward and upward.

Re: The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).
« Reply #174 on: March 03, 2009, 03:27:13 PM »

Offline celticswillwin43

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 320
  • Tommy Points: 80
I knew these kind of threads were going to appear once smith got bought out. Smith wouldn't of even came to boston. He's already had the chance.