Wait, are people calling JO a *bust* after two poor games? After he missed a chunk of preseason and was clearly rusty? After he looked pretty good (at least defensively) before he got hurt?
Wow. Two games.
Sometimes, I think I need another sabbatical from this place.
Don't mind me, Bird. It's not the two games; I haven't liked JO in the first place...at least since he started with the persistent health issues and missed games SIX YEARS AGO...then the palace incident...and hasn't been any good since.
He played 70 games last year (mostly pretty well, when not being defended by Perk).
KG played 69. Pierce played 71.
Now, he's had his injury issues over the years, but can we at least give him, oh, a couple weeks in green before declaring him a bust?
You're certainly correct. It's too early to label him a bust, but it's never to late to think we never should have signed him in the first place, which is/was my position on the JO deal all along. We're not really a deep team if we only have so many healthy players available or guys are playing hurt.
What we're experiencing now should have been predicted (and was): a plethora of assorted injuries, none of them supposedly serious, but JO is the sort of player who has everything hurt (e.g. hammy, knee, wrist, back, etc. etc. etc.), but never actually needs surgury or anything, but misses games repeatedly, season after season.
You simply can't rely on JO.
That he played 70 games last year for a contract really makes me wonder whether he could perhaps have been a go on at least some of these nights he has taken off over the years. No heart, IMO.
Topic: Jermaine O'Neal inactive tonight (Read 4804 times)