[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
If the Heat win the championship you might have to stop posting in this forum.[/quote]
This made me spit my protein shake out of my nose
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Randman you are terrified of the Heat’s potential. If the Heat win the championship you might have to stop posting in this forum.[/quote]
That you actually think they have a chance in HELL this year is humorous.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]chillain wrote:
^^ very true. Those rule changes of 2004(?) won back-to-back MVPs for Stevie Nash and are directly responsible for this “golden age” of today.
Also makes MJ’s offensive dominance all the more glaring, in retrospect
[/quote]
On the flip side, Jordan didn’t have to deal with zones and all the junk D’s that are in the league today. Teams as a whole were much more physical then, but the overall Defense is tougher today, not to mention the fact that players as a whole are bigger/stronger/faster than they were 15 years ago.[/quote]
Biggest Jordan fan in the world here, and I agree. I would say TEAM defense has gotten much better even though it’s harder to keep guards out of the lane. In other words defense against quick PGs has gotten much worse but it’s been compensated for by team defense.
That (IMO) is why you hear so much about PGs being bad at defense. Honestly, if you looked through the league’s 30 starting PG’s… wouldn’t your gut instinct be that about 20 of them are below average defensively and can be beaten by quicker PGs? I feel like I hear myself saying that about the starting PGs in almost every game I watch now. It must be the change in the game, they can’t simply all be worse at defense than young PGs in the past.
Edit: For some reason I thought there were only 15 starting PGs in the league instead of 30…
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Randman you are terrified of the Heat’s potential. If the Heat win the championship you might have to stop posting in this forum.[/quote]
Might?
For Knicks Fans
Gotta give major props to Grant Hill and his response to Jalen Roses’ assonione comments about Duke and him in particular. Yes I know Jalen was 18 but he still said, Hil showed class restraint and pride all in one…
If donnie walsh had his way he would have Jonathan Bender, Baby Al, Shawne Williams and Travis Best on his team
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Gotta give major props to Grant Hill and his response to Jalen Roses’ assonione comments about Duke and him in particular. Yes I know Jalen was 18 but he still said, Hil showed class restraint and pride all in one…
If donnie walsh had his way he would have Jonathan Bender, Baby Al, Shawne Williams and Travis Best on his team[/quote]
I didn’t think the comments were that bad. He should not have used the word he did but, if you actually watched the documentary Jalen explained why he felt that way. He even acknowledged he didn’t really know or hate grant just that he represented everything Jalen didn’t have. And like you said he was speaking as his 17 year old self.
I thought grants piece was really well written and he touched on a lot of good points. I just didn’t see the comments as being super disrespectful to grant although I can see how he took it that way.
I dont know being called a bitch and an a Uncle Tom is pretty disrespectful. No matter how you feel about the comments we do agree on Hills comments.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I dont know being called a bitch and an a Uncle Tom is pretty disrespectful. No matter how you feel about the comments we do agree on Hills comments.[/quote]
They were kind of supposed to be disrespectful, being that they’re comments made by a 17 year old kid who felt disrespected that a school like Duke wouldn’t even look at his neighborhood let alone actually recruit a kid from it.
I don’t see what the problem is, the candid recollection of how they felt back then was like, the most important part of that film; if Jalen left out how he felt about Duke as his 17 year old self the whole documentary would end up feeling weaker. Hill is taking a lot of offense as an almost 40 year old man over something that happened 20 years ago, and in fact in his response letter he reinforces some of that ‘Duke is better than you’ feeling that 17 year old Jalen had.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]chillain wrote:
^^ very true. Those rule changes of 2004(?) won back-to-back MVPs for Stevie Nash and are directly responsible for this “golden age” of today.
Also makes MJ’s offensive dominance all the more glaring, in retrospect
[/quote]
On the flip side, Jordan didn’t have to deal with zones and all the junk D’s that are in the league today. Teams as a whole were much more physical then, but the overall Defense is tougher today, not to mention the fact that players as a whole are bigger/stronger/faster than they were 15 years ago.[/quote]
Biggest Jordan fan in the world here, and I agree. I would say TEAM defense has gotten much better even though it’s harder to keep guards out of the lane. In other words defense against quick PGs has gotten much worse but it’s been compensated for by team defense.
That (IMO) is why you hear so much about PGs being bad at defense. Honestly, if you looked through the league’s 30 starting PG’s… wouldn’t your gut instinct be that about 20 of them are below average defensively and can be beaten by quicker PGs? I feel like I hear myself saying that about the starting PGs in almost every game I watch now. It must be the change in the game, they can’t simply all be worse at defense than young PGs in the past.
Edit: For some reason I thought there were only 15 starting PGs in the league instead of 30…[/quote]
Well, I honestly believe that individual defense has gotten worse. There are a handful of guys who could be serious man defenders if they put the effort into it, there just seems to be little to no effort shown. Couple that with the fact that there are so few quality centers in todays game and you’ve got guys getting all the way to the rack several times a game and getting uncontested shots at the rim. A lot of it may be due to the fact that these guys have had very little actual coaching and have gotten by on talent and physical gifts up to this point. If you were the superstar in HS and only spent one or two years on a college campus then you probably didn’t get an awful lot of individual instruction. Man defense is a simple concept, but it isn’t easy and point blank most of thsese dudes never had to worry about it.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I dont know being called a bitch and an a Uncle Tom is pretty disrespectful. No matter how you feel about the comments we do agree on Hills comments.[/quote]
They were kind of supposed to be disrespectful, being that they’re comments made by a 17 year old kid who felt disrespected that a school like Duke wouldn’t even look at his neighborhood let alone actually recruit a kid from it.
I don’t see what the problem is, the candid recollection of how they felt back then was like, the most important part of that film; if Jalen left out how he felt about Duke as his 17 year old self the whole documentary would end up feeling weaker. Hill is taking a lot of offense as an almost 40 year old man over something that happened 20 years ago, and in fact in his response letter he reinforces some of that ‘Duke is better than you’ feeling that 17 year old Jalen had.[/quote]
Obvioulsy Jalen knew that he had to apologize as he did before the documentary came on. I dont see where Grant Hill is in the wrong, his retort like I said was classy and showed his pride as well.
Jalen basically pigeon holed his whole races experience, yes I know at 17, but it was an integral part of the doc and Hill would be remiss if he didnt respond. Jalen may say he has matured but I will go as far as saying that some of those feelings he had back then may be somewhat the same but at his age now may be a bit more eloquently put.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I dont know being called a bitch and an a Uncle Tom is pretty disrespectful. No matter how you feel about the comments we do agree on Hills comments.[/quote]
Haven’t read Hill’s retort, but Rose called Laetner a bitch, not Hill. And, he was right, haha.
Anybody starting to feel like the Bulls might actually come out of the East? My official position is still the Celtics, but it’s getting to be kinda close.
And I don’t think there’s any doubt who the MVP this year is. It HAS to be Derrick Rose.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I dont know being called a bitch and an a Uncle Tom is pretty disrespectful. No matter how you feel about the comments we do agree on Hills comments.[/quote]
They were kind of supposed to be disrespectful, being that they’re comments made by a 17 year old kid who felt disrespected that a school like Duke wouldn’t even look at his neighborhood let alone actually recruit a kid from it.
I don’t see what the problem is, the candid recollection of how they felt back then was like, the most important part of that film; if Jalen left out how he felt about Duke as his 17 year old self the whole documentary would end up feeling weaker. Hill is taking a lot of offense as an almost 40 year old man over something that happened 20 years ago, and in fact in his response letter he reinforces some of that ‘Duke is better than you’ feeling that 17 year old Jalen had.[/quote]
Obvioulsy Jalen knew that he had to apologize as he did before the documentary came on. I dont see where Grant Hill is in the wrong, his retort like I said was classy and showed his pride as well.
Jalen basically pigeon holed his whole races experience, yes I know at 17, but it was an integral part of the doc and Hill would be remiss if he didnt respond. Jalen may say he has matured but I will go as far as saying that some of those feelings he had back then may be somewhat the same but at his age now may be a bit more eloquently put.
[/quote]
Did you watch the documentary? (serious question not being a smart ass)
N not yet did I take it out of context?
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
N not yet did I take it out of context?[/quote]
Ya I feel like Jalen was taken a bit out of context. Not just you but anyone who hasn’t seen the documentary just assumes all he said was grant hill is a bitch, uncle tom etc… He goes onto explain why he felt that way and admits it was purely out jealous and resentment and he sees that now.
It would be interesting to see if watching the documentary would change your opinion, it may or may not. It is worth a watch if you have two hours to kill lol
okay fair enough I will watch it and then maybe my opinion will be changed
Even if it doesn’t change your opinion, it’s the best of the 30 for 30 films so far, by quite a bit IMO. So it won’t be a wasted watch =]
[quote]red04 wrote:
Even if it doesn’t change your opinion, it’s the best of the 30 for 30 films so far, by quite a bit IMO. So it won’t be a wasted watch =][/quote]
Haven’t seen any of the others, but they did a fantastic job with this. Just would’ve liked Webber to have been involved, but apperantly he wanted no part of it.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Even if it doesn’t change your opinion, it’s the best of the 30 for 30 films so far, by quite a bit IMO. So it won’t be a wasted watch =][/quote]
Yeah man thats what I heard, and thats saying alot because I saw alot of them and all have been very well done.