NBA Tonight

[TheGreatGatsby]

Once Rivers stops being in a hurry and yes fixes his shot, he will be serviceable. With his pops coaching him he may even become a starter somewhere. Dont know how close you are to what NBA players do but you better believe someone is working with young Rivers on his shot.

You give Pop too much credit. Its the organization not just Pop. Spurs from top to bottom are a machine and model of consistency.

Don't know how close you are to what NBA players do. All NBA players are 'worked with.' Not all organizations have the wherewithal to not treat their players with kid gloves; and there's frankly no evidence that anyone is changing the fundamentals of Rivers' shooting. It's like watching the guard version of Shawn Marion out there.

Too much credit? Yea, I don't know how close you are to what NBA organizations do either. Popovich is at the heart of everything that goes down in SA. It's been that way for two decades now.

I'm very close to what NBA players do. No not all NBA players are worked with on mechanics. They have to buy in which Rivers will do with his father running the show. Yes all organizations have the wherewithal. Most are owned by billionaires with a vested interest in putting at least a serviceable product on the floor every night. Even the Clips had shooting coaches when Sterling was the owner. You may not see evidence but that doesnt mean you know what to look for. His shot has changed slightly already. I expect major changes over the summer as they will have more time to work with him. Nothing was wrong with Marions shot. It went in a lot no matter how odd it looks.

Pop may be at the heart but the brain is the owner. He puts people in positions so they can succeed. That includes Pop.

Save your lame ass lectures on how NBA works, dude. I know how it works.

And the Spurs owner has relatively little to do with it. Yes, he's a competent businessman and he deserves whatever credit he deserves. But Pop is the guy that makes all basketball personnel decisions in that organization, PERIOD.

Dont get upset you asked a question and didnt like the answer. Its obvious you dont know shit about what goes on so lets stop playing games. Save that shit for someone that buys your BS

The Spurs owner has everything to do with it. Just because you dont know doesnt mean anything. No Pop doesnt make all the decisions. He delegates like he was taught to by the owner. Thats why you never hear about any BS from the Spurs. Everyone is a trusted and vital part of the machine.

I'm 'upset' cos I didn't like one of your basketball answers? Why would I get upset about such things? And especially why would I get upset when I know your full of sh__? No, dude, I simply told you that I wasn't going to have a helping of condescension from a dumb ass like you. I've seen you on other boards, and I know you're a laughing stock on them. So, let's start with I know that much about the NBA before you presume to talk down to me next time. Mmmkay?

Dude...Pop delegates. But that doesn't mean he doesn't oversee. You're a total dumbass if you don't get that. Pop was the GM before he was the coach. You think he stepped down and gave up his real power? If you think that, you're a moron (you are anyhow; that's been established). Yes, Pop trusts guys like Buford do a great deal of leg work; but that does not mean that he's not keeping tabs.

You don't have the slightest clue of how my champion Spurs operate and yet you throw out such fallacious tenets. This is why you are a laughing stock.

Yes its evident you were upset. The fact you admitted you felt I was being condescending tells me you were threatened and therefore upset. Dont really care what you have seen on other boards. Focus on the topic at hand. You dont know much about the NBA or basketball from your comments and thats what I started with.

I'm the one that told you Pop delegates. Thanks for agreeing. I didnt say he didnt oversee. I said you give Pop too much credit. Learn to read and you wont get your panties in a bunch. Youre confusing power with credit. Thats like saying the a manager gets the credit for one of his employees coming up with and idea. Seem like I have more knowledge of the Spurs than you do as a casual fan.

You're a dumb ass, who has about a fifth or sixth grade comprehension level. And you should realize that's how others see you when you try to throw out your dross. Just come to terms with the fact that you're a few rungs lower on the intelligence ladder. I'll give you an example right off. Acknowledging that someone is being condescending is not acknowledging that you're threatened. Yet, you persistently make these fallacious leaps in logic about like a person with fifth or sixth grade intelligence would do. You really shouldn't be getting into the fray; cos you're clearly a tard who isn't going to get far in that arena.

What does it matter if you told me that Pop delegates? I swear you zoom in on a meaningless point that neither proves or disproves the argument at hand. Your claim was that I give Pop too much credit. I'm telling you that he is at the pulse of everything that goes on in that organization. Delegation doesn't disprove that, one iota. And yet, you've tried to say it's all about the Spurs owner and all this other nonsense because you simply don't know what you're talking about but like to pretend that you do and all while admitting that you're a "casual fan" (This goes back to you not realizing that you can't come off looking great when you have limited intelligence).

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You said "employees always buy in". You didnt make any distinction so "always" would apply to all employees.

Okay....look at the full statement, tard.

Employees always have to 'buy in.' It's the good organizations who find people to 'buy in' and get rid of the ones who don't.

Does that full statement not clearly acknowledge that there are times that employees don't buy in? Could I have made my statement clearer for a retard like you who can't focus beyond 4 or 5 words at a time? Maybe. Maybe, I should have said, 'Employees should always have to buy in.'

But again, this goes back to you fallaciously arguing stupid stuff because you have limited intelligence. Maybe, you should take a breather.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'd say shooting a career FG of 48% was pretty good for a SF that is not really an offensive player. Where did you see me use the term optimal? Are you deflecting because you dont know what you are talking about or are you just stupid?

Did you have to explicitly use the term optimal? You were arguing that Marion's was fine, which is synonymous with optimal. Again, fifth grade intelligence in play here. You're just biting off more than you can chew, laughing stock boy.

If the Spurs had taken the same approach to Leonard that the Suns took with Marion, they would not be in the playoffs right now. But morons like you would be saying, well Kawhi shot 48 percent and played good defense....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm very close to what NBA players do.

Seem like I have more knowledge of the Spurs than you do as a casual fan.

The dichotomy of laughing stock boy. Tries to come off as an expert and then only about twenty minutes or so later calls himself a casual fan.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm very close to what NBA players do.

Seem like I have more knowledge of the Spurs than you do as a casual fan.

The dichotomy of laughing stock boy. Tries to come off as an expert and then only about twenty minutes or so later calls himself a casual fan.

Reading comprehension doesnt seem to be your strong suit. I was talking about you.

 

[Asclepias]

You said "employees always buy in". You didnt make any distinction so "always" would apply to all employees.

Okay....look at the full statement, tard.

Employees always have to 'buy in.' It's the good organizations who find people to 'buy in' and get rid of the ones who don't.

Does that full statement not clearly acknowledge that there are times that employees don't buy in? Could I have made my statement clearer for a retard like you who can't focus beyond 4 or 5 words at a time? Maybe. Maybe, I should have said, 'Employees should always have to buy in.'

But again, this goes back to you fallaciously arguing stupid stuff because you have limited intelligence. Maybe, you should take a breather.

I did look at the full statement retard. Where did you specify they only get rid of some of the employees that dont buy in?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm very close to what NBA players do.

Seem like I have more knowledge of the Spurs than you do as a casual fan.

The dichotomy of laughing stock boy. Tries to come off as an expert and then only about twenty minutes or so later calls himself a casual fan.

Reading comprehension doesnt seem to be your strong suit. I was talking about you.

Irony...I would have had to of assumed you were talking about yourself seeing as how I never called myself a casual fan. And again, this is why you're laughing stock boy.

 

[Asclepias]

I'd say shooting a career FG of 48% was pretty good for a SF that is not really an offensive player. Where did you see me use the term optimal? Are you deflecting because you dont know what you are talking about or are you just stupid?

Did you have to explicitly use the term optimal? You were arguing that Marion's was fine, which is synonymous with optimal. Again, fifth grade intelligence in play here. You're just biting off more than you can chew, laughing stock boy.

If the Spurs had taken the same approach to Leonard that the Suns took with Marion, they would not be in the playoffs right now. But morons like you would be saying, well Kawhi shot 48 percent and played good defense....

No stupid. Fine is synonymous with sufficient not optimal as in "just fine" Yes I did have to explicitly use the term optimal. You shouldnt be stupid and guess.

Kawhi is a career 49% shooter moron. 47% this year you idiot. Youve shown you are nothing but a casual fan that knows nothing about your own team let alone basketball.

.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

LOL @ Chris Paul. Listen to that scream like he just got shanked.

Chris Paul wails like a banshee - Streamable

 

[Asclepias]

I'm very close to what NBA players do.

Seem like I have more knowledge of the Spurs than you do as a casual fan.

The dichotomy of laughing stock boy. Tries to come off as an expert and then only about twenty minutes or so later calls himself a casual fan.

Reading comprehension doesnt seem to be your strong suit. I was talking about you.

Irony...I would have had to of assumed you were talking about yourself seeing as how I never called myself a casual fan. And again, this is why you're laughing stock boy.

I called you a casual fan because you dont know shit. Idiots like you make me laugh trying to talk about stuff you have no experience with or knowledge of.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Fine is synonymous with sufficient not optimal as in "just fine" Yes I did have to explicitly use the term optimal. You shouldnt be stupid and guess.

Kawhi is a career 49% shooter moron. 47% this year. Youve shown you are nothing but a casual fan that knows nothing about your own team let alone basketball.

.

Well, either way. I asked if you thought Marion's shot was optimal; and the answer seems to be no. If that's the case, then let's bring it back to what that means rather than trifling about the meaning of words. Marion could have very well been a star or semi-star player who led the Suns to a championship had he fixed his shot.

And as it relates to Rivers, guards especially can't get away with terrible shot mechanics. They have to be able to get off their shot quicker and often in more traffic from an already lower, less shielded point. Magic got away with shooting jumpers from his waist because he was 6'10", played with Kareem and would get open shots off of double teams; and he had a baby hook shot to boot. It won't work for Rivers in the long run. And to claim it worked for Marion would be egregious (if not simple minded). He never fixed his shot, which is why he was limited to one handed runners and corner shots even when he was finally winning a ring with the Mavs as a role player. In Rivers case, he'll likely not ever have that chance because he won't be a 6'9" body who can guard Lebron f'ing James.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I called you a casual fan because you dont know shit. Idiots like you make me laugh trying to talk about stuff you have no experience with or knowledge of.

You've demonstrated an inept knowledge and application of basketball; and I know you've been laughed off of other boards for this type of nonsense. As such, I could care less what a nit wit such as you calls me. You were probably hoping this could be your last vestige where you could pretend like you were an aficionado. I am more than happy to expose you as the fraud you are. Others can decide for themselves, though.

 

[Asclepias]

Fine is synonymous with sufficient not optimal as in "just fine" Yes I did have to explicitly use the term optimal. You shouldnt be stupid and guess.

Kawhi is a career 49% shooter moron. 47% this year. Youve shown you are nothing but a casual fan that knows nothing about your own team let alone basketball.

.

Well, either way. I asked if you thought Marion's shot was optimal; and the answer seems to be no. If that's the case, then let's bring it back to what that means rather than trifling about the meaning of words. Marion could have very well been a star or semi-star player who led the Suns to a championship had he fixed his shot.

And as it relates to Rivers, guards especially can't get away with terrible shot mechanics. They have to be able to get off their shot quicker and often in more traffic from a lower point. Magic got away with shooting jumpers from his waist because he was 6'10", played with Kareem and would get open shots, and had a baby hook shot to boot. It won't work for Rivers in the long run. And to claim it worked for Marion would be egregious. He never fixed his shot, which is why he was limited to one handed runners and corner shots even when he was finally winning a ring with the Mavs as a role player. In Rivers case, he'll likely not ever have that chance because he won't be a 6'9" body who can guard Lebron f'ing James.

You should quit while you are ahead dude. I already clowned you on Kawhi's shooting %. Havent you learned your lesson?

Marion was an All-Star 4 times. What do you mean he could have very well been a star or semi star? He was. No player is going to single handedly lead any team to a championship. Even MJ had to learn that the hard way Marions role was to defend and shoot off any Nash penetration when he was with Phoenix. Thanks for affirming that statement by agreeing his defense on Lebron was the catalyst for him winning a ring with the Mavs. The point in all of this is it doesnt matter how bad your mechanics are to be honest. What matters is if your shots go in no matter how bad they are. Ask Jamaal Wilkes about that.


.

 

[Asclepias]

I called you a casual fan because you dont know shit. Idiots like you make me laugh trying to talk about stuff you have no experience with or knowledge of.

You've demonstrated an inept knowledge and application of basketball; and I know you've been laughed off of other boards for this type of nonsense. As such, I could care less what a nit wit such as you calls me. You were probably hoping this could be your last vestige where you could pretend like you were an aficionado. I am more than happy to expose you as the fraud you are. Others can decide for themselves, though.

Says the guy that thinks 47% is better than 48%. Of course you care or you would have never tried to argue your case. All you did is succeed in exposing yourself as someone that talks without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You should quit while you are ahead dude.

Glad that you could admit that I'm ahead.
Alright then, I could 'quit while I'm ahead.' I guess I've adequately exposed you as the laughing stock boy that you are.

 

[Asclepias]

You should quit while you are ahead dude.

Glad that you could admit that I'm ahead.
Alright then, I could 'quit while I'm ahead.' I guess I've adequately exposed you as the laughing stock boy that you are.

I guess you are too dumb to know the idiom basically means you have already exposed yourself as a dumbass. Dont make it worse.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You should quit while you are ahead dude.

Glad that you could admit that I'm ahead.
Alright then, I could 'quit while I'm ahead.' I guess I've adequately exposed you as the laughing stock boy that you are.

I guess you are too dumb to know the idiom basically means you have already exposed yourself as a dumbass. Dont make it worse.

The idiom applies to people who are actually ahead, dumb ass. Apparently you know as much about figures of speech as you do the NBA and logical arguments.

 

[Asclepias]

You should quit while you are ahead dude.

Glad that you could admit that I'm ahead.
Alright then, I could 'quit while I'm ahead.' I guess I've adequately exposed you as the laughing stock boy that you are.

I guess you are too dumb to know the idiom basically means you have already exposed yourself as a dumbass. Dont make it worse.

The idiom applies to people who are actually ahead, dumb ass. Apparently you know as much about figures of speech as you do the NBA and logical arguments.

Says the guy that praised Kawhi Leonards 47% shooting and criticized Shawn Marions 48% shooting.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You should quit while you are ahead dude.

Glad that you could admit that I'm ahead.
Alright then, I could 'quit while I'm ahead.' I guess I've adequately exposed you as the laughing stock boy that you are.

I guess you are too dumb to know the idiom basically means you have already exposed yourself as a dumbass. Dont make it worse.

The idiom applies to people who are actually ahead, dumb ass. Apparently you know as much about figures of speech as you do the NBA and logical arguments.

Says the guy that praised Kawhi Leonards 47% shooting and criticized Shawn Marions 48% shooting.

Yea, that never happened, dude. The example I gave you was hypothetical, idiot. And for that matter, the number I gave was 48 for Kawhi, not 47.

And to add further context, the numbers never explicitly mattered to my argument(s) in the second place. I was talking about Marion not maximizing his offensive abilities. I never once made it a comparison of those two guys' numbers either, moron.

You should quit while you're behind (not ahead).

 

[Asclepias]

You should quit while you are ahead dude.

Glad that you could admit that I'm ahead.
Alright then, I could 'quit while I'm ahead.' I guess I've adequately exposed you as the laughing stock boy that you are.

I guess you are too dumb to know the idiom basically means you have already exposed yourself as a dumbass. Dont make it worse.

The idiom applies to people who are actually ahead, dumb ass. Apparently you know as much about figures of speech as you do the NBA and logical arguments.

Says the guy that praised Kawhi Leonards 47% shooting and criticized Shawn Marions 48% shooting.

Yea, that never happened, dude. The example I gave you was hypothetical, idiot. And for that matter, the number I gave was 48 for Kawhi, not 47.

And to add further context, the numbers never explicitly mattered to my argument(s) in the second place. I was talking about Marion not maximizing his offensive abilities. I never once made it a comparison of those two guys' numbers either, moron.

You should quit while you're behind (not ahead).

You didnt give a number for Kawhi but if you did say 48% you still wouldnt know what you were talking about because Kawhi shot 47% this season. Careerwise he is 49% 1 whole percentage point higher than Marions career 48% Lets quote your post.

And Marion's shot was terrible. He shot from the waist and had a terrible release and that limited his offensive scoring options. He had a limited mid range game because of it.

Marion shot mechanics was not a problem. He shot 48% from the field. He never was a offensive player to start with. You sound like fucking fool.