Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

General NBA section (Updated With Poll by Proudiddy)


Eazy-E

  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Do You Want a General NBA Discussion Forum?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      4
    • Pin a General NBA Discussion Thread in the Hornets Forum
      8


Recommended Posts

There is no reason why they can't add a new forum. I manage a forum and it takes all of two clicks for the admin to add a section called "General NBA Discussion". 

 

I understand not having it when the Bobcats played and nobody cared but now that the Hornets are hot again, they deserve a forum dedicated 100% to them and another for other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I just updated this thread with a poll so we can get a definitive idea on what the people want.

 

My personal opinion kind of parallels what I've seen a lot of here in that there isn't enough traffic to merit it.  BUT, I can tell you that the traffic is a hundred times heavier than it was a few years back, and I suspect it will pick up the further we get into the season.  So, it could become kind of annoying to keep having random team threads pop up, but I don't anticipate that they would cause that big of a ripple in our Hornets universe...  So, long story short, I'm fine with how it is.

 

I also added the option of a pinned General NBA discussion thread as cbarrier suggested, although I think that could be helpful, I'm not sure how much because we already have at least three separate threads dedicated to other teams and those people want their team discussed, lol. 

 

So again, in the spirit of today, I put it to a vote.  If we need a new forum, I'll put it through to Zod, errr, Jeremy.  Otherwise, we can handle it here within the Hornets forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is about getting open and YAC....and the QB we have.  You basically are just highlighting average depth when targeted vs 2 players. .  And yeah, I often say AT is a small slow reliable TE in terms of what he does for us.   That's what he is.   I think a couple of you want to make this into a Renfrow argument.   I'm a Renfrow fan.  Renfrow does not check the box of what a BY O needs either at the slot.  Renfrow just a niche roleplayer at this level.  it's easy to look up how horrific AT is with the ball in his hands and in terms of getting open.....and it's also easy to look up what a low ceiling of an offense the steady AT diet produces w/ BY. 
    • The one time he's actively tried to lose was the best we've ever done.
    • I simply acknowledge BY is the QB.  And just like we did when we drafted him.....the type O you would need to setup around him for success was always pretty simple.  But we have done virtually the opposite.  XL dropping some passes isn't why we were ranked the 32nd O and 30th passing the past 2 years.  *Ricky Prohel was brought up only in regards to role function he served on the team.  Niche/specialist.   He wasn't eating up the snaps in the O.    AT should have a similar snap %. People could MAUL Ricky Prohel and put hands all over him.   We got to the Super Bowl in part because we were mauling guys (our slot CB).   You can't do that now.  AT has a MUCH easier life and still can't get open.  Or run.    If you live in 3 WR sets, with a weak armed QB, and you choose to put someone who can't get open or run in the slot.......well, your are going to have a weak pass O.  That's by design IMO.  
×
×
  • Create New...