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!

     

Love how can the GM and coaches already regulated Monk to the bench.

PrimeTimeHeel

By PrimeTimeHeel,
in Charlotte Hornets

Recommended Posts

PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
Posted

That pisses me off so much. Coaches who don't even let players win a starting job. 

They should have said "We do not know how the lineup and roles will shape up just yet and that Monk will be used in the way that best benefits the team."

Hate when coaches play favorites and or already makeup their mind before even the first practice who will be starting and their role. 

Need to play the best players, doesn't matter if they are rookies or not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
34 minutes ago, bLACKpANTHER said:

It would piss everyone off on the team to just award him the starting SG spot before even practicing once. He will get into training camp and have the ability to earn it.
The fact they gave him a phantom injury to save him for TC shud speak to their trust in him.

Sent using the amazing CarolinaHuddle mobile app
 

That would also be dumb. 

The coach or GM should have said "We do not know how the lineup and roles will shape up just yet and that Monk will be used in the way that best benefits the team."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
27 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

he isn't ready to start.. His body nor his defense is ready for the NBA.. It is smart to bring him off the bench and let him only worry about how to score in the pros 1st..

I can find many players who 1) are skinny and 2) dont play defense who start and are successful in the league. 

Harden never heard of the concept of defense. 

Durant was and still is skinny as a rail. 

My point is, its alright to start a player with those issues if he is a great scorer (output his counterpart) and if you have other players to help counter balance him ie great defensive SF or PG. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

I can find many players who 1) are skinny and 2) dont play defense who start and are successful in the league. 

Harden never heard of the concept of defense. 

Durant was and still is skinny as a rail. 

My point is, its alright to start a player with those issues if he is a great scorer (output his counterpart) and if you have other players to help counter balance him ie great defensive SF or PG. 

 

 

My bad I should have paid attention to who started this crappy thread..lol

Durant is 6'10 with a 7'8 wingspan he came in playing SF being bigger than any other SF ever.. DUMB EXAMPLE..

Harden didn't start as a Rookie....DUMB EXAMPLE

He isn't ready to face NBA SG and it's smart to let a undersized and under weight player (for his position) to build up and play a role that will facilitate instant success while he works on the other stuff.. No need to get him beat up and schooled nightly when you have a option..

Last it's not about who starts it's about the minutes played .. I don't know why you novice can't understand that.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daddy_Uncle Grand Master

Daddy_Uncle

Posted
Posted

He has absolutely no business starting day 1. That's a ridiculous thought to begin with. You don't just make a rookie a starter day 1. He needs to earn it and I'm sure he will. He will get plenty of playing time. Let's hope he's more of a Westbrook than a PJ Hairston

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

My bad I should have paid attention to who started this crappy thread..lol

Durant is 6'10 with a 7'8 wingspan he came in playing SF being bigger than any other SF ever.. DUMB EXAMPLE..

Harden didn't start as a Rookie....DUMB EXAMPLE

He isn't ready to face NBA SG and it's smart to let a undersized and under weight player (for his position) to build up and play a role that will facilitate instant success while he works on the other stuff.. No need to get him beat up and schooled nightly when you have a option..

Last it's not about who starts it's about the minutes played .. I don't know why you novice can't understand that.. 

Only way for the Harden example to be dumb is if he became a better or good defender once he began to start. 

Which he didnt. He D has always been horrendous. 

Curry is also known to have bad D. 

Usually starters play more minutes. Not sure why you novice can't understand that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

He has absolutely no business starting day 1. That's a ridiculous thought to begin with. You don't just make a rookie a starter day 1. He needs to earn it and I'm sure he will. He will get plenty of playing time. Let's hope he's more of a Westbrook than a PJ Hairston

I am not saying he should start or not. What I am saying is it is dumb to make these claims without seeing them in practice and ultimately real game situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

Only way for the Harden example to be dumb is if he became a better or good defender once he began to start. 

Which he didnt. He D has always been horrendous. 

Usually starters play more minutes. Not sure why you novice can't understand that. 

Dumb example because rookie Monk isn't 6 - 7 year vet James Harden.. You are doing the dumbass women thing.. Where you change the actual subject to make a dumbass point.... YOU were talking about why a undersize under weight Rookie should get a starting position.. Not what a 6 year pro who has "proven" (most important word) that his offensive production out weights his defensive ineptness...

But that is not a rule written down in stone.. Sometime bench players can actual get more minutes than starters wow.... Novice 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, WOW!! said:

Dumb example because rookie Monk isn't 6 - 7 year vet James Harden.. You are doing the dumbass women thing.. Where you change the actual subject to make a dumbass point.... YOU were talking about why a undersize under weight Rookie should get a starting position.. Not what a 6 year pro who has "proven" (most important word) that his offensive production out weights his defensive ineptness...

But that is not a rule written down in stone.. Sometime bench players can actual get more minutes than starters wow.... Novice 

You said rookies shouldnt start because of 1) body and 2) defense

This assumes that when they do start they should of 1) improved their body to sufficient levels and 2) gotten better or decent at D

Harden was and is God awful at D. 

Curry was and is bad at D. 

I never said Monk should start. I said the coaches and GM should wait until practice and real game data to make absolute claims or opinions on who should and shouldnt start and their role. 

No one said it was a written rule. Novice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

You said rookies shouldnt start because of 1) body and 2) defense

This assumes that when they do start they should of 1) improved their body to sufficient levels and 2) gotten better or decent at D

Harden was and is God awful at D. 

Curry was and is bad at D. 

I never said Monk should start. I said the coaches and GM should wait until practice and real game data to make absolute claims or opinions on who should and shouldnt start and their role. 

No one said it was a written rule. Novice.

I said "this" Rookie shouldn't start right away.. Not all Rookies ... Lebron as a rookie was ready and was bigger than most of the ppl at his position..

So you're on some bullshit putting words in ppl mouthes..

Harden sat on the bench until he proved he was ready to atleast provide more plus than minuses..

If the coaches and the GM can see a path of success for a player until that player shows different what is wrong with having a plan...Novice?? Learn about basketball history before posting dumbass opinions on it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrimeTimeHeel Newbie

PrimeTimeHeel

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

I said "this" Rookie shouldn't start right away.. Not all Rookies ... Lebron as a rookie was ready and was bigger than most of the ppl at his position..

So you're on some bullshit putting words in ppl mouthes..

Harden sat on the bench until he proved he was ready to atleast provide more plus than minuses..

If the coaches and the GM can see a path of success for a player until that player shows different what is wrong with having a plan...Novice?? Learn about basketball history before posting dumbass opinions on it..

I didn't mean that literally. Obviously I knew you were talking about "this" rookie. 

Regarding pluses and minuses. 

You wouldn't know such a thing without a sample of real NBA games to go off of. 

So now you are changing your stance. First it was body and defense. Now it is pluses outweigh the minuses. We care making progress. That is something I can agree with . Novice

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOW!! Grand Master

WOW!!

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

I didn't mean that literally. Obviously I knew you were talking about "this" rookie. 

Harden sat on the bench because of dumb ass coaches that have these preconceived notions of when a player's pluses can outweigh the minuses. 

You wouldn't know such a thing without a sample of real NBA games to go off of. 

So now you are changing your stance. First it was body and defense. Now it is pluses outweigh the minuses. We care making progress. Novice

Harden came off the bench because the team was better fit with Thebo was a better fit starting off the game with the starting line up and Harden was a perfect fit with helping the 2nd team still have offensive punch and Harden still got more minutes so it didn't matter...

I didn't change poo..

His size and weight defensive ineptness are minuses..

He plus  is in college he was a super scorer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Panthera onca
      NFC South is now ACTIVATED

      By Panthera onca · Posted

      I will as soon as you withdraw your fandom from the Patriots. Informative threads are great but all of these estrogen and emotion driven threads you start are ridiculous.
    • Anybodyhome
      Canes vs Panthers 7pm

      By Anybodyhome · Posted

      Will be there tonight and expect nothing from the Canes. They are soft and won't go after anyone, nor will they respond when, not if, Florida starts bullying them. Not to mention Freddie is in net. I fear this will be an ass-kicking.  
    • MasterAwesome
      QB School - Bryce Young vs Bucs

      By MasterAwesome · Posted

      Is this not a bit contradictory?  Also surely if any of us are smart enough to evaluate what we're seeing in real time, a former NFL QB can at least manage the same.  Especially considering he's basing his analysis on hours (maybe generous?) of reviewing All-22 footage which he can play back over and over again, focusing each time on different position groups, match-ups, progressions, etc. which is simply impossible for a fan to fully assess in real time.  Unless you're actually at the game, we basically only get the QB/O-line in frame during the broadcast and even in that limited window of the field, there is simply too much happening.  I'm usually broadly focusing on Bryce, maybe peeping the footwork (or lack thereof) and just the overall pocket and whether there is any pressure coming.  I'm not able to watch every individual one-on-one o-line match-up on top of it to see who got beat, who didn't pick up a blitz, which o-lineman didn't shift to help double-team, or whatever else. I think the truth is somewhere in between (as is almost always the case).  Knowing the play call, audible, etc. is pretty important when judging individual performances, which is why we should always take PFF grades with a grain of salt.  But yeah we can also get a pretty good overall sense of how a player is performing just from watching the game on the couch on Sundays.  I still think there's a lot of value in a review video like this.  As long as you have the bare minimum media literacy to take the interesting insights while also acknowledging inherent biases from a video like this (i.e. obviously focusing on the good over the bad).
×
×
  • Create New...