He is also healthy, in better shape and quicker. For the first time since he played PG in college. That helps
gunsnewing wrote:He is also healthy, in better shape and quicker. For the first time since he played PG in college. That helps
Are you saying Shump is quicker than JR.....not sure on what your basing this but, I 'm spending too much energy talking about JR. I like the team and I like him on it but, I am no JR fanatic.
gunsnewing wrote:I don't see it. I tend to remember Woodson chewy him out for not stepping up and getting in guys faces and for lazy rotations
Woody chews out Shump on defense too, especially when he gambles and gets whistled.
JR's defense is good enough to start, I'd prefer Shump, but JR is a better overall player.
knickscity wrote:gunsnewing wrote:I don't see it. I tend to remember Woodson chewy him out for not stepping up and getting in guys faces and for lazy rotations
Woody chews out Shump on defense too, especially when he gambles and gets whistled.JR's defense is good enough to start, I'd prefer Shump, but JR is a better overall player.
doesn't matter who is the "better overall player" so much as who fits better with whom. now so far as i know the roster remains as clumsy as ever (phil jackson's assessment) so you might as well go with as many good defenders as you can out there. then there is the issue of poise....
dk7th wrote:knickscity wrote:gunsnewing wrote:I don't see it. I tend to remember Woodson chewy him out for not stepping up and getting in guys faces and for lazy rotations
Woody chews out Shump on defense too, especially when he gambles and gets whistled.JR's defense is good enough to start, I'd prefer Shump, but JR is a better overall player.
doesn't matter who is the "better overall player" so much as who fits better with whom. now so far as i know the roster remains as clumsy as ever (phil jackson's assessment) so you might as well go with as many good defenders as you can out there. then there is the issue of poise....
I've already stated I prefer Shump....I just understand the possible logic that Woodson may be looking at.
DurzoBlint wrote:gunsnewing wrote:He is also healthy, in better shape and quicker. For the first time since he played PG in college. That helps
Are you saying Shump is quicker than JR.....not sure on what your basing this but, I 'm spending too much energy talking about JR. I like the team and I like him on it but, I am no JR fanatic.
No Shumpert is quicker this year. Not quicker than JR
knickscity wrote:dk7th wrote:knickscity wrote:gunsnewing wrote:I don't see it. I tend to remember Woodson chewy him out for not stepping up and getting in guys faces and for lazy rotations
Woody chews out Shump on defense too, especially when he gambles and gets whistled.JR's defense is good enough to start, I'd prefer Shump, but JR is a better overall player.
doesn't matter who is the "better overall player" so much as who fits better with whom. now so far as i know the roster remains as clumsy as ever (phil jackson's assessment) so you might as well go with as many good defenders as you can out there. then there is the issue of poise....
I've already stated I prefer Shump....I just understand the possible logic that Woodson may be looking at.
woodson and logic should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
dk7th wrote:knickscity wrote:dk7th wrote:knickscity wrote:gunsnewing wrote:I don't see it. I tend to remember Woodson chewy him out for not stepping up and getting in guys faces and for lazy rotations
Woody chews out Shump on defense too, especially when he gambles and gets whistled.JR's defense is good enough to start, I'd prefer Shump, but JR is a better overall player.
doesn't matter who is the "better overall player" so much as who fits better with whom. now so far as i know the roster remains as clumsy as ever (phil jackson's assessment) so you might as well go with as many good defenders as you can out there. then there is the issue of poise....
I've already stated I prefer Shump....I just understand the possible logic that Woodson may be looking at.
woodson and logic should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
Lol, not going there.
Long as it works, I dont care.
