Watching RJ, at times, is like watching a HS kid play. One who thinks scoring is the only part of basketball.
not setting up Sims to win. He went from never playing to starting against the leagues best.
Clean wrote:
not setting up Sims to win. He went from never playing to starting against the leagues best.
Stupid tweet. I've seen it done multiple other times in all sports, the if a guy is doing well in a certain spot (ie Back up center), you don't move him out of that spot if someone is hurt because if both guys who move up don't pan out in new roles it hurts you in 2 spots.
You start Sims to keep iHart in his rhythm (funny how keeping Q in rhythm was such a huge deal, but now that he is doing just that with iHart, it's not what he should be doing).
Truth is with Mitch down NO ONE will be set up for success trying to fill his role.
Sorry, I just can't stand double standards.
Clean wrote:
not setting up Sims to win. He went from never playing to starting against the leagues best.
Understanding he averages only 18 min and IHart 32, in those starts, also important.
I don't watch alot of Lakers home games, but I gotta say, I dig the lighting that highlights the court and is a little darker on the outside of it, kind of muting the crowd and highlighting the athletes.
Go Knicks! And Taj is in….
HofstraBBall wrote:Watching RJ, at times, is like watching a HS kid play. One who thinks scoring is the only part of basketball.
at times....
The fact that Lebron hasn't imposed his will yet has me scared. That said, we just seem a step quicker so far.
Jules finally gets a breather.
joec32033 wrote:Clean wrote:
not setting up Sims to win. He went from never playing to starting against the leagues best.
Stupid tweet. I've seen it done multiple other times in all sports, the if a guy is doing well in a certain spot (ie Back up center), you don't move him out of that spot if someone is hurt because if both guys who move up don't pan out in new roles it hurts you in 2 spots.
You start Sims to keep iHart in his rhythm (funny how keeping Q in rhythm was such a huge deal, but now that he is doing just that with iHart, it's not what he should be doing).
Truth is with Mitch down NO ONE will be set up for success trying to fill his role.
Sorry, I just can't stand double standards.
Well when Sims does badly Hart comes in for him early anyway and then he is not in his usual role. So what is the difference?
No big deal. Jules had to rest at some point.
Also, when did Toddbot develop this finger fetish. Toes I can understand, but this new fetish is abhorrent.
Clean wrote:joec32033 wrote:Clean wrote:
not setting up Sims to win. He went from never playing to starting against the leagues best.
Stupid tweet. I've seen it done multiple other times in all sports, the if a guy is doing well in a certain spot (ie Back up center), you don't move him out of that spot if someone is hurt because if both guys who move up don't pan out in new roles it hurts you in 2 spots.
You start Sims to keep iHart in his rhythm (funny how keeping Q in rhythm was such a huge deal, but now that he is doing just that with iHart, it's not what he should be doing).
Truth is with Mitch down NO ONE will be set up for success trying to fill his role.
Sorry, I just can't stand double standards.
Well when Sims does badly Hart comes in for him early anyway and then he is not in his usual role. So what is the difference?
My problem wasn't with you, it was a gaslighting, stupid tweet. I understand the strategy of doing what the tweet is calling into question, and have seen it done multiple times before. As a parrallel, I don't think the Spurs ever started Manu because of an injury to the starting 2 or 3.
I just have problems with double standards, and I listen to all these Knicks podcasts and I wish these guys would temper their agendas a little bit and focus on the actual game. For example I've heard podcasts where they guys was talking about a bad game for Grimes and he said "it wasn't as bad as Barret has when he is off but he had a bad game" or something strongly to that effect.
This seems like a pot shot at Thibs (If I am correct, that particular tweeter is not a fan of Thibs) so he is taking a crack at a common practice that is done a lot with a definitive benefit if you do it. But somehow because Thibs did it it's not putting our 3rd string center in the best position to succeed. Sorry, I want to see Sims succeed if it means the Knicks win. I can draw the same parallell with Grimes from a few weeks ago. People wanted to change the whole system to "activate Grimes". Bullshit. They weren't doing bad. They were winning. Why am I making wholesale strategy changes to my team to activate the 4th option of my starters (possibly even 5th if they are looking to lob up Mitch)?
Sorry for the rant, I just get fed up with people reaching for stupid negative circumstances when a little common sense will tell you exactly why something is happening.
joec32033 wrote:Clean wrote:joec32033 wrote:Clean wrote:
not setting up Sims to win. He went from never playing to starting against the leagues best.
Stupid tweet. I've seen it done multiple other times in all sports, the if a guy is doing well in a certain spot (ie Back up center), you don't move him out of that spot if someone is hurt because if both guys who move up don't pan out in new roles it hurts you in 2 spots.
You start Sims to keep iHart in his rhythm (funny how keeping Q in rhythm was such a huge deal, but now that he is doing just that with iHart, it's not what he should be doing).
Truth is with Mitch down NO ONE will be set up for success trying to fill his role.
Sorry, I just can't stand double standards.
Well when Sims does badly Hart comes in for him early anyway and then he is not in his usual role. So what is the difference?
My problem wasn't with you, it was a gaslighting, stupid tweet. I understand the strategy of doing what the tweet is calling into question, and have seen it done multiple times before. As a parrallel, I don't think the Spurs ever started Manu because of an injury to the starting 2 or 3.
I just have problems with double standards, and I listen to all these Knicks podcasts and I wish these guys would temper their agendas a little bit and focus on the actual game. For example I've heard podcasts where they guys was talking about a bad game for Grimes and he said "it wasn't as bad as Barret has when he is off but he had a bad game" or something strongly to that effect.
This seems like a pot shot at Thibs (If I am correct, that particular tweeter is not a fan of Thibs) so he is taking a crack at a common practice that is done a lot with a definitive benefit if you do it. But somehow because Thibs did it it's not putting our 3rd string center in the best position to succeed. Sorry, I want to see Sims succeed if it means the Knicks win. I can draw the same parallell with Grimes from a few weeks ago. People wanted to change the whole system to "activate Grimes". Bullshit. They weren't doing bad. They were winning. Why am I making wholesale strategy changes to my team to activate the 4th option of my starters (possibly even 5th if they are looking to lob up Mitch)?
Sorry for the rant, I just get fed up with people reaching for stupid negative circumstances when a little common sense will tell you exactly why something is happening.
I did not think you were talking about me or take any issue with what you were saying. We are all just talking about a difference of opinion. My question was a legit question not out of anger or anything like that. I can see your point with keeping Hart in his comfy role but in reality Sims does so bad that Hart has to play outside of his role anyway. So why not just start him and give Sims a chance to play well vs backups.
Man, we got to hit them open 3s.
BigDaddyG wrote:Man, we got to hit them open 3s.
And JB answers.
