elindholm
edited for content
We were taking off the gloves, getting a good heated arguement going, and then you come with your last post? I know your team lost, but you could do something better than that!
Obviously we don't agree on what we're arguing about. The Spurs aren't "my team." I am a Suns fan. I believe the Spurs are significantly better than the Nets and that they will win this series fairly easily.
My "take of the gloves" comment was in response to your infantile insults. Once you (temporarily) stopped those, I also tried to make my posts more polite. I'm not sure why that disappoints you.
Still, let me clarify what the discussion is about.
The points you made that I originally took exception to were these:
1. "Starting tomorrow night the New Jersey Nets are going to be in San Antonio playing the Spurs in what I believe is going to be a very competitive series..."
2. "...Penny showed that he could still put up all-star numbers, but he had to do it competing with Stephon Marbury. Kidd would've been more than willing to pass the ball to Penny..."
3. (Vague boasts about how good the Nets are, mainly because of Kidd.)
I responded that the Nets aren't very good, that the series won't be competitive, and that calling Marbury "unwilling" (or "less than willing") to pass is a cheap shot.
Then we moved into side arguments when you brought up the tired terms of "pass-first" and "shoot-first," and when you made the (in my opinion ridiculous) claim that "the New Jersey Nets half-court offense was very good this year."
Along the way, I claimed that "Kidd can run ragged in the East, because most of his opponents are too lazy to defend properly." This seemed to be particularly offensive to you, but you haven't made any attempt to refute the massive evidence I brought with which to back up the claim.
So, here's where we are now:
but (Kidd's and Marbury's) first option when they are looking to attack is different for the two players.
Not nearly as consistently as you are implying. Kidd's first option in Game 2 was clearly to score. I don't see how you can dispute that. When the going gets tough, all stars trust themselves over any teammate. Kidd is no different.
But to say that Jason Kidd nearly cost the Nets game 2 is (and no offense to Chaplin), quite frankly, just stupid.
Your opinion. I disagree. Yes, Kidd had an excellent overall game, but his decision making at the end was poor. Had Marbury played exactly the same way at the end of a close Suns game, many posters here (probably including me) would be asking for his head.
When you talk about Jason Kidd, it's easy to talk about his play-making abilities. But you should not forget his presence on the defensive end of the court as well.
His defense is 100% irrelevant when we are discussing his ability to run the half-court offense, which is what I thought we were talking about. You say that the Nets' half-court offense is "very good." Where is the evidence of that? Is it "very good," and yet several notches worse than the half-court offenses of the Mavericks and Lakers? How can it be both?
The Nets' offense has been very poor so far. Their open-court game has been stymied because the Spurs, through the discpline and effort generally lacking among Eastern opponents, are taking most of it away. And their half-court game has never been any good, despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.
With Kenyon Martin and the recent addition of Dikembe Mutombo anchoring the Nets' defense, they become a very defensive-minded ballclub.
I don't recall ever disparaging the Nets' defense. I agree it's better than average. Still, I wouldn't give them too much credit for the Spurs' struggles in Game 2. Team defense has very little to do with 14-25 free-throw shooting. And as far as the turnovers go, the Nets did indeed force many of them, but many of the others were just San Antonio carelessly throwing the ball away.
And luckily for me, I took off my gloves, and you've all but embarrassed yourself in attempting to take off yours.
Apparently you think you're winning the argument, when in fact what you've done is divert the discussion into naive observations that everyone already agrees with, like "The Spurs play good defense." Get back on course with the original discussion, and then we'll see just how embarrassed I become.
Obviously we don't agree on what we're arguing about. The Spurs aren't "my team." I am a Suns fan. I believe the Spurs are significantly better than the Nets and that they will win this series fairly easily.
My "take of the gloves" comment was in response to your infantile insults. Once you (temporarily) stopped those, I also tried to make my posts more polite. I'm not sure why that disappoints you.
Still, let me clarify what the discussion is about.
The points you made that I originally took exception to were these:
1. "Starting tomorrow night the New Jersey Nets are going to be in San Antonio playing the Spurs in what I believe is going to be a very competitive series..."
2. "...Penny showed that he could still put up all-star numbers, but he had to do it competing with Stephon Marbury. Kidd would've been more than willing to pass the ball to Penny..."
3. (Vague boasts about how good the Nets are, mainly because of Kidd.)
I responded that the Nets aren't very good, that the series won't be competitive, and that calling Marbury "unwilling" (or "less than willing") to pass is a cheap shot.
Then we moved into side arguments when you brought up the tired terms of "pass-first" and "shoot-first," and when you made the (in my opinion ridiculous) claim that "the New Jersey Nets half-court offense was very good this year."
Along the way, I claimed that "Kidd can run ragged in the East, because most of his opponents are too lazy to defend properly." This seemed to be particularly offensive to you, but you haven't made any attempt to refute the massive evidence I brought with which to back up the claim.
So, here's where we are now:
but (Kidd's and Marbury's) first option when they are looking to attack is different for the two players.
Not nearly as consistently as you are implying. Kidd's first option in Game 2 was clearly to score. I don't see how you can dispute that. When the going gets tough, all stars trust themselves over any teammate. Kidd is no different.
But to say that Jason Kidd nearly cost the Nets game 2 is (and no offense to Chaplin), quite frankly, just stupid.
Your opinion. I disagree. Yes, Kidd had an excellent overall game, but his decision making at the end was poor. Had Marbury played exactly the same way at the end of a close Suns game, many posters here (probably including me) would be asking for his head.
When you talk about Jason Kidd, it's easy to talk about his play-making abilities. But you should not forget his presence on the defensive end of the court as well.
His defense is 100% irrelevant when we are discussing his ability to run the half-court offense, which is what I thought we were talking about. You say that the Nets' half-court offense is "very good." Where is the evidence of that? Is it "very good," and yet several notches worse than the half-court offenses of the Mavericks and Lakers? How can it be both?
The Nets' offense has been very poor so far. Their open-court game has been stymied because the Spurs, through the discpline and effort generally lacking among Eastern opponents, are taking most of it away. And their half-court game has never been any good, despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.
With Kenyon Martin and the recent addition of Dikembe Mutombo anchoring the Nets' defense, they become a very defensive-minded ballclub.
I don't recall ever disparaging the Nets' defense. I agree it's better than average. Still, I wouldn't give them too much credit for the Spurs' struggles in Game 2. Team defense has very little to do with 14-25 free-throw shooting. And as far as the turnovers go, the Nets did indeed force many of them, but many of the others were just San Antonio carelessly throwing the ball away.
And luckily for me, I took off my gloves, and you've all but embarrassed yourself in attempting to take off yours.
Apparently you think you're winning the argument, when in fact what you've done is divert the discussion into naive observations that everyone already agrees with, like "The Spurs play good defense." Get back on course with the original discussion, and then we'll see just how embarrassed I become.
