I'm cheating a little on my time-out from writing. I still don't have my damn property sold, but there was good progress overall today, though. OBSERVATIONS ON THE SERIES 1.If Nene is not playing you have to play Yakhouba Diawara, like it or not. The fact that he is not ready to play offensively, assuming that is true, is the fault of the Nuggets coaching staff. Camby-Martin-Najera can not shut down anyone important and they form a swiss cheese defense in the paint. And Camby has a tendency to be swanped defensively without any big man around to help defend the paint. One of only a very few ways the Nuggets can win a game against the Lakers is if the sum of their points in the paint and free throw points is greather than that sum for the Lakers. 2. Both Camby and Kenyon Martin were all but shut down offensively, yet another example of how when you have no set plays at all you can have key players come up empty offensively too easily. How can the Nuggets expect to win when they have as many "all offense players" and "all defense players" as they do? They can't expect to win that way. The Nuggets need as many of the following things as possible: Camby, Martin, and Najera need to score more and Carmelo Anthony and Linas Kleiza have to defend better. 3. It was nice to see Carter's minutes limited to some extent. It was also nice to see that retired coach Jeff Van Gundy is yet another color commentator who agrees that the Carter-Iverson backcourt is more trouble than it's worth. There hasn't been one commentator yet who has NOT made the point that the Carter-Iverson lineup is dubious and can not possibly get you to the Western Finals. 4. The Nugget's defense was so lacking that the Lakers didn't even need what I call an offensive identity to offensively roll in game 1; they had 100% dominance in the paint, so their forwards and centers went to town passing to each other up front all game long. In summary, this game was a complete and total defensive breakdown and was NOT due to any special offensive strategies or skills from the Lakers. 5 It was not nice to see the TV commentators practically making fun of Anthony's relatively lax defending. Has GK really and truly molded Anthony into being a better defender, and/or into being a more balanced player as some have claimed? I don't think so. If not, why not? 6. It was nice to see that Carmelo Anthony did not seem to be drunk during the game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 21 2008, 11:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you believe Kenyon did nothing defensively, then you weren't paying attention to the game</div> I said the overall combination up front failed miserably. But since you brought up Martin, I'll tell you what I didn't like. I didn't like to see how much K-Mart was guarding Kobe Bryant. You almost never want a power forward guarding a shooting guard to the extent that happened in this game. If you have that, you are admitting up front that there is something seriously wrong with your defense in general, and about your guards' defending in particular. And you are making what might be a bad situation worse. If K-Mart is guarding Kobe, then that means Najera, Kleiza, Camby, and Anthony are all that's left to guard the likes of Odom, Gasol, Radmanovic, and Walton. That spells disaster, and that is exactly what the Nuggets had defensively in game 1. Not having Nene makes it a major blunder to put Kenyon Martin on Kobe Bryant. Put Yak in the game to guard Kobe and stop disrespecting J.R. Smith's improved defending. Do not think you can beat the Lakers by having K-Mart guard Kobe Bryant, and by therefore leaving the Laker's centers and forwards to run all over you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 21 2008, 11:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you believe Kenyon did nothing defensively, then you weren't paying attention to the game</div> I said the overall combination up front failed miserably. But since you brought up Martin, I'll tell you what I didn't like. I didn't like to see how much K-Mart was guarding Kobe Bryant. You almost never want a power forward guarding a shooting guard to the extent that happened in this game. If you have that, you are admitting up front that there is something seriously wrong with your defense in general, and about your guards' defending in particular. And you are making what might be a bad situation worse. If K-Mart is guarding Kobe, then that means Najera, Kleiza, Camby, and Anthony are all that's left to guard the likes of Odom, Gasol, Radmanovic, and Walton. That spells disaster, and that is exactly what the Nuggets had defensively in game 1. Not having Nene makes it a major blunder to put Kenyon Martin on Kobe Bryant. Put Yak in the game to guard Kobe and stop disrespecting J.R. Smith's improved defending. Do not think you can beat the Lakers by having K-Mart guard Kobe Bryant, and by therefore leaving the Laker's centers and forwards to run all over you. </div> JR Smith fouled out of the game defending Kobe for a couple of minutes. If you want to keep JR Smith in the game, you don't assign him to defend Kobe. It doesn't matter what position Kenyon plays. He is simply the Nuggets best man defender and has the physical tools to guard premier perimeter players. The Nuggets disasters were two fold in game 1. The first was starting Anthony Carter in both halves and the second was expecting Camby to actually defend someone one on one. The Nuggets are poorly coached, but your plans for them would have them losing playoffs games by 40+ points.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 22 2008, 09:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 21 2008, 11:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you believe Kenyon did nothing defensively, then you weren't paying attention to the game</div> I said the overall combination up front failed miserably. But since you brought up Martin, I'll tell you what I didn't like. I didn't like to see how much K-Mart was guarding Kobe Bryant. You almost never want a power forward guarding a shooting guard to the extent that happened in this game. If you have that, you are admitting up front that there is something seriously wrong with your defense in general, and about your guards' defending in particular. And you are making what might be a bad situation worse. If K-Mart is guarding Kobe, then that means Najera, Kleiza, Camby, and Anthony are all that's left to guard the likes of Odom, Gasol, Radmanovic, and Walton. That spells disaster, and that is exactly what the Nuggets had defensively in game 1. Not having Nene makes it a major blunder to put Kenyon Martin on Kobe Bryant. Put Yak in the game to guard Kobe and stop disrespecting J.R. Smith's improved defending. Do not think you can beat the Lakers by having K-Mart guard Kobe Bryant, and by therefore leaving the Laker's centers and forwards to run all over you. </div> JR Smith fouled out of the game defending Kobe for a couple of minutes. If you want to keep JR Smith in the game, you don't assign him to defend Kobe. It doesn't matter what position Kenyon plays. He is simply the Nuggets best man defender and has the physical tools to guard premier perimeter players. The Nuggets disasters were two fold in game 1. The first was starting Anthony Carter in both halves and the second was expecting Camby to actually defend someone one on one. The Nuggets are poorly coached, but your plans for them would have them losing playoffs games by 40+ points. </div> JR Smith played 23 minutes before fouling out, not 2. I want to keep Smitty in the game, but if he fouls out, he should come out, because I don't want him fouling, I want him defending, disrupting and stealing. It matters for every player what position that player plays. The Nuggets' coaches have failed in general to make clear who does what in basketball games, a task which starts with respecting what position or 2 positions at the most a player is most suited for. So it does matter what position K-Mart plays, whether or not you are facing Gasol/Odom/Radmanovic/Walton, but especially if you are. Camby without Nene or K-Mart helping defensively up front ranges from reckless to automatic disaster, with the damage largely depending on who the Nuggets are playing and whether it is a playoff game or not. Wow, this is the first time ever I heard something from you about Carter playing too much. Did you flip over to our side finally? If so, welcome to it. You won't regret it and I will not hold your former opinion, that there is nothing wrong with the Carter PG and Iverson SG backcourt, against you. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone's opinion changes sometimes. I am still disturbed by my bonehead claim that the Raptors are almost last in assists per game. I must have been half asleep when I thought I saw that and then added it to a paragraph that had a related but different point.
K-Mart did do a good job on Kobe for a while, but like everyone pointed out already, it leaves the other guys guarding Gasol, Radmonavich, and Odom. I think we need to go with the let Kobe get his, but do everything possible to shut down Odom, and Gasol. Those 2 just dominated the paint. Odom got offensive rebounds, then made a quick 3 ft. pass to gasol for a wide open dunk. The Nuggets can win this series, as long as Karl makes the right adjustments for game 2.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>JR Smith played 23 minutes before fouling out, not 2. I want to keep Smitty in the game, but if he fouls out, he should come out, because I don't want him fouling, I want him defending, disrupting and stealing.</div> Where did I say JR only played 2 minutes? Lets try this again, JR fouled out quickly once he was given the task of defending Kobe. The Nuggets need his offensive spark off the bench and he needs to stay in the game by defending either the Lakers PG or SF. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It matters for every player what position that player plays. The Nuggets' coaches have failed in general to make clear who does what in basketball games, a task which starts with respecting what position or 2 positions at the most a player is most suited for. So it does matter what position K-Mart plays, whether or not you are facing Gasol/Odom/Radmanovic/Walton, but especially if you are.</div> No, you are completely and totally wrong. The Nuggets have plenty of flexibility with their roster that they can play Kenyon as defensive SG and still have big bodies play defense at SF and PF. BTW, VladRad and Walton play SF primarily so they don't factor into this equation. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Camby without Nene or K-Mart helping defensively up front ranges from reckless to automatic disaster, with the damage largely depending on who the Nuggets are playing and whether it is a playoff game or not.</div> The Nuggets have a group of 6'8" guys that can do a fine job if they rotate the way they are suppose to. As long as Melo and LK don't fall asleep on their rotations, the Nuggets will be vastly improved. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Wow, this is the first time ever I heard something from you about Carter playing too much.</div> Because you don't pay attention and you are so wrapped up in your fantasy world that NBA basketball is about binary decisions. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Did you flip over to our side finally? If so, welcome to it.</div> You don't even know what my opinion is, so stop with the crap. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You won't regret it and I will not hold your former opinion, that there is nothing wrong with the Carter PG and Iverson SG backcourt, against you.</div> Again, that isn't close to what I've ever said. You make horrendous assumptions and don't comprehend what is typed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Apr 22 2008, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>K-Mart did do a good job on Kobe for a while, but like everyone pointed out already, it leaves the other guys guarding Gasol, Radmonavich, and Odom. I think we need to go with the let Kobe get his, but do everything possible to shut down Odom, and Gasol. Those 2 just dominated the paint. Odom got offensive rebounds, then made a quick 3 ft. pass to gasol for a wide open dunk. The Nuggets can win this series, as long as Karl makes the right adjustments for game 2.</div> The success or failure of the Nuggets will be primarily based upon how well Melo and LK rotate and switch on defense. Everything points to LK starting in place of Carter for game 2 which means that those two will be responsible for defending both forward spots and rotating over when Camby goes out to close off penetration. I expect Kobe to drive a lot more in game 2 in hopes of getting some early fouls on Kenyon. Coupled with Odom driving a lot, there is going to be tremendous pressure on Camby, Melo and LK to not let somebody go free because the Lakers will find the open man.
Wow, you do love arguing with me, don't you. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Where did I say JR only played 2 minutes? Lets try this again, JR fouled out quickly once he was given the task of defending Kobe. The Nuggets need his offensive spark off the bench and he needs to stay in the game by defending either the Lakers PG or SF.</div> You said: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>JR Smith fouled out of the game defending Kobe for a couple of minutes</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, you are completely and totally wrong. The Nuggets have plenty of flexibility with their roster that they can play Kenyon as defensive SG and still have big bodies play defense at SF and PF.</div> Of course they can do that, the question is whether they get decent results if they do that, and this game is a textbook example of the terrible results they get if they choose to do that. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Nuggets have a group of 6'8" guys that can do a fine job if they rotate the way they are suppose to. As long as Melo and LK don't fall asleep on their rotations, the Nuggets will be vastly improved.</div> Melo and LK do fall asleep on their rotations too much, and they are not highly skilled defenders to begin with, which means you can not divert K-Mart from defending Laker forwards/centers without paying a huge, unacceptable price. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Because you don't pay attention and you are so wrapped up in your fantasy world that NBA basketball is about binary decisions.</div> Wow, a GK type of comment, and it is as funny as many of his comments are. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You don't even know what my opinion is, so stop with the crap.</div> Ah hah, now I don't have to worry anymore that you make arguments that can only be understood by reading between the lines more than anyone can read between the lines. In other words, I wasn't imagining that you hold back, for some reason(s), some of your positions and observations. So the obvious next question is: what is your opinion of the Carter PG and Iverson SG backcourt? And also, to what extent are you in favor of or against Carter and Iverson being on the court at the same time? What exactly is your position on this crucial subject, straight up???
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You said: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>JR Smith fouled out of the game defending Kobe for a couple of minutes</div> </div> You seriously don't understand the difference? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Of course they can do that, the question is whether they get decent results if they do that, and this game is a textbook example of the terrible results they get if they choose to do that.</div> No, game 1 is not a textbook example of that. Go back and watch the second quarter again. The Nuggets played better with Najera than Camby on the floor. The Nuggets also cut the lead down in the 4th quarter with Camby on the bench. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Nuggets have a group of 6'8" guys that can do a fine job if they rotate the way they are suppose to. As long as Melo and LK don't fall asleep on their rotations, the Nuggets will be vastly improved.</div> Melo and LK do fall asleep on their rotations too much, and they are not highly skilled defenders to begin with, which means you can not divert K-Mart from defending Laker forwards/centers without paying a huge, unacceptable price. </div> No, it does not mean that at all. It means that they need to be better coached and prepared. It also means that the Nuggets can't get in a huge hole because Anthony Carter can't play against the Lakers. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Because you don't pay attention and you are so wrapped up in your fantasy world that NBA basketball is about binary decisions.</div> Wow, a GK type of comment, and it is as funny as many of his comments are. </div> Nothing like a GK comment and it certainly isn't funny. Unfortunately, it is a true statement. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You don't even know what my opinion is, so stop with the crap.</div> Ah hah, now I don't have to worry anymore that you make arguments that can only be understood by reading between the lines more than anyone can read between the lines. In other words, I wasn't imagining that you hold back, for some reason(s), some of your positions and observations. </div> That would be correct if it wasn't false. I never held back, you simply failed to comprehend and constantly misrepresented my opinion. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So the obvious next question is: what is your opinion of the Carter PG and Iverson SG backcourt? And also, to what extent are you in favor of or against Carter and Iverson being on the court at the same time? What exactly is your position on this crucial subject, straight up“?</div> LMAO at you calling it a crucial subject. I can't wait to see how you twist this. Ideally, Anthony Carter wouldn't start, however, the Nuggets didn't have a better, healthy option. During the regular season, because AI plays 40+ MPG, he has to have minutes where he isn't the PG. AI is not an effective NBA player when he forced to play PG all of his minutes and that is proven over his career. What AI did in HS and College is completely and totally irrelevant. Starting JR Smith is a horrible choice because he isn't mature enough for it. As a 6th man, he can come in the game and attack, attack and attack some more on offense. All of the great teams have someone like that off their bench and JR is the Nugget best suited for that role. The problem this season is not that Carter starts, it is that Karl plays him too much. This problem becomes worse when Karl fails to recognize the teams that present bad match ups for Carter. The Lakers are one such team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You seriously don't understand the difference?</div> I seriously don't understand what you are saying about JR's fouls anymore. Are you saying that he guarded Kobe Bryant for two minutes and that all of his fouls came during that time? The only way you can rescue your point is by spelling out exactly what you meant with your first statement: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>JR Smith fouled out of the game defending Kobe for a couple of minutes</div> What does that mean??? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, game 1 is not a textbook example of that. Go back and watch the second quarter again. The Nuggets played better with Najera than Camby on the floor. The Nuggets also cut the lead down in the 4th quarter with Camby on the bench.</div> It seems that you are agreeing with me and you don't realize it. As I already said, Camby without Nene or K-Mart up front is automatic disaster against a team like the Lakers. Same thing if it's Najera without Nene or K-Mart, with or without Camby. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, it does not mean that at all. It means that they need to be better coached and prepared. It also means that the Nuggets can't get in a huge hole because Anthony Carter can't play against the Lakers.</div> Now you are without a doubt agreeing with me. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Nothing like a GK comment and it certainly isn't funny. Unfortunately, it is a true statement.</div> Laughs are to be had on internet forums for those who know what is truly funny. Are there ANY binary decisions in basketball??? Also, GK is probably the only coach in NBA history to describe one of his players as "living in fantasyland," so it WAS a GK kind of statement. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ideally, Anthony Carter wouldn't start, however, the Nuggets didn't have a better, healthy option. During the regular season, because AI plays 40+ MPG, he has to have minutes where he isn't the PG. AI is not an effective NBA player when he forced to play PG all of his minutes and that is proven over his career. What AI did in HS and College is completely and totally irrelevant.</div> Well if all you are saying is that AI can't play PG all the time but can play it much of the time, you have flipped your position and you agree with me and I agree with you. As for AI's career, all it proves is that if a PG is moved to the SG position, there will be people making the logically fallacious argument that, judged by how he plays SG, he would not make a good PG. It is a logical trap, nothing more, nothing less. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Starting JR Smith is a horrible choice because he isn't mature enough for it. As a 6th man, he can come in the game and attack, attack and attack some more on offense. All of the great teams have someone like that off their bench and JR is the Nugget best suited for that role.</div> J.R. Smith is about 2nd in the NBA in the number of 20-point games from off the bench. It's another one of those facts that raises a huge red flag about the management of the Nuggets. It's one thing to have a spark 6th man, it's quite another to be wasting someone who is AHEAD of most starting SGs in points scored per 36 or 48 minutes by not having him start. Smith is alot more than just a spark obviously; sparks other than Ginobili and possibly a couple of other exceptions are no where near Smith's league. Also, having a truly outstanding spark 6th man is more of a luxury than a necessity, even among the best teams of the West. Ginobili not starting has for a long time been little more than a technicality, since he comes in so quickly and doesn't leave much after he comes in. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The problem this season is not that Carter starts, it is that Karl plays him too much. This problem becomes worse when Karl fails to recognize the teams that present bad match ups for Carter. The Lakers are one such team.</div> Here you are once again very close to agreeing with me. I'd say we are about 60% in agreement if you agree that Iverson does and can play PG effectively, and 40% in agreement if you disagree. Before this, I was thinking you were 0% to at best 20% in agreement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I seriously don't understand what you are saying about JR's fouls anymore? Are you saying that he guarded Kobe Bryant for two minutes and that all of his fouls came during that time? The only way you can rescue your point is by spelling out exactly what you meant with your first statement: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>JR Smith fouled out of the game defending Kobe for a couple of minutes</div> What does that mean??? </div> I can't believe I have to do this. Again, as soon as JR was forced to spend a couple of minutes guarding Kobe, he fouled out of the game. JR didn't have foul trouble until he guarded Kobe. When JR guards Kobe, he picks up fouls extremely fast. Recent evidence of this is the quick fouls he picked up in game 1. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, game 1 is not a textbook example of that. Go back and watch the second quarter again. The Nuggets played better with Najera than Camby on the floor. The Nuggets also cut the lead down in the 4th quarter with Camby on the bench.</div> It seems that you are agreeing with me and you don't realize it. As I already said, Camby without Nene or K-Mart up front is automatic disaster against a team like the Lakers. Same thing if it's Najera without Nene or K-Mart, with or without Camby. </div> No, I'm not even close to agreeing with you. The Nuggets got back into the game with Najera and LK guarding the 4/5 and Kenyon guarding Kobe. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, it does not mean that at all. It means that they need to be better coached and prepared. It also means that the Nuggets can't get in a huge hole because Anthony Carter can't play against the Lakers.</div> Now you are without a doubt agreeing with me. </div> You aren't going to find Nuggets fan that thought Anthony Carter should play against the Lakers. That is like saying, you agree with me that the sky is blue. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Well if all you are saying is that AI can't play PG all the time but can play it much of the time, you have flipped your position and you agree with me and I agree with you.</div> 1) No, I have not flipped my position. Again you never understood my position. 2) During the regular season, AI can't play PG more than half of his minutes on the court. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for AI's career, all it proves is that if a PG is moved to the SG position, there will be people making the logically fallacious argument that, judged by how he plays SG, he would not make a good PG. It is a logical trap, nothing more, nothing less.</div> Dude, you are so twisted on this subject. I'm sure that makes sense in your world, but it is really a completely meaningless statement. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>J.R. Smith is about 2nd in the NBA in the number of 20-point games from off the bench. It's another one of those facts that raises a huge red flag about the management of the Nuggets. It's one thing to have a spark 6th man, it's quite another to be wasting someone who is AHEAD of most starting SGs in points scored per 36 or 48 minutes by not having him start. Smith is alot more than just a spark obviously; sparks other than Ginobili and possibly a couple of other exceptions are no where near Smith's league. Also, having a truly outstanding spark 6th man is more of a luxury than a necessity, even among the best teams of the West. Ginobili not starting has for a long time been little more than a technicality, since he comes in so quickly and doesn't leave much after he comes in.</div> You are vastly overrating JR Smith. It isn't just about points per minute, which of course are pace inflated on the Nuggets, but it is about maturity and decision making. JR still has his good JR and bad JR moments on the court. The bad JR is very bad for the Nuggets chances of winning. Once JR was given and settled into the role of 6th man, the bad JR rarely shows up. You also don't understand what great teams are. I'm not comparing the Nuggets to other teams in the West this season, I'm talking about over the history of the NBA. Kukoc with the Bulls, Vinnie Johnson with the Bad Boy Pistons. Heck, Kevin McHale was a two time 6th man of the year award winner. The Showtime Lakers did things a little differently by bringing in their defensive stopper as their 6th man, but Michael Cooper was still a critical part of their success. If JR continues to develop and mature as he has this season, he'll eventually be a good starting SG. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here you are once again very close to agreeing with me. I'd say we are about 60% in agreement if you agree that Iverson does and can play PG effectively, and 40% in agreement if you disagree. Before this, I was thinking you were 0% to at best 20% in agreement.</div> All we agree on is that Anthony Carter shouldn't be playing more than a handful of minutes against the Lakers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I can't believe I have to do this. Again, as soon as JR was forced to spend a couple of minutes guarding Kobe, he fouled out of the game. JR didn't have foul trouble until he guarded Kobe. When JR guards Kobe, he picks up fouls extremely fast. Recent evidence of this is the quick fouls he picked up in game 1.</div> It still seems that you are saying that Smith got most or all of his fouls in two minutes, which I highly doubt. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, I'm not even close to agreeing with you. The Nuggets got back into the game with Najera and LK guarding the 4/5 and Kenyon guarding Kobe.</div> Najera played extremely well defensively and Martin played well defensively, fine. But the Nuggets as a whole were a total disaster defensively and the main reason was that K-Mart was too often out in god's creation guarding Kobe Bryant. When the cat is away, the mice will play, my friend. I used to wonder about why Nuggets fans trash Camby every time he has an off game as if he was worthless. Now I think I know the answer. Camby is expected to totally lock down the paint practically by himself while all the Nuggets forwards are rotating out to the perimeter all the time to make up for weak guard defending and weak transition defending. That is the underlying explanation for why Nuggets fans regularly trash the defensive player of the year. It's sort of the defensive other side of the coin of how too many think of Iverson's roll. Iverson is expected to be almost perfect, to do almost everything on offense well, and to play two positions at once. Similarly, Camby is expected to be just about perfect, to do almost everything on defense well, and to play two positions at once on defense. At the root of all of this is the difficulty too many people have understanding that since basketball is a team game, you can not expect one player to meet that set of expectations regularly no matter who they are. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You aren't going to find Nuggets fan that thought Anthony Carter should play against the Lakers. That is like saying, you agree with me that the sky is blue.</div> Well, since you are the only person I have ever met on the internet who disagrees with more than half of what I say, it is always going to be notable if you agree with anything I say. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1) No, I have not flipped my position. Again you never understood my position.</div> What you just said: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>During the regular season, because AI plays 40+ MPG, he has to have minutes where he isn't the PG. AI is not an effective NBA player when he forced to play PG all of his minutes and that is proven over his career.</div> This can be interpreted as you largely agreeing with me, because you are admitting that Iverson does play PG and you are not saying how limited this is. No one on our side is insisting that Iverson be the PG for ALL of the time he is out there. So your statement could be interpreted as being on our side. Don't make a statement open to two interpretations and then claim someone doesn't understand your position. Of course they don't understand your position, you didn't state it with enough detail. If you are claiming that Iverson should be the PG only for limited minutes. during when it makes no sense to have another PG (mostly Carter) out there, than that is what you should state. About all you have ever stated besides the relatively vague statement just quoted is that "Iverson can not play PG", another statement open to varying interpretations. You have never explained why Iverson can not be an effective PG without using the illogical approach of describing how he plays SG. And as indicated, you have left conflicting statements as to whether you think Iverson can be an effective PG or not. Your position is still not clear and, quite honestly, I don't think it ever will be clear. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>2) During the regular season, AI can't play PG more than half of his minutes on the court.</div> Well, this one even more strongly implies you have rethought your idea that Iverson can not play PG well at all, and that therefore he should not play the position. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dude, you are so twisted on this subject. I'm sure that makes sense in your world, but it is really a completely meaningless statement.</div> In my world, I don't make logically fallacious arguments. You make an illogical argument to me and I will catch it every time. Those who claim that AI can not run the point well need to come up with other arguments other than using how he plays the SG position. Otherwise, it is their statements that are meaningless, not mine. Just to make absolutely sure you understand, arguing that AI can not play PG well based on how he plays SG is like arguing that someone who lives in Florida would go beserk from the cold and snow if he were forced to live in Northern Minnesota. You don't know how that person would react to living in Northern Minnesota based on his living in Florida. He might love Northern Minnesota. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You are vastly overrating JR Smith. It isn't just about points per minute, which of course are pace inflated on the Nuggets, but it is about maturity and decision making. JR still has his good JR and bad JR moments on the court. The bad JR is very bad for the Nuggets chances of winning. Once JR was given and settled into the role of 6th man, the bad JR rarely shows up.</div> Don't make it sound like all immature players are forbidden from starting until they become mature. In fact, the relevant question is: why do some immature players with inconsistent decision making but a lot of raw skills get to start no questions asked while others are discriminated against viciously? Although I already had some answers for this in the special report series 'The J.R. Smith Fiasco," I will have more to say on this subject during the coming months in the special report series "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been." Also, if you do not start Smitty you don't find out for sure whether you are dealing with the good JR or the bad JR until deep into the second half, when it can be too late if you have the bad JR to take him out of the game and recover from the damage he has caused. Trying to depend on the bad JR to help you win in the 4th quarter is almost as asinine as not starting him. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>All we agree on is that Anthony Carter shouldn't be playing more than a handful of minutes against the Lakers.</div> Well, that's better than nothing. Seriously though, we definitely agree on more than just that, because I have caught you agreeing that AI can run the point without it being a disaster for the Nuggets offensively, and we both agree that Camby needs help of some kind in the paint or you can have a defensive disaster. Furthermore, you never ever said anything at all positive about JR Smith until now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It still seems that you are saying that Smith got most or all of his fouls in two minutes, which I highly doubt.</div> I give up. You are completely failing to understand simple statements. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Najera played extremely well defensively and Martin played well defensively, fine. But the Nuggets as a whole were a total disaster defensively and the main reason was that K-Mart was too often out in god's creation guarding Kobe Bryant. When the cat is away, the mice will play, my friend.</div> Again, the Nuggets were not a total disaster defensively and the score would have been much worse if Kobe was allowed to go off. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I used to wonder about why Nuggets fans trash Camby every time he has an off game as if he was worthless. Now I think I know the answer. Camby is expected to totally lock down the paint practically by himself while all the Nuggets forwards are rotating out to the perimeter all the time to make up for weak guard defending and weak transition defending. That is the underlying explanation for why Nuggets fans regularly trash the defensive player of the year.</div> No, Nuggets fans trash Camby because 1) they understand his weaknesses, 2) he takes games off even when he is playing in them and 3) they know he really isn't a good defender. People expect Camby to actually guard his man one on one occasionally and for to actually rotate out to open shooters when it is his responsibility. He often fails to do both of those. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's sort of the defensive other side of the coin of how too many think of Iverson's roll. Iverson is expected to be almost perfect, to do almost everything on offense well, and to play two positions at once. Similarly, Camby is expected to be just about perfect, to do almost everything on defense well, and to play two positions at once on defense. At the root of all of this is the difficulty too many people have understanding that since basketball is a team game, you can not expect one player to meet that set of expectations regularly no matter who they are.</div> None of the above paragraph is true. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This can be interpreted as you largely agreeing with me, because you are admitting that Iverson does play PG and you are not saying how limited this is. No one on our side is insisting that Iverson be the PG for ALL of the time he is out there. So your statement could be interpreted as being on our side. Don't make a statement open to two interpretations and then claim someone doesn't understand your position. Of course they don't understand your position, you didn't state it with enough detail.</div> My statement was very clear and not open to any interpretations. It is a comprehension issue on your part. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If you are claiming that Iverson should be the PG only for limited minutes. during when it makes no sense to have another PG (mostly Carter) out there, than that is what you should state. About all you have ever stated besides the relatively vague statement just quoted is that "Iverson can not play PG", another statement open to varying interpretations. You have never explained why Iverson can not be an effective PG without using the illogical approach of describing how he plays SG. And as indicated, you have left conflicting statements as to whether you think Iverson can be an effective PG or not. Your position is still not clear and, quite honestly, I don't think it ever will be clear.</div> Again, you are failing to comprehend very simple things. In a perfect world, the Nuggets would have a competent PG and AI would only play SG. Because they don't have such a PG, the Nuggets are forced to make due with AI spending some of his time at PG. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Well, this one even more strongly implies you have rethought your idea that Iverson can not play PG well at all, and that therefore he should not play the position.</div> Besides the fact that you continue to not comprehend my position and put words in my mouth, what you typed is false. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In my world, I don't make logically fallacious arguments. You make an illogical argument to me and I will catch it every time.</div> Whatever you want to believe. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Those who claim that AI can not run the point well need to come up with other arguments other than using how he plays the SG position.</div> Whatever you want to believe. Please continue on your quest to prove 2+2=5. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Otherwise, it is their statements that are meaningless, not mine. Just to make absolutely sure you understand, arguing that AI can not play PG well based on how he plays SG is like arguing that someone who lives in Florida would go beserk from the cold and snow if he were forced to live in Northern Minnesota. You don't know how that person would react to living in Northern Minnesota based on his living in Florida. He might love Northern Minnesota.</div> No, that is nothing like what has been presented about AI. Again, a complete failure on your part to comprehend. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Don't make it sound like all immature players are forbidden from starting until they become mature. In fact, the relevant question is: why do some immature players with inconsistent decision making but a lot of raw skills get to start no questions asked while others are discriminated against viciously?</div> First, there is no discrimination Second, there is a world of difference between a team trying to win a championship and team that can afford to live with the ups and downs a petulant child. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Also, if you do not start Smitty you don't find out for sure whether you are dealing with the good JR or the bad JR until deep into the second half, when it can be too late if you have the bad JR to take him out of the game and recover from the damage he has caused. Trying to depend on the bad JR to help you win in the 4th quarter is almost as assinine as not starting him.</div> There is nothing remotely true in the above paragraph <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Well, that's better than nothing. Seriously though, we definitely agree on more than just that, because I have caught you agreeing that AI can run the point without it being a disaster for the Nuggets offensively, and we both agree that Camby needs help of some kind in the paint or you can have a defensive disaster. Furthermore, you never ever said anything at all positive about JR Smith until now.</div> Camby could run the point for a few minutes a game without it being a disaster for the Nuggets. Lord knows he tries. Of course, the emphasis is on a few minutes. As far as Camby needing help, it all depends upon match ups. Bad things happen to the Nuggets defense when Camby has to guard a man.
The reason why Camby was caught off of Gasol so many times had nothing to do with what kind of man defender he is. Kobe beat Marting off the dribble a few times and dished it off when Camby came to help, Odom got offensive rebounds or drove it in, and did the same thing. LUKE WALTON burned Kleiza and Melo a couple times and dished it to Gasol. The nuggets team defense is terrible. Camby is the anchor but they need to keep martin down low with him, and pray that 1 perimeter player is capable of playing a good defensive game. Smith needs to keep coming off the bench and scoring, Najera just needs to do his thing, and Carter needs to be put on the IR. I think Karl will make some adjustments to the Triangle and their defense should be better next game with a much better result.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Again, the Nuggets were not a total disaster defensively and the score would have been much worse if Kobe was allowed to go off.</div> If you don't think 128 points with 60 points in the paint is a defensive disaster, I don't want to think about how bad it would have to be before you thought it was a disaster. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, Nuggets fans trash Camby because 1) they understand his weaknesses, 2) he takes games off even when he is playing in them and 3) they know he really isn't a good defender. People expect Camby to actually guard his man one on one occasionally and for to actually rotate out to open shooters when it is his responsibility. He often fails to do both of those.</div> Camby doesn't take games off, but it can seem that way to some degree if the Nuggets' forwards are missing assignments, rotations, or transitions, and it can also seem that way if a coach does something goofy like putting Kenyon Martin on Kobe Bryant. You have a unique talent and a special brand of defense in Camby that was good enough for him to be defensive player of the year. If you spoil that by screwing up the rest of the interior defense you have only yourself to blame. One man can not hold down the paint by himself, least of all Camby. But that doesn't mean Camby is not a valuable defender; he is very valuable in combination with a big man such as Nene or, at a minimum, Kenyon Martin. Take away Martin and what do you have? Swiss cheese. I SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's sort of the defensive other side of the coin of how too many think of Iverson's roll. Iverson is expected to be almost perfect, to do almost everything on offense well, and to play two positions at once. Similarly, Camby is expected to be just about perfect, to do almost everything on defense well, and to play two positions at once on defense. At the root of all of this is the difficulty too many people have understanding that since basketball is a team game, you can not expect one player to meet that set of expectations regularly no matter who they are.</div> YOU SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>None of the above paragraph is true.</div> Well, you must at least agree that basketball is a team sport! lol. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>My statement was very clear and not open to any interpretations. It is a comprehension issue on your part.</div> Your statements are almost never totally clear and are almost always open to various interpretations. I still don't know how much damage you think happens to the Nuggets offense while Iverson is playing PG, which is the heart of one of your arguments with me. You now have said that the Nuggets have been forced to use Iverson at PG, which is not technically so, because Carter has been playing more than 30 minutes a game, and Atkins and Taurean Green have been available for weeks. But leaving that confusion aside, and assuming you agree that Iverson has in fact been running the point, if you truly believe that Iverson can not run the point effectively, then how in the hell did the Nuggets win 50 games this year? You can NOT possibly win 50 games with no effective point guards. I SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Those who claim that AI can not run the point well need to come up with other arguments other than using how he plays the SG position.</div> YOU SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Whatever you want to believe. Please continue on your quest to prove 2+2=5.</div> If you want to think of it that way, in the series "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been," I will be proving that 10-3=7, or something close to that. When you relieve a combo guard of all PG responsibilities, you end up with less of a player than you could have had. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, that is nothing like what has been presented about AI. Again, a complete failure on your part to comprehend.</div> Nothing but the illogical stuff has been presented by your side on the AI issue. But hey, you have many moons to "present" why AI can not be an effective PG. All you have to do is avoid what everyone on your side does all the time; you have to avoid broad, sweeping statements that describe how he plays SG. If you can explain, with as much proof as you have, specific skills that Iverson lacks, or specific ways of thinking that Iverson is incapable of, which makes him unqualified to be a PG, then you score points in the argument. Also, is there any history you can point to of Iverson failing while being designated as the PG? But do not, I repeat, make broad, sweeping statements that are merely descriptions of how he plays SG. I SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Don't make it sound like all immature players are forbidden from starting until they become mature. In fact, the relevant question is: why do some immature players with inconsistent decision making but a lot of raw skills get to start no questions asked while others are discriminated against viciously?</div> YOU SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>First, there is no discrimination Second, there is a world of difference between a team trying to win a championship and team that can afford to live with the ups and downs a petulant child.</div> JR has been severely discriminated against due to overreaction to his immaturity. And under Karl, the Nuggets are not trying to win a Championship, they are just trying to show that the player personalities and the personality of the team as a whole are improving, so that at some unknown time in the future, they might finally have the personalities needed to make a run for the Championship. LoL at the way Karl thinks. JR Smith is not a "petulant child." He is a very young basketball player who unfortunately needs more experience on and off the court than the average player his age needs to be able to achieve more reliability and consistency. It is the anti-JR Smith crowd, the ones who not long ago were agreeing that Smith should not play at all, who are nothing more than petulant children, who think that every basketball player needs to be totally smooth, sophisticated, and free of any substantial downside, so as to not upset anyone's delicate sensitivities. It was that petulant crowd that was calling for Smith to be traded at all costs not long ago. I SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Also, if you do not start Smitty you don't find out for sure whether you are dealing with the good JR or the bad JR until deep into the second half, when it can be too late if you have the bad JR to take him out of the game and recover from the damage he has caused. Trying to depend on the bad JR to help you win in the 4th quarter is almost as assinine as not starting him.</div> YOU SAID: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There is nothing remotely true in the above paragraph</div> Lol again, at the idea that someone can think that it is a mistake to start Smith, but not think that it is dangerous to be at the mercy of his inconsistency in a decisive 4th quarter. Please, take one side or another. And if you think that Smith should not start and be pulled out after, say, 6-12 minutes of poor play, then, by all means, say that if that is your position. Although that would be immensely anti-Smith, it would at least be logically consistent. But you can't say that Smith is not good enough to start, but he is good enough to be a reliable crunch time performer. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Camby could run the point for a few minutes a game without it being a disaster for the Nuggets. Lord knows he tries. Of course, the emphasis is on a few minutes. As far as Camby needing help, it all depends upon match ups. Bad things happen to the Nuggets defense when Camby has to guard a man.</div> Camby should never be running the point and he should always be getting help from K-Mart in the paint. You can't run the Nuggets as if Nene is playing when he is clearly not playing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Apr 22 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reason why Camby was caught off of Gasol so many times had nothing to do with what kind of man defender he is. Kobe beat Marting off the dribble a few times and dished it off when Camby came to help, Odom got offensive rebounds or drove it in, and did the same thing. LUKE WALTON burned Kleiza and Melo a couple times and dished it to Gasol. The nuggets team defense is terrible. Camby is the anchor but they need to keep martin down low with him, and pray that 1 perimeter player is capable of playing a good defensive game. Smith needs to keep coming off the bench and scoring, Najera just needs to do his thing, and Carter needs to be put on the IR. I think Karl will make some adjustments to the Triangle and their defense should be better next game with a much better result.</div> I cosign most of this. And yes, one of the reasons you can't put Martin out on Kobe is because Melo is hardly at all improved on defending from prior years, and we all know how good he was in prior years, lol. If you think Carmelo Anthony is going to all of a sudden become a lock down paint defender just because you have decided to have Martin guard Bryant, then sorry, it won't work out for you. Camby needs help for his reasons and Melo needs help for his reasons. And those two need more help than is available from Najera and Kleiza. Against the best teams such as the Lakers, the Nuggets defense with no Nene is little more than a house of cards. Remove the Martin card and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Apr 22 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Camby doesn't take games off,</div> I was going to reply again point by point, but this comment demonstrates it isn't worth my time. Camby absolutely takes games off. Hell, the Nuggets front office and coaching staff consider it a great game from Camby if he gets 60% of his season averages on the second night of a back to back.
