Brook Lopez could be pulled from the RMR

Discussion in 'Brooklyn Nets' started by GMJ, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. GMJ

    GMJ Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,067
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We're hearing from several people that the Nets might pull Brook Lopez out of the Rocky Mountain Revue. No injuries, nothing urgent. They've seen enough from him already, and they just want to give some of the other bigs a chance to play longer minutes. But it's still under discussion.</div>

    Nets Blast
     
  2. Netted

    Netted Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I think he should play and hang with the team. They need to bond and it's not good to have one guy already getting special treatment.

    Just limit his minutes.
     
  3. Netted

    Netted Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

    I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.
     
  4. Claud

    Claud Legendary

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Full-time Student
    Yeah come on people! He's a rook and HAS to be there with the rest of the group... Like netted said "They have to bond"

    Also I didn't like the article that much..
     
  5. Dumpy

    Dumpy Yi-ha!!

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,231
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

    I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

    I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
     
  6. Kidd Karma

    Kidd Karma Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

    I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

    I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
    </div>

    In my mind, given the youth of the club, there will be nights where we upset the Celtics or Sixers and blow a game against Memphis or Bobcats. Youth breeds inconsistency. But there are solid blocks in Harris, VC. The discovery phase comes into play when we see what Yi, CDR, Lopez can do on a regular basis. It's a 2 year process to discover who's going to be on the roster when King joins in.
     
  7. danxcr

    danxcr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kidd Karma @ Jul 16 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

    I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

    I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
    </div>

    In my mind, given the youth of the club, there will be nights where we upset the Celtics or Sixers and blow a game against Memphis or Bobcats. Youth breeds inconsistency. But there are solid blocks in Harris, VC. The discovery phase comes into play when we see what Yi, CDR, Lopez can do on a regular basis. It's a 2 year process to discover who's going to be on the roster when King joins in.
    </div>


    heh... we blew so many games against teams under .500 last season... *cough memphis twice* (one with jason collins playin for memphis!!!
     
  8. BrooklynBound

    BrooklynBound Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

    I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

    I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
    </div>
    Having superstars does not guarantee success, but not having them all but guarantees not winning the big one. One team in 25 years has won without one.
     
  9. Lavalamp

    Lavalamp Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

    I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

    I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
    </div>
    Having superstars does not guarantee success, but not having them all but guarantees not winning the big one. One team in 25 years has won without one.
    </div>
    Pistons would probably be the first to come to mind, they just played good team ball on the offensive and defensive ends. I wouldn't consider Chauncy, Rip or Sheed to be superstars.

    Oh now I'm guessing the "One team" is Detroit.

    But I mean you could also say, the year before 2007-08. No one considered Paul Pierce a superstar. KG I guess might still have superstar status, but he is kind of a half-superstar compared to Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, and Chris Paul.
     
  10. danxcr

    danxcr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


    but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed [​IMG]
     
  11. Lavalamp

    Lavalamp Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


    but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed [​IMG]</div>
    If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
     
  12. Uneek

    Uneek Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Paul Pierce is a solid player and sure has some game... but compare him to VC and Tmac?? please no.... they shyt on Pierce all day...

    so back to the topic, so Lopez had a good start and people reckon to pull him out of the team to save his energy or something.... what is the point the dude is a rook... don't know why some people think like that sometimes...
     
  13. Cmoney707

    Cmoney707 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


    but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed [​IMG]</div>
    If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
    </div>

    Anyone who says VC and TMac aren't superstars is borderline crazy
     
  14. BrooklynBound

    BrooklynBound Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I take Pierce over Carter.
     
  15. kk30

    kk30 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Uneek @ Jul 16 2008, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul Pierce is a solid player and sure has some game... but compare him to VC and Tmac?? please no.... they shyt on Pierce all day...

    so back to the topic, so Lopez had a good start and people reckon to pull him out of the team to save his energy or something.... what is the point the dude is a rook... don't know why some people think like that sometimes...</div>
    I wouldn't say Tmac and VC shyt on pierce. Pierce is just as good as them if not better and I'm not just saying that because he has a ring. Hes always been right up there with them.
     
  16. danxcr

    danxcr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    umm id take VC over pierce anyday... [​IMG] just cause!!! hahah
     
  17. Claud

    Claud Legendary

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Full-time Student
    VC>PIERCE IMHO. Now that he has a ring its obvious theyll take Pierce... but individually Carter is much better and complete.
     
  18. BrooklynBound

    BrooklynBound Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Jul 16 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>VC>PIERCE IMHO. Now that he has a ring its obvious theyll take Pierce... but individually Carter is much better and complete.</div>
    How so? Pierce is a better defender, plays hungrier and embraces being the go-to guy.
     
  19. Lavalamp

    Lavalamp Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 16 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


    but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed [​IMG]</div>
    If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
    </div>

    Anyone who says VC and TMac aren't superstars is borderline crazy
    </div>

    Well it depends on how exclusive superstardom is, is it the top 3 NBA players? top 5 NBA players? The top 10?
     
  20. danxcr

    danxcr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 16 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


    but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed [​IMG]</div>
    If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
    </div>

    Anyone who says VC and TMac aren't superstars is borderline crazy
    </div>

    Well it depends on how exclusive superstardom is, is it the top 3 NBA players? top 5 NBA players? The top 10?
    </div>


    well according to nba 2k8 there are
    Bench warmers
    Prospects
    Role players
    6th man
    Starters
    Allstars
    Superstars
    Legends!

    hahaha well in seriousness VC is TOP 10 in the NBA... thats rite i said IT!
     

Share This Page