I like to think of Mo as an X factor. He can burn you or the other team, and you don't really know what you're going to get until he's played for a bit. I've seen him save the Blazers, and I've seen the Blazers have to save themselves from Mo. In the end, I feel that despite the stats, he does what Stotts is looking for: He comes into the game, changes the pace, gives the opposition something unpredictable, which can go good or bad. Let's be honest here, as we settle into the season, teams have had time to study each other and come up with some good game plans to shut each other down and take opponents out of their comfort zone. I personally feel that since Stotts is more focused on sticking with the plan, and fighting to stick with the system no matter what- as apposed to making match-up specific changes often- that other teams are having an easier time exposing our weaknesses. I'm not against this necessarily, as I would do the same thing if I struck gold like Stotts has with how well the team has played this season. However, since we have stuck with the exact same system, Mo has the ability to mix things up every game. He's that random, crazy guy who's talented and experienced enough to throw a massive monkey wrench into the gears of the opposition, but he's also stubborn enough to make things even worse. I like to think of Mo as a little bit of outrageous character for the Blazers' very even and plain personality this season. His play reminds me of Crawford. He had some good games for us, and a lot of selfish ball-hogging crap. He went to the Clippers and basically played the same role last season that Mo has this season, and it worked out pretty well for them.
I like Mo the person a lot. I think he's a good dude. I think he has been a positive, veteran influence on the team. For that I'm grateful. I also appreciate his ability to generate instant offense. We have been sorely lacking that on our bench for a while now. He is easily an upgrade over Nolan Smith or Ronnie Price or any other backup we've had over the years. For those reasons, I appreciate him.
if Mo shoots without making a single pass in a possession, I want to set his car on fire. When he shares the ball, he can shoot whenever and from wherever he likes as long as it's either in the flow of the offense or with the shot clock winding down.
Crawford is a good comparison. The main difference is the Clippers always had Crawford in with a PG. (Bledsoe or CP3) Crawford only had to focus on catching and shooting last year. Mo has to score AND run the offense. So I give him credit for balancing it as well as possible. Plus I think he will get more comfortable with his new teammates as the season goes along. Even though the 2nd unit continues to change every few games. That makes it harder.
The Thunder have a better +/- with Durant off the court, so he is a below average SF? You can find advanced stats to argue for or against any player.
Actually, they don't. Every stat needs to be used in context and understood what is actually being shown.
Not nearly as hard on him as most of you. And I kind of like him. I understand why he was brought here. Yes he is a point guard but he was brought in for his scoring. To shoot the ball. To get quick points off the bench. Kind of to fulfill a Vinny Johnson role. I feel he has been effective. But in the end he is here for his scoring at a bargain price. I think he pays off more than he hurts us. A lot of you guys need to put his role in perspective . He is here to shoot and score. And if that means putting the team in tough positions at times I guess that's what it means. He is the best and most player we have coming off the bench. You remove him, what do you have?
Mine waits till we're out of bed and on the second cup of coffee before saying anything...what's your secret?
This is exactly one of the things I really like about Mo. Maybe if we keep repeating it, it will catch on. And when he has LA in the game, it's works like oxyclean on sweat stains - magic.
Mo always posts cool pics of he and the team, and his family, that we'd never get to see otherwise. Although, I could do without the weird sock fetish pics.
This is the basis for a majority of my counter arguments. People find an advanced stat (or more) and assert it as a comprehensive fact that explains the entire context. It is frowned upon. I think it's posted just to clear the air with some soft ball fodder to poke fun at. One of funniest things about all this, and it's been posted already is "Dwight Jaynes" using "Advanced Stats." Like either, someone finally explained to him what they are this year, or more than likely, he just read what someone else wrote and regurgitated the anti-mo mantra because he is starved for relevance.
