I must have forgotten what my thesis is. What is it? Originally, it was that Stotts damaged Nurkic' game (see thread title). Did I have a second theme?
when coach says: "I didnt run any plays for him", that speaks volumes most points he gets, its by himself or thanks to Dame
Nurk has the body of a real workhorse center but the mentality of a power forward who wants to be flashy with the finger rolls, floaters, needlessly going glass. He needs to finish and finish hard.
His game will eventually come together and he’ll be a really good center for us. Assuming we don’t trade him
Is the forum really going to make Nurk the next Meyers scapegoat around here? The guy is going to be a beast for years to come...he's still growing!
Totally agree. He's developing, and has a huge upside. It's all there to mode. He and Dame have built nice chemistry that will only get stronger.
let me give you a compliment: youre a very smart man, I like the way you think! can I be your friend Mr. @riverman
people seem to forget, or they dont know it, but Nurk started playing basketball at the age of 14 and by his 19 birthday he was in the NBA so let me put it into perspective: in 5 years from someone who didnt even know how to run to the NBA... take from it what you want I believe his flaws are cause of that and that those flaws will get fixed with time and for the sake of the POR, lets hope it happens sooner rather than later
You new o-live posters need to go read this thread. Some of you older members should also re-read this thread. Going to be fun to bump this thread in a couple years tho. http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/c-j-is-horrible.277912/
Damn there are really people who still belive that 'Nurkic has Potencial' bullshit haha ok i will tell you, in 5 years he will be still the same inefficiency player without range and still throw akward hook shots or long 2s and misses them badly that's Why we allways be mediocre, because we belive to much in Potencial on mediore Players.
I was referring to your pop psychoanalysis of Meyers Leonard. the·sis: 1. a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved. 2. a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a college degree. I was combining the two definitions. PhD candidates are usually required to successfully defend their thesis against a panel of experts in order to receive their doctor of philosophy degree. The Dr. Phil comment was a double entendre. Although the most common abbreviations for the doctor of philosophy are usually PhD or Ph.D., Dr. phil is also used on occasion. It is also the name of this judgmental, sanctimonious asshole who rose to prominence as a regular guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show: Any joke that requires that much explanation clearly missed its mark. I'll dumb it down in the future. BNM
All you needed to explain it was your first sentence, above. I won't list the degrees of both of my parents, their parents' Masters degrees in the 1910s, my siblings, me, my dog, I have no pets, I am flea-free from me, etc. I watched 10 minutes of Dr. Phil about 15 years ago, couldn't stand his religiously simplistic Southern-style solutions, and never watched again. Same for Oprah 10 years before that--once, and only a few minutes before I barfed. And I had thought Phil Donahue was bad! Each decade gets worse. Same for the music. My post about Leonard was descriptive, not analytical. It just recounted surface-level facts that I and others reported on this board in his early years. I didn't delve into his psychology. (I could, if you'd like. Better, how about yours?) So thanks for explaining American culture as if I'm a new poster from Bosnia, because it will probably make them and the moderators a lot smarter. Everyone should have a motto. But let's keep the thread about Nurkic.®™
