The sum total of your argument before you started talking down to people seemed to be, "He didn't play, so therefore he should not have played." In fact, that seems to be your justification (even now) for your "He's worse that Frye" position. Some of us don't agree with you. Look at his PER in his career and look at what he did when he got a chance to play for the Kings at the end of the season: he has the kind of game that some of us think would be a positive for the Blazers. Treating those of us who believe that like we are incapable of reading what you type makes you look silly, in my opinion. Ed O.
Ike Diogu has failed to impress 5 NBA coaches and 3 NBA GMs in four seasons in the league. In those TWO games you keep referring to, his TEAM performed WORSE at both ends of the court when he was in the game than when he wasn't. You cry small sample size, yet you insist that those TWO games are somehow more meaningful that the previous 2300 minutes of his NBA career. And no, that isn't my entire justification for my he's worse than Frye. I presented data that showed he's a worse defender than Frye. Here's the entire "heated" exchange that lead to this supposed controversy: Originally Posted by BrianWheeler and Bayless couldnt beat out Sergio for meaningful minutes.. whats your point? Originally Posted by Boob-No-More And Ike wasn't some raw rookie. He was a 4th year player. My point? Since you're incaple of figuring it out yourself: Channing Frye SUCKS. Channing Frye > Ike Diogu. That simple enough for you? How exactly is that any more harsh than KingSpeed's standard "Learn the game, then post" retort? How is that worse than saying I was acting like a 9-year old. I find it very rich, that you of all people, would accuse anyone of being condescending. BNM
Now 65. Just two more and we'll have one post for every assist he's dished out in his four year NBA career. BNM
Well it's harsher because you simply missed the point he was making, or you disagreed with it and decided to take an odd and unnecessary shot at another poster. The point he was making, I believe, is entirely valid: coaching decisions are not always good. Sergio played ahead of Bayless... should he have? Maybe. Or maybe not. Frye played ahead of Ike... should he have? Maybe. Or maybe not. Given how terrible Frye was this year, and how Ike did well when he finally got a chance, I'm a bit surprised that anyone would use the "coaches always know best" argument, but I'm more surprised that you lashed out like you did over nothing significant. Ed O.
As I said previously, if Ike's time in Portland had been unique, I could buy your "coaches DON'T always know best" argument. But it's not an isolated case, it's a clear pattern. Don Nelson, Rick Carlisle and Jim O'Brian all gave up on Ike before he got to Portland. So, this isn't just a case of Nate McMillan making a "poor choice". Since you're such a big Ike Diogu fan, please explain why he's failed to find a permanent role on any of the teams he's played for. Why has he struggled to get minutes on some really bad teams, or playing behind a horrible player like Channing Frye in Portland? There must be some reason all of these coaches keep giving up on him and why multiple GMs didn't hesitate to ship him out of town when they had a chance. Are they ALL wrong? Is Ike Diogu really some undiscovered, under appreciated stud back-up power forward? Or, maybe do these coaches and GMs know what they are doing and can clearly see the negative net impact Ike has when he's on the floor? BNM
How are those coaches doing lately? Did Carlisle keep his job? Do you think Natt will? Is Don Nelson winning a lot of games lately? Jim O'Brien leading his team to the playoffs in the mighty eastern conference? How did Nate playing Frye at the backup power forward work out? Are you arguing that the teams that Ike has been on have been well coached? Or that the coaches have, generally, gotten the most out of their roster and converted it to wins? Or maybe you'd like to argue that Ike is a coach killer? I don't claim that Ike is--or ever will be--an all-star level player. He might never even be a starting-level player. But he's been very effective as an offensive player and I think that he IS under-appreciated and under-played based on how he's produced. If you disagree? That's cool. I still am confused why you're getting your panties in a wad over it. Ed O.
The four I mentioned (I never mentioned Natt, since he is an interim coach) are all still employed as head coaches in the NBA with over 2200 combined wins. I'd say they are doing pretty well. I'd also say they all know a lot more about NBA basketball and what it takes to win at that level than you or me. I'm not arguing any of those things. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I'm merely stating that Ike Diogu has failed to earn (or keep) a spot in the rotation for every NBA team and coach he's played for - and if a player can't get regular PT under multiple coaches on multiple teams that there must be a reason why - and the reason is that the player simply isn't very good. Are you arguing that you know more than ALL of those coaches and that they ALL totally blew it on Ike Diogu and should have ALL given him more minutes and a regular spot in their rotations even though the stats at 82games.com clearly show that ALL of those teams performed worse at both ends of the court when he was in the game? The thing about NBA coaches is they like to win basketball games. It's the only way they stay employed. Every NBA coach Ike has played for has come to the conclusion that playing Ike significant minutes hurts their team's chance at winning. Why else would they not play him more and give him regular minutes? When multiple NBA coaches all give up on a player it tells me that player is not a positive contributor. Yes, Ike can score, but he consistently gives up more points than he produces. The net effect is that his play has a negative impact on his team's chances at winning. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why did Don Nelson, Rick Carlisle, Jim O'Brian and Nate McMillan all come to the same conclusion, but you stubbornly insist otherwise? Yes, I do disagree. As I've stated repeatedly, I value team play and defense and consider them key factors in winning basketball games. Based on his performance, Ike Diogu clearly is far below average in both areas. And to me, that's the obvious reason that coach after coach after coach after coach has given up on him and refused to give him a bigger role on their teams. And, I'm still confused why you, as a moderator, continue to insult, belittle and taunt me for disagreeing with your position. Can you not simply state your position without the childish jabs? BNM
He argued these things as much as you argue that playing IKE on these teams would make them championship contenders... on the other side - it is interesting to note that you conveniently left Nate who did lead his team to a HCA and 54 wins by playing Frye instead of IKE. Think we could have challenged the Lakers for #1 seed in the conference if he played IKE? It's absolutely amusing to see you guys attacking a guy for his "meltdown" while doing the same... Geez. It's IKE freaking Diogu - he is an average backup on a good day.
His moment in the sun was that picture he took with those 4 ASU girls. It's been a long ride downhill ever since. Hope he's still planning on that video game internship this summer. Ike sucks. Frye is a better player than Ike, which is why he played over him, and would play over him on another team. Probably any other team in the league. Ike is basically Z-Bo without the offensive moves. Which is pretty much why he doesn't win playing time.
Just goes to show, college success doesn't mean shit in The League! Led the Pac-10 in scoring and rebounding back to back years I think.
