Anyone who thinks the more you shoot the worse you shoot doesn't know basketball. If you are consistently getting open shots that is when you get on fire. If you are forgotten on the offense you lose that hot streak.
I honestly believe half the members here would debate for 12 pages the difference in taste of 2 different brands of bottled water....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Apr 3 2006, 11:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I honestly believe half the members here would debate for 12 pages the difference in taste of 2 different brands of bottled water....</div>Nothing wrong with that. At least its not worthless one liners.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone who thinks the more you shoot the worse you shoot doesn't know basketball. If you are consistently getting open shots that is when you get on fire. If you are forgotten on the offense you lose that hot streak.</div>That's my bad, I didn't phrase what I wanted to say correctly. What I meant was that the more you shoot, the higher the chance is that you will miss the shot. Think about it. The further into the game you are, and the more shots you are shooting, the more tired you are... and when you are tired, you have a higher probability of missing the shot.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well I know how Nash's game and I didn't realize Iguodala shot that well from 3 point range. Nevermind though since you won't quit. It is pointless on talking about what if's since you think the more you shoot the worse you get. Funny how when Dirk got a lot of scorers his field goal percentage dropped because he wasn't getting enough touches. Anyways I'll lock this thread because it obviously is painful for you to realize the truth. It is just pride of you not willing ot accept defeat at this point.</div>You want to know why I won't quit? It's because I have thoroughly refuted every single point you have made, whereas you have yet to refute a single point that I have made and continue to use the same old tired arguments without thinking them completely through and giving enough evidence to support them. Also, you resort to calling me an "Iverson homer" because he happens to be on my favorite team and Nash doesn't. So, are you a "Nash homer" because he used to be on your favorite team? Nitro was right, when somebody around here tries to make a valid case for anything supporting their team, they are called a homer. How pathetic is that?OK, so I'm the one who is not willing to accept defeat? Why should I accept defeat when you are the one who has yet to prove your assertion that Nash would make the Sixers a better team than Iverson? Every point you have brought up, I have thrown in right back at you, and you just leave it like that without trying to prove it right. Most people will make a point, and then when the other person gives their reason as to why they don't think it is true, the original poster will try to defend their ideas and refute their opponents response. But you don't do that, and that shows how much you don't even believe in your own arguments.I can't believe you would stoop to the level of locking the thread because you have realized that you have not been able to prove your assertion. And don't even try to say that I'm the one who can't accept defeat... you <u>already agreed that Nash does not make the Sixers a better team</u> but are trying to drag on the argument in the hope that something you actually post would make sense. Now that you see you have lost, you are going to resort to locking the thread? Is that what you do everytime you are wrong? Go ahead and lock it, it just shows how much of a coward you are and how you can't stand to be proven wrong repeatedly. Hell, take it like man, don't run away like a coward. It's a damn message board for God sake's. That's no way for an admin to act, and clearly would be an abuse of power.Now, if there was a valid reason to lock the thread, then that is another story, but the fact is their is no valid reason to lock this thread, unless being ashamed of your defeat is now a valid reason.
I was going to lock the thread because we are getting nowhere and sticking to our guns relentlessly. You obviously know more about the sixers and I know about Nash and the suns. It is just speculation on what I think will happen with Nash and the sixers so there is no way to prove that sixers offense will be better with Nash but I could visualize it being that way. Nash is just as good in the half court with the suns as in the fastbreak. The suns strategy is to outrun opponents and tire them out but I think Nash is just capable of creating open shots in the halfcourt as in the fastbreak. The idea of the more touches you have the better you shoot is how I got this idea of why players would do well with Nash. Players having to create their shots is a lot more tiring than just jacking them up. I could jack up shots all day and not get tired.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 11:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was going to lock the thread because we are getting nowhere and sticking to our guns relentlessly. You obviously know more about the sixers and I know about Nash and the suns. It is just speculation on what I think will happen with Nash and the sixers so there is no way to prove that sixers offense will be better with Nash but I could visualize it being that way. Nash is just as good in the half court with the suns as in the fastbreak. The suns strategy is to outrun opponents and tire them out but I think Nash is just capable of creating open shots in the halfcourt as in the fastbreak. The idea of the more touches you have the better you shoot is how I got this idea of why players would do well with Nash. Players having to create their shots is a lot more tiring than just jacking them up. I could jack up shots all day and not get tired.</div>To the first bold statement: I think we both saw that coming from the beginning of the argument.To the second bold statement: You're right, you are just speculating. But what I was saying, in addition to disproving your thinking that Nash would make the Sixers a better offensive team, was that making them a better offensive team won't get them a better record than they already have. Their weakness is defense, and unless Nash causes the team to have a big improvement on the defensive end of the floor, any offensive advancements they would make with him would be negated.I agree, but what I think you don't/aren't understanding is that nobody on the Sixers (aside from John Salmons and obviously AI) can create their own shot consistently. Webber can do it occassionally in the low-post, but more often than not he loses the ball, and he doesn't go down low all that much in the first place. Everybody on the Sixers, except Salmons, rely on Iverson to create for them. Iguodala can get to the basket, but he can't finish. He can dunk it, but he can't lay it up and finish that way.
