Bryon Russell Quote

Get off it. You are the one making this all personal. Say I am being stealthy all you want, and therefore instigated it, but your reaction alone shows how you overreacted thinking this is all personal.

You criticized the coach with exaggeration; I criticized the fan who criticizes the coach with exaggeration. You are not so big that I take pleasure in make it personal with you. My point was much broader than you.

thousands and thousands of people read your recaps. You are Clutch; a legitimate beat reporter,,,imo. No one...no one can produce that passionate recaps like you. No way I could. You are a gem. yet, you have a serious problem with criticism. There can be more knowledgeable fans than you who critique your writing without it being personal. sheesh.

imo, you overreacting and that is why you didn't even address your first exaggeration, until now, because you took way too much offense to me and butted in on a side tangent with BGM to prove the critic wrong.

In your criteria, the first play was Game One...Mobley found Thomas for a layup. so you were wrong!

The first "big play" was LA, everyone knows that and recognizes it. It took 9 games, because Rudy handed the ball to Francis all the time. He is trying to have Mobley take a backseat to Francis as the end game go-to guy. The <b>Rice play was an inbounds play on our side of the court</b>, and if you don't think those are big plays called from the bench.........I don't know. <b>The Third</b> was a NY double pick for Mobley after a timeout; <b>the 4th</b> was NY on the Sprewel move. I defy you to find another one called from the bench on a stoppage and insuing inbounds play on our side of the court! None of yours were. I even acknowledge to BGM that Mobley has shot the last 4 times. Whereas you want even admit none of your plays were consider "big plays" as I was trying to address with BGM.

Do you really think I don't remember every called play to Mobley in the last minute. No one loves Mobley more than me; I vividly remember them all, and I have tape and my own notes. Some people can have different memories of Mobley and Rudy called plays than you. It is not reason to attack in your classic "pick apart a post out of context without acknowledge the gist of it" manner.

<b>90% of late game plays are NOT iso's</b>

I'm willing to bet that every single one of Rudy's called plays to Mobley until Utah were not ISOs. Further, Francis has run many, many big plays this year, and no way 90% of those were ISOs. Go research your notes on that Clutch.

You can't take criticism that your opening post was utter exaggeration to say "90% of EVERY close game we run ISO." So, all you can do is search for exaggeration from me.

You want efficiency and proof.

<b>Mobley shot 46% on FGs to close out the last 54 games last year</b>, and shot over 88% on FTs. Mobley is shooting 41% on three pointers this year. Jim Boylen (our guard coach) is on record saying that plays run by Mobley last year were the most efficient on the Rockets. Sure, he is not efficient this year, but he has it in him. Brent Barry is more efficient shooter, but he cannot be a playmaker anymore than Hornachek can. You wish for Hornacheck and Barry will first require a stud PF or center. We don't have it, so Rudy is correct in using Mobley and Francis the way he did and does.

This is NOT personal Clutch. You get tired of Mobley and Rudy. I get tired of exaggerations of Mobley and Rudy.

You won't even stop the exaggerations here...just keep trying to pound me with them. So, who is getting personal?

 

I agree that Mobley is a valuable player... but does anybody believe he's a smart player? I know Crispee likes him more than most... but wouldn't even he agree that he needs to use his head a bit more?

I finally got to watch more of the Rockets over the Christmas vacation... and some of his jumpers are just awful, low percentage shots that should be taken, at most, once or twice a game to keep the defender on his toes.

 

THANK YOU CLUTCH for ushering in the return of SANITY to the BBS!

Regarding Mobley, I couldn't possibly agree with you more. Mobes should be seriously benched, maybe even considered a project. I see his potential, but when I see many of his bone-headed plays I think of Roderick Rhodes.

 

Who can't let it go??

This is going way out of line. Can we talk basketball please? Cut the damn soap opera histrionics.

Where is this a "granstanding fight" worthy of you putting someone is his place...yet again? Slap me silly and yank my willie, I am outta control! Maybe...just maybe you are overreacting to basketball analysis criticism. I did not go after you; I went after the exaggeration...and abstractly. If you notice, I even called you correct for saying ISOs were the primary play call, last year. I'm not all in your face.

I apologize for criticizing your post. And I apologize for upsetting you. But please cut the crap that I am grandstanding an admin here, and trying to "discredit" you. How can mock writing by selecting words carefully to follow the pattern restricted by your original words come off sounding like, "Clutch is not as smart as me...listen to me....I know more." Don't try to give it equal weight like I'm grandstanding. And it is plan calling me a liar to say you knew my real intentions. That was not my intention. I apologize if you felt that way

The rest of my writing here is arguing over basketball and Rockets history. So what? I feel like I'm on pens and needles everytime I try to argue you. But I have no evil intention. I just want to argue with posters and equally agree with large numbers...give kudos all the time. I give you kudos; I argue with you. I give oeilpere kudos; I argue with him. Man, I'd so much like to argue with Feigen, because he could teach me a lot. Jeff and I argue, but I think we take great joy in agreeing as well.

verse and I have argued and nearly masterbated on each other with agreement. I've tried to abuse achebe on basketball analysis, and he emails several times every week as friends. And Achebe is soooo right...I do like the NBA better this year with the Rules changes. I was WRONG, Achebe!! cato13 got pissed at me in the Sunshine Asses like a Dream Stroke for saying "big ass black guy" and we had a long talk about race, yet he gave me the Indiana 3OT tape to tape for everyone, and I met his wife, and we agree a lot about basketball...even after arguing about Francis last year. Tacoma Park Legend and I argued about Francis last year, now I think we are amazingly in agreement this year and he's teaching me a lot to look for in the game.

I call DaDakota, DuhDakota sometimes and BahDakota. He calls me an "ass" back, and calls me childish...then in the next breath he says..."I love this game." But does he say I'm grandstanding or discrediting him. Sure I don't like to be wrong, and I can get embarrassed for it...and how about you? But to be embarrassed here and doing all the grandstanding that you say I am...I have to first believe I'm wrong...wouldn't I.

Clutch you strike me as a rabid fan being the voice who will say it like it is. I can talk basketball with you too, if you stop thinking I'm trying to discredit you.

<b>Who is trying to Discredit Who?</b>

Call me wrong about the first three plays all you want, like I am going to stop believing the LA play was the first (which was my original point to BGM); the rest were from pure memory to playfully pile it on until he said "uncle." Call it me trying to be oh so smart and "matter of fact"...when it was a trivia challenge to make a trivial point. Would the answer even prove anything right or wrong about Mobley, aside from saying that he has indeed passed...and fancy that...the first last second play in fact. I'm thinking...isn't that trivial and cute to point out. Was I grandstanding BGM or trying to embarrass or discredit? Why paint all these evil intentions on me?

Who is trying to discredit who? I guess now all I'm doing is retreating from Clutch pointing out the Rice play wasn't BGM's criteria.

I recall the Rice play as a 20 sec timeout. I was wrong; it was a foul giving us 20 seconds to call a play. It was a big play nonetheless, and it was the second one...OK with 1:15 or something on the clock. If not that, then the double pick to Mobley that followed was the second one....and I thought it was a great, intinctive pass for Mobley to notice Moochie's man leave him to give it right back to Mooch. Then I said all the rest were shots as BGM stated. So, what kind of point could I possibly be making...merely a trivial one.

and then you overreact.

<b>Can we have a basketball discussion, now</b>

If you'd back off one aota, you'd allow my point that I said in other threads (maybe this one) that I think Mobley is second-guessing himself starting with the LA pass and the Sprewell shot. Second-guessing by Mobley is a terrible combination to go with his contrived "playmaking." It is a shame. But I think Mobley will pull out of his mind funk, and start playing on intuition again, and let's hope a little bit of the lesson's learned will sharpen his intuition.

<b>Rockets bottomline:</b> I like to talk basketball without exaggeration and frustration. If my "grandstanding" criticism (as you call it) will get people to examine Rudy's plays a little closer to make their own opinion that maybe your opening post was from exaggeration and frustration, then maybe our general discussion can move on to allowing new plays to be discussed. Maybe even *you* willl start allowing for the possibility that the Rockets are on an evolutionary track. That would be great if we could talk about that on down the road...as more close games are seen. I wasn't trying to discredit you. Dismiss the exaggeration to challenge all fans to take a fresh new look, yes, but not some evil intention to do... hmmm...I don't even know what to call it. maybe some can tell me. It is like the whole "clique" argument, how that is inexplicable...like this BBS is a soap opera.

<b>BBS Bottomline</b>...you know how you like to rip people with fact after fact to prove their reasoning false, especially trolls from other teams. It is fun, isn't it? It is like..."wow...jab...got him again. This is really going to discredit him." Well, you think that way and love to do those posts. I'm sure you take a thrill in it. My jabs have a different motivation closer to trying to spur conversation and make people think. Sure, the utter discredit posts are fun indeed...but that was not my intention here. Mocking is not discrediting. <b>Accept both my apology and my resistance not to apologize. But let's not turn this into a bunch of grandstanding.</b>

 

shanna/Major said it best -- some of you are degrading the BBS with Ashcroft-like "you're not a Rocket fan!" or "you just hate Cuttino!" statement posts to anyone who criticizes or doesn't pull your marketing sled. Suddenly we're not fans? Pffft. Idiots.

But hey, never mind numbers. Keep going with the "mass hatred" angle. Probably work better for you since it's a WitchHunt-esque accusation, based on nothing factual, that no one can prove to be true or false.

If these quotes don't suggest hatred of Cuttino, they are far from objective. My posts about Cuttino and other players are dictated by the attitude of the BBS. Far too often many fans here give one player too much credit and another player not enough credit. I support the team, not a player, and if someone is getting unjustly criticized I'm going to respond in the method I do. I'm all for being objective... but if some people here are going to be biased against him, he needs some people to be biased for him to balance it out somewhat. Are these quotes biased? Decide for yourself... but they sure look that way to me.

Put Cat on the IR for five games so he can rest his ankles, and I bet you anything that the Rockets would score over 100 points in at least four of the five games. The offense simply clicks when Steve runs things and Mobley takes a back seat.

To tell you the plain truth I want Mobley out of Houston. Please trade him. He is not making anybody around him better, he is selfish and he is really high maintenance.

Mobley will never learn.

Cuttino by no means counts as our go to guy in the fourth.

Mobley (even if he is on fire) looks like he may be hurting the team.

So in essence Cat is saying to himself and to the guy guarding him that no matter what the circumstances, no matter how many guys collapse on him, no matter how wide open his teammates are, no matter what develops, hes gonna shoot the mother freakin ball! Wow! I think this proves just how narrow and limiting Cats vision really is out there. This type of thinking sucks the basketball talent right out of him. (taking all this from the quote "He warned me," Harrington said. "I appreciate that."

Many people argued for Mobley saying he was the go to guy at the end of the games. Well, I don't think there is any debate now. (after one game winner from Steve)

The problem with the Rockets is that Mobley is a role player who thinks he is a superstar

he has become a tunnel vision-selfish player--his trade value would be high

I think Cuttino Mobley should be our sixth man (Suggesting that Oscar Torres should start ahead of Cat)

These are just a few of the dozens of similar quotes that aren't even close to objective about Cuttino's game. I'll be happy to be objective if everyone else is... if not, someone needs to stand up for Cuttino since he gets all this unwarranted criticism.

 

Yes, I do. Yet, I don't, really. I do because, yes, he is so damned contrived on playmaking and thrives only on reflex. That combination creates mistakes...horrible mistakes.

No I don't consider him "stupid," because so much of basketball is reflex. Tunnel vision and focus on the rim is an art, imo. I respect it a great deal. When I learned my high, quick release, turnaround fadeaway at the elbow, I tasted a little of what tunnel vision is. I've read people say that Russell's hand was in Mobley faces blocking the view of the rim. No it isn't. Hands never stop tunnel vision from zeroing in on the target...never. The rim is too big, and you only need to size up the distance.

btw: Mobley's shot was wrong. I do not agree with taking that. I would have talked to him after the game. I'm only using that example, because I read someone say the hand blocks his view.

Tunnel vision is unteachable. The players have to learn it on their own, and giving them reps during real games can help it. I strongly believe that is what Rudy decided to do when he tossed in the towel when Barkley's career ended. The ISOs were to test how well Mobley could improve his tunnel vision in a losing year. He improved enough to force major defensive adjustments, and Rudy fully embraced it.

I wouldn't ask Mobley to change much...I'd only consider stuff like repositioning him. As a coach, I'd try to hide is limitations, not force them to improve. And I certainly would never brow-beat Mobley like Cartwright would, because tunnel vision should not think much. I think that is a stupid thing for a coach to do during the game. Seems like Larry Bird agrees, wouldn't you think? Making the tunnel vision players think can backfire. They can get worse, not better. Look at Moochie. He is definitely better at reflex than planning. I'd say Francis is not beyond this critique, as well.

You just tell those players; "You know. Basketball is your game This is your team. This is your life and career. Learn your limitation and how to win." But I wouldn't pull him for mistakes. They are his mistakes; it is his game. Let him lose it or win it without the added pressure that he has to do right for the purity of basketball and us fans. Let his teammates criticize him in practice. The coaches job is to give the ball to Francis more and reposition Mobley. And imo, the ball is going to Francis to control at a higher clip, especially late in the game...and we need him to play better as well.

I would not change the offense to allow Mobley to think more. I would not embarrass Mobley; I would not sit his defense down, either. I think those are all mistakes.

My favorite players are guys like Jason Kidd...the smartest of them all. That is why I am so critical of Francis. Because I don't think he has enough basketball sense to give him a complicated offense to run.

Mobley is definitely not going to be able to run complicated plays. He even gets in the way on the weakside sometimes, when he doesn't have the ball. I like to talk about what Rudy is doing when he has players who can't execute complexity. Why yell at Rudy when the players have limitations...that's what I don't get.

<b>Is saying Mobley is Stupid, and Rudy is coaching bad basketball mutually exclusive</b>

The argument that Mobley is stupid, to follow with Rudy isn't coaching good basketball is somewhat mutually exclusive, imo.

Constructive criticism of Rudy starts with realizing Mobley can't be a fancy playmaker, yet he can make the game easier for teammates by just standing there. Francis needs help by simplicity as well. I like to accept the offensive system (even though I prefer the Passing Game), and from there talk about why it is there and how Rudy and the players are using it.

It is just a better conversation if you don't say Rudy is coaching bad basketball in the same breath that Mobley is stupid. And that is what Clutch did with his opening post. It just doesn't make sense to me, and is somewhat a masochistic way to view the Rockets.

<b>My question back to you haven:</b> Let's assume Rudy and Boylen have discussed every offensive system and tried different approaches with the guards and have found this to be our most successful system (given Mobley's shooting 46% in the last 54 games last year at 21ppg somewhat telling of how well it can work), then how do you have a discussion about using Mobley?

 

Wow,

I thought the Miller vs Shaq rumble was interesting.

DD

 

Clutch,

Damn dude, you have a real problem with criticism and winding down an argument with attempts at agreement. Bringing more and more....flat out exaggeration my intentions, calling me a liars, cursing me, saying I am out to discredit you Gestopo style rather than merely arguing. Get a grip, it is obviously you are way overreacting here and going for someone's head, like your personal reputation depends on his or something.

Here's futher proof of you going after my head in a wrongful overreaction.

I said Cuttino shot 46% to close out the last 54 games, <b>last year.</b> The point is that he can excel when we are winning. You just read what you want into my writing...it is so evidently clear.

Read my stat line again you norom. (At that is for the Jackass remark and calling me a liar again about wanting to discredit you.)

This is more proof that you always misread me, just like last summer.

You really are way overreacting here.

Hey, I recognize that quote from Caveman. Read the last post <a href="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26951&perpage=30&pagenumber=2">here</a> Nice choice of reference, Clutch. I recommend not using Caveman in any College Thesis's.

Sometimes working out obvious miscommunication and reconciliation requires many words. Especially if you want to apologize for the sake of friendship yet resist it because you don't know why you are apologizing.

I like the way you never attempt this.

I like the way you are accepting apologies like a big boy, yet never trying to say that you could possibly be overreacting or exaggerating you first post of 90% of Close Games.

First, that is the one thing Mobley does well...along with the pick n roll. Jim Boylen tracked those at 60% success last year. If you don't believe that, then at least believe the coaches think they are highly effective versus anything else they run.

Second, out of all the shots we are talking about here, only one was an isolation, only Utah was. So who is passing the bad data and not willing to admit their opening post started with exaggerations.

You passed the bad information...not me. You can't deal with the thought of someone saying that. Face it. And that is why you are trying way too hard to discredit me here.

 

Cool. A cat fight between the big dogs. Hows that for an oxymoron?

 

This argument is good.

Clutch, perhaps he is saying he shot 46% in the fourth quarter of the last 54 games, thus the "to close out" part of it. If so, than that is impressive stat work by him (which I expect you will check), but unimpressive posting work, as last year is in bold. Or maybe he means the last 54 games overall. Who knows.

Anyway, to "somewhat" jump into the fray

That is not surprising. Don't the two go hand in hand.

I played organized basketball and don't understand what tunnel vision is. Are you talking about being in the zone? If so, isn't it one of those things that you can only praise when it works for a player. I mean...

...what players are we talking about here? How do you become one of those players and why is Cuttino one of them? A player shooting 40% doesnt seem like you he is in the zone. Whereas last year he shot the ball better, but as you say, he was effective cause the team was winning. Or is it the other way around?

Regardless, I don't understand the whole tunnel vision people. Some of the most effective players in history were also some of the smartest. I believe they use those smarts and think every second on the court, whether in the zone (tunnel vision) or not. It makes them better, not worse. It would make Mobley better.

Also, why is this discussion limited to the end of games. Way too often I see Mobley do some sort of juke, behind the back dribble and fade away jumper with someone's hand in his face. Way to infrequently do I see him quickly break down the defender and take it to the whole like that sweet jam he had last night. Overall, I think his decision making is better than some make it seem. It is just that his bad decisions seem soooo bad, it is easy to forget about his nice drives down the lane and dish offs, etc.

 

If you say so, then I'm a dyslexic moron.
When are you giving us the big Stat Checker.
Watch out, I'll be more trouble then.

Check again in the previous year. There was a year when DaDakota wrote a "Cuttino Needs a Bid Dose of Pine" and he was shooting under 39% in Janaury. He closed out the year over 46%. I added that up, but could still have my dyslexia fingertips to mistype.

"Everything I write is complete Bullsh!t"

Clutch,

Are you done now? I wasn't attacking you ... just your exaggeration in the opening post. If you can't take it, nor an apology for giving you the wrong impression...then quit cussing at me and calling me a liar.

grow up!

Or I might just start uploading tape to prove your Recaps are way too biased with anti Rudy and anti Mobley exaggeration.

 

Not jumping into the argument, just wanted to post something.

Crispee, you say that clutch uses anti-Rudy and anti-Cat comments in the recaps. Well, he's allowed to. The reason people go to fan sites for recaps is because they know they'll get biased reporting. When I ran the Nugs site for SatansCompany.com, people didn't read my reports because they'd see comments like:

"Ilgauskus seemed to play well against LaFrentz".

They'd come to see:

"LaFrentz played like he had no testicles"

If you don't want biased recaps, go to ESPN.com or somewhere else.

BTW, in another note, Clutch, I know you put NVE as "Got Rocked" last night, and looking at the stats it is deserving (I didn't get to see the game -- at work), but you gotta take into account the fact that the man was sick and didn't even have the energy to get out of bed for the morning shoot-around.

And that's my Nuggets bias.

 

I said it looks like I'm wrong on that. I'm mistaking it with the year 99-2000, or something. Hell I can't say for sure. Clutch has the crew and the database.

I agree. But this thread is more about "bad basketball" by the coach. I'm not really defending Mobley here. The shot sucked.

I'm talking about Mobles ability to score at the rim. To know his distance. To know his flight. His ability to feel the opponent. I call it tunnel vision, because the best at it sometimes cannot see their teammates that well. This is just a way of describing one on one. I'm not really referring to the "zone" you hear about. I'm talking about focused vision. Knowing where you are in relation to your scoring spots and know what the defenders are doing. Does that make sense?

The great guys can open their eyes up to see the defenders and their teammates. Cuttino can't. I call that tunnel vision, because other's are. I respect that ability greatly. Not as great as the guys who can see everything, but still great.

I'm actually talking about all players. You know, the "Player's Coach" mentality of letting the players live or die on their style. It is their game/their career. The whole team.

 

Judging by how this debate is going, I would say HP's "big dog" status is seriously in danger.

 

Milk dud, anyone?