Who cares about Moochie? Mike Wilks is doing fine in his backup role. Just wish they would limit some minutes on Francis and give Wilks a chance so he can run the offense.
No offense, but this is a ridiculous stat. Before the Moochie trade, Wilks played in 4 games (3-1 record).... ALL blowouts. He got in the game BECAUSE they were blowouts, not the other way around. He averaged less than 4 minutes a game in those games. Granted since the Moochie trade, the Rockets are 3-0, but it was not against top competition and they were all home games. Also Wilks has yet to play 10 minutes or more in any single game this season. I like Wilks and what he brings in a backup role right now and I'm glad Moochie was dealt, but lets be real.
I am not saying for or against Wilks but would like to hear some honest opinions about hpw good he is compared to Moochie or Ward. What his strenghts and weaknesses are and his potential and how his game fits with the Rockets style of play. And yes let's be honest
Wilks pushes tempo (gets the team transitioned into offense) quicker then Norris or Ward. He plays within himself and doesn't try the outrageous. The new Charlie Ward fans are quick to point out all of his playoff "experience". Playoff experience dumping the ball into the low post (Ewing, Spree, LJ, etc,) IMO. Isiah is on record as wanting Norris for his ability to uptempo the game. What does that tell us about Ward's ability to uptempo the game? For 8-10 mpg, none of the 3 is a big deal. But IMHO for a team that only takes 75 FGA's and is near the bottom of the league in fast break points, 10 minutes of uptempo (and less dribbling) is important.
yes...lets be real...if wilks plays in every game for the rest of the season the rockets will be NBA champs!!! way to put a negative spin on things clutch
Sorry, Clutch. Just got the stat from ESPN's recap of the game. It would be nice to see him play more instead of garbage time.
Has experience getting the ball to a lowpost player? Sounds like exactly what we need: someone who is good at feeding Yao in the low post. Forget about uptempo. Put as many horses as you want on the roster (since one guy pushing isn't going to do anything anyway), I still won't believe that Van Gundy will have a fast-breaking team.
Gater, did you ever think that maybe Isiah traded for Mooch because he knew beforehand he was going to have to include Ward in a future trade, perhaps to phoenix maybe?
JV - Two words - Riley & Showtime. If all we need is somebody dumping the ball into the post, why spend money on Ward? His 10 mpg of post entry passing is worth $500k-$1m more than Wilks?
TX Stoke - Your point is valid only if Moochie was the only PG available. He clearly wasn't. Thomas could have easily signed Mark Jackson or Tim Hardaway after trading away Ward. The undeniable fact is that Isiah is on record as wanting Moochie.
I need more words than Riley and Showtime. I'm not real sure I know what you're getting at there. On feeding the post, I'm half-joking. I was alluding to the common complaint we had running around the board a month or 2 ago about how our guards don't want to -- or don't know how to -- get the ball to Yao in the low post in a good position to score. The Chron even wrote an article about how Yao was getting the ball, but would get it a half-second too late or a foot off to the side. Apparently, feeding the post is a fine art in which we've lacked a master since Robert Horry left town, according to the theory. But, if Ward is experienced at passing it in and (for the topping cherry) can hit a 3-pointer on kick-outs, then he sounds like a guard who'd fit into the offense that has actually been built here.
you got a point there but youre talking about a couple of 40 yrd old guys who are out of the league and who are pretty much broken down physically. I just feel Mooch was acquired to fill the gap of Wards forthcoming departure and it wasn't some deal where Isiah wanted Mooch instead of Ward.
BS. In the beginning of the season it probably meant more along the lines of we're up by 20, lets give Wilks a minute of PT.
