ClutchFans Game Thread: Mavericks @ Rockets 10/23/2009 (PRESEASON)

Nice post. I brought up Beasley because I like him, and only a few teams match up well with Tmac's expiring contract. Pure speculation on my part, which resulted in a ****storm. Oh well...

I don't want to see McGrady re-signed, and free-agency is not an option most likely. So, I want DM to get talent, as much as he can. Hopefully young talent...

 

Step 1: Google
Step 2: Type "Maurice Taylor"
Step 3: Realize how wrong you are

Before Mo got paid, got fat and stopped caring he was one hell of a post scorer in his own right. He had a solid two-year run at the beginning of his career where he recorded 17-5 and 17-6 seasons. Beasley averaged 14-5 this past year yet you speak as if lit the world on fire or something. I don't get it. I mean, we're talking about a player that was demoted to bench duties due to his inconsistent play, maturity issues and lack of understanding of the game yet here you are pimping his supposed efficiency and productivity. I forgot that 14 PPG on 12 shots is the barometer to use for scoring efficiency, right?

Say what you will about Mo but his career was VERY promising at one point. He was a gifted pure low-post scorer that could get his offense in a variety of ways. He had the footwork, the spin moves, the mid-range jumper to keep defenders honest. Top all of that with his pre-ballooning athleticism and speed. He was one hell of a talent with tons of upside hence the reason we signed him in the first place. It was one of those "good right now, but the dreaded 'P' word makes him worth whatever he wants" type of signings. Now, out of fear that I might make some of you guys sick with the Mo Taylor as a Rocket references, I'll stop with the history lesson. The point is Beasley is displaying some of the same symptoms that were responsible for the downfall of Mo's career. I hope for Beasley's sake and as a basketball fan that he gets his act together. But to act like two players that both seemingly have the same strengths and weaknesses, that play the same position, that put up nearly identical numbers to start their careers....to act like that's such a BAD comparison is really quite foolish. Especially whenever your last response is the best that you can come up with.

 

14-5, as a 20 year old, in 24 minutes a game. He is rare. How often do you find a guy that is close to having a 50-40-80 season? That is unbelievable.
One discerning difference between Mo Tay and Michael Beasley, Passion and work ethic. Mo Tay was legendarily lazy, Michael Beasley may be an idiot, but the guy works as hard as anyone off the court and is a gym rat in general. He is an absolute perfectionist.
His PER36 numbers as a rookie, were better than Kevin Durant's numbers as a rookie...Combine that, with his hard work off the court=Success, As long as he stays out of trouble...
"“I wish my kids will grow up to have his character and I’ve got three of them. He’s phenomenal and he’s a treat to be around. He makes coaching an easy profession. He cares about winning and nothing else. He wants to be the best, so he works at it, but he doesn’t go around thinking he’s the best. He’s receptive to coaching. You could go back and speak to any one he’s ever been a student of, coached by, or played with, and you won’t find one person who will give you a negative comment about Michael Beasley. I was a schoolteacher for many years, and the stuff that he’s done, it was nothing more than a young teenager looking for attention. He’s never placed harm on anybody and he never will place harm on anybody"
Frank Martin


Not to mention that Mo Taylor was THE go to guy on one of the worst teams I can remember. THEY WERE 45 and 169 when he was on the Clippers! The Heat were a playoff team! I truly believe that Beasley would put up 25-30 points a game on those teams, but that's just me...

 

Ladies and gentlemen,

We've officially entered the Stephen Jackson Zone!!! For those unfamiliar, it's whenever knote32 starts making things up to support his weak and unconvincing arguments. For example: for those of you masochists out there that enjoy pain, knote32 managed to transform Jackson's reputation as a low basketball IQ player from low to high to "VERY HIGH" all in one thread. That takes some skill to accomplish. Now we have him, yet again, arguing against conventional wisdom here. I guess Beasley's reputation as a talented bonehead with maturity, character and motor issues gets canceled out because knote32 disagrees and posted a positive quote from Beasley's college coach. Yeah, imagine that -- a college coach speaking highly of one of his former players. That almost never happens. For the record: Beasley is a "absolute perfectionist". I stand corrected, folks.

Another stellar point of yours is pointing out that Beasley played for a playoff team and that Mo Taylor didn't as if that proves something. I guess if Beasley landed on the Bucks or Kings last year that those teams would have been instantly in the playoffs, right? Yeah, playing alongside perhaps the best player in basketball had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. Beasley is just too big of a perfectionist to allow that team to lose!

 

I guess you need to live longer than....because so far your life has been too short to understand why Brooks is the starter.

But, keep on posting about it...I can respect your enthusiasm to consistently be wrong.

I ain't going anywhere, but the debate is pointless, AB is the starter...Morey and Adelman agree.

The organization has spoken.....

DD

 

So now you are changing the meaning of your comment to fit a new argument, the old argument not getting the response you apparently hoped for. That, and no one caring enough about "commas" to suit your taste. (I care about commas... I just don't use their placement to attack an argument that doesn't agree with mine, the subject matter being of more importance)

You know, I've been here for some years now, and I can't recall anyone ever rating players by using a "First Rate, Second Rate, Third Rate" system. "First Tier, Second Tier, Third Tier," of course. That implies a ranking based on perceived level of play. What you did in your initial post flatly called Brooks "second rate," which implies something else, a slam. Since your slam didn't go over very well, you went to all the trouble to "create" your "system" in order to make your first post, the slam against Brooks, actually be, in your mind, simply a rating of point guards.

Are you serious? As I said earlier, whatever floats your boat. I'll add, however, that I'm glad you took the the "I've got 132 REP POINTS" from your signature. Thanks.

 

Stephen Jackson does have a VERY HIGH basketball IQ, and Michael Beasley is a VERY HARD worker. Both points are valid, and are widely known around the NBA. It is essential to know this about Beasley because it is the key difference in what makes a Mo Tay comparison so moronic.

Mo Tay was the first option, so he put up more numbers. Mike Beezy would have a different look if he was on a stinker...

 

DECKARD, I love you man, but the commas in this case completely change the meaning of the argument, and thus are essential to the point! I could not care less if you disagree!

I have always believed him to be in more of the Bobby Jackson/Nate Robinson/Jason Terry mold. That is why I believe he is second rate as a starter. Which is what I said from the very beginning. Tier would have been a more understandable word choice upon reflection. My ranking was created out of a request for one.

 

The organization screamed when they went after Rubio WITH Brooks.


Smell the coffee...

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deckard again.


Off topic...Deck,

Did you get the one payment option on league pass? I couldn't believe it !

DD

 

Your posts are like pure gold for all the wrong reasons. That having been said, you are one of my favorite posters. Everybody needs a whipping boy.

 

Oh well. We can agree to disagree on all those things. I am sorry If I came off as a jerk in a personal way(It should never come to that), but basketball wise, we all have our opinions, ours are vastly different, and that is a good thing I think... There are several ways to get the top of the mountain...

Let's just hope that DM and CD bring us some "Top of the mountain" talent sooner rather than later, Regardless of who it is. What do you say?

Never stop dancing DD, It's what makes you unique and funny...

 

If I were giving up Brooks, I would hold out for a higher return than Beasley. Thats just me though.

 

In Logic World, Rubio > Brooks does not equal Beasley> Brooks unless you would like to argue that Beasley> Rubio - in which case I am forced to simply laugh at you.

 

baller4life315 -- knote32
moestavern19 -- Ronny
anyone that can see through BS -- fattyfatbastard
anyone at least semi intelligent-- DD

that's all I can think of right now

 

Really? Many GM's are not sold on Rubio, just like Beasley. To me, Beasley has just as much talent and potential. I do think that the PG position is more important than the PF for the most part though.

You are really high on Rubio huh?

No need to enter the thread like that. Beasley>Rubio is not at all ridiculous in my opinion...

 

Why don't you talk to me directly 3.0? It is very strange and quite rude...


What do you disagree with? That Beasley is a notorious hard worker off the court, or that Stephen Jackson is a very smart player?

 

you know i love ya homey, just razzing ya. don't sweat it keep fighting the good fight my man.