You can't be serious. You are the most incessant, un-phased litigator on this site whenever you have a point that has to be heard, until anybody matches your persistence, and then you act like they are badgering you. Also, you change the subject and divert from the topic at hand more than any other poster, and certainly more than TC. Please be more consistent, DD. Although, I suppose that increasingly incurs an implied amount of inconsistency.
He's going to leave too after 2011. Then who will we turn to for our problems? My vote is going to Aaron Brooks., even though he is my 2nd favorite player thusfar.
In other news....The Grizzlies have no scouts left http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/aug/02/grizzlies-cutbacks-revealing-priority/
I really don't mind disagreements, it is the incessent attacks....the "I don't know why I bother" ...or....."You have no credibility".....I mean that is laugh out loud funny, like anyone has any more credibility than anyone else...we are a fan site.....nothing more, we all spout our opinions based upon players and play styles we enjoy, and the credibility is based upon whether we agree with what said poster is saying.... I just don't like when someone makes it personal, then I respond in kind and away we go...just bad for the board overall.... Actually, I am trying to be more consistent, said my piece, nothing is going to change...moving on.... I hope McGrady gets healthy, comes back and fits into the Rick Adelman offense because that is the style that is conducive to winning in the playoffs. DD
McGrady is all talk. I hope he will have a string of great games before the trading deadline, though, so that we can hopefully get some value back for him.
I knew I'd never seen any poster with your moniker, posting here since the year 2000......and then I just saw your sig! Why the namechange, Det??
or perhaps shane for being himself (rudy gay battier trade?) "Man we could have had an all star instead of this 30 something year old ancient taking root in the corner every game" "rudy gay would have lead us to a championship by now....shane battier??? uhhhh" etc etc and Les Alexander?
well i guess thats your assumption,but its a maybe or maybe not kinda thing TMAC didnt really have a G.HILL at his side for a 1-2 punch,D.Gooden back then was a rookie plus J.Howard and a bunch of scrubs.Thats why TMAC had to avg almost 30 a game to help his team win and during those yrs his reb,asst,steals numbers were decent too.So it wasnt TMAC's failure its the teams' and maybe the dude is just damn unlucky.Kobe had some terrible playoff years winning wise when shaq went packing,LBJ had guys that stepped up their game come playoffs like gibson,and A.I did carry his team in the playoffs but he had DEKE anchoring the paint and had guys like LYNCH and others that stepped up. this is so true the guy talks too much w/c gets ppl hyped and so far has never failed to disappoint esp.last season...im keeping my hopes up but if something goes wrong again it wouldnt surprise me anymore.
Hilarious. It's always non sequitur circular reasoning with you. You'll go on spouting off these blanket, bold, unsubstantiated claims, and then when someone finally gets fed up enough to call you out, you'll start crying and run off with your blanket. It's awesome, I can almost predict it: Dakota: "ARGH T-MAC IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO WINNING. SHARING. WINNING BASKETBALL, MENTALITY DANGIT! HE IS NOT EFFICIENT HE SHOULD BE SHARING, SHEESH, DD" reasoned observer: "who was he supposed to share with DD? Barry and Wesley? Dakota: "EFFICIENCY!! WINNING MENTALITY!! ANY GOOD PLAYER WOULD SHARE!!! CONDUCIVE TO WINNING!, DD" reasoned observer: "can you please explain to everyone here how our perimeter players were supposed to create shots for themselves?" Dakota: WE JUST WILL NEVER AGREE STOP ATTACKING ME, SHEESH!!!, DD" show me one example where i shifted the discussion. thanks. When you retreat and make this defense of "we all spout our opinions", what you fail to realize is that hardly anyone else here super-saturates every single damn discussion with unsubstantiated blanket rhetoric. You make these extreme, sweeping, bold claims with no middle ground with regards to everything and when you are finally called out on it, you run off and go crying about asterisks or thread ratings. That is what is bad for the board overall. It's a crime against decent sensibility to allow your fickle inconsistencies to pass without any accountability. You're right, nothing will change, except, if history serves correct, your opinion in a few weeks. You hope he comes back huh? Silly me for taking the literal interpretation on those 10,000 posts you had just a few months back screaming that you wanted him gone. I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you seriously, but I will close on this note. I love Rick Adelman. He is a damn good coach and should be the two-time reigning coach of the year for what he accomplished these past two seasons under the turmoil of lineup changes. I also think his offense can definitely win a title - there's no reason to think it can't with adequate talent. My problem with you is these extreme, sweeping comments: "that is the style that is conducive to winning in the playoffs." WTF? Do you not realize just how silly you sound when you make these extreme unsubstantiated claims? I'm trying to help you - this is why you always paint yourself into a hole and end up looking so silly in hindsight. Again, I'm not being a dick - I am trying to help you. You need to be thanking me. What evidence do you have that his style is the one that is conducive to winning in the playoffs? WTF does that even mean? He's never won a ring. In fact, I can't think of a single team other than the Pistons that have won a title with a team-oriented approach. Does that mean it's not possible? No, of course not, it certainly is. But your extreme claim in contrasting it against other styles, when viewed with common sense against the backdrop of historical evidence just makes you look extremely silly.
