Time to bring down some realism...

And you can tell this after 2 preseason games for Najera and 3 for Langhi? Why do we even have a season? According to you we can tell who's good and who isn't after 2 or 3 preseason games, so why don't we just award the championship now and forget about the season? Bottom line: reserve your judgment until after a few months in the season. To say this now is the most ridiculous thing I can think of. You say you want to be realistic, and then you say you know what players are the "Real deal" and who sucks and is a disappointment after 2-3 games? That's sure realistic.

------------------
Looking for next year's Dan Langhi? Draftsource.net
ClutchTown.com

 

By the way, sorry for slamming OU in your thread last week after their win over Texas. You guys certainly showed me this weekend you ARE the real deal. It just sucks being a Texas fan esp. since after buying Big 12 Championship tickets and plane tickets to Kansas City that it will probably be OU and not Texas playing Nebraska or K-State. I'll cheer for you guys anyway though.

------------------
Looking for next year's Dan Langhi? Draftsource.net
ClutchTown.com

 

Using the term "white stiffs" ruined any credibility you may have had as a poster.

------------------
"Democrats want to give people fish. Republicans would rather teach people how to fish." -Charles Barkley

 

Rocketman, I have to say, for someone who wants everyone to be realistic, you aren't being very realistic yourself. Your basically blinded by your love for OU and coming just a hair short of proclaiming Najera a superstar and he hasn't played in one regular season game yet. Nor has Langhi or Collier, both which you have already written off because they haven't dominated a game.

No offense, but you should have saved that post for at least another two months when you can really lay judgement.

------------------
Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures.

Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42 muscles in your face to frown, but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and pimp-slap the mother****** upside the head!

 

Rocketman,

Do you believe in your heart that Collier & Langhi will never get any better than they are right now? If so, I believe that you are not being realistic. They are being taught by one of the best coaching staffs in the NBA. They will improve their game & shape it to fit the team. Time is the one thing that all rookies have on their side, because even the coaches know that very few college players make it to the NBA. Just wait & see how different they are by the end of the year. After all, who would've guessed Mobley would've made it when he was first drafted?

------------------

 

This response of mine might get kinda long-winded

The following quotes are taken from Rocketman's post....

And you're labeling many recent posts on here as "unrealistic". You know...this statement of yours isn't exactly realistic....you are judging Houston's draft too early. Jeez...the Rockets have only got training camp and several preseason games under their belt and you've already made up your mind that Dan Langhi is a disappointment. You certainly aren't giving Langhi and Collier enough time. They may turn out to be disappointing; they may turn out to be quite successful. Right now, it is just too early to conclusively tell, so at least give them a chance and don't give up on them yet.

I like Najera and his tenacity; I watched him play quite a bit during his college years at OU. He may never be a star or anything like that (I think he'll spend much of his career as a solid bench player), but a player with his kind of work ethic, energy, leadership and hustle is likely to encounter some success in the NBA. But it's rather premature of you to label Langhi a loser at this early stage.

Like who? And furthermore, would that "someone good" be a good fit (more specifically, better than who the Rockets did get) with the Rockets? Also, don't forget that the Rockets got a future first-round pick in addition to Collier...the pick will probably be in the 20s for the 2001 draft. Taking into consideration that next year's draft is expected to be very deep, the Rockets may still get someone quite good with that pick. Therefore I consider the future pick to be an important acquisition in the Pryzbilla/Collier trade.

I think the Rockets tried to make the best out of a not-so-great situation in the 2000 draft.

I don't agree. I have a feeling that both of them will get more playing time in a future preseason game or two or three....after all part of preseason does involve evaluating newly acquired talent.

Your #3 point I agree with. Ditto with your #4 point (minus the negative jabs at Collier and Langhi). Rudy T has proven to me that he is more than capable of successfully adapting the Rockets offense from the old style of "dump in post (Barkley, Olajuwon)" to the new, more exciting style that is acclimated with Francis, Mobley, and Anderson. Because of that I have gained a lot of respect for Rudy's coaching abilities.

My point is this: You basically said that too many posts are of an unrealistic flavor. To a certain extent, that may be true (IMO, there are some, but not too many, but then again our interpretations of "too many" may very well differ). But on the other hand, your post (in particular the parts that I quoted) isn't exactly the pinnacle of realism either....perhaps due to your bias in favor of OU.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Cold Hard (edited October 15, 2000).]

 

I'm just a bit mystified by this statement - judging from the athletic ability of our draft picks they will be busts?

Just to clear a few things up (not sure if you've ever seen either of them actually play);
Langhi IS athletic. He can dribble. He can shoot. He has AWESOME scoring power, sure he never showed a wide range of skills at college in terms of anything other than scoring, but he always tries hard. Bottom line is that he will play his role superbly (whether he's called on to do that this year or not I don't know!).

Collier is probably not what you would call athletic, but he's a 7 footer with plenty of bulk and he moves that bulk around nicely. I know a lot of people have condemned him for some ordinary showings so far, but from what I've seen of him at college, he can certainly shoot from mid to long range very well! He also sets a nice pick and rolls away from it superbly.. I don't know if anyone has seen him doing this, but watch him slide of his pick to open spaces or to roll to the hoop and take it up strongly. Bottom line is, he doesn't NEED to be athletic to play his part.

Judging a player by their athleticism is ridiculous! (even though it seems you've given Langhi no credit for the athleticism he has)....


------------------

 

College basketball is indeed different from the NBA game, but guess what? College performance is the only realistic way to gauge the talent of a player that hasn't played extensively in the NBA. I mean, let's be realistic; how do you suppose the draft order of players is determined?

Here's an analogy. When you apply for college, the admissions boards look at your high school grades and SAT scores. Whereas high marks don't necessarily guarantee success, they are the best evidence that the school has judge you. On the other hand, nobody can say whether you're a good or bad student based on how you performed on the first 2 days of class (that's the pre-season for those that are metaphorically challenged ).

Well, I'm a little strapped for cash at the moment, so I can't afford to call Dionne Warwick and her psychic friends to tell me how the season is going to go

Anyway, let me beat into the ground why 2 or 3 (Dallas or Houston, respectively) preseason games is a lousy indicator of future success with another analogy. Let's say that you've never met a woman before. The first 2 women, you meet just happen to be fat and white. Can you thus come to the conclusion that all women are fat and white?

I don't know if your assertion that Najera is better than Langhi is necessarily an OU bias (though I suspect it is ); I think its more likely due to faulty logic (i.e. the idea that you can really compare players based on 2 or 3 inconsequential games, but can't compare them based on several years of organized ball).

And now for a change of pace, here's an anecdote. The other day I was playing some hoops and I hit a streak where every shot was falling (7 or 8 shots with a defender in my face on a couple of them). I also got 3 blocks and a couple of steals (I'm only 5'10"). Last week, I also had a strong performance on the offensive boards and scored several points (1 points shots) on offensive put-backs. I also got a couple of steals and 1 block.

On both of those nights, my 6'4" friend counldn't hit a thing on offense and got burned quite a few times on D. Now, we've both played intramural organized ball in the past and he was better than me in those games.

Now, by your logic, I must be a good streetballer, just because I had 2 really "on" nights and we can't use my friends performance in a different ball system as a talent indicator. In the very least, you would have to conclude that I was better than my friend. On the other hand, judging by his ability across several games of intramurals, I would have to say that he is the better player. I would be right in this particular case.

Bottom line: you first assertion is just that . . . an assertion based on minimal evidence. Be patient. Wait a few months. Then, you'll have some actual facts on which to base a case.


------------------

 

Saturday night, Rockets vs. Spurs:
Langhi...DNP, Coach's decision

Sunday night, Mavericks vs. Spurs
Najera...DNP, Coach's decision

If we are using these preseason games to measure what future abilities these players are going to have (as you have stated), then it looks like Langhi and Najera are now on equal footing.

Your "realism" needs work, Rocketman.

------------------
Save our children from the TAAS test:
TAAS test report card
TAAS test fact sheet

[This message has been edited by Behad (edited October 16, 2000).]

 

touche, Launch Pad. TOUCHE

------------------
Essentially the top two players to come out of college the last couple of years are Duncan, Carter, and Francis.

- vince

 

Rocketman wrote:

" ... it seems like you have a long history of being very hostile toward any
labeling of caucasian players... "

Well Rocketman, I think Freakster's assertion that when you used the following phrase " ...white stiffs ..." to emphasis your displeasure at their basketball performances to date, you lost credibility in your assertion .... but, I find your characertization was in fact racist.

I always find the telling mark of racist remarks in the manner in which someone defends that racist remark when called on it by a contempory or peer.

They usually blame the other person (in this case: Freak) for having taken such a stand, then make an "adjustment" statement that buries them even deeper in racism by describing not their point of view but staunchly defending their own race.

Thus we read, Rocketman:
" ... I myself have been labeled white (I am Arab and I will not back down from that)..."

So what? Why would you being labelled white, or the fact that you are of arab descent make in difference in your argument? Do you think because you have been possibly slighted in the past (due to your race or religion), you are immune from being a racist, or are now "allowed" to make racist characterizations like "white stiff"?

(I know I have gone on long enough with this, I am almost finished.)

But Freak merely pointed out the obvious. That using a racial adjective to describe the failure of an athlete's performance ruins the credibility of the speaker/poster.

And I think so also.

Take your own advise, Rocketman " ...I respect someone who has the dignity to apologize ...". Apologize for being slightly insensitive to the race question, at least as you presented it this one time. Then, we can address and explore you reasons why both Langhi and Collier may not have been the best decision, withouit all the lables.

This board is colorless.

 

Yeah, it's really easy to take "white stiffs" out of context. Stiffs would have been sufficient.

I'm sure that you didn't mean anything by it, but that was uncalled for.

------------------

 

I too think the term "white stiffs" is racist by today's PC standards.

As Calvin likes to say, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.



------------------
http://home.swbell.net/rkb3/hr.html = Live Rockets Chat

 

mo is a bad defensive player, but hes a decent defensive player??? riiiight. might wanna proofread your posts

 

vj23k: I think what Rocketman meant was that he was unhappy that many others felt that Mo Taylor is a bad defensive player, whereas in his own opinion Mo is a decent defender.

------------------

 

oh ok, sorry, i wasnt sure what he meant. thanx cold hard