Join Advanced League and Weekly League to have amazing fun!
Discussion in 'February 2014' started by roscoe36, Oct 21, 2013.
That's how Singler responds to every Leecap.
Yeah don't read the rest. Avoid any serious criticism of your position, and come at other people on a personal level yourself, repeatedly on this forum. You're entitled to your opinion, but this stuff where you get really base coming at people for disagreeing with your opinion, is passive aggressive and totally not cool. You don't like Singler, fine. You want to post about how much you don't like Singler EVERY DAY OF THIS SEASON, fine. But don't come at people personally. We're all better than that.
Unless I see an apology in the first line, do not bother typing further, because I am not reading it. Note, I do not attack anyone, ever. I have my opinions. No, I do not think it is any kind of attack on anyone to ask if they actually watched the game. What I am mostly interested in is other people's opinions about the game, if they also watched them. If you did not watch the game, I am very little interested on your theories about what might have happened.
Whoa! S just got real up in here.
When people watch the game, you take it to the next level where they didn't watch it enough times or slowly enough. Next you'll have a pixel requirement. I'm obviously guilty of perpetuating this fringe debate. It's more fun to argue the same thing over and over than to just give up and watch the team's slow decline.
Since your opinion is not the same as mine, it is clear that tou did not watch the game. I do not respect the opinions of someone who didn't watch the game. Nothing personal about that line of reasoning.
How about this for a new topic (that actually requires film study)... What has Loyer changed? I saw some commentary already on other sites regarding lower turnovers, and more use of Monroe from the elbow as a passer. More bynum and jj obviously.
You have been perfectly civil about it. You even tried to rewatch some film. But you did not follow up and relook at the stuff we disagreed on. I am not trying to argue with you. Just compare notes. If you don't see what I see, fine. We did see a lot of stuff the same way. Let me know if you want to continue studying film cooperatively like that. Not to argue, but to have fun discussing the plays, and possibly learning from that.
I enjoy it and would be glad to, but my time is too sporadic. I have bursts of free time and then week long crunches where I only watch games on dvr delay and post from my mobile (using the new and improved tapatalk 2). Any game where the score is unintentionally revealed to me and we get dominated, I tend to not get around to watching. It's surprising difficult avoiding all spoilers. Let's just call a truce and agree that singler is efficient because he's selective. On defense, let's blame bynum, even if he's on the bench. I can live with that.
At first I saw some changes. This last game though he reverted back to the very same patterns prior to Bynum's demotion, other than JJ getting some minutes. In all, I do see signs of better adjustments at halftime, but no progress at all in solving the roster / who plays thing. The worst, while praising Pope's speed and D, he has left him out of 2 of the last 3 games except for a couple of minutes here and there. As much as I disliked Cheeks, I did like that he was starting Pope. Kind of reminds me of Carlisle's days. Lots of adjustments on strategy on a play by play basis, but no overall good use of the roster. Carlisle got 50 games for us with a hodge podge roster the first year. Great. But then we added Rip Hamilton, Memo, Prince, and Billups, but still only won 50. In Dallas, he won it all with a veteran roster. But now, what do you see. All vets on the floor for Dallas. Probably will not make the playoffs, and they have no future.
But they would have an excellent FG %
They gotta move to San Antonio to win.
You attack Singler and Loyer/Cheeks/Frank, etc all the time. And worst thing is you don't do it by voicing your opinion but by using generalisations, deletions and distortion. They are based on watching games and not fact, stats or anything that is reliable. Generalization is where the speaker takes a particular experience applies it generically to a multitude of other situations (most part of your Leecaps are based on this) Deletion is where details are deleted as the speaker chooses what to focus on (your bias towards Singler, neglecting stats/facts that prove otherwise then your opinion) Distortion is when the speaker distorts something to mean something it was not intended to mean (your responses to some posts) Furthermore, the fact that you watch games doens't autmatically mean you understand basketball. You need more (facts, stats, etc) then that. I also think it's very arrogant to think you have a higher understanding of (Pistons) basketball then the ppl who spend time with the players during practise and games. To my knowledge they watch more videofootage on a whole different level then you do. Looking at the ways you respond to posts i bet that if i start watching more games, for more hours in more detail then you, you probably would come up with something that implies i am doing it wrong and you are still right. I am just amazed that you never seem to come to the conclusion that there is a possible chance you might be wrong. I doubt you will respond to this post because you think it's a personal attack. To clear that up, to me it's not because i am not criticising who you are ( i cant cause i dont really know you). I am criticising the things you base your opinion on and the way you communicate.
I see no personal attack. But you are wrong in my opinion, to call my reports on the game attacks. I say what I think / feel / about the Pistons game. Its my opinion. Matter of fact, others often have my same opinion, while others have different ones. I enjoy reading all people's opinions who watched the game. If you note, I take my time to like anyone's post who took the time to give a bit of a report on what they saw. Since my opinions are posted here, anyone can comment on them. Anybody who plays in the NBA knows that there are fans who have opinions on them. Bad and good. In this forum, not me, but a whole lot of other people, have continually hated on Stuckey's game. I could go on and name dozens of players who have had negative reviews here. And some have been down right ridiculed continuously for years in a case or two. I would not focus so much on what I say about Singler. Sure, I think he does not belong in the NBA, and the Pistons would be better off giving his minutes to pretty much any other player in the league. Pretty much goes for Bynum too, and I do not see really why we are keeping Datome, JJ, CV on the roster either. And pretty much when I see these players play, they are pretty much the same players they were the last game. So my opinion probably will not change, and my game reports will reflect it. From me, 82 games, so 82 game reports. I do try to be a bit entertaining when I write them, but for the most part I try to help describe the game at hand and give people why we lost if we lost it. Maybe you think that is repetitive. I guess you could tell the league to play less games so I would have less games to report on.
3 minutes? No, I thought I was clear, but obviously not; The Pistons are winning less than half of their games, and are one of the worst defensive teams in the league by a bunch of measures. We don't defend the 3 pt line, we give up a high FG%, we foul. We are bad at defense, regardless of whether Singler is out there or not - stats say we are better by I'm going to brush that off for now. It is an impossible argument to pinpoint Singler as the crux of our problems. If you want to make the argument that he is the straw that broke the camels back, I suppose I -and many others - could accept that line of thought. He does get lost on screens, he does get beat off the bounce by many players. He is quite mercurial. I accept all of these things. But to say that he is the reason we lose, especially when you say things along the lines of 'coach just had to play Singler all the minutes' when he is averaging less minutes than last year (something not brought up by your repeated 'obsession with playing Singler' approach), and is clearly the best option in many ways at SF, is simply untenable and borders on farcical at times.
Gee, now if you added in how much Bynum hurts us out there, we would have tons of agreement. Yes, Singler gets lost on picks. But that is being kind. Singler can't even keep up with the player to begin with; picks, even one, always leave him way behind the play. Now, as for people disagreeing with me, and me saying they did not watch the game, or insinuating that they might not have watched the game. Remember, the subject was was Iggy being guarded by Singler. I'd say for this game, if anyone imagined that Singler guarded Iggy at all most likely did not watch the game. Singler guarded the same player pretty much the entire game, Thompson, not Iggy. Occasionally, very occasionally, Singler guarded a small forward for just one play here and there, and it was not pretty as Singler can not at all guard any of the GS small forwards. People who did guard Iggy by the way included Smith and Stuckey. Stuckey, when playing shooting guard while Singler is playing small forward, takes on the small forward role on the defensive end. And oh, another PS, Singler can't guard Thompson one bit either. It hurt us pretty bad in this one, having Singler in the game. And after watching the game yet again just now, my opinion is more firm on that point than ever, for this game.
Besides being near the top of the league in distance covered and average speed on the court, Singler also tested unusually fast at the combine... ahead of Smith in the sprint and more agile in the lane than Stuckey. He is no way a slow player, especially for his height. But... he is 6'8" and NBA shooting guards are lightning fast. Combine that with all of the screens that get set for SGs and it's a tall task for him. I agree that Pope or Stuckey would be better suited for the role on defense. Meanwhile, Josh Smith is shooting .236 from 3-point land and has attempted 35 more of them than KS. Kyle is shooting .511 as a starter this year from deep. Converts more than twice as often. He is at least helping to spread the floor for our 3 bigs and it's resulting in the most proficient offense in the East since he began starting. While it would be nice to have Pope's defense on the court, we at least need one dead eye shooter out there. With our pre Singler starting lineup, Jennings was the only real 3-point threat.
So where did Singler finish in strength, and ups? I contend that in the GS game, Singler could in no way compete with the small forwards, and in no way keep up with the guards. Nowhere to hide him on defense. A lot of us have had the same discussion on CV. Even at his best offensively, and some nights that offense was extremely good, he still hurt us because his defense was that bad. If you can't help on D, I really do not want to see you playing on the Pistons. I am a fan of defense. There are cases where the offense is so good, helping someone on D does make sense. The Pistons have had two such cases. Dantley, and Corliss Williamson. Dantley was a bit undersized to be an NBA small forward, but he could score like a fiend, and better yet, had a knack for drawing fouls that was simply unreal. Absolutely worth helping the guy on defense. With Corliss, his strength meant that he could at least help inside. So we just told him to stay inside, and let everybody else do the rotating out on the perimeter. It was way, way worth it, as Corliss turned around and absolutely abused the opposing small forward. So far, Singler is not that kind of exceptional offensive player worth helping out on defense on pretty much an every play basis.
The goal posts were just ripped out and replanted in the 10th rows.
If you're looking for speed, strength, and hops, it doesn't get much better than Will Bynum. Besides being ripped, he led his combine in speed and max vertical (over 40").
Separate names with a comma.