That was a fun game to watch. I thought Lee retired from Leecaps? Tayshaun pretty much threw Stuckey under the bus in his post game comments. I think at this point the team has to either put together a lineup that can win some games....or stick with Stuckey and let him rack up some stats for his next contract. After the game there was no hugging.
What is this T-mac was running the point? This is unusual ! Did he bring the ball up once, twice. I need verification. Next thing you know, Bengo was SG.
I read that last night and my jaw almost hit the floor. When Silver Tongue notices and actually writes it ........... I'm sure it'll be taken off the site soon. Mateen's were more blatant than Tayshaun's were, and it took everything Q had not to say it. Again I'm not advocating starting T-Mac at PG (but I surely wouldn't mind), but last night you would have to be as blind as Stevie wonder not to notice how much better this team is with a Pure Bred PG at the helm who UNDERSTANDS THE GAME and position. We've been arguing for the last 2 years whether or not Stuckey will ever 'get it' as a PG or if this team can still win even if he never quite gets it, 99% of us know the answer to this question. 2Tough4You will be glad to know that Paul Pierce went straight out the tunnel after the game, like a real Old Skool pro!
Missed the game, but watched the tape after seeing that we beat Boston. This was a good win, and I won't repeat what others have already said. One thing I did notice is that the CV-Wilcox pairing doesn't work very well for some reason. Anytime Boston made a push, those two were the front court. When Monroe or Wallace subbed in for one of them, we built the lead up again. This isn't a shun on either of those guys. Wilcox' play was reminiscent of his Seattle days and CV also played pretty good. Don't look now, but CV's defense is steadily improving. We play our best basketball when we have injuries. We desparately need to trade away some players. Jonas was on the sidelines. I wonder how close he is to returning. Oh, and the difference between T-Mac and Stuckey is T-Mac seems to be aware of where everybody is all the time regardless of what he's doing. On the other hand, Stuckey is like an infrared switch: he needs line of sight to spot his teammates.
Here is something Justin Rogers from MLive picked up: Three-pointers: Tracy McGrady should be the Detroit Pistons' starting point guard | MLive.com
Very encouraging to hear this. Maybe this team is beginning to gel a bit and stopping the me first attitude they seemed to have.
Rip actually completed a cross court pass in the 4th Q that led to T-Mac 3!!!! Wilcox has played well, but he's cutting into Monroe's time a little. Gordon got shots up in the 1st thanks to T-Mac, but then was not heard from for the remainder of the game. They are blasting Stuckey with their post game comments. Charlie Garbage's idea of physical play is comically bad. His 1st foul has to be amongst the dumbest non-flagrant fouls committed this year. Worse yet, his "I think I got my message across" post game comment shows he is thrilled with himself. He is probably upset the game didn't get really physical so he could have shoved someone from behind. He is a buffoon. I still laughed every time they said "cancer patient" last night.
With Rip and Tay and Big Ben playing, I agree 100%. If you have Gordon and Daye and either Wilcox or Monroe, then Stuckey fits great, because those guys provide the floor spacing (along with CV), since you'd have several great long range shooters and guys who are low post threats. The future of this team is clearly NOT Rip, Tay and Big Ben and clearly is Gordon, Daye, Monroe, CV, JJ. That latter group fits Stuckey's skills about 100% better. With the floor spread, Stuckey can now get to the rim, and guys who can do that and get foul shots are invaluable down the stretch.
I was about to post this if noone else had. This Justin Rogers guy, is he always this good? If so, I may have found a reason to actually quit doing my writeups. Gee, a sportswriter who understands the game.
Only thing I am not sure is that a mid-range jumper (which Stuck tells us he works on every summer) is 16 feet or farther?? I would think a mid range jumper is 16 feet and in which looks to me like he is shooting 57%
Always thought it broke down like this: 15 feet and Under - Close Range 3 point line to 15 feet - Mid Range 3 point line to Near Halfcourt - Long Range Near Halfcourt to Fullcourt - Antoine Walker
I consider mid-range to be any shot between the paint and the 3-point line. They are generally the lowest efficiency shots, which is why it is so great when you have a player who can be efficient in this range and diversify the offensive attack.
Your definition differs from mine. The worst shot in basketball is the two point jump shot right at the three point line. That is a long range shot in my estimation.
