blue9
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,729
- Likes
- 7,169
- Points
- 113
Just stop, man. This is what I said in response to the bold:You admit you don't like Stotts.
You admit that you didn't have enough info to make your biased statement.
This is why I'm calling your shot at Stotts Bush league.
You literally created a strawman, burned it on Stotts head, and expected people to swallow that crap while not being called on it.
No one's in any contest. Pissing, shitting, or eating.
I'm simply calling your assessment exactly what it is:
Bullshit.
And you certainly weren't "talking ball" nor were you trying to.
You were just taking a bullshit shot at Stotts.
There's not a lot of other explanations for the defensive improvement other than coaching.
Full season with Nurk? Concerted effort from Dame? Facing MANY opponents at less than full strength?
Honestly, I don't see anything in particular that Stotts is doing differently - aside from not switching EVERY screen...he doesn't deserve credit for NOT doing the dumbest shit (anymore).
Dame and Nurk (and Ed and Bazz) deserve the credit for our improved D. If Stotts ever decides to add depth to his playbook (on either end of the floor) then maybe he can get some credit too...but the bitch is basic.
I gave potential reasons to why our defense may have improved, other than coaching. That's not talking ball?
You don't know what a straw man argument is. What I wrote is not a straw man argument. In fact, what you're doing is much closer to being a straw man argument.



