Brook Lopez could be pulled from the RMR

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
GMJ

GMJ

Suspended
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
12,067
Likes
30
Points
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We're hearing from several people that the Nets might pull Brook Lopez out of the Rocky Mountain Revue. No injuries, nothing urgent. They've seen enough from him already, and they just want to give some of the other bigs a chance to play longer minutes. But it's still under discussion.</div>

Nets Blast
 
I think he should play and hang with the team. They need to bond and it's not good to have one guy already getting special treatment.

Just limit his minutes.
 
On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.
 
Yeah come on people! He's a rook and HAS to be there with the rest of the group... Like netted said "They have to bond"

Also I didn't like the article that much..
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
</div>

In my mind, given the youth of the club, there will be nights where we upset the Celtics or Sixers and blow a game against Memphis or Bobcats. Youth breeds inconsistency. But there are solid blocks in Harris, VC. The discovery phase comes into play when we see what Yi, CDR, Lopez can do on a regular basis. It's a 2 year process to discover who's going to be on the roster when King joins in.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kidd Karma @ Jul 16 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
</div>

In my mind, given the youth of the club, there will be nights where we upset the Celtics or Sixers and blow a game against Memphis or Bobcats. Youth breeds inconsistency. But there are solid blocks in Harris, VC. The discovery phase comes into play when we see what Yi, CDR, Lopez can do on a regular basis. It's a 2 year process to discover who's going to be on the roster when King joins in.
</div>


heh... we blew so many games against teams under .500 last season... *cough memphis twice* (one with jason collins playin for memphis!!!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
</div>
Having superstars does not guarantee success, but not having them all but guarantees not winning the big one. One team in 25 years has won without one.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.

I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>

I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
</div>
Having superstars does not guarantee success, but not having them all but guarantees not winning the big one. One team in 25 years has won without one.
</div>
Pistons would probably be the first to come to mind, they just played good team ball on the offensive and defensive ends. I wouldn't consider Chauncy, Rip or Sheed to be superstars.

Oh now I'm guessing the "One team" is Detroit.

But I mean you could also say, the year before 2007-08. No one considered Paul Pierce a superstar. KG I guess might still have superstar status, but he is kind of a half-superstar compared to Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, and Chris Paul.
 
paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed
</div>
If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
 
Paul Pierce is a solid player and sure has some game... but compare him to VC and Tmac?? please no.... they shyt on Pierce all day...

so back to the topic, so Lopez had a good start and people reckon to pull him out of the team to save his energy or something.... what is the point the dude is a rook... don't know why some people think like that sometimes...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed
</div>
If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
</div>

Anyone who says VC and TMac aren't superstars is borderline crazy
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Uneek @ Jul 16 2008, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul Pierce is a solid player and sure has some game... but compare him to VC and Tmac?? please no.... they shyt on Pierce all day...

so back to the topic, so Lopez had a good start and people reckon to pull him out of the team to save his energy or something.... what is the point the dude is a rook... don't know why some people think like that sometimes...</div>
I wouldn't say Tmac and VC shyt on pierce. Pierce is just as good as them if not better and I'm not just saying that because he has a ring. Hes always been right up there with them.
 
umm id take VC over pierce anyday...
just cause!!! hahah
 
VC>PIERCE IMHO. Now that he has a ring its obvious theyll take Pierce... but individually Carter is much better and complete.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Jul 16 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>VC>PIERCE IMHO. Now that he has a ring its obvious theyll take Pierce... but individually Carter is much better and complete.</div>
How so? Pierce is a better defender, plays hungrier and embraces being the go-to guy.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 16 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed
</div>
If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
</div>

Anyone who says VC and TMac aren't superstars is borderline crazy
</div>

Well it depends on how exclusive superstardom is, is it the top 3 NBA players? top 5 NBA players? The top 10?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 16 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danxcr @ Jul 16 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>paul pierce was a superstar... just never had help... unless u consider antione walker a solid #2... but paul was always a special talent on a bad team... and u put him with KG, and add ray allen.. well we know what happened.


but ur rite with detroit being one team... and im actually surprised on how well flip has controlled rasheed
</div>
If you considered Paul Pierce a superstar when Boston had a 24-58 record, then do you consider Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady superstars as well?
</div>

Anyone who says VC and TMac aren't superstars is borderline crazy
</div>

Well it depends on how exclusive superstardom is, is it the top 3 NBA players? top 5 NBA players? The top 10?
</div>


well according to nba 2k8 there are
Bench warmers
Prospects
Role players
6th man
Starters
Allstars
Superstars
Legends!

hahaha well in seriousness VC is TOP 10 in the NBA... thats rite i said IT!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Uneek @ Jul 16 2008, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul Pierce is a solid player and sure has some game... but compare him to VC and Tmac?? please no.... they shyt on Pierce all day...

so back to the topic, so Lopez had a good start and people reckon to pull him out of the team to save his energy or something.... what is the point the dude is a rook... don't know why some people think like that sometimes...</div>

Because he only played ~30 games in college each season for the past 2 years. This year, he'll be playing 80 games - more than those 2 years combined.

Add in the faster tempo, the 8 more minutes each game, all of the practices, the better competition - and you're gonna have a tired as hell player, a potential rookie wall hitter, and maybe even a potential injury. You sit him out of as many useless games as possible up until the season starts.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Jul 16 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>VC>PIERCE IMHO. Now that he has a ring its obvious theyll take Pierce... but individually Carter is much better and complete.</div>
How so? Pierce is a better defender, plays hungrier and embraces being the go-to guy.
</div>

I totally agree with you.

Yeah VC is good, but pierce is a completely different player. This isnt about numbers.
 
Anyone who doesn't think Pierce is (and was) a superstar is insane. He was injured for most of last year, obviously his numbers suffered.

I don't think they should pull Lopez. Stick him in there. We're already carrying 16 guaranteed contracts. Chances of some scrub making it are, unfortunately, almost nil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top