Jason Quick On Roy

[magnifier661]

The words in parenthesis are not his own. Which is why they are in parenthesis.

So who put the parenthesis? Was it quick or you? If it was quick, I have lost 100% respect for him. If it was you, I could understand, since you aren't held responsible for things printed.

 

[PapaG]

Yes, we are sharing opinions, because those numbers aren't telling if someone played off the ball or not.

So it's your opinion that Wade and Bryant played off the ball less w/Shaq.

I disagree.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm willing to admit it isn't the ideal stat for a "playing off of the ball" debate, but it, coupled with actual observation, is the closest I can come up with to say that Brandon Roy's game is more similar to Wade/Bryant than it is to Rip Hamilton.

I'd love to see a stat that calculated how much time per possession a player has the ball in their hands. Does it exist?

You are taking Rip Hamilton, one extreme "off the ball player" to Roy, even in this system probably won't be playing off the ball all the time. Rip's game was 100% or close to it, playing off the ball. Do you really think this new system has him doing that?

And I would agree that Brandon's game is very similar to Wade and Kobe. But they don't have the ball in their hands 100% of the time.

 

[RR7]

Pretty sure his opinion was they played off the ball MORE with Shaq.

 

[magnifier661]

So it's your opinion that Wade and Bryant played off the ball less w/Shaq.

I disagree.

My opinion is Bryant and Wade played way more off the ball with Shaq than they do now.

 

[PapaG]

You are taking Rip Hamilton, one extreme "off the ball player" to Roy, even in this system probably won't be playing off the ball all the time. Rip's game was 100% or close to it, playing off the ball. Do you really think this new system has him doing that?

And I would agree that Brandon's game is very similar to Wade and Kobe. But they don't have the ball in their hands 100% of the time.

I didn't inject Rip Hamilton into this thread. Another poster did.

 

[RR7]

Hamilton was injected as a simple way to show the flaw in USG%. That poster was not in any way comparing Roy's game to Rip's. He was showing the flaw in a stat. You somehow miss that.

 

[magnifier661]

I didn't inject Rip Hamilton into this thread. Another poster did.

Oops, my bad, I was replying to your comment regarding RIP.

 

[PapaG]

Hamilton was injected as a simple way to show the flaw in USG%. That poster was not in any way comparing Roy's game to Rip's. He was showing the flaw in a stat. You somehow miss that.

I didn't miss it. I added observation as a determinent. Regardless, your m.o. seems to be to simply follow me around and criticize me. You're on ignore now, and I typically don't ignore posters, but I've started in the past few days when it's clear the arguments are personal, and not based on basketball. Buh-bye.

 

[PapaG]

Oops, my bad, I was replying to your comment regarding RIP.

No problem. As I said, it's difficult keeping up with 5 different conversations at one time. I took care of one of them, though. Now I can be more focused.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Jason said he brought up to Roy the knock on him as a player. That he doesn't play as well off the ball. Brandon agreed but then made the case. "Why should I (being so great) have to work off the ball?" "Do you see guys like Lebron, Kobe and Dwyane being asked to change their game"

And there you have it. Brandon has annointed himself already. He is great, just ask him. So great he has no other areas of his game to improve. He's in a box and he doesn't want to have to come out of that box. You know what Brandon if that is really your mindset, maybe this team does have it's limitations of how far it can go. This team needs you to be more forward thinking that. This team needs you to want to improve in all areas of your game. This team NEEDS you to improve in all areas of your game. INCLUDING OFF THE BALL!! What makes you so great internally, that makes you feel you shouldn't have to work on this? Or any other area of your game that might need to be worked on?

Come out of your box Brandon. This team, organization needs you.. They have taken care of you and now take care of them.

LINK?

 

[magnifier661]

I didn't miss it. I added observation as a determinent. Regardless, your m.o. seems to be to simply follow me around and criticize me. You're on ignore now, and I typically don't ignore posters, but I've started in the past few days when it's clear the arguments are personal, and not based on basketball. Buh-bye.

You can ignore people? Okay where is the "ignore" button. I need to get rid of Hank.

 

[magnifier661]

LINK?

Yeah I was thinking the same thing Dog. I mean I've been searching for this since this thread started and couldn't find anything. I think he heard it on the radio or something.

 

[RR7]

I didn't miss it. I added observation as a determinent. Regardless, your m.o. seems to be to simply follow me around and criticize me. You're on ignore now, and I typically don't ignore posters, but I've started in the past few days when it's clear the arguments are personal, and not based on basketball. Buh-bye.

 

[B-Roy]

That statement sounds wrong.

 

[ABM]

LINK?

Quick was on The Game this afternoon.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

The Rip Hamilton interjection shows to me that there is too much "static" in the usg% to work for this argument... the actual time held by each player within a possession would be sweet but I don't think it exists... or this discussion could have a winner!

 

[barfo]

Is that really what brackets are for?

Usually you use brackets to indicate a word that the speaker elided, or to clarify, for example:

Actual quote: "She came running up and tore off my pants, and she started hitting on her"
Cleaned up: "[HCP's wife] came running up and tore off my pants, and [Beer Boy's wife] started hitting on her".

But you wouldn't insert your own thoughts into the brackets, such as:

"[HCP's wife, that slut,] came running up and tore off my pants, and [Beer Boy's wife] started hitting on her."

You could break the quotation up, or only use part of it, e.g.

Roy said HCP's wife, a notorious slut, "came running up and tore off my pants..."

barfo

 

[illmatic99]

BRoy thinks he's as good as DWade and LbJ?

Am I the only one who finds that laughable?

 

[magnifier661]

No problem. As I said, it's difficult keeping up with 5 different conversations at one time. I took care of one of them, though. Now I can be more focused.

Anyways, back to our discussion. For me, why should Roy be open to change his game? Jordan was always changing his game. Hakeem did as well. Hell pretty much any superstar has always evolved their games. Wouldn't he embrace it?

Seriously, any player that thinks they are good enough has already lost. It's those that are always working on their game, working on their deficiencies are the ones that propel themselves to "GREATNESS". The ones fine with the talent they have and get by with that are ones that are ridiculed. Look at Sheed. An amazing talent, yet choose to be a role player.

 

[ABM]

Usually you use brackets to indicate a word that the speaker elided, or to clarify, for example:

Actual quote: "She came running up and tore off my pants, and she started hitting on her"
Cleaned up: "[HCP's wife] came running up and tore off my pants, and [Beer Boy's wife] started hitting on her".

But you wouldn't insert your own thoughts into the brackets, such as:

"[HCP's wife, that slut,] came running up and tore off my pants, and [Beer Boy's wife] started hitting on her."

You could break the quotation up, or only use part of it, e.g.

Roy said HCP's wife, a notorious slut, "came running up and tore off my pants..."

barfo

Post Of The Year!!

 

[PapaG]

I also wonder why Bryant or Wade would need to play off-the-ball more w/Shaq? Was Shaq the primary ball-handler? I must have missed those games.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

LINK?

Yeah I was thinking the same thing Dog. I mean I've been searching for this since this thread started and couldn't find anything. I think he heard it on the radio or something.

Quick was on The Game this afternoon.

Maybe I should have posted it as

(LINK?)

or

"LINK?"


Well the .MP3 should be up soon at 95.5's website. Maybe someone will be so kind to tell us what time Quick said this. I'd like to hear this myself before freaking out.

 

[PapaG]

Anyways, back to our discussion. For me, why should Roy be open to change his game? Jordan was always changing his game. Hakeem did as well. Hell pretty much any superstar has always evolved their games. Wouldn't he embrace it?

Seriously, any player that thinks they are good enough has already lost. It's those that are always working on their game, working on their deficiencies are the ones that propel themselves to "GREATNESS". The ones fine with the talent they have and get by with that are ones that are ridiculed. Look at Sheed. An amazing talent, yet choose to be a role player.

I don't feel that Roy should be unwilling to change. He's obviously doing it right now. I do feel, however, that handing over the offense to Miller (if that's what actually has happened) may be a bit premature.

We'll see. I still don't think Roy has the same future at SF as he has at a quasi-SG, though.

 

[hasoos]

BRoy thinks he's as good as DWade and LbJ?

Am I the only one who finds that laughable?

He didn't say that. What I find laughable, is that people on this forum are even buying one cent into this. Brandon Roy has done wonders for this franchise, and if you want to bitch about the guy who really turned this franchise around with his unselfish play and team first attitude, go ahead, you are playing a losing hand. Basketball players know how they are used best. I would like one person here to tell me that Roy isn't right. Can anybody step up and actually make a case for the fact that the team would not be better with Miller and Roy at the starting guards, and one of the actual small forwards to play the spot up shooter guy?

I agree with Roy. He should be playing shooting guard. Or PG. But not the spot up shooter guy.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Link here -

http://www.955thegame.com/Shows/Wheels_At_Work/

Quick was on Hour 2. Getting ready to listen now.

Starts at 19:20

 

[barfo]

I'd like to hear this myself before freaking out.

Party pooper.

barfo

 

[Pontius]

No. Maybe a little stubborn and possibly narrow, but not exactly selfish ... especially based on the rest of the talk Quick supposedly had with him.

I think the proper word here is "arrogance". Funny how I posted it in response to one of YOUR posts. haha

 

[magnifier661]

I do feel, however, that handing over the offense to Miller (if that's what actually has happened) may be a bit premature.

We'll see. I still don't think Roy has the same future at SF as he has at a quasi-SG, though.

You maybe right and I suspect KP has planned for one or the other. I mean you basically have two SFs that are "true sfs" and 2 PGs that are true PGs. Either KP realized one will negate the other and one is the "plan b" or he's like trader bob and wants to get the most talent possible.

I suspect it's more to do with Roy and where he eventually lands on the team.

For example: A line-up of Miller, Roy, Webster, Aldridge and Oden looks solid. But I also like a line-up of Bayless, Fernandez, Roy, Aldridge and Oden. Or even Miller, Fernandez, Roy, Aldridge, Oden.

I don't feel that Roy should be unwilling to change. He's obviously doing it right now.

And that's why I question this quote. He's changing, which looks as a very "unselfish" trait.

 

[Pontius]

He didn't say that. What I find laughable, is that people on this forum are even buying one cent into this. Brandon Roy has done wonders for this franchise, and if you want to bitch about the guy who really turned this franchise around with his unselfish play and team first attitude, go ahead, you are playing a losing hand. Basketball players know how they are used best. I would like one person here to tell me that Roy isn't right. Can anybody step up and actually make a case for the fact that the team would not be better with Miller and Roy at the starting guards, and one of the actual small forwards to play the spot up shooter guy?

I agree with Roy. He should be playing shooting guard. Or PG. But not the spot up shooter guy.

Is that really Roy's qualm, that he isn't at SG? Or is it because the ball isn't in his hands more often as the "focal" point of the offense? I do think he should be at SG. But I heartily resist the notion that he should be the focal point of the offense. So in the sense of Roy wanting to be treated like Lebron or Wade, I do not agree with him.