John Lund Is Killing Marcus Camby

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

PapaG

Banned User
BANNED
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
32,870
Likes
291
Points
0
Basically calling him a bad teammate for not stepping up and trying to play a bit on Friday when the team was shorthanded. Is this another example of Camby not wanting to play against a former team?

Also mentioned that Camby wasn't even in the arena for the game, but I don't know if that part is true.
 
He has a right to his opinion. He actually doesn't know much about basketball the few times I listened to him. Also, Camby was at the game on the bench.
 
He has a right to his opinion. He actually doesn't know much about basketball the few times I listened to him. Also, Camby was at the game on the bench.

That's what I thought.

Anyhow, just a great rant the guy was on, even if I completely disagree with it.
 
Can't argue with that logic.

Blazers lost last night, so Camby needs to go back to the bench.

You're being ironic, but I don't think there's as much wrong with that statement as you do; we're trying to integrate three new guys into the team at the same time: Roy, Camby, and Wallace. I imagine it's a bit of a goat rodeo right now trying to get everyone sorted out. It might have been nice to integrate these guys in one at a time...
 
Is a thread necessary everytime a local media blowhard says something stupid to get a reaction from listeners?
 
Is a thread necessary everytime a local media blowhard says something stupid to get a reaction from listeners?

Denny Crane decrees it so... we must render unto Denny that which is Denny's... post counts and a Grand Slam Breakfast.
 
Is a thread necessary everytime a local media blowhard says something stupid to get a reaction from listeners?

To be fair, this wasn't just based on Lund's opinion of what Camby should have done. He claims that he had a source who provided him details on a conversation Friday between Nate and Camby, in which Nate pleaded with Camby to play that night (due to the roster shortage), to which Camby replied, "I can go Sunday, not tonight."

If that's the case--that Camby was able to definitively declare on Friday that he would be healthy enough to play on Sunday--then one wonders how he would know on Friday that that would be the case two days in advance. If that's the case, then it's not an unreasonable assumption that Camby probably could have played on Friday, but just chose not to.

If that's the case. Big if.
 
To be fair, this wasn't just based on Lund's opinion of what Camby should have done. He claims that he had a source who provided him details on a conversation Friday between Nate and Camby, in which Nate pleaded with Camby to play that night (due to the roster shortage), to which Camby replied, "I can go Sunday, not tonight."

If that's the case--that Camby was able to definitively declare on Friday that he would be healthy enough to play on Sunday--then one wonders how he would know on Friday that that would be the case two days in advance. If that's the case, then it's not an unreasonable assumption that Camby probably could have played on Friday, but just chose not to.

If that's the case. Big if.

Even if thats the case, Camby has been around long enough and his reputation precedes him. A lot of games left for him to rush back if he doesn't feel comfortable. Camby has proven to me that he wants to win and knows what it takes to win (case in point the OKC game last year when he went out). Some guys just don't have the mentality to play through injuries when they don't feel 100%, maybe Camby is one of those guys.
 
Lund's a moron.

If anything Camby should wait another 2 weeks until he's back in game shape.
 
I'm not speaking to Lund's Camby rant per se, but it has occurred to me on more than one occasion that John Lund takes ridiculous minority positions in order to stir a response from his listeners. I mean, he can't be as ignorant and misguided as he portrays himself, can he?
 
Even if thats the case, Camby has been around long enough and his reputation precedes him. A lot of games left for him to rush back if he doesn't feel comfortable. Camby has proven to me that he wants to win and knows what it takes to win (case in point the OKC game last year when he went out). Some guys just don't have the mentality to play through injuries when they don't feel 100%, maybe Camby is one of those guys.

His reputation is that of a guy who milks injuries and prefers not to play against former teams. I don't think his reputation necessarily helps him out in this instance.
 
His reputation is that of a guy who milks injuries and prefers not to play against former teams. I don't think his reputation necessarily helps him out in this instance.

I've always thought of him as a great rebounder and shot blocker, in fact a key piece on a team that went to the Finals. One who milks injuries when on shitty teams like the Clippers, sure. Thats what players in the NBA do. If he doesn't feel ready, he doesn't feel ready. I think the not wanting to play against former teams thing is BS and I really have never seen anything to support it except for stuff coming from people who would look nicely in a tinfoil hat.
 
Now that Camby has met our trainer, he's developed a career-long attitude to stay injured longer than expected.
 
To be fair, this wasn't just based on Lund's opinion of what Camby should have done. He claims that he had a source who provided him details on a conversation Friday between Nate and Camby, in which Nate pleaded with Camby to play that night (due to the roster shortage), to which Camby replied, "I can go Sunday, not tonight."

If that's the case--that Camby was able to definitively declare on Friday that he would be healthy enough to play on Sunday--then one wonders how he would know on Friday that that would be the case two days in advance. If that's the case, then it's not an unreasonable assumption that Camby probably could have played on Friday, but just chose not to.

If that's the case. Big if.

That sounds like a conversation that wouldn't have many witnesses around it. IF it is true, which, I doubt, personally, what does it say for the source? Someone who seems likely to be either another player or assistant coach, most likely, and you'd run to the media to tell them something like that?
 
Stealing Wes Matthews from Utah?

Great idea!

Stealing Lund from Utah?

Not so much.
 
I've always thought of him as a great rebounder and shot blocker, in fact a key piece on a team that went to the Finals.

Two different reputations--his on-court rep is irrelevant to this discussion.

One who milks injuries when on shitty teams like the Clippers, sure. Thats what players in the NBA do. If he doesn't feel ready, he doesn't feel ready.

Many NBA players play even when they're hurting, such as Batum with sore shoulder throughout '09, or Roy 6 days after surgery in last year's playoffs. Most players don't have a rep for not being willing to do so; right or wrong, Camby does.

I think the not wanting to play against former teams thing is BS and I really have never seen anything to support it except for stuff coming from people who would look nicely in a tinfoil hat.

I'm not saying there's any legitimacy to it; what I am saying is that the reputation existed prior to him arriving here. You're the one who stated that "his reputation precedes him" with respect to Lund's statement. Valid or not, that's his.
 
Where does he get this reputation? Where does it come from? I think a few have made the reputation up and it stuck. When he was on the lowly Clippers he milked injuries, sure. Its what a lot of veterans do on lousy teams.
 
He has a right to his opinion. He actually doesn't know much about basketball the few times I listened to him. Also, Camby was at the game on the bench.

hcp.png
 
Where does he get this reputation? Where does it come from? I think a few have made the reputation up and it stuck. When he was on the lowly Clippers he milked injuries, sure. Its what a lot of veterans do on lousy teams.

I don't know where the rep came from, but there's a general notion that reputations exist for a reason. Less than a week ago, it was being speculated that Camby may have been staying out longer than necessary to avoid being traded. Surely that was not the only incident in his long injury history that has contributed to this reputation.

As for the notion that a lot of veterans milk injuries while on lousy teams--in my mind, that's a weak excuse. The fact that my coworkers steal office supplies or misuse company assets does not justify me doing the same.
 
I don't know where the rep came from, but there's a general notion that reputations exist for a reason. Less than a week ago, it was being speculated that Camby may have been staying out longer than necessary to avoid being traded. Surely that was not the only incident in his long injury history that has contributed to this reputation.

As for the notion that a lot of veterans milk injuries while on lousy teams--in my mind, that's a weak excuse. The fact that my coworkers steal office supplies or misuse company assets does not justify me doing the same.


I guess this is where I differ from most posters on this board. I don't believe every talking point that local media guys try and use. I don't really put much merit at all into what guys like Jaynes and Quick want to spin.

The analogy between your coworkers and NBA players is lousy. Players sitting out because a team is lousy and management okaying it in favor of playing a younger player is common practice in the NBA. This has been going on for years. Its similar to September call-ups in baseball for horrible teams. Give the young guy playing time.
 
The analogy between your coworkers and NBA players is lousy. Players sitting out because a team is lousy and management okaying it in favor of playing a younger player is common practice in the NBA. This has been going on for years. Its similar to September call-ups in baseball for horrible teams. Give the young guy playing time.

You're attempting to change the discussion. Management sitting him down is one thing. The player choosing to milk the injury to take extra games off because he is dissatisfied with his team's performance or makeup is another. You said:

One who milks injuries when on shitty teams like the Clippers, sure. Thats what players in the NBA do. If he doesn't feel ready, he doesn't feel ready.

That's not akin to September call-ups at all. That's getting paid for not doing a job that one is capable of doing. So, make up your mind--do NBA players on shitty teams milk injuries of their own volition or not?
 
You're attempting to change the discussion. Management sitting him down is one thing. The player choosing to milk the injury to take extra games off because he is dissatisfied with his team's performance or makeup is another. You said:



That's not akin to September call-ups at all. That's getting paid for not doing a job that one is capable of doing. So, make up your mind--do NBA players on shitty teams milk injuries of their own volition or not?

What proof do we have that he is milking this current injury? Maybe he doesn't feel he's ready. I guess its just funny to go up in arms about something that is nothing more than just heresay by a local media blowhard. With Camby's old age, and potential run to the playoffs, you'd think that they would want to take it easy on him.

BTW, a lot of times its not a management decision. Its a mutual decision to sit out so a younger player can play.
 
What proof do we have that he is milking this current injury? Maybe he doesn't feel he's ready. I guess its just funny to go up in arms about something that is nothing more than just heresay by a local media blowhard. With Camby's old age, and potential run to the playoffs, you'd think that they would want to take it easy on him.

No proof, and nobody's up in arms (except Lund). However if--which I've already said is a big if--this conversation with Nate actually happened like Lund claimed, then we would have some very compelling evidence to support the rep. And I don't know if you recall, but our discussion began with you saying, "Even if thats the case." So our whole chat has been predicated on the assumption that what Lund said was true. Are you trying to change the discussion again?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top