Qyntel Woods! (1 Viewer)

[Rastapopoulos]

Alive, well, Baron-Davis-bearded, playing in Poland, and kicking Joel Freeland's (and Juan Dixon's) ass.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So apparently dog fighting is legal in Poland?



Waste of skin

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So apparently dog fighting is illegal in Poland?



Waste of skin

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that was naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasty!

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Man, fuck Qyntel Woods!

 

[Kaydow]

I remember back in Woods 2nd year on opening night he had about 15 points and made 3 or 4 from deep and I thought we might have something special with this guy. I don't know how many other games he made double figures, but I bet you could count them on one hand.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Whoopdee damn do.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So, I wonder if the competition is tougher in the Polish League or the Vegas Summer League. I'm guessing it must be about equal as those are the only leagues Qyntel has ever excelled in.

BNM

 

[THE HCP]

Damn, I hope you guys like my highlight packages better then that piece of shit!

 

[KingSpeed]

Remember when Cheeks tried to play him at back-up point guard? He could hardly get the ball up the court and yet we were winning games, so he stuck with it for a bit. Crazy.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Remember when Cheeks tried to play him at back-up point guard? He could hardly get the ball up the court and yet we were winning games, so he stuck with it for a bit. Crazy.

So?

 

[LittleAlex]

Remember when Cheeks tried to play him at back-up point guard? He could hardly get the ball up the court and yet we were winning games, so he stuck with it for a bit. Crazy.

Remember when Cheeks was the worst coach in Blazer history?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Remember when Cheeks was the worst coach in Blazer history?

Doesn't that honor belong to KP?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Remember when Cheeks was the worst coach in Blazer history?

I remember that guy. He's the one with the higher winning % as a Blazer coach than Nate. Man, he WAS the worst coach in Blazers history.

 

[hasoos]

Doesn't that honor belong to KP?

I thought it belonged to PJ Carlesimo. The guy who played Chris Dudley in front of Sabonis. Fuck you PJ!

 

[drexlersdad]

he looked good at the pf spot if that was right.

 

[LittleAlex]

I remember that guy. He's the one with the higher winning % as a Blazer coach than Nate. Man, he WAS the worst coach in Blazers history.

In Nate's defense he was picking up the pieces of a destroyed roster while Cheeks inherited one of the best rosters in the league. Nate isn't my favorite coach in the world but he is a far cry from the worst coach Portland has ever had.

I firmly believe Cheeks was the worst coach Portland has ever had, with PJ Carlisimo being a close second. The only reason Cheeks lasted as long as he did was helping that girl with the national anthem.

I do think PJ was the worst coach the Sonics/Thunder ever had.

I don't really consider KP's run as significant but based exclusively on winning percentage KP is far and away the worst Blazer coach.

I am wondering if his winning percentage would be the worst the league has ever seen?

 

[LittleAlex]

I thought it belonged to PJ Carlesimo. The guy who played Chris Dudley in front of Sabonis. Fuck you PJ!

It's close enough to be a coin flip.

I actually enjoyed how Portland never changed the way they played regardless of who was on the floor. Like making Dudley a passer from the high post just because they had a play where Sabonis did that.

Genius!

 

[THE HCP]

I think Kiki has the worst %!

 

[oldguy]

Funny that some of the 'charater doesn't matter' fans would rag on Q.

Go Blazers

 

[Minstrel]

Funny that some of the 'charater doesn't matter' fans would rag on Q.

Why? Talent matters. And Woods didn't have it, relative to the NBA.

The "character doesn't matter" people (me being one) simply aren't willing to jettison talented players due to not liking them personally. As mentioned, though, Woods didn't qualify as talented.

 

[oldguy]

Fair enough. From some of the comments, I wasn't sure that all they were talking about was talent.

Would you be ok with Q on the Blazers if he had more talent, knowing that he fights pit bulls in his free time?

Go Blazers

 

[Minstrel]

Would you be ok with Q on the Blazers if he had more talent, knowing that he fights pit bulls in his free time?

Knowing that he had fought pit bulls in the past? Yeah, I would be okay with him playing for the team. I think making animals fight is pretty loathsome, but my relationship to the players begins and ends with watching them play basketball. There are lots of athletes (and actors and musicians) whom I would dislike intensely as people, but that isn't my relationship to them. For that matter, there are plenty of despicable CEOs, but it would be difficult to choose my products, whether entertainment or commercial, based on how well I liked the people selling them.

As far as I'm concerned, who the players are as people is between them and their friends, family, teammates and (sometimes unfortunately) the law.

 

[jlprk]

Would you be ok with Q on the Blazers if he had more talent, knowing that he fights pit bulls in his free time?

Dog fighting was only the last straw for those already wanting Woods' head. They opposed him long before that because he seemed to be smoking grass. I wouldn't have problems supporting a Blazer star despite his doing what they really opposed Woods for, using drugs.

It's similar to when--those already opposed to the consensus of scientists that climate change is a threat, found some e-mails. The e-mails aren't why they oppose science. The e-mails are just evidence to support their prior position.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

If I could have a superpower I'd choose to be invisible so I can straight up Tonya Harding his knees.

 

[oldguy]

Knowing that he had fought pit bulls in the past? Yeah, I would be okay with him playing for the team. I think making animals fight is pretty loathsome, but my relationship to the players begins and ends with watching them play basketball. There are lots of athletes (and actors and musicians) whom I would dislike intensely as people, but that isn't my relationship to them. For that matter, there are plenty of despicable CEOs, but it would be difficult to choose my products, whether entertainment or commercial, based on how well I liked the people selling them.

As far as I'm concerned, who the players are as people is between them and their friends, family, teammates and (sometimes unfortunately) the law.

Do you really have no boundaries around this? You would cheer for a team of child molesters, rapists, murderers and meth cooks, as long as they are good at hoops?

Go Blazers

 

[jlprk]

Yeah, or like killing a million and a half people in Iraq, or supporting our >50 torture asylums around the world?

Come to think of it, I have my limitations on whom I will support.

 

[Minstrel]

Do you really have no boundaries around this? You would cheer for a team of child molesters, rapists, murderers and meth cooks, as long as they are good at hoops?

Will you watch a movie without first researching the histories of the actors in it, to be sure you're not supporting an accused child molester or a convicted drug addict? In fact, I think it's probably hard to see a film in which none of the actors have committed some sort of crime, counting drug use.

I cheer for the team. The players I view as entertainers. I have no boundaries on who may entertain me, but any wrong-doing I think should be prosecuted. Even if Q had been averaging 30 PPG / 20 APG for Portland, I'd have wanted him prosecuted for the dog fighting. But if the Blazers signed him today and he was productive, I'd be fine with that.

 

[jlprk]

People who disliked the Blazers for so-called "character" didn't realize how political they were being. They hated some individual crimes but cheered mass crimes sanctioned by the government. On another board, we had Whitsitt and Iraq threads going simultaneously, and both were really equally political.

By the way, "molesting" means "touching." It's not in the same class as murder. Not even close. And murder isn't in the same class as unnecessary war. Not even close.

 

[oldguy]

Will you watch a movie without first researching the histories of the actors in it, to be sure you're not supporting an accused child molester or a convicted drug addict? In fact, I think it's probably hard to see a film in which none of the actors have committed some sort of crime, counting drug use.

I think if an actor was a murderer, meth cook, or rapist, I wouldn't have to do much research to know that. And, if the actor(s) had done any of that, I absolutely would not ever put money in their pockets by watching their movies. A real example of that is Roman Polansky, who was banging a young teenager (14?) when he was in his 30's, iirc, then fled to Europe to avoid punishment. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on that guy if he was on fire, let alone pay to see a movie he produced or directed.

Same with the Blazers. If they were to bring in seriously bad character guys, I would quit being a fan the very day they signed a serious criminal. To each his own, I guess.

I cheer for the team. The players I view as entertainers. I have no boundaries on who may entertain me, but any wrong-doing I think should be prosecuted. Even if Q had been averaging 30 PPG / 20 APG for Portland, I'd have wanted him prosecuted for the dog fighting. But if the Blazers signed him today and he was productive, I'd be fine with that.

I cheer for the team, too. But I don't find hard core criminals entertaining, no matter how well they play basketball.

You don't find any value added from having a team of players that are genuinely good guys? These guys make me want to cheer for the team, and it's not all about talent, for me.

If I'm reading what you are saying correctly, you would want a 30/20 Quintel on the team, even if he was prosecuted for fighting dogs, and he said that he has every intention of continuing to do so?

Go Blazers

 

[Minstrel]

I think if an actor was a murderer, meth cook, or rapist, I wouldn't have to do much research to know that. And, if the actor(s) had done any of that, I absolutely would not ever put money in their pockets by watching their movies. A real example of that is Roman Polansky, who was banging a young teenager (14?) when he was in his 30's, iirc, then fled to Europe to avoid punishment. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on that guy if he was on fire, let alone pay to see a movie he produced or directed.

*nod* That's cool. Not my mindset.

You don't find any value added from having a team of players that are genuinely good guys?

Sure, I see some value to that. I'd rather a great team made of great guys. But that's obvious. It's a question of whether you'd rather have a bad/mediocre team made up of good guys or a good/great team made up of guys you'd rather not have over for dinner. I'd take the second in a heartbeat.

If I'm reading what you are saying correctly, you would want a 30/20 Quintel on the team, even if he was prosecuted for fighting dogs, and he said that he has every intention of continuing to do so?

If he had "every intention of continuing to do so," then he'd be in jail from now on (and rightly so) and therefore not a productive player. So no, if he planned on continuing to do that, I wouldn't want him on the team.

Hardcore crime deserves hardcore punishments, so I wouldn't want a player who was going to do such things in the future.