T-WOLVES @ BLAZERS - GAME THREAD

[Boob-No-More]

I never said it was a bad thing. I said I noticed it, and it concerned me.

It "concerns" you that the guy who was 1-6 willingly passed to the guy who was 9-14? You sure do get "concerned" about the strangest things. Perhaps you're just obsessed with trying to find SOME reason to hate on Andre Miller. Give it a rest. Your act is beyond tired. We won by 23, the team played great, the ball movement was phenomenal (35 assist on 41 FG), and Miller had a great game. I know that's hard for you to accept, but you're going to have to learn to deal with it. It won't be the last time Andre Miller has a good game and the Blazers win. Better learn to accept it and stop being so "concerned".

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

In fact, show me one negative thing that I had to say about Nate or Outlaw in this thread? I thought Travis had a great game. I'm not sold on this current lineup long term, but I love what Nate has done in the past two games. He's let go of the reigns.

 

[PapaG]

It "concerns" you that the guy who was 1-6 willingly passed to the guy who was 9-14? You sure do get "concerned" about the strangest things. Perhaps you're just obsessed with trying to find SOME reason to hate on Andre Miller. Give it a rest. Your act is beyond tired. We won by 23, the team played great, the ball movement was phenomenal (35 assist on 41 FG), and Miller had a great game. I know that's hard for you to accept, but you're going to have to learn to deal with it. It won't be the last time Andre Miller has a good game and the Blazers win. Better learn to accept it and stop being so "concerned".

BNM

Sorry, but I don't recall ever telling you to "give a rest" to your more pointed and more blatant criticisms of Nate McMillan.

Thanks for your input, but come on now, do you really think you telling me to give anything a "rest" is going to matter? I advocated Miller starting. I'm happy the team won. I noticed something that I will be keeping an eye on regarding how Miller utilizes Roy now that he has the keys to the offense.

 

[Nikolokolus]

It "concerns" you that the guy who was 1-6 willingly passed to the guy who was 9-14? You sure do get "concerned" about the strangest things. Perhaps you're just obsessed with trying to find SOME reason to hate on Andre Miller. Give it a rest. Your act is beyond tired. We won by 23, the team played great, the ball movement was phenomenal (35 assist on 41 FG), and Miller had a great game. I know that's hard for you to accept, but you're going to have to learn to deal with it. It won't be the last time Andre Miller has a good game and the Blazers win. Better learn to accept it and stop being so "concerned".

BNM

Actually the funny thing is that Miller was more the beneficiary of Steve Blake, LaMarcus and Greg than anybody in particular. They found him on the break, cutting to the hoop and wide open for fifteen footers on several occasions. If anybody wants to blame Miller for taking all of those "selfish" shots maybe they should have a word with our bigs and our other starting point guard.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

In fact, show me one negative thing that I had to say about Nate or Outlaw in this thread? I thought Travis had a great game. I'm not sold on this current lineup long term, but I love what Nate has done in the past two games. He's let go of the reigns.

Agree. Nate deserves some props for the change he has made. Forced upon him or not. He's bought into it. And he deserves some props for that.

 

[PapaG]

In fact, show me one negative thing that I had to say about Nate or Outlaw in this thread? I thought Travis had a great game. I'm not sold on this current lineup long term, but I love what Nate has done in the past two games. He's let go of the reigns.

In this thread? That was not my point, and you also already lied when you denied that you singled me out as a troll.

You bash on Outlaw and Nate. This is a fact. I'm sorry if you disagree with me in this thread on a few issues. Perhaps you should realize that not everyone thinks like you do, and if they do so, that doesn't mean that their opinion is not valid.

It certainly isn't trollish, is it?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I noticed something that I will be keeping an eye on regarding how Miller utilizes Roy now that he has the keys to the offense.

I recorded the game; I'll watch it again to see how many times Roy touched the ball while he was in. We know from the stats that it was at least 12 times (1-6 + 6 assists). 7 rebounds means an opportunity for up to 19 plays where the ball was in Roy's hands, not counting times he touched the ball, and passed without getting an assist. But we'd need to see the game again. Roy only played 26 minutes, so it should be easy to see.

 

[PapaG]

Here's the confusion: Most people get concerned about bad things. Seeing someone concerned leads most people to believe that the item of concern is bad. So saying you're concerned about it does in fact lead us to believe you said it was a bad thing, because one (bad thing) causes the other (concern). This is a causal relationship.

And all we're trying to say is there's nothing to be concerned about. This game had no elements in it (other than Martell landing funny on his foot) to be the least bit concerned about. Roy's scoring stat in context is a positive, or a neutral, not a negative. It is not a point of concern.

Not really, though. Most have been attacking me. You, on the other hand, have used comedy and direct questioning, which I do appreciate.

If I have a concern, it's my concern. I admit that being called a troll by a moderator pissed me off, and it needlessly added pages to this otherwise boring thread.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Sorry, but I don't recall ever telling you to "give a rest" to your more pointed and more blatant criticisms of Nate McMillan.

You must have me confused with another poster. With the recent exception of criticizing his failed "small line-up" against Atlanta, I rarely criticize Nate McMillan. In fact, I've defended him far more in this forum than I've been critical of him.

Thanks for your input, but come on now, do you really think you telling me to give anything a "rest" is going to matter?

No, I don't. Because, I understand the definition of "obsession". You have an obsession with making Andre Miller look bad, as you have proven once again after tonight's 23-point win, and nothing I, or anyone else can say, will get you to change. That doesn't mean I don't find it tedious and pointless, but feel free to carry on if it gives you some kind of twisted satisfaction or fills a need in your life. I'll continue to pray for a cure.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

In this thread? That was not my point, and you also already lied when you denied that you singled me out as a troll.

You bash on Outlaw and Nate. This is a fact. I'm sorry if you disagree with me in this thread on a few issues. Perhaps you should realize that not everyone thinks like you do, and if they do so, that doesn't mean that their opinion is not valid.

It certainly isn't trollish, is it?

I lied? BNM made a vague statement and I made a vague statement. At no time was your name ever mentioned in relation with the word "troll".

My point is that you bash on Miller whether he does well or not. You bash on Miller if we win or lose. I bash on Nate when the team sucks. I have never "bashed" on Outlaw. I stated that I think he has a low bbiq. I believe this statement to be fact. I also have said that I think he's a ballhog. I'm not the only one with this opinion. But I also have given both Nate and Outlaw praise over the years. It's not a one-way street for me.

 

[PapaG]

I lied? BNM made a vague statement and I made a vague statement. At no time was your name ever mentioned in relation with the word "troll".

My point is that you bash on Miller whether he does well or not. You bash on Miller if we win or lose. I bash on Nate when the team sucks. I have never "bashed" on Outlaw. I stated that I think he has a low bbiq. I believe this statement to be fact. I also have said that I think he's a ballhog. I'm not the only one with this opinion. But I also have given both Nate and Outlaw praise over the years. It's not a one-way street for me.

Where did I bash Miller in this thread? You're lying again.

 

[PapaG]

I disagree. I don't think Brandon Roy is quite as significant as you make him out to be. Is he an important cog? Absolutely. Does he help the team? Absolutely. Is he our All-Star? Yes. Do our championship hopes rest on his shoulders? NO.

I think our hopes of a title rest more on the shoulders of Greg Oden than on Brandon Roy.

You think this team can win titles with Roy averaging 2 ppg, and I'm the "troll".

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Where did I bash Miller in this thread? You're lying again.

You do see something worthy of concern in Miller's interactions with Roy, even when nobody else can. What you consider to be enlightened insight, other see as seeing boogiemen in the shadows. Some might go so far as to call it fear mongering, though that's MIXUM's purview.

 

[Natebishop3]

Where did I bash Miller in this thread? You're lying again.

3 assists, 4 TOs, 14 shots and 21 points.

Lots of work to do IMO, but I love the win, even against an awful team. Miller needs to learn how to incorporate Roy into the game.

This is my definition of you "bashing" on Miller. It might differ from your definition of me "bashing" on Outlaw or Nate.

 

[PapaG]

This is my definition of you "bashing" on Miller. It might differ from your definition of me "bashing" on Outlaw or Nate.

You advocate Nate being fired. I say Miller needs to incorporate Roy into the game, but that I'm happy with the result.

I'm the troll, though.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

You think this team can win titles with Roy averaging 2 ppg, and I'm the "troll".

The logic is absurd in a real-world scenario, but sound in a vacuum: If Roy only scores 2ppg if we're beating the tar out of an opponent, then we would be better served by putting ourselves in that situation as much as possible. The overall situation (blowing out opponents) influences his stat line (2ppg) in this case, not the other way around. Nobody's implying we won because he only scored 2 points.

 

[PapaG]

You do see something worthy of concern in Miller's interactions with Roy, even when nobody else can. What you consider to be enlightened insight, other see as seeing boogiemen in the shadows. Some might go so far as to call it fear mongering, though that's MIXUM's purview.

I really should have bitched about Nate. That's a rep-worthy post on this board.

I'll try to dumb it down from now on.

Nate needs to make Miller use Roy better.

 

[PapaG]

The logic is absurd in a real-world scenario, but sound in a vacuum: If Roy only scores 2ppg if we're beating the tar out of an opponent, then we would be better served by putting ourselves in that situation as much as possible. The overall situation (blowing out opponents) influences his stat line (2ppg) in this case, not the other way around. Nobody's implying we won because he only scored 2 points.

Did you read my post that Nate was responding to with that reply? Or are you just going for cheap points in the latest pile-it-on thread?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I don't see how any of you can deny that you will be paying extra attention to how many scoring opportunities Roy has in the future when he is in the game with Miller.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Roy was incorporated in the offense and he was 1-6. He was having an off shooting night, the rest of the team was hot, and so he helped facilitate even more shots for them as you can see from his seven assists.

But keep intentionally 'misunderstanding' what they're saying and making it sound like something else.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I have a personal request, if people have a beef with one another is it too much to ask to take it into PMs? I mean, I'm all for a good argument and all, especially if the argument revolves around basketball related stuff, but the 4 page tete-a-tete makes it pretty much impossible to actually have a conversation not dominated by one or two posters (and no, I don't really care who started it, or who is who in this particular fight).

 

[Natebishop3]

You advocate Nate being fired. I say Miller needs to incorporate Roy into the game, but that I'm happy with the result.

I'm the troll, though.

The difference is, I see Nate's strengths and his weaknesses. I commend him for his strengths though, while I complain about his weaknesses. I damn sure don't search for negatives in an otherwise positive evening. You do.

Everyone else is happy and excited, yet you find a way to point out that Miller took more shots than Roy. He didn't shoot a bad percentage. He didn't take bad shots. But he did take more shots than Roy. Why even point that out? It's one game. Why search for negatives in a win? You don't see how that could be construed as trolling? If you don't, I can't help you. I just call it like I see it.

With that said, I never called you a troll, so stop acting like I made a post stating that papag is a troll.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Did you read my post that Nate was responding to with that reply? Or are you just going for cheap points in the latest pile-it-on thread?

No I did; it's a familiar post because it's similar to the one that got me ignored by you.

 

[PapaG]

I don't see how any of you can deny that you will be paying extra attention to how many scoring opportunities Roy has in the future when he is in the game with Miller.

That's basically my point, although I do realize that me being the messenger means that personal attacks will supercede actually discussing some potential on-court problems.

So, I agree with you, yet I don't think the world is ending, or that Nate should be fired, or etc. etc. etc.

 

[PapaG]

No I did; it's a familiar post because it's similar to the one that got me ignored by you.

Love is a battlefield.

 

[Natebishop3]

I have a personal request, if people have a beef with one another is it too much to ask to take it into PMs? I mean, I'm all for a good argument and all, especially if the argument revolves around basketball related stuff, but the 4 page tete-a-tete makes it pretty much impossible to actually have a conversation not dominated by one or two posters (and no, I don't really care who started it, or who is who in this particular fight).

Point taken.

 

[alex42083]

Minnesota is a real crappy team. They start a guy named Oleksiy Pecherov... seriously? I like Flynn's game, but I think he's another 6-foot shooting guard. Too bad they didn't have Rubio but I don't know why Rambis took this job.

 

[PapaG]

Point taken.

Perhaps Nik should be the mod.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Point taken.

No worries, I just wanted to talk about the game and revel in it a bit ... instead ... meh.

 

[PapaG]

Minnesota is a real crappy team. They start a guy named Oleksiy Pecherov... seriously? I like Flynn's game, but I think he's another 6-foot shooting guard. Too bad they didn't have Rubio but I don't know why Rambis took this job.

Best post of the thread!