Wow lost respect for David Aldrige

[GameTime]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/swf/1.1/cvp/nba_embed_container.swf?context=nba&videoId=channels/nba_tv/2010/06/25/20100625_atl_draft_review.nba

Saying start Marvin at the 2. :cant believe:

Edited June 29, 2010 by GameTime

[Uuus]

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2010/06/15/20100615_bosh_free_agent.nba/index.html

Saying start Marvin at the 2. :cant believe:

I can't get the link to work at the office...what else is DA saying?

Marvin at the 2 is definitely a crazy idea....but....maybe....possibly... the only way it could work is if you utilize him like the Pistons used Rip. Marvin has a great midrange and if you can get him coming off screens, maybe he can become a bigger stockier version of Rip.

Also, he's one of our better perimeter defenders but I don't know how he would do guarding SGs most of the game.

[AHF]

I didn't see the DA video. I saw a video of Chris Bosh talking about being the man.

[GameTime]

I didn't see the DA video. I saw a video of Chris Bosh talking about being the man.

Link fixed.

[Diesel]

Link fixed.

DA knew it was stupid to say while he was saying it.

[AHF]

Starting Marvin at the 2 is a crazy idea, but it didn't sound quite as bad in context.

DA was saying that the Hawks are going to be reluctant to start Jamal Crawford if they lose JJ because Crawford is so important to their bench scoring and was so successful in that role last season. He was making the point that they would like to start someone instead of Crawford and said something like "maybe you start a Marvin Williams at the 2 even though that probably isn't his best position." While BK was probably nodding in agreement with DA, I think most everyone can recognize that Marvin at the 2 isn't likely to work and so DA is certainly open for that criticism, but I think his bigger point was that the Hawks would want to keep Crawford in the 6th man role as opposed to him thinking Marvin is so well suited at the 2.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

DA just mentioned it in passing. After he said that about Marvin, he also said that it may not be his best position. But the only reason why he said it in the first place, is so that we can keep Jamal on the bench, to continue to let him be the main scorer off the bench.

I was more impressed with what Lawrence Frank said about ownership striking first, and not taking a "wait and see" approach. And I agree with him. If the ASG is serious about re-signing JJ, they MUST come IMMEDIATELY with a major deal. If the MAX that JJ can get from a 5 year deal from the Nets is 5 yrs - 92 million, the ASG MUST come at JJ with a 100+ million contract. If it's a 6 year deal, they probably need to come with what coachx said . . . 6 yrs - 105 million ( at the MINIMUM ).

We have to go at JJ aggressively if we want to keep him here. If not, we'll definitely lose him.

[frosgrim]

I watched that as well on Sunday (I think) and had the same thought. Marvin at the 2 would be a colossal disaster.

[frankthetank966]

He said maybe but its not his best position. He was just thinking of some ideas.

[coachx]

DA knew it was stupid to say while he was saying it.

Agreed......he said that is not Marvin's best position but if they lose JJ for nothing it could be route to go.....keeping Crawford at 6th man.

What would really happen is Mo at SG and Crawford off the bench.

I still like DA.

[lethalweapon3]

I am so glad I wasn't the only one who nearly spit out my drink hearing DA suggest that. Almost as hare-brained as my Joe-the-PG scheme. Let's just go with an everybody-out-of-position starting lineup and confuse the heck out of everybody.

PG - Joe

SG - Marv

SF - Smoove

PF - Zaza

C - Al

~lw3

[DrReality]

Talking heads. Gotta come up with something different to say so he'll get noticed. Silly.