Hey "Big Al"...

[Lurker]

The starting lineup together got their butts whooped by the Celtics last time. It would have not been a "barely beating" if they had stayed in.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Lurker

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

The starting lineup together got their butts whooped by the Celtics last time. It would have not been a "barely beating" if they had stayed in.

Yeah if Crowder scored 8 points in the first quarter then clearly he would've had 36 points in 4 quarters, amirite?  That's how it works, right?

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

The starting lineup together got their butts whooped by the Celtics last time. It would have not been a "barely beating" if they had stayed in.

I honestly don't know what this is supposed to mean.  We won by 16.  They didn't outscore us a single quarter.  Our starters were a combined +71 for the game while their starters were a combined -34 and shot 11-46 for the game.

Our guys didn't even have a good game on the perimeter shooting  only 24% from range for the game so we didn't have some unusual offensive explosion - just obvious energy on D and kicking their butts on the boards.  There is no alteration they would have made to win this one.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

I honestly don't know what this is supposed to mean.  We won by 16.  They didn't outscore us a single quarter.  Our starters were a combined +71 for the game while their starters were a combined -34 and shot 11-46 for the game.

Our guys didn't even have a good game on the perimeter shooting  only 24% from range for the game so we didn't have some unusual offensive explosion - just obvious energy on D and kicking their butts on the boards.  There is no alteration they would have made to win this one.  

I think she's referring to our first game vs them.  Not that the "logic" holds up.  Just sayin.

[AHF]

8 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I think she's referring to our first game vs them.  Not that the "logic" holds up.  Just sayin.

First game they outplayed us.  Second game we outplayed them.  Why does either game have any relevance to the other?  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

First game they outplayed us.  Second game we outplayed them.  Why does either game have any relevance to the other?  

[Guest]

Back on topic....

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Spud2Nique said:

Back on topic....

Hmmm...after watching the effort on the boards the last few years, I figured there would be no heart.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Hmmm...after watching the effort on the boards the last few years, I figured there would be no heart.

Oh that's a classic!!! Love it!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Hmmm...after watching the effort on the boards the last few years, I figured there would be no heart.

 

[Atlantaholic]

On 28/2/2017 at 0:01 AM, bleachkit said:

I would rather have Horford than freakin' Bazemore. What solvents are you guys inhaling?

I'd rather have Bazemore for 70 million than Horford for 120 million

[AHF]

38 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

I'd rather have Bazemore for 70 million than Horford for 120 million

While I'm not excited about either, I'll take Al over Baze at those prices.  Al is a nice complimentary piece - your #3 guy. He is no way satisfies the need for a star in any way but he does a lot of good complimentary things especially if you can get a plus rebounder next to him. He is pricey but doesn't stop you from paying top dollar to a real star that he can compliment.

 

 Baze is your #8 guy coming off the bench.  He is a subpar starter at his best and is unplayable at his worst but you are up a creek if he is your best option at either wing spot.  He is paid so much for this limited role that it makes it tough for you to afford a legit starter at his position and you still need a starter there after you sign him.

[NBASupes]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

While I'm not excited about either, I'll take Al over Baze at those prices.  Al is a nice complimentary piece - your #3 guy. He is no way satisfies the need for a star in any way but he does a lot of good complimentary things especially if you can get a plus rebounder next to him. He is pricey but doesn't stop you from paying top dollar to a real star that he can compliment.

 

 Baze is your #8 guy coming off the bench.  He is a subpar starter at his best and is unplayable at his worst but you are up a creek if he is your best option at either wing spot.  He is paid so much for this limited role that it makes it tough for you to afford a legit starter at his position and you still need a starter there after you sign him.

I think Al is a star if used correctly. He's not a stats guy but an impact guy. At this stage, he is starting to regress but I agree, he's still worth it over Baze at any price other than the min which he don't really have to even play. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

I think Al is a star if used correctly. He's not a stats guy but an impact guy. At this stage, he is starting to regress but I agree, he's still worth it over Baze at any price other than the min which he don't really have to even play. 

These 2 statements are mismatched.  If you're not a 'stats guy' you cannot be a star regardless of how you're "used".  And don't start with the, "Uh well, you don't have a high BBIQ" stuff.  I get the analytics and the 'impact' discussion, but if you're not able to score at a high level, force a double-team, etc., you are not a star.

[Thomas]

Another rumble brewing?

[AHF]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

These 2 statements are mismatched.  If you're not a 'stats guy' you cannot be a star regardless of how you're "used".  And don't start with the, "Uh well, you don't have a high BBIQ" stuff.  I get the analytics and the 'impact' discussion, but if you're not able to score at a high level, force a double-team, etc., you are not a star.

You know we've been down this road enough.  I don't spend the energy arguing that type of point with Supes when Al is in the discussion.  We've had the Al > Karl talks enough for my lifetime.  This comes back to the same fundamental discussion here substituting "star" for "HOFer Karl Malone."  Same principle.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

Another rumble brewing?

Nah, AH's fightin days are long over and I'm too far beneath Supers' intellect for him to spar with the likes of me. #rollseyes

1 minute ago, AHF said:

You know we've been down this road enough.  I don't spend the energy arguing that type of point with Supes when Al is in the discussion.  We've had the Al > Karl talks enough for my lifetime.  This comes back to the same fundamental discussion here substituting "star" for "HOFer Karl Malone."  Same principle.

I'm not giving up on ol' Supes.  He's like that crazy cousin who's lucid enough for you to 'member when y'all were kids playin' in the yard.  Can't turn your back on that cousin, AH.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Nah, AH's fightin days are long over and I'm too far beneath Supers' intellect for him to spar with the likes of me. #rollseyes

I'm not giving up on ol' Supes.  He's like that crazy cousin who's lucid enough for you to 'member when y'all were kids playin' in the yard.  Can't turn your back on that cousin, AH.

I haven't given up on Supes at all.  Still in with him.  I've just given up trying to change his mind about that ex-girlfriend who he thinks was the greatest thing ever.

[Guest]

Hey guys I just came here to...oh god the supes Horford Karl...ummmmm...WHAT? Sorry folks, I think somebody called me..gotta git..