Grades v. Bulls 12/21/09

[sactownfan]

well, i guess everyone wont be getting Fs

there were a few posts that popped up right when things got close or when we won... this one was funny being right below "everyone gets F's"

 

[Bricklayer]

I have to disagree... any guy who can put up 10 rebounds a night consistently (Brock's stats say that he can) can find a spot as a backup, no matter how short he is, as long as the Center he is playing with is a tall defensive one. I agree that he won't be a C or a starting player any time soon... but he can be, and in pretty much is, a game changer coming off the bench. Every team NEEDS that.

There have been a lot of rebounding specialists in the NBA over the years. But the stubby unathletic ones are normally not major rotation players, at least not for good teams. You give up too much else in the process. Its like a 3pt specialist who cannot pass defend or dribble. They have their use, but its not going to be a nightly thing against all matchups.

 

[Andre87]

spencer was terrible just terrible completely useless F-

 

[VF21]

spencer was terrible just terrible completely useless F-

I'm curious. I'd like to see you take Bricklayer's assessment of Hawes from the first page and refute it. Explain why his grade is wrong and Hawes was "completely useless"...

Thanks.

 

[ReinadelosReys]

As people draw parallels between 1998/1999 and how the last great Kings team formed. I will draw this parallel.

Brockman = Pollard with more strength

Every team needs a Pollard. The guy that despite his height will be able to get under the skin of someone like Shaq as Pollard did back in the early part of this decade.

Brockman is more like Mark Madsen + strength + coordination

 

[Andre87]

I'm curious. I'd like to see you take Bricklayer's assessment of Hawes from the first page and refute it. Explain why his grade is wrong and Hawes was "completely useless"...

Thanks.

Was 2 of from 6 the field, got his pitiful points only on absolutely dreadful Brad Miller, couldn't even catch that good lob pass by Reke in the 1st q, constantly turned the ball over and things got a lot better when he left as always.

 

[VF21]

Was 2 of from 6 the field, got his pitiful points only on absolutely dreadful Brad Miller, couldn't even catch that good lob pass by Reke in the 1st q, constantly turned the ball over and things got a lot better when he left as always.

That doesn't equate failure, dude, by any stretch of the imagination. Hawes is trying and he's not anywhere near as bad as he has been in the recent past.

But whatever. For some I guess unless he has a stellar night you're just going to continue to blindly dump on him. And that's your choice. I just think it shows an intractable myopia ...

 

[casspion]

Was 2 of from 6 the field, got his pitiful points only on absolutely dreadful Brad Miller, couldn't even catch that good lob pass by Reke in the 1st q, constantly turned the ball over and things got a lot better when he left as always.

He had a few positives so I think F is too low but C+ is probably too high for my liking too. I would go with D. But I understand the problem you have. With a scrub like Hawes it is like he needs his own scale which is separate from the universal scale. He looks like a whimp out there which is very annoying. When a good player blows a play you can put it in context. When an incompetent scrub has flashes of good, mixed with the usual bad and some semi damaging moments, how do you assess it?

 

[VF21]

He had a few positives so I think F is too low but C+ is probably too high for my liking too. I would go with D. But I understand the problem you have. With a scrub like Hawes it is like he needs his own scale which is separate from the universal scale. He looks like a whimp out there which is very annoying. When a good player blows a play you can put it in context. When an incompetent scrub has flashes of good, mixed with the usual bad and some semi damaging moments, how do you assess it?

You might start by leaving the name-calling out of it. Believe it or not, most of us can have pretty in-depth articulate discussions about players without resorting to the cheap shot.

 

[Kingster]

Udoka totally deserves that A+ rating. Was fantastic on the defensive and offensive end. Kings couldn't have come close without him.

Regarding Tyreke, I'm just waiting for him to win a close game on the defensive end of the floor. It almost happened against the Bucks with his steal (and then the ref no call), and it should have happened when he stuffed Rose bigtime, but they gave him a BS call on that. Of course, it didn't stop Tyreke - he just came back to win on the offensive end. I'm waiting for the refs to figure it out that this guy is great on the defensive end of the floor.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Regarding Tyreke, I'm just waiting for him to win a close game on the defensive end of the floor...

[yt=???]N29fcM4qdiM[/yt]

 

[Aenadin]

I just got back from laguna from a Christmas party I watched the nba live preview of the kings and it said... the score was like we were down 30 plus im like oh dear but when they summarized it that we won i was like... WOW just Wow

then on fantasy insider or something rick kamla and dennis scott were talking bout is this one of the strongest point guard drafts.. and said that if they wanted to sell ticks.. they would draft jennings but if they wanted to build a franchise around a guy.. it would have to be evans

all in all im loving what is going on with the kings

plus

Vinny Del negro's face was priceless at that loss

 

[casspion]

You might start by leaving the name-calling out of it. Believe it or not, most of us can have pretty in-depth articulate discussions about players without resorting to the cheap shot.

I didn't call him no names. I defined him. Some people called him wuss...that is name calling. He is a bona fide scrub in the professional/sports sense of the discussion. Nothing personal Spence you are just a scrub.

The man makes over 2 mill a year. He is the one laughing all the way to the bank at the end of the day.