Eh...I'm not looking too much into this, Mikki isnt Tony Massenburg, or anything. He's obviously frustrated at himself more than anything else...and he said it himself, alot of him not getting the ball or getting his shots during the 'slump' had to do with Beno's inabilities due to injuries. Mikki isnt Kenny Thomas, I dont think.http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/577918.html
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. – Mikki Moore walked down the hall to rejoin his Kings teammates Tuesday night in the Izod Center, his forlorn expression not reflecting the otherwise satisfied mood of his teammates after a rare road win.
more....
He is not even my 5th option."It's nice to get the win, but I expected more from our coaching staff," Moore said. "You can write that, because I told them that on the bench. I said, 'It was nice to get the "W", but I just expected too much of y'all.'"
I want to know what that means though. It was further down in the article.
(same link http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/577918.html)
That kind of concerns me. What did he mean by that statement? He expected more from who? Did he want more plays drawn for him? Moore is not our 1st/2nd/3rd or 4th option on the floor. He is our 5th option.
I thought Slamson was our 5th option?? Seriously though, Mikki just needed to vent and was frustrated with his own play and not getting the ball enough, thats all...but I could be wrong, I guess...He is not even my 5th option.
He is not even my 5th option.
"It's nice to get the win, but I expected more from our coaching staff," Moore said. "You can write that, because I told them that on the bench. I said, 'It was nice to get the "W", but I just expected too much of y'all.'"
I want to know what that means though. It was further down in the article.
hahahaha!I thought Slamson was our 5th option??
Seriously though, Mikki just needed to vent
OK, so on the solitication of readers who weren't so keen on Mikki's Moore's postgame comments, I'm providing a bit of context that didn't come through on deadline.
First things first, writers don't write headlines. And since I'm the one who talked to Mikki after the game (when he was more than eager to get his message out), I'll go on record saying that he never - as the headline said - blamed the coaching staff for his "slump."
And the problem with articles like this?
Check out Amick's later disclaimer ...
I don't know about anyone else, but that sure sounds like Amick backpedalling to me.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/archives/009687.html
It's a shame the headline writers obviously don't communicate whatsoever with the people actually writing the stories. This isn't the first time something like this has happened in the Bee - and I'm willing to be the farm it won't be the last.
Amick wrote the first article poorly and left all kinds of things unsaid. The headline writer went berserk probably because he didn't understand what was up. Then Amick clarifies what the issue was and says in so many words it wasn't a big deal in the grand scope of things.
I am hoping Moore clarifies things. I wish he hadn't sought out Amick. I wish Amick hadn't written the article in such a bizarre fashion. Sam apparently got a lot of notes (including mine) ripping apart Mikki and backed off appropriately.
And VF21, it's "bet the farm" and not "be the farm."![]()