ButtersSuki wrote: » That's grand, I assume you emailed ESPN, TNT, SF1, all the talking head shows, The Ringer, and all the other media outlets etc. who called Ujiri the GM then last week and historically - I mean, we wouldn't want to allow this gross error to go unchecked. I mean imagine the confusion it could cause? People could assume it was Bobby Webster expressing interest in the Wizards role and not Ujiri. :rolleyes: The GM monicker refers to who is in charge, regardless of actual title. I'm sure you're very much aware of this and this usage; as equally I'm sure that anyone who has more than a passing interest in NBA Basketball would know who's in charge in Toronto.
Hitch2222 wrote: » I don't know if it's just me but there seems to a growing acceptance that talking back to and talking about officials is ok now. Perhaps the officiating has been exceptionally poor this year but quite a number of post game interviews appear to be focusing on this. Obviously not a trajectory anyone wants to see the game going in as it's largely pretty respectable, not quite rugby but not nearly as bad as soccer.
Gregk961 wrote: » I know you're a good contributor but you do act like a child sometimes Butters.
ButtersSuki wrote: » Lakers and Lue expected to agree a deal imminently as per multiple sources. Yet another huge mistake by the LA front office. LeBron can kiss any chance of a ring goodbye for next year unless KD/AD/Kyrie/Leonard join him + usual mid season reshuffling of the deck from him the front office of the team that has LeBron.
Hitch2222 wrote: » It's only bad if they passed on someone noticeably better-no1 springs to mind- but he knows LBJ, they won a ring together, he'll let LBJ dictate the show for the most part. It seems like a decision that that is more likely to attract players than less likely imo. Players know going there that LBJ is happy, they know what to expect, that seems more attractive than a contentious situation involving LBJ and whatever other coach they passed on.
ButtersSuki wrote: » It's bad because he's not an elite-level coach, it's as simple as that. Would anyone say Ty Lue is even a Top 10 coach in the NBA? I seriously doubt it. I doubt tI'm have him in the top half of active head coaches TBH The Lakers, esp. given the clock is ticking with LeBron should have gone all out for a Top 3/Top 5 coach. It seems they had a very, very short shortlist of Williams, Lue, Kidd, and Howard. None of the latter 3 there inspire any confidence that they know what they're doing. Re. the part of your message I highlighted in bold.....don't you see that's a huge part of the problem in LA? As has been said may times, LeBron is the worst GM in the league*. Again, if you don't believe me just google that line to see how many times it has been written about.*awaiting someone to tell me he's not actually a GM.
Morrison J wrote: » Really don't get why teams don't foul when down 5+ with under 30 seconds left anymore. Especially when you have shooters like the Warriors do.
irishguitarlad wrote: » The league needs to really begin to look at everything Draymond Green does under a microscope. He gets away with murder, last night he went for Harden's eye again and no repercussions, apparently he did something similar with Lebron in the finals last year as well. Anyways well done rockets hopefully they can draw out this series as it's good fun to watch.
Legion. wrote: » This was bizarre. Was weird enough in the Spurs v Nuggets G7 as the Spurs just watched their season tick away. But really have no idea why the Warriors just gave up. Think if Austin Rivers had been around in G1 this series is 2-1 Rockets. Getting ridiculous at this stage. I love the intensity he plays with but he pretty blatantly went after Harden's eye last night, not to mention he should be T'd up 8 times a game the way he interacts with referees.
ButtersSuki wrote: » I'm not defending Draymond but if you apply that logic, so should Chris Paul and Harden (to a lesser degree). Bill Simmons during the week said Paul would captain a team of complainers and Harden would be a starter.
Legion. wrote: » I don't like they way CP3 or Harden carry on either but I don't think anyone is in the same league as Draymond. Think Bill's opinions may have been slightly coloured by the furore surrounding Game 1, and the Rockets' conduct in leaking the referee reports from their series last season too.
Hitch2222 wrote: » Simmons is good and all that but he has some incredibly myopic viewpoints at times. He rarely holds his hands up when an opinion/prediction has proven to be wrong. I find him witty, very intelligent and good viewing but he vehemently defends opinions sometimes which he should simply concede. Not quite a talking head but he's the Joe Rogan of basketball commentary. Not a bad spot to be in by any means but he has some pretty glaring gaps at times. CP3 & Harden moan, blur the lines of rules in different ways sometimes but they're no Draymond, he's pretty systematic in his use of force to gain an upper hand. He's simply an underhanded player in the worst way, teammates love him, opponents hate him etc.
Legion. wrote: » Well said. Whats more disappointing is that where we should be talking about an interesting series, we're talking about attitudes and referees rather than basketball skill and ability.
Legion. wrote: » I agree with you here. I love listening to Bill but I view it as listening to one of the lads discussing basketball - the time of him having any real insight has passed. Still a great interviewer obviously and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the games history but he isn't exactly cutting edge. See: his bullish predictions for the Nets, OKC and disregard for the Spurs in round 1.Even if you look at G1 of this Houston series where Paul got ejected for two Ts, I feel Draymond is much more aggressive with the refs and more often but doesn't suffer the same fate. Whats more disappointing is that where we should be talking about an interesting series, we're talking about attitudes and referees rather than basketball skill and ability.
Legion. wrote: » I agree with you here. I love listening to Bill but I view it as listening to one of the lads discussing basketball - the time of him having any real insight has passed. Still a great interviewer obviously and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the games history but he isn't exactly cutting edge. See: his bullish predictions for the Nets, OKC and disregard for the Spurs in round 1. Even if you look at G1 of this Houston series where Paul got ejected for two Ts, I feel Draymond is much more aggressive with the refs and more often but doesn't suffer the same fate. Whats more disappointing is that where we should be talking about an interesting series, we're talking about attitudes and referees rather than basketball skill and ability.
Hitch2222 wrote: » Simmons is good and all that but he has some incredibly myopic viewpoints at times. He rarely holds his hands up when an opinion/prediction has proven to be wrong. I find him witty, very intelligent and good viewing but he vehemently defends opinions sometimes which he should simply concede.Not quite a talking head but he's the Joe Rogan of basketball commentary. Not a bad spot to be in by any means but he has some pretty glaring gaps at times. CP3 & Harden moan, blur the lines of rules in different ways sometimes but they're no Draymond, he's pretty systematic in his use of force to gain an upper hand. He's simply an underhanded player in the worst way, teammates love him, opponents hate him etc.
ButtersSuki wrote: » That's really harsh.
ButtersSuki wrote: » Simmons called Houston for this series btw, but felt that them going down 2-0 it's over. This was based on mental fatigue of GS after 5 years as much as anything.
Morrison J wrote: » Kawhi is a top three player in the league isn't he? Actually mental how underrated he is given the lack of push he gets compared to a Curry/Giannis/Harden etc.
Hitch2222 wrote: » On who? I'm not an avid follower by any means but Joe Rogan has one of if not the most popular podcast in the world. He gets everyone on his podcast from public intellects to political figures to experts in a given field. Similar to Bill, Voulgaris for gambling as an example, he has a level of knowledge but like Joe he's no polymath. General public and many who listen to both would think I'm being harsh on Joe Rogan. That's a pure Simmons comment right there, "mental fatigue" such a loose all encompassing phrase. Precisely the type of analysis that has less and less credence as time has passed.
ButtersSuki wrote: » I think it's harsh because I see Rogan as somewhat of a troll whereas I don't doubt Simmons' love of the game, that's why.
Hitch2222 wrote: » No interest in debating the credibility of Joe Rogan tbh but I suspect almost nobody sees him as a troll. Given the viewership and a guest list like this https://m.ranker.com/list/joe-rogan-podcast-guests/ranker-podcast?page=2 it's probably fair to suspect you haven't watched any of him. I'd completely stand by my comment which is largely a compliment to Simmons in an age of specialisation.
