puhhlease, Randolph was calling out his teammates in a loss, not exactly the way to go about bringing up team morale. I bet you in those games Randolph wasn't guarding anyone like usual too. Dude is a blackhole and is one of the most selfish players in the game. I bet you all 30 GM's in the league would take Roy over Randolph btw.
And saying Brandon Roy may have a prima-donna attitude shows you your ignorance about him.
Dude, just because you put on a nice smile or even do nice things, does not mean you don't have a prima-donna attitude. In either case he's no angel and is capable of being in the wrong. It's bad posture to automatically assume what the situation was because when you do that you make an "***" out of "u" but not so much "me," lol.
I had a very nice response set up for this ludicrous statement (or statements), but my laptop went out on me mid-way and I lost the post. So I'll keep this one short: None of those guys except for Sprewell (who was definitely not the reason Minny traveled to the conference finals) were cancers on the level of Randolph. Actually most of them, like Carter, Cassell, Walker, Terry, Davis, and Pierce were not cancers at all. All they did was voice displeasure with their situation at the time. Come to think of it, Cassell and Walker have never done a thing to remotely qualify them as a team cancer. So, sir, what the HELL are you talking about?
Well, I guess you should thank your laptop for helping you save face and not make a fool out of yourself. I guess you don't appreciate divine intervention and feel the need to continue to put your foot in your mouth. I really don't feel the need like rehashing everything I just said, so I'll tell you to look at my last response to seifer to allow you to gain some sort of clarification on the topic. Like I told him, get yourself up to speed and then we might be able to have an educated discussion here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacoby_Ellsbury
So you're saying that you and the other guys want him traded, yet you continue to throw out these moronic ideas that he's a positive influence to a team he plays on? You and Grinch just keep getting more and more foolish. By all means, keep it coming.
I never implied this guy is Mother Theresea. This is why DaGrinch stresses the importance of reading comprehension. I even suggested that from a character standpoint, that Randolph could be a bad influence on a young Grizzly team. The discussion we're having here is about his merits as a player; the fact that he can help a team win and signficantly better than your giving him credit for. Once again, reading is fundamental, I go to college because of this ****.
Anyone who knows a thing about basketball knows that Brandon Roy is about as far from a prima donna as there is in the NBA. Yet another epic fail for the Randolph supporters.
Anyone who has a shread of common sense realizes that even the nicest guys in the league can be in the wrong.
Vince has been called plenty of nick names, Wince Carter, Half-man half a season, just to name a few. To use a couple reporters's article just doesn't justify the cancer label especially if you look back at the entire Toronto situation in the last few VC years. Vince was hampered by injuries and compounded by some bad management decisions by the Raptors F.O. essentially brought the team down. I do feel that Vince was unprofessional during the last 6 month in TO, but by then the damage was already done with him being injured and the Raptors roster going through the transition period of guys like Antonio Davis, Jalen Rose to Bosh.
I'm not going to discussion this again, so I'll ask that you reread my previous reponse addressed to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
Not to mention that the fact that Vince never played on a true contender. The Nets never got past the 2nd round after they got Vince and by the looks of things in NJ it doesn't look like they'll get past any teams in the playoffs anytime soon. Since you preach reading comprehension, go back and read your friend Twinky's post saying that Vince is one of those players who got labelled as cancer and went on to win a championship or being on a contender. Sorry, it just didn't work out for Vince and 2 wrongs for Twinkie just doesn't make a right either.
Funny thing but in the Eastern Conference where teams that have sub .500 records get into the playoffs, a .600 Nets team during the 2004-2005 season qualifies as a contender regardless. The Cavs were eliminated this year in the 2nd round. Does that mean they were not title contenders this year? I guess maybe what DaGrinch and I should have be teaching here beyond just reading comprehension is common sense.
So I was incorrect about his playoff minutes/role. But that doesn't change the fact Randolph was not the prominent player or leader on that team, it was clearly Sheed and Bonzi's show. Randolph helped them stay in that series, but he wasn't the reason they played Dallas to seven.
Well, I guess it wouldn't be the first time you were seriously wrong about something pertaining to basketball. I also think you need to clarify what you mean by prominent. Because in terms of production per minute, Randolph clearly outproduced Rasheed and Bonzi Wells. Worse case scenario, is Randolph being the 3rd tier player on that playoff team but that would qualify him as a prominent player in my book since his contributions clearly make a signficant difference on the floor. He was the reason they played Dallas to seven and what prompted the Blazers to think of a team post-Rasheed Wallace.
Again, I don't necessarily see anything he did as being outside his comfort zone
If that's what you see, I have nothing else to add regarding that play. If a Knick fan can watch that and feel good about the play, why should I bother.
Quote:
Your a nutty fellow if you never heard of Carter being called a "cancer." The Raptors decline was much longer than one season and the fans recognized every bit of it. They noticed that Carter was not nearly as aggressive as he could be, often settling for jumpers and booed him mercilessly for it. Then his bouts with "injuries" around that time also were occuring and people started questioning his toughness and willingness to play hard. I think this whole movement was started by Charles Oakley, who criticized Carter often in the papers as not being a leader, which shows you how long this went on for since Oakley was off that team by the start of the 2001-2002 season. Carter certainly didn't help his case by acting a fool and dancing on stage at a concert while supposedly too injuried to play for the Raptors. Then who could forget him telling opponents his teams play and him hauling *** for a season and a half? Someone certainly has on, some rosey colored glasses and it certainly ain't me. There's a reason why none of the guys he got traded for ever amounted to anything in the Raptors rotation and it wasn't because he was a stellar player or individual at the time.
It is true that VC wasn't the toughest player in the league, but that is far from being labelled as "cancer". For someone that uses such lenient standards on Zach Randolph, you seem to be quick to strike on players from other teams. People have questioned Dirk for his toughness, but nobody has ever called him the cancer of his team. Until the last 6 month of VC's stay in Toronto, there have been very limited drama associated with the guy. He was injured and his game went downhill, but until the last year and half or so, the Raptors were still winning games and was still competitive, not something you can say about Zach Randolph's teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinkieFoot
Let's also not forget that he *****ed about the Raptors drafting Chris Bosh and not trading the pick for a veteran because he was too impatient to wait for him to develop. Character guy that Carter; ALWAYS PUTS HIS TEAM FIRST.
For something that's bolded it sure made little sense. VC wanted to trade the pick for a veteran because he wants to win now. How does that make him a selfish player? He did not know that Bosh would be such a good player, but that doesn't make him selfish. It means that he probably won't be a good GM after his playing days are over, but as far as proving your point goes, it's a swing and a miss.
Quote:
Dennis Rodman had friggin Shaq on the lacks who is one of the most intimidating individuals in the league even today and still acted a fool. What makes you think MJ had as much as an influence as you say? Besides, it's interesting when a guy like Randolph gets in his teammates face about their play that he is called a bad guy. When Jordan does it, he becomes a "character." Gotta love the double standard.
I said that Rodman is someone that you can considered to be a cancer but he was under control under the likes of Jordan and Phil Jackson. It's quite hilarious how you compared MJ to Zach Randolph. It's called leading by examples. If Zach plays like that play I showed you earlier, what position is he in to call out his team mates? Now that's a double standard.
Quote:
A proven winner? He was a rookie on a contender team. Hard to **** that up when you got either Clyde Drexler or Hakeem Olajuwon on your team.
In Milwaukee he was most certainly considered a cancer. That team was at its best during the 2000-2001 season winning 52 games and considered to be a Finals contender. The next year, they didn't even make the playoffs and then the finger pointing began. Ray Allen vs George Karl calling him out to be a pretty boy more interested in making movies than playing defense. Tim Thomas vs every damn body on the team. Glen Robinson being a complete ******* more interested in his next contract.
I don't know if you were watching the games back then, but Sam Cassell was a key bench player during the Rockets championship run. Say what you want about him, but he has taken teams to the playoffs everywhere he went. Just because a player wishes to get a decent contract does not make him a "cancer" to the team. The fact that he was underrated for most of his career which led to being an underpaid isn't something that he should be responsible for.
Quote:
So? They were called the "JailBlazers" for a reason and Rasheed was without a doubt a big part of that. As talented and as deep as those teams were, they should have had a few titles to show for it. Most, including myself, were very disappointed by their inability to live up to their potential.
Yes, guys on that team were busted for marijuana, gun possession, and even dog fighting but it's not their fault. It's Sheed that is the cancer of that team, not the people that were breaking the law. What were you saying about common sense again?
Quote:
How about him not playing defense? How about him coming in horribly out of shape every year? How about him, in the process of jacking up those horrendous shots, breaking plays in the process and chucking his teammates out of the ball? Those are the same exact reasons your criticize Randolph for being a bad player and Walker gets off scott-free? I should discontinue this conversation right now because of how ridiculous you sound.
How about him and Paul Pierce(another player you labelled as cancer in the early part(would be this part) of his career) taking the Celtics to the conference finals? You should discontinue posting in this thread, you haven't made any sense since 3 posts ago and by the look of things it's not going to start any time soon.
Quote:
Idiots running the team? Really? Funny that those idiots managed to put together a team that included stars like Theo Ratliff, Glen Robinson, Shareef Abdur-Rahim in addition to Jason Terry and excellent role players like Nazr Mohammed. That team should have had no problem making the playoffs in the East and certainly should have had multiple all-star berths each year. Jason Terry, rightfully or not, was seen as one of the big contributors to this team not reaching its potential because he was it's PG. As its PG, people felt that Terry failed because he was moreso a scoring guard than an actual orchestrator. He also had a few episodes of frustration with management and the team that was not taken so well in the papers and earned him recognition of being a cancer.
Anyone with some knowledge of these players would recognize SAR as the obvious cancer. I'll give you a hint, go look up the active player list for most games played without any playoff appearance. And how about the way they got SAR? They traded this fella by the name of Pau Gasol to get him. You don't call those people idiots? Well, then I don't feel right calling you that either.
Quote:
LOL, I'd take what you said a step further and say that your the most ridiculous thing of this entire thread. A lot of what I just mentioned has been well documented throughout the past few seasons. I don't know if you live in a bubble or choose to ignore these occurances because you were one of the foolish fans that labeled those guys as players that couldn't win....and then won. I'm hoping you use the information in this post to get yourself up to speed. Maybe then you could actually entertain me with an educated discussion about the NBA.
lol, I don't even know what to say to that. You can post this in the main forums and perhaps the hundreds of people reading there can help burst your bubble. I certainly have never seen someone with such a slanted view on some of the most well-known events/players in the past decade or so.
Well, I guess it wouldn't be the first time you were seriously wrong about something pertaining to basketball. I also think you need to clarify what you mean by prominent. Because in terms of production per minute, Randolph clearly outproduced Rasheed and Bonzi Wells. Worse case scenario, is Randolph being the 3rd tier player on that playoff team but that would qualify him as a prominent player in my book since his contributions clearly make a signficant difference on the floor. He was the reason they played Dallas to seven and what prompted the Blazers to think of a team post-Rasheed Wallace.
What prompted the Blazers to think about a post-Sheed future was their goal (or so they say) for a team that represents the community better. I guess the only logical explanation why they kept Randolph (assuming that was their goal) was that his bad-egg antics hadn't really got going yet.
Remember, Its not me suggesting that the Blazers were going for a cleaner image, its the teams' management at the time that stated that as their goal. So don't try to turn that around somehow.
There's nothing he can do if we bench him because we're rich enough and deep enough to have a competitive team on the floor in his absence.
Rich and deep enough, huh??
I hate to break the news, but the NBA has a salary cap, has had one for some time now. And even if the league didn't have a salary cap, your Knicks haven't shown the faintest hint that they know how to spend money on players wisely.
Where is this depth? Your roster, aside from maybe New Jersey or OKC, is the most incompetent in the NBA, full of untalented and uncouth players that most teams would never want anything to do with. Your team has no depth.
What a moronic statement. I know you're not the sharpest tack in the box but that one just blindsided me. Wow.
__________________
Proof > word of mouth.
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 09:07 PM.
Reason: personal attack
Well, I guess you should thank your laptop for helping you save face and not make a fool out of yourself. I guess you don't appreciate divine intervention and feel the need to continue to put your foot in your mouth. I really don't feel the need like rehashing everything I just said, so I'll tell you to look at my last response to seifer to allow you to gain some sort of clarification on the topic. Like I told him, get yourself up to speed and then we might be able to have an educated discussion here.
This conversation would be infinitely more educated if I was talking with truknicksfan, Kitty, bball2223, Knick_Killer, I guess Kiyaman, you know, Knicks fan who have shown me that they at least know something. But instead I have to deal with a stubborn mule like you who, besides calling himself 'TwinkieFoot', is stupid enough that he just can't process that fact that he's dead wrong despite having all the facts and all the evidence right there in front of him. The reason I keep asking you the same questions is because you still haven't picked up on the fact you and Grinch are dead wrong about Zach Randolph and he will never win anything over the course of his career. He's a cancer and an unwelcome hindrance to whatever team's doorstep he lands on.
I suggest that you get this through your granite-hard skull. For your sake, so you look somewhat smarter (maybe). I personally don't give a **** if you don't understand, more fun for me embarrassing you time and time again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinkieFoot
I never implied this guy is Mother Theresea. This is why DaGrinch stresses the importance of reading comprehension. I even suggested that from a character standpoint, that Randolph could be a bad influence on a young Grizzly team. The discussion we're having here is about his merits as a player; the fact that he can help a team win and signficantly better than your giving him credit for. Once again, reading is fundamental, I go to college because of this ****.
As a player, he can score, yes. Yes, he can rebound. But we've already gone over his two most crippling attributes that kill teams he plays for. I'll explain them again, in hopes that maybe you'll understand:
1) He plays no defense, and couldn't if he tried - Randolph is a ****ty defender, end of story. Defense is an essential part of any team's hopes of winning a fair amount of basketball games and going deep into the playoffs. Say what you want about 'surrounding him with help defenders', but the big men are the last line of a team's defense, and having Ron Artest and D.J. Strawberry on the perimeter won't help his deficincies. Sorry.
2) He is black hole on offense - Yeah sure, he can score. But he's selfish, and he never passes. He kills ball movement. Ball movement is also important for any team with hopes of doing damage in their conference/league. He stalls everything, and I'm gonna say a fair bit of his points come from him just hogging the ball so much. Why do you think the Knicks were 21st in the league in scoring last year, with supposedly so much 'talent', and won so few games? This isn't rocket science.
Good to see that you finally seem to be getting it about his character. Its comforting to know that you're only partially retarded as opposed to completely.
__________________
Proof > word of mouth.
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 09:04 PM.
Reason: personal attack
lol, I don't even know what to say to that. You can post this in the main forums and perhaps the hundreds of people reading there can help burst your bubble. I certainly have never seen someone with such a slanted view on some of the most well-known events/players in the past decade or so.
Your obviously not familiar with Chris Wallace and the Grizzlies management then because they have laid a fairly impressive foundation for the future. I like how in posts you mention that guys like Randolph shouldn't be allowed around up and coming players like Mayo, Conley, Gay, Warrick, Lowry, etc but fail to give the man responsible for bringing them in any credit. That Pau Gasol trade was exactly what they needed and they actually got market value for him if you follow the league trades closely enough.
wow, I'm speechless, theres no point in arguing with you.
__________________ JFizzleraider's 10 Favorite players:
1. Brandon Roy 2. Kobe Bryant 3. Lamarcus Aldridge 4. Chris Paul 5. Jamario Moon 6. Caron Butler 7. Devin Harris 8. Sean Williams 9. Chris Bosh 10. Tyson Chandler
I can't believe someone is actually arguing pro-Randolph. That's just unbelievable. He is trash and I'm absolutely stunned that some Knicks fan actually believe he's worth anything. Sure he puts up 20 and 10, but let's not forget all the negative aspects around his game and attitude. It's sad enough you got Curry in the mix...but shoot both of them please. Getting rid of Randolph and Marbury is a blessing.
I'm just looking forward to him posting more shocking insights about the league. We should have a special section somewhere around these boards and call it "The World of NBA through the eyes of Twinkie." This column will surely put ESPN's page 2 out of business and may even propel bbf ahead of realxx as the biggest basketball forum on the internet.
Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies?
Linear Mode
