Ed O

You and I have a lack of common ground on "justification" then.

Of course I watched the game. I don't comment on games I don't watch.

Who cares if you take out a single run the game was close? The game started with a Knicks 4-0 run, then the Blazers had a 7-0 run, and then the Knicks had a 6-0 run. If we're going to pull out that 9-0 run, then we might as well take out the Blazers' 7-0 run, too. It's silly.

You're entirely correct that the Knicks weren't ahead the whole game. You're entirely WRONG, though, that it was back and forth throughout the whole game. NY took the lead with 3.5 minutes left in the third quarter and Portland never really challenged after that.

It was clear to me that the Knicks were in control almost from the very beginning.

Ed O.

Blazer Ringbearer

I do.

Just try and stop me!

RPCity

Can we do without the dripping sense of superiority please?

I know darn well what justification means. The way your posts read drips with justification for Ruben. Maybe that wasn't the intent with how they were written, but thats how they read. You're not justifying Ruben completely....but you're sure absolving him from a large portion of the blame.

In case you weren't aware, absolving of blame is the definition of justification.



Ok.....I can buy the basis for your argument here....but not the conclusion you're drawing. 4-0 run, 7-0 run, 6-0 run....you seem to be arguing it was a game of runs until the Knicks final 9-0 run that I pointed out. But you can't argue that it was a game of runs in one breath and then say the Knicks were in control throughout in the next. They're not compatible. If you want to say the Knicks controlled most of the 2nd half than sure.....I can buy that. they kept the Blazers from making a run to take back the lead in the end, so I suppose that'd be controlling it plenty.

But the whole game? Not so much. But I don't think either of us are going to convince the other on this argument. We watched the same game....but drew clearly opposite conclusions.

__________________
Believe meh

It ain't ea-say

Ed O

I'm not absolving Ruben of anything. He acted emotionally and contrary to the best interests of the team. I'm pointing out that Blazers management set him up to fail in such a fashion.

A guy who is drunk and drives down the street and hits an equally drunk pedestrian who's jaywalking... is it absolving the guy of drunk driving by pointing out that the pedestrian is to blame, too?

I don't think so.

Similarly, management made these moves knowing they had Ruben on the team. If they didn't see this coming then they're blind. If they did, then they deserve part of whatever blame comes from it... or credit, of course, if it turns out to be a good thing.

The Knicks were consistently better than the Blazers from what I saw. The Blazers had some shots go down, especially in the first half, but based on the types of shots the two teams were getting it seemed unavoidable that NY would pull ahead at some point.

It might have been mere pessimism shading my view of the game, of course, but considering it occurred exactly as I'd expected I think it was actually enlightened realism.

Ed O.

Ed O

I can try

I apologize for the way that was written. I actually edited it slightly before you'd responded, hoping to catch it before anyone saw it. I was just too slow.

Sorry.

Ed O.

Schilly

So it's not Rubens fault since management shoved him down the path to blowing up at the coach during a game. Just like Budweiser is at fault for my grandpas alchohal problem.

STOMP

Come on Schilly. Ruben is being the same guy he's been for a while, and since Ed predicted this sort of problem happening with Rube being one of 5 SFs on the club, it's pretty silly to place all the blame on him for acting in the predictable way he has. Don't you think it's a pretty important componenet in a club's success for management to be able to correctly access what their players are like when assembling the roster? Many other posters (myself included) thought that he was the one that they should have cut under the one time out they used on DA.

Of course Rube is to blame for acting out like this, Ed hasn't contended otherwise, but so is management for not being proactive in correctly accessing this obviously volatile situation.

STOMP

PorterIn2004

I think Ed's example of the drunk driver and drunk pedestrian is spot on -- Ed's not saying Ruben's off the hook. In fact, if you look back, there are several points where Ed agrees Ruben was out of line. He's only pointing out, accurately I think, that management was either inept or had to see this coming. What they were to do about it (other than get him out of town in yet another deal where they give up more than they're getting back) I don't know. Really, the situation is much like the Eagles' situation with TO, save that, at least TO and a healthy roster, the Eagles would've had a chance to do more than this Blazer team is likely to -- that and that TO is much more of a difference maker than Patterson. And, it's easy enough to just let Patterson sit until either he opts out or a team offers him something reasonable in return. And, it's always possible that Patterson might pull his act together and do what Nate's asking of him.

Regardless, I don't think Ed's point is that Ruben didn't screw up -- clearly he did -- Ruben's already basically said as much.

RPCity

Ha....I love how every single post of yours ends up being spun to make you seem smarter than everyone else....and thats not sarcastic at all. I seriously love that.

I don't think your drunk driver example works here. What would be the purpose of pointing out the jaywalker other than to take SOME of the blame off of the driver? In my mind there is no purpose outside of that. Why bother bringing management up at all if not to do one of the following:

a. Remove some of the blame off of Ruben by moving it to management. Which you have already pointed out with your DD example that it is not effective at doing. Even so...it is an ATTEMPT at justification.
b. Use the situation to attack management's strategy in the past few years.
c. Show that you can say "They should have seen this coming because I did."
d. Am I missing anything here?

And just let me say....I would hope it wouldn't be for reasons B or C.

I know how this must be coming off....and its not intended in any cynical way at all. But seriously....outside of those 3 reasons (and I'm not suggesting that your motivation was any other than A....which is what we've been arguing)....what else is there?


And apology accepted about the whole justification thing.

__________________
Believe meh

It ain't ea-say

Ed O

Whether you see purpose or not is irrelevant to whether it's true or not.

You repeating a weak argument doesn't make it stronger. I'm not attempting to justify anything. I've told you that a couple times now. Ruben was wrong. He should be sent home and perhaps even suspended without pay for his comments. I have no problem with him being disciplined. I think that his actions hurt the team and I hope that he can avoid doing it in the future... and if he cannot, he should be punished more severely.

It's just another sign of their lack of success, absolutely. One in a long line of them since Nash has taken over.

I thought it was just me being pessimistic?

I find it hilarious that some people on this board write off so much of what I say as pure pessimism, and then as soon as I'm proven right on something nobody wants to hear about it.

Well, your second and third points are actually pretty accurate (if incomplete) representations of why I've pointed it out. I don't know why you don't consider those to be valid bases for my point, but to be honest I don't judge what I think or say based on what you think I should think or say, so I'm not overly concerned about it.

Another one, and the primary one, is simply because it's the way I feel and I think that it helps paint a more accurate and complete story of the Ruben meltdown to look at the bigger picture.

Cool. Thanks.

Ed O.

barfo

Maybe for the purpose of an honest assessment of the situation?

barfo

RPCity

Well there we have it folks. Instead of breaking this down bit by bit, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with, I'm just gonna cut to the chase and say we have an understanding.

The fact that its not 2:30 AM here also has something to do with my decision to be so brief.

__________________
Believe meh

It ain't ea-say

RPCity