NBA discussion thread

I didnt see the Nets/Suns game but if you're trying to prevent a 3 then fouling before the inbounds is not the way to go about it. You give up 2 shots and the ball, fouling on the inbounds before a shot can be attempted is the way to go. I dont know the exact situation in this particular game i just thought that might be relevant.

Good job by the Lakers today bouncing back from a horrible performance against the injury riddled Hornets. They took care of the Hawks without Kobe and got some nice contributions from Walton, Evans and Farmar. Lamar didnt look to score much but he was playing the guard spot for this game and as a result tallied 7 dimes. His 15 boards were much needed though considering how badly we were pounded on the glass against a small Hornets team a couple of days ago.

What do you guys make of the AI trade demand? Any ideas as to where he might end up? He's got a massive contract and its hard to imagine a team gutting their squad to match up the salaries, or the Sixers excepting big expiring contracts and waiting till the off season to load up on free agents. Thoughts?

Originally posted by wuTa
Ok, well if thats true, and Frank did tell them to foul right away, than how come none of the Nets fouled before the Suns inbounded the ball? Thats just stupid on the Nets players to let them inbound the ball, and than try and foul them, because you know the Suns gonna shoot a 3, which could lead to a 4 point play. Its obvious about the miscommunication on the 3 that let Nash tie it, my point is that the Nets could have fouled while the Suns were inbounding the ball instead of waiting for the Suns to already make the inbound pass, and than foul.

When a team drops 161 pts, that is hardly irrelevant in any situation, because obviously no defense is being played, and the Suns are well known for there offense. I believe they average the mosts points per game this year, I know they're definetly top two in that category. You're not gonna beat the Suns if you try and outscore them, and thats exactly what the Nets tryed to do. You can say that Nash hit a lucky shot, but he has hitten big shots before, give any 3pt threat a good look at the basket and you're asking for trouble. Like you said Kidd had two chances to tie the game and he blew both chances, whether he missed left, or the ball went in and out, in and out, now thats irrelevant, a miss is a miss anyway you look at it. Nets had there chances and failed to take advantage of them, thats not the refs fault.

Are you saying the Nets should have fouled before the Suns inbounded the ball? That would have been worse, because if they did that, then the Suns would shoot 2 free throws and then get the ball back.

No, the fact that Kidd was so close to making those shots proves that he was unlucky, which is very much relavent to the fact that the Suns were lucky. But how many points you score doesn't determine the team's skill. Denver scored 123 points last night. Are they now a really skilled team? That's why it's irrelevant. Anyway, this seems to be going nowhere, might as well just end it. I don't they won the game because of luck, but at the end, I feel they got several crucial breaks, which is why I think they were lucky. End of Story.

I cannot believe Iverson demanded a trade right after he promised he wouldn't do it. It just shows how Philly is truly going nowhere. What a pity. I'm still sympathetic towards AI. He's still one of the toughest warriors in the league whether he demands a trade or not. Yeah, I just find it hard for him to find a team. Maybe the Celtics again.

Yea, I watched the full game of the Lakers last night. Good Suff. Shows thatr they can handle a team w/o Kobe. Although it was the Hawks. My dad and I think that A.I. will go to Minnesota for KG. Possible, KG not really happy where he is either.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Yea, I watched the full game of the Lakers last night. Good Suff. Shows thatr they can handle a team w/o Kobe. Although it was the Hawks. My dad and I think that A.I. will go to Minnesota for KG. Possible, KG not really happy where he is either.

If that were to happen, then Minnesota would have no low post presence .

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Yea, I watched the full game of the Lakers last night. Good Suff. Shows thatr they can handle a team w/o Kobe. Although it was the Hawks. My dad and I think that A.I. will go to Minnesota for KG. Possible, KG not really happy where he is either.

Hmm me and my brother was thinking the same thing, trade him to the Twolves. But I doubt it will be for Garnett, AI and KG would make a great team.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
Are you saying the Nets should have fouled before the Suns inbounded the ball? That would have been worse, because if they did that, then the Suns would shoot 2 free throws and then get the ball back.

How would they shoot two and get the ball, is there a rule change I'm not aware of? I didnt intend for them to commit a flagarant, just a foul before the ball inbounded, I seen it done plenty of times to Ben Wallace and Shaq were they fouled before the inbound, and Shaq or Ben went ot the line, and they didnt get the ball back.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
No, the fact that Kidd was so close to making those shots proves that he was unlucky, which is very much relavent to the fact that the Suns were lucky. But how many points you score doesn't determine the team's skill. Denver scored 123 points last night. Are they now a really skilled team? That's why it's irrelevant. Anyway, this seems to be going nowhere, might as well just end it. I don't they won the game because of luck, but at the end, I feel they got several crucial breaks, which is why I think they were lucky. End of Story.

Yes, How many points you score can detereming your skill. Phoenix is a very skilled Offensive team, any bloke can tell you this just by looking at there final scores, and about Denver, remember when I said Phoenix was in the top 2 in scoring points per game, well guess who is that other team in that category, Denver. You can tell, or get an idea on how talented someone is by looking at there stats just like you can tell a teams talent or strenghts by scores, or stats. If you think Phoenix got lucky thats your call, and your opinion, I'm just saying I disagree and why.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
I cannot believe Iverson demanded a trade right after he promised he wouldn't do it. It just shows how Philly is truly going nowhere. What a pity. I'm still sympathetic towards AI. He's still one of the toughest warriors in the league whether he demands a trade or not. Yeah, I just find it hard for him to find a team. Maybe the Celtics again.

You mentioned that you think A.I might go to the Wolves, and they won't have a lowpost presence, but Webber could be included in that deal if it were to happen considering how unhappy he is in Philly, or there could be a 3 team deal, hell, I wouldn't mind seeing Webber go to Detriot if he would be willing to take a paycut, I know he's not the player he once was but I still think he can contribute on a good team.

Originally posted by wuTa
How would they shoot two and get the ball, is there a rule change I'm not aware of? I didnt intend for them to commit a flagarant, just a foul before the ball inbounded, I seen it done plenty of times to Ben Wallace and Shaq were they fouled before the inbound, and Shaq or Ben went ot the line, and they didnt get the ball back.

Oh my bad, the rule is that if there's less than 2 minutes in the game, and if you foul before the inbounds pass, then the other team shoots 2 free throws and then gets the ball back. Prior to 2 minutes, if you foul before the inbounds, they shoot 2 but they don't get it back. I don't think this is a new rule. I'm guessing that all the fouls on Ben and Shaq that you saw were prior to the 2 minute mark.

Originally posted by wuTa
Yes, How many points you score can detereming your skill. Phoenix is a very skilled Offensive team, any bloke can tell you this just by looking at there final scores, and about Denver, remember when I said Phoenix was in the top 2 in scoring points per game, well guess who is that other team in that category, Denver. You can tell, or get an idea on how talented someone is by looking at there stats just like you can tell a teams talent or strenghts by scores, or stats. If you think Phoenix got lucky thats your call, and your opinion, I'm just saying I disagree and why.

What I mean is that, yes, if a given team scores more, than you may consider it more skilled. But, unless Phoenix is a very good defensive team, which they're not, points can't determine how skilled they are overall, because it doesn't matter nearly as much without defense. In other words, Detroit last year was a very skilled team, but they averaged very few points per game. So, how were they so good? Defense. Good example of how points per game by a team doesn't solely determine skill. If Phoenix scored 161 points and beat the Nets by a large margin, then that's skill and skill only. But the fact that they beat them by 4 diminishes the point value and highlights the fact that you can't say it was skill just because they scored 161.

Originally posted by wuTa
You mentioned that you think A.I might go to the Wolves, and they won't have a lowpost presence, but Webber could be included in that deal if it were to happen considering how unhappy he is in Philly, or there could be a 3 team deal, hell, I wouldn't mind seeing Webber go to Detriot if he would be willing to take a paycut, I know he's not the player he once was but I still think he can contribute on a good team.

That might happen, I don't know. I was just being hypothetical under the circumstance that KG is traded solely for Iverson, then the Wolves would have no post presence. Even if KG leaves Minnesota and goes to Philly, he's probably still going to be dissatisfied, because besides him, I wonder who's going to lead the team. Iguodala might step up, but him carrying the team is a little far-fetched.

Originally posted by koolruningz
I didnt see the Nets/Suns game but if you're trying to prevent a 3 then fouling [B]before the inbounds is not the way to go about it. You give up 2 shots and the ball, fouling on the inbounds before a shot can be attempted is the way to go. I dont know the exact situation in this particular game i just thought that might be relevant.[/B]

Was there a rule change? I coulda swore I seen teams foul on the inbound w/o getting position of the ball as well. Either way the Nets appeared to play D over the fouling technique.

Originally posted by koolruningz
What do you guys make of the AI trade demand? Any ideas as to where he might end up? He's got a massive contract and its hard to imagine a team gutting their squad to match up the salaries, or the Sixers excepting big expiring contracts and waiting till the off season to load up on free agents. Thoughts?

I mentioned earlier that there could be a 3 team trade with Webber involved but thats pure speculation on my part. I have no idea were Iverson can go, with that contract all the top teams aren't gonna want to touch him, unless of course its reconstructed.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
What I mean is that, yes, if a given team scores more, than you may consider it more skilled. But, unless Phoenix were a very good defensive team, which they're not, points can't determine how skilled they are overall, because it doesn't matter nearly as much without defense. In other words, Detroit last year was a very skilled team, but they averaged very few points per game. So, how were they so good? Defense. Good example of how points per game by a team doesn't determine the skill. If Phoenix scored 161 points and beat the Nets by a large margin, then that's skill and skill only. But the fact that they beat them by 4 diminishes the point value and highlights the fact that you can't just say it was skill because they scored 161.

See I disagree, Its not everyday a team scores 161 pts, or even 157 pts. Its takes skill to drop that many points, obviosly the skill isn't defense but nevertheless. The Nets didnt play defense either, which showed me they tryed to outscore Phoenix, and thats not the best stradegy against Phoenix, the Lakers proved that last year in the playoffs. Detroit actualy had a very good offensive last year. They were up with the best of them in scoring and offensive stats in the regular season.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
That might happen, I don't know. I was just being hypothetical under the circumstance that KG is traded solely for Iverson, then the Wolves would have no post presence. Even if KG leaves Minnesota and goes to Philly, he's probably still going to be dissatisfied, because besides him, I wonder who's going to lead the team. Iguodala might step up, but him carrying the team is a little far-fetched.

I dont see a Philly/Minnesota trade satisfying either players unless there are some key role player or a 3rd team involved.

Originally posted by wuTa
See I disagree, Its not everyday a team scores 161 pts, or even 157 pts. Its takes skill to drop that many points, obviosly the skill isn't defense but nevertheless. The Nets didnt play defense either, which showed me they tryed to outscore Phoenix, and thats not the best stradegy against Phoenix, the Lakers proved that last year in the playoffs. Detroit actualy had a very good offensive last year. They were up with the best of them in scoring and offensive stats in the regular season.

I dont see a Philly/Minnesota trade satisfying either players unless there are some key role player or a 3rd team involved.

I meant winning the game took luck, not scoring 161. And you basically said it. The Nets didn't play defense, so that deflates the value of scoring 161. There was no defensive presence in the game whatsoever by both teams. I know it takes skill to score that many points, but it doesn't take that much if there's no defense. Detroit was better offensively, but they still averaged few points in comparison to other teams. But they were still more skilled than those teams because of defense.

About the trade, me neither. I don't see only Iverson being traded for only KG. I was only responding to a comment about an Iverson vs. KG trade that didn't include any other role players or a 3rd team.

The Clippers, Nuggets, Kings, and T-Wolves are looking at Iverson. The Nuggets trade would be the same as it was last time when there were talks of a trade. The T-Wolves would trade Randy Foye, Mike James, and a First Round Pick. The Kings would trade Mike Bibby, somebody else, and maybe a Pick. And I don't remember who the Clippers said they would give, but I remember I didn't like the trade.

Trading Iverson for KG doesn't make any sense as you're basically swapping the same level players who are both close to being out of their prime. The Sixers and Wolves would still suck and be in the same situation before the trade.

The talk here is trading Bibby, Thomas or Miller, a pick and/or getting Cisco. I'd love to get Thomas out of here. Come on Billy! You signed the piece of trash to a terrible contract, take him back!!

I've never been a huge Iverson fan, but he would take a lot of pressure off of Artest and Martin to score and he would improve our defense a lot too.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
Detroit was better offensively, but they still averaged few points in comparison to other teams. But they were still more skilled than those teams because of defense.

The only teams they failed in comparison offensively were teams like Phoenix and Dallas, Pistons were in the top 5 in the league last year Offensive, and there Defense dropped some, so last year they were just as skilled offensively as defensively, but the years prior to last they were more defensively skilled.

If the Kings can pickup A.I and still have that young nucleus with Artest, that could cause alot of damage, but they would still need to pickup a big man to be real threat, espicially if they lose Miller.

Originally posted by wuTa
The only teams they failed in comparison offensively were teams like Phoenix and Dallas, Pistons were in the top 5 in the league last year Offensive, and there Defense dropped some, so last year they were just as skilled offensively as defensively, but the years prior to last they were more defensively skilled.

If the Kings can pickup A.I and still have that young nucleus with Artest, that could cause alot of damage, but they would still need to pickup a big man to be real threat, espicially if they lose Miller.

Last year's not a good example. Fine, we'll go with 2 years ago. Either way, Detroit exemplifies my point.

KG is speaking out! He wants Iverson he said so himself in front of a camera.

Man I hope the Twolve's can get Iverson, KG is the man and they surrounded him with pathetic rejects.

True, my dad and I were also discussing the Kings. A.I. could go there.

Lakers beat the Spurs w00t w00t!

Originally posted by wuTa
Was there a rule change? I coulda swore I seen teams foul on the inbound w/o getting position of the ball as well.

I know I'm late in this conversation, but as long as I can remember you can't foul before the inbounds at the end of a game.

Originally posted by Lord Evolution
KG is speaking out! He wants Iverson he said so himself in front of a camera.

Man I hope the Twolve's can get Iverson, KG is the man and they surrounded him with pathetic rejects.

But how would they afford him? You got two guys with humoungus contracts...and can you really see AI taking an backseat to KG, or vice versa?

Originally posted by Smasandian
\

But how would they afford him? You got two guys with humoungus contracts...and can you really see AI taking an backseat to KG, or vice versa?

I can because you have two guys who have played individually there whole careers and have not accomplished anything, in terms of championships.

Remember how everyone was saying Tmac wouldn't take a backseat to YAO? It turned out well because he knows what he had to do to win because all his career prior to HOU he had been playing individually.

I see no difference in this situation, AI wants KG, KG wants AI, and they both want to win.