Brooks

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerrycole. Show jerrycole's posts

    Re: Brooks

    Petey, since I was responding to those who seem to think that Brooks played better than Rondo last night, it's a little difficult to leave Rondo "out of the equation".  And since

    Of Brooks' 21 minutes, 9 were when he was playing against Bradley.  During that stretch, with Rondo not on the floor, Phoenix outscored the Celts 18-0.  I suspect that a fair amount of that damage was done by Brooks.  Even if, despite the above, Brooks scored and assisted at the SAME per-minute rate against both Bradley and Rondo (highly unlikely), that would mean Brooks had the grand total of 12 points and 4 assists against Rondo.  Whoop-dee-do!  That's something to write home about. 

    Brooks fewer overall minutes also make the comparison of Brooks and Rondo's turn-overs that much worse.  On a per-minute basis, it would have been 4.5 TOs for Brooks to 1 for Rondo. Either way, Brooks 2.3-1 ratio of assists to turnovers looks really bad compared to Rondo's 15-1 ratio.

    15-1 - that REALLY is something to write home about!

    I agree with you that Brooks played well last night, although not as much as it looks, given the amount of time he played against Bradley.  But to suggest, as someone did, that Rondo was "shaking in his boots" at the prospect of playing against Brooks is laughable.  Knowing that he would be playing against Steve Nash would have been what Rondo was thinking about.  I doubt he gave much thought at all to playing against Brooks.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from gtown07. Show gtown07's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]Petey, since I was responding to those who seem to think that Brooks played better than Rondo last night, it's a little difficult to leave Rondo "out of the equation".  And since Of Brooks' 21 minutes, 9 were when he was playing against Bradley.  During that stretch, with Rondo not on the floor, Phoenix outscored the Celts 18-0.  I suspect that a fair amount of that damage was done by Brooks.  Even if, despite the above, Brooks scored and assisted at the SAME per-minute rate against both Bradley and Rondo (highly unlikely), that would mean Brooks had the grand total of 12 points and 4 assists against Rondo.  Whoop-dee-do!  That's something to write home about.  Brooks fewer overall minutes also make the comparison of Brooks and Rondo's turn-overs that much worse.  On a per-minute basis, it would have been 4.5 TOs for Brooks to 1 for Rondo. Either way, Brooks 2.3-1 ratio of assists to turnovers looks really bad compared to Rondo's 15-1 ratio. 15-1 - that REALLY is something to write home about! I agree with you that Brooks played well last night, although not as much as it looks, given the amount of time he played against Bradley.  But to suggest, as someone did, that Rondo was "shaking in his boots" at the prospect of playing against Brooks is laughable.  Knowing that he would be playing against Steve Nash would have been what Rondo was thinking about.  I doubt he gave much thought at all to playing against Brooks.
    Posted by jerrycole[/QUOTE]

    There was also the "desperation" mode which Phoenix was in. They were playing balls to the wall because they were already down 25 and had nothing to lose. This is a great way to play but only if the ball drops in. If it doesn't then pretty soon the other team starts back dooring you or trapping you and you get picked apart. That is exactly what happened to Phoenix. The were pretty successful with the desperation mode for a while...in no small part because Brooks went unconscious. But cooler heads prevailed. Rondo came back in. They trapped Brooks and he turned the ball over a couple of times. Brooks also was spent because you can only play desperation basketball for a few minutes at a time.

    Does anyone really doubt that Rondo wouldn't be totally devastating if he played the kind of desperation ball that Brooks played for that short stretch of the game? Both of them are quicker and faster than everyone else on the floor except each other.

    Brooks seems like a very good scoring guard but he isn't Rondo. I wouldn't mind trying him as a back up to Rondo.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Brooks

    The point that Brooks came and in and was allowed to go wild on Bradley is where his offensive onslaught started. Rondo came in  when he was on fire and the Celtics were in disarray.  Rondo righted the ship and we held a double digit lead. 

    I started the thread because P34 had mentioned that Brooks was steal available in a trade.  If he could have been had by LA or Miami who knows how much he could have helped them.   With all that he is not close to as good as Rondo.  Offensively as a scorer Rondo is not close but look at Brooks shooting percentage mired in in the low forties for his four year career and you have to temper enthusiasm a bit.  Rondo actually shoots from the field more accurately.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]Finally some of you can agree.  The Cs are absolutely no worse off with Brooks instead of Rondo as I have said a million times. 
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    HA HA HA HA 

    right OK   a show of Hands  - everyone that agrees with the Big Dud on this one raise your hand ..   post a reply...   make a noise...  anything????     anyone?????   

    I'll be suprised if there are three other posters on this board who would agree with you on this one.

    Dud you are way out on a limb by yourself ...   

    and you seem like such a smart guy too...   



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]  just click into this link and take a long hard look at reality....... http://www.cbssports.com/nba/playerrankings/regularseason/PG
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    WOW

    very revealing of YOUR reality....I don't know if you noticed Dud, but that link is to FANTASY basketball rankings -  not reality basketball rankings....   

    and you are absolutely correct that there are many better PGs in the NBA at putting up FANTASY points.  

    I am very greatful that Danny doesn't depend on FANTASY rankings... or stats to make his decisions....   

    And we can almost all agree that...   since your idea of "a long hard look at reality" consists of careful study of a FANTASY ratings chart.....   you should probably redirect your posts to a "Fantasy Basketball Forum"   There they would make some sense.   Here they just make you seem stupid, blind or deeply neurotic.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]The point that Brooks came and in and was allowed to go wild on Bradley is where his offensive onslaught started. Rondo came in  when he was on fire and the Celtics were in disarray.  Rondo righted the ship and we held a double digit lead.  I started the thread because P34 had mentioned that Brooks was steal available in a trade.  If he could have been had by LA or Miami who knows how much he could have helped them.   With all that he is not close to as good as Rondo.  Offensively as a scorer Rondo is not close but look at Brooks shooting percentage mired in in the low forties for his four year career and you have to temper enthusiasm a bit.  Rondo actually shoots from the field more accurately.
    Posted by concord27[/QUOTE]

    One correction,  The Celtics righted the ship, not just Rondo
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : HA HA HA HA  right OK   a show of Hands  - everyone that agrees with the Big Dud on this one raise your hand ..   post a reply...   make a noise...  anything????     anyone?????    I'll be suprised if there are three other posters on this board who would agree with you on this one. Dud you are way out on a limb by yourself ...    and you seem like such a smart guy too...   
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]



    still waiting for one  poster to agree with the Dud on this one.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    Finally some of you can agree.  The Cs are absolutely no worse off with Brooks instead of Rondo as I have said a million times. 
    Posted by TheDUDDER

    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : HA HA HA HA  right OK   a show of Hands  - everyone that agrees with the Big Dud on this one raise your hand ..   post a reply...   make a noise...  anything????     anyone?????    I'll be suprised if there are three other posters on this board who would agree with you on this one. Dud you are way out on a limb by yourself ...    and you seem like such a smart guy too...   
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    Still waiting for first poster to agree with the Duid on this one
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : still waiting for one  poster to agree with the Dud on this one.
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    Won't be me. I'm tired of the Dud's hot air & gas. He gives fantasy stuff because he lives in a fantasy all his own. Dud, get a match and light it up behind your back end. Burn off some of that excess gas !!

    Kidding of course, Dud. But get off the pot on your negative Rondo posts.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eldunker. Show Eldunker's posts

    Re: Brooks

    Brooks isn't 6'.  More like 5'10".  He is explosive but not consistent.  His D is highly vulnerable against taller PGs who can shoot.  Since Rondo can't shoot, he matches up well, but he is a full level below Rondo overall and I don't think he would fit well with the C's.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]Brooks isn't 6'.  More like 5'10".  He is explosive but not consistent.  His D is highly vulnerable against taller PGs who can shoot.  Since Rondo can't shoot, he matches up well, but he is a full level below Rondo overall and I don't think he would fit well with the C's.
    Posted by Eldunker[/QUOTE]

    Exactly and the last time the Cs played Houston Brooks had 24 and 9 and embarrassed Rondo off the floor and oh by the way the Rockets won.

    Some of you may finally be coming around to the idea that offense requires talent and defense is just hard work.  Perk is gone and their offense is a lot better, if Brooks were here, the offense would be even better. 

    Then they could get Brooks and Krstic and Green to play defense by working hard.

    Before the season started WEEI went on and on about how Miami would be a terrible defensive team.  Well they have the best defense in the league and it is because of athleticism and hard work.

    Offense is talent - defense is hard work.....  Perk took his hard work and bad knees to OKC and the Cs offense has improved dramatically.

    Just as it would with Brooks.

    Last time they played the Bulls 79 points not so coincidentally the number of points they scored in game 7 last year in the finals when the Lakers were ignoring Rondo.  They would not be ignoring Brooks and he would be nailing 3s and all his freebies and that would open up the floor for Shaq, KG, etc.  They would actually be unstoppable as opposed to "the Cs don't need scoring as long as Perk and Rondo play their roles"...... ummmmm they do need offense and they just got some and if they were to get Brooks they would get even more.

    The Lakers length made no difference at all in the finals last year - the complete inabillity of the point guard to participate in the half court offense is what cost them the title, period. period.  That would not be the case with Brooks.  Hard for me to imagine Brooks not being able to guard Fisher and nobody guarded Rondo.  And oh by the way the all-star first team defensive point guard was embarrased by Ellis last night......
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerrycole. Show jerrycole's posts

    Re: Brooks

    Hey, Dud, did you get all that from CBS's Fantasy League? 

    By the way, for everyone - Rondo is playing with plantar fasciitis (PF). (I'm embarrassed to admit that I had forgotten this until reminded by a friend). 

    Anyone who has had PF knows that it an extremely painful for people participating in athletics, especially athletics that require a lot of stop and go, rapid changes of direction, acceleration, and leaping.  For most people with PF, just walking across a room is difficult. 

    [Plantar fasciitis is a very painful inflammation of the long tendon that goes from above the heel to underneath the foot.  The Achilles heel is a part of that tendon.  There is no effective treatment - the inflammation can last for up to a year.]

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: Brooks

    doesn't 16-15 mean that Rondo accounted for 46+ of the Celtics' points?

    I doubt Brooks can pass anywhere remotely close to Rondo's level and Brooks isn't always going to shoot at that level, especially at his height.  He's a rich man's Nate Robinson
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    Finally some of you can agree.  The Cs are absolutely no worse off with Brooks instead of Rondo as I have said a million times. 
    Posted by TheDUDDER

    I'm still waiting for someone to agree with the Dud on this on...    I knew he was out on a limb ...   could he possibly be out there all by himself?????
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]Finally some of you can agree.  The Cs are absolutely no worse off with Brooks instead of Rondo as I have said a million times.  Posted by TheDUDDER I'm still waiting for someone to agree with the Dud on this on...    I knew he was out on a limb ...   could he possibly be out there all by himself?????
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    VideoB... if someone was to agree with the Dudder, would they be in big, big trouble here at BDC?

    Could it be kept like... confidential?

    Just asking, bossman.

    Pud
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : VideoB... if someone was to agree with the Dudder, would they be in big, big trouble here at BDC? Could it be kept like... confidential? Just asking, bossman. Pud
    Posted by puddinpuddin[/QUOTE]


    LOL   well yes I suppose.... saftey first and all...    and I certainly don't wish anyone here any actual harm....      

    But with confidentiality comes the problem of identity verificaiton...    my first suspicion of someone who claims to actually agree with The Dud (about the celts being as good with Brooks as with Rondo)   would be that it was Dud in disquise.   
    But would anyone on this board would use multiple accounts?  multiple identities?  These are dark possibilities I can't begin to unravel.   So I think we should stick with the sunshine principal. No secret ballots here.  Step into the light and be counted.   


    The Dud gets lots of facts and some assertions right...  but then he adds em up to the wrong conclusion...   and when some folks agree with some of his facts..   it seems to fill his sails a bit..    This just seemed like a good way chart just how far off course he has blown.      And I'm still waiting for someone to step up and be counted...   Puddin you get half credit for implying that you would (maybe) agree with Dud if it didn't subject you to a stream of debilitating persacution simply for expressing a slightly divergent opinion.

    Are there any other sturdy soles out there willing to brave the lynch-mob like wrath of this forum's  scorn?    Or is Dud sailin solo.   Or is Dud Pud, or Pud Dud?    

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : LOL   well yes I suppose.... saftey first and all...    and I certainly don't wish anyone here any actual harm....       But with confidentiality comes the problem of identity verificaiton...    my first suspicion of someone who claims to actually agree with The Dud (about the celts being as good with Brooks as with Rondo)   would be that it was Dud in disquise.    But would anyone on this board would use multiple accounts?  multiple identities?  These are dark possibilities I can't begin to unravel.   So I think we should stick with the sunshine principal. No secret ballots here.  Step into the light and be counted.    The Dud gets lots of facts and some assertions right...  but then he adds em up to the wrong conclusion...   and when some folks agree with some of his facts..   it seems to fill his sails a bit..    This just seemed like a good way chart just how far off course he has blown.      And I'm still waiting for someone to step up and be counted...   Puddin you get half credit for implying that you would (maybe) agree with Dud if it didn't subject you to a stream of debilitating persacution simply for expressing a slightly divergent opinion. Are there any other sturdy soles out there willing to brave the lynch-mob like wrath of this forum's  scorn?    Or is Dud sailin solo.   Or is Dud Pud, or Pud Dud?    
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    I got called a "coward" and accused of taking a "bowel movement" on our team quarterback a few days ago after the Suns game for simply suggesting that while young Rondo indeed outplayed SNash, ABrooks outplayed Rondo. 

    Rondo's play is by far the most divisive issue at BDC and has been for a few years, displaced for a few months by the "Tainted Championship" thread until that was closed.

    All civility breaks down and goons come out of the woodwork on the rampage to demonize and vilify those who make even the most reasonable critiques of Rondo's play. 

    Against that backdrop, do you really expect posters to be honest in their support of dissenting views like Dudder's?

    And why should they?

    What's to be gained here?

    Pud
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : I got called a "coward" and accused of taking a "bowel movement" on our team quarterback a few days ago after the Suns game for simply suggesting that while young Rondo indeed outplayed SNash, ABrooks outplayed Rondo.  Rondo's play is by far the most divisive issue at BDC and has been for a few years, displaced for a few months by the "Tainted Championship" thread until that was closed. All civility breaks down and goons come out of the woodwork on the rampage to demonize and vilify those who make even the most reasonable critiques of Rondo's play.  Against that backdrop, do you really expect posters to be honest in their support of dissenting views like Dudder's? And why should they? What's to be gained here? Pud
    Posted by puddinpuddin[/QUOTE]
     

     he he he 
    Oh I get it now.   Dud is really the brave champion of the silent majority here who are ready to trade Rondo for Brooks..     but are too intimidated to speak out .        right.     

    What's to be gained by stating your honest opinion on this board?   1st   a measure of self respect....    ie respecting yourself for not being cowed by name calling idiots.   Dud centainly has the courage of his convictions.  And I respect him for that - even as misguided as those convictions might be.  

    2nd recording your opinion to be later evaluated in the light of history revealed.             
      In two or three years (or sooner even)  it will probably be pretty easy to look back at the Brooks vs. Rondo comparison an to see who is right.  Who knows,  
    Maybe Danny picks up Brooks in a trade this summer and we really see who runs the team better.    or maybe Brooks finds a home alongside three superstars - and guides the team deep into the playoffs again and again.    Maybe Rondo fizzles  and the celts get blown out in the first round of the playoffs...  2 or three years in a row..   and Danny trades Rondo for a second round draft choice...  

    Dud is on record with his clear opinion regarding Rondo...  if events prove him out his stature here will be grow.       

    But he has been trashing RR for quite a while and his credibility shrinks as ROndo's list of achievements grows and the team's  high level of performance continues year after year.      How many finals campaigns, how many championships will it take before Dud ....   and You Pud  will admit that you are wrong about your assessment of Rondo's value to the team? 

    Put forth a metric going forward.... a real world team metric    NOT  fantasy stats, that you would find acceptable as proof -.   Suppose the Celts win the next three championships with Rondo at the helm....   would you then admit you misjudged him?    suppose he is the finals MVP this year....    would that be enough?  I don't think it would convince DUd.   

       
    ...   and you are still stuck on half credit for almost taking a stand on the Brooks/Rondo comparison.           

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:

    The Cs are absolutely no worse off with Brooks instead of Rondo as I have said a million times.  Posted by TheDUDDER

    AND  I'm still waiting for someone to agree with the Dud on this one... 
    And I promise to defend against ridicule or abuse of any kind on this board (to the best of my limited abilities)   any poster who is willing to stand up and be counted on this burning issue.     
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks :    he he he  Oh I get it now.   Dud is really the brave champion of the silent majority here who are ready to trade Rondo for Brooks..     but are too intimidated to speak out .        right.      What's to be gained by stating your honest opinion on this board?   1st   a measure of self respect....    ie respecting yourself for not being cowed by name calling idiots.   Dud centainly has the courage of his convictions.  And I respect him for that - even as misguided as those convictions might be.   2nd recording your opinion to be later evaluated in the light of history revealed.                In two or three years (or sooner even)  it will probably be pretty easy to look back at the Brooks vs. Rondo comparison an to see who is right.  Who knows,   Maybe Danny picks up Brooks in a trade this summer and we really see who runs the team better.    or maybe Brooks finds a home alongside three superstars - and guides the team deep into the playoffs again and again.    Maybe Rondo fizzles  and the celts get blown out in the first round of the playoffs...  2 or three years in a row..   and Danny trades Rondo for a second round draft choice...   Dud is on record with his clear opinion regarding Rondo...  if events prove him out his stature here will be grow.        But he has been trashing RR for quite a while and his credibility shrinks as ROndo's list of achievements grows and the team's  high level of performance continues year after year.      How many finals campaigns, how many championships will it take before Dud ....   and You Pud  will admit that you are wrong about your assessment of Rondo's value to the team?  Put forth a metric going forward.... a real world team metric    NOT  fantasy stats, that you would find acceptable as proof -.   Suppose the Celts win the next three championships with Rondo at the helm....   would you then admit you misjudged him?    suppose he is the finals MVP this year....    would that be enough?  I don't think it would convince DUd.        ...   and you are still stuck on half credit for almost taking a stand on the Brooks/Rondo comparison.           
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    And what do you do when the goons come out in full attack mode? Call them out like you are calling out those whom you are daring to agree with Dudder? 

    My guess is that you either join them or do nothing at all to avoid their ire.

    There is ZERO accountability here at BDC. Its mob rule pure and simple... and calling posters out has no effect since nothing can be enforced anyway.

    Pud

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : The Cs are absolutely no worse off with Brooks instead of Rondo as I have said a million times.  Posted by TheDUDDER AND  I'm still waiting for someone to agree with the Dud on this one...  And I promise to defend against ridicule or abuse of any kind on this board (to the best of my limited abilities)   any poster who is willing to stand up and be counted on this burning issue.     
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    Let's see The Rockets lose the best center in the league to injury and trade away their powerforward and when the Cs play the Rockets Brooks embarrasses Rondo off the floor and beat the the Celtics.  Brooks has 24 and 9 and of course we need to discuss who would "run the team better".

    There has been lots of talk on WEEI about KG being an A hole but of course because he is wearing green whatever he does and says is ok, etc.

    If Rondo was not wearing green most on this board would be laughing at him and if Brooks were the Cs starting point guard nobody would be complaining that Brooks would be making all his foul shots, making shots from everywhere on the floor and from 3 and not putting tremendous pressure on 3 guys to score on every possession.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : Let's see The Rockets lose the best center in the league to injury and trade away their powerforward and when the Cs play the Rockets Brooks embarrasses Rondo off the floor and beat the the Celtics.  Brooks has 24 and 9 and of course we need to discuss who would "run the team better". There has been lots of talk on WEEI about KG being an A hole but of course because he is wearing green whatever he does and says is ok, etc. If Rondo was not wearing green most on this board would be laughing at him and if Brooks were the Cs starting point guard nobody would be complaining that Brooks would be making all his foul shots, making shots from everywhere on the floor and from 3 and not putting tremendous pressure on 3 guys to score on every possession.
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]



    the beat goes on.... and I'm still waiting for one poster to agree ...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : Let's see The Rockets lose the best center in the league to injury and trade away their powerforward and when the Cs play the Rockets Brooks embarrasses Rondo off the floor and beat the the Celtics.  Brooks has 24 and 9 and of course we need to discuss who would "run the team better". There has been lots of talk on WEEI about KG being an A hole but of course because he is wearing green whatever he does and says is ok, etc. If Rondo was not wearing green most on this board would be laughing at him and if Brooks were the Cs starting point guard nobody would be complaining that Brooks would be making all his foul shots, making shots from everywhere on the floor and from 3 and not putting tremendous pressure on 3 guys to score on every possession.
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    by the way, did you watch the game Dud?   or jsut read the stats.?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : by the way, did you watch the game Dud?   or jsut read the stats.?
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]

    VideoB... you sure must be one brave dude to be standing up to that rascal Dudder ALL BY YOURSELF... and daring folks to agree with him. Goodness gracious! Your momma must be proud.

    How much longer are you gonna wait? Til high noon?

    Pud


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Brooks

    In Response to Re: Brooks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brooks : And what do you do when the goons come out in full attack mode? Call them out like you are calling out those whom you are daring to agree with Dudder?  My guess is that you either join them or do nothing at all to avoid their ire. There is ZERO accountability here at BDC. Its mob rule pure and simple... and calling posters out has no effect since nothing can be enforced anyway. Pud
    Posted by puddinpuddin[/QUOTE]


    And you think that people are actually afraid to state their opinion here because the BDC mob will be mean to them????              So you are saying that you won't state your opinion on the Brooks/Rondo comparison because you feel threatened?    That you won't respond to my request for a team performance based metric for evaluating Rondo's performance because the BDC mob will call you names?

     Well I sincerely apologize if my posts have threatened or intimidated you or anyone...  that is certainly not my intent.   

    And I'm calling out all the intimidators right now... cut it out.   stop it  .   really.   ,Furthermore anyone who uses fear tactics and intimidation should be ostrisized and ignored by this forum.   Anyone who has seen intimidating or threatening posts on this board please point them out. If the indicated posts are in fact intimidating or threatening I will request an apology from the offending poster and if they do not respond amenably I will undertake the most drastic action possible, I will encouraGE EVERYONE ON THE BOARD TO OFFICIALLY IGNORE THOSE POSTERS. I will myself ignore them.   The act ingoring is of course the most drastic action available to anyone here.   
    I am ready and willing to go to the max to rid this board of fear mongering and intimidation!

    Once these threats have been neutralized might we then finally be offered the benefit of your opinion regarding the Brooks/ Rondo issue.   Would the Celts be better with Brooks or Rondo as starting point Guard?
              
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share