Love & Griffin All Star debate

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

    Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate

    In Response to Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate : I'm ok with your disagreement.   I am the lone opinion on this (on this Board) but the original poster said he didn't understand why the debate continues on other places like TNT.  I'm highlighting why folks like me just see if differently than you do.   I can provide more examples but you won't agree with me no matter how many I provide.  I think if you thought about it, you'd end up agreeing that on MOST nights, All stars step up.  Not always - sometimes they just don't have it.  But, on most nights, they play well at critical points in the game and they help their team win.  I think if you do the research, you'll find that Love doesn't dominate at critical points in the game.   That's ok, though.   Stats are important so I see why you think his stats justify all star status.  And yes, he probably deserves it more than Odom or Butler.   No matter.  Its a "who cares" type of ongoing discussion.  In the end, it doesn't matter what we think. The Coaches will make the selection because he's not going to get voted in. Go Celts.
    Posted by Celtsfan4life[/QUOTE]

    Actually I am not sure who deserves it the most.  To each his own. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate

    In Response to Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate:
    [QUOTE]Does Blake have a jumper? Post moves? Love has the better all around game. Blake to me is alot like Josh Smith. Great leaper but needs to develop some go to moves.
    Posted by BiasLewis[/QUOTE]

    No way, my friend.  Blake is a monster and while he doesn't have the long range jumper, his 15 footer is fine.  He cannot be stopped while Love is easier to defend.

    On the wins vs losses, let's reverse the argument and talk about winning teams and all stars.  isn't it interesting that the two teams with the best records (and in my opinion, by far the two best teams in the league) are NOT going to have ANY players on the starting roster?  Also interesting that some debate they may have only two or three allstars between the two teams (KG and Rondo for sure, PP is a maybe in some people's minds, Manu, Tony, and Duncan are questionable in a LOT of people's minds).  So, if your players can be EVERYONE and their stats aren't as good, are they All Stars?  If Duncan plays only 25 minutes and therefore produces less but in his 25 minutes he and his team win 33 games and lose only 6, are there NO players who are allstars?  But, Kevin Love who has better numbers than Duncan, KG, PP, Manu, Rondo, etc is more deserving than all of them?   

    Think about it, Miami might have 3 all stars and the team with better records (SA and Boston) may have 2 or 3 all stars between the 2 of them if some people have their way......so that Love can make the team????


    What does the winning of Boston and San Antonio count for and how in the world do they win SO MUCH with no all star starters and with only a couple of all stars between them?

    This is why some people call the selection process a farce.  Another reason I want us to win a championship - to win the more important recognition!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate

    In Response to Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Love & Griffin All Star debate : No way, my friend.  Blake is a monster and while he doesn't have the long range jumper, his 15 footer is fine.  He cannot be stopped while Love is easier to defend. On the wins vs losses, let's reverse the argument and talk about winning teams and all stars.  isn't it interesting that the two teams with the best records (and in my opinion, by far the two best teams in the league) are NOT going to have ANY players on the starting roster?  Also interesting that some debate they may have only two or three allstars between the two teams (KG and Rondo for sure, PP is a maybe in some people's minds, Manu, Tony, and Duncan are questionable in a LOT of people's minds).  So, if your players can be EVERYONE and their stats aren't as good, are they All Stars?  If Duncan plays only 25 minutes and therefore produces less but in his 25 minutes he and his team win 33 games and lose only 6, are there NO players who are allstars?  But, Kevin Love who has better numbers than Duncan, KG, PP, Manu, Rondo, etc is more deserving than all of them?    Think about it, Miami might have 3 all stars and the team with better records (SA and Boston) may have 2 or 3 all stars between the 2 of them if some people have their way......so that Love can make the team???? What does the winning of Boston and San Antonio count for and how in the world do they win SO MUCH with no all star starters and with only a couple of all stars between them? This is why some people call the selection process a farce.  Another reason I want us to win a championship - to win the more important recognition!
    Posted by Celtsfan4life[/QUOTE]

    The starters are a farce.  The rest of the team is closer to reality.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share