Boston @ Det
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,963
- And1: 2,829
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
Monroe's been playing good lately ever since Cheeks was fired. What a shocker. This is what happens when you don't deliberately bench him.
Having big games against Noah and Gibson, along with the other playoff teams recently like DAL, GSW, and fringe MIN. He's been stepping up lately to say the least.
Oh wait, no he hasn't what is cognitive dissonance etc etc he's literally only trade fodder. What a scrub. /sarc
Having big games against Noah and Gibson, along with the other playoff teams recently like DAL, GSW, and fringe MIN. He's been stepping up lately to say the least.
Oh wait, no he hasn't what is cognitive dissonance etc etc he's literally only trade fodder. What a scrub. /sarc
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,963
- And1: 2,829
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
Classic Pistons Basketball.NMerch wrote:You know, sometimes I wonder what goes through the coaches heads. If Cheeks, Loyer or anyone wanted to win, they know 1 big needs to come off the bench. Every fan, analyst, ex coach etc has said it. It just leaves me puzzled why it hasn't been done. And then the rookies and role player aren't even used. But I'll just laugh it off if they do it the last 10 games, we win some meaningless ones and end up 9th place no mans land.
This is what happens when you don't fully commit to a tank and or bottom out when it's actually time. You become fringe playoff teams at best. We're like the MIL of last year except somehow worse. I guess it's the FO's pride to not ever commit to a tank, even though BOS and Philly fully embrace it and they're arguably a bigger market than us.
Re: Boston @ Det
- imagump1313
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,908
- And1: 3,935
- Joined: Apr 27, 2013
- Location: Behind You
-
Re: Boston @ Det
DBC10 wrote:Classic Pistons Basketball.NMerch wrote:You know, sometimes I wonder what goes through the coaches heads. If Cheeks, Loyer or anyone wanted to win, they know 1 big needs to come off the bench. Every fan, analyst, ex coach etc has said it. It just leaves me puzzled why it hasn't been done. And then the rookies and role player aren't even used. But I'll just laugh it off if they do it the last 10 games, we win some meaningless ones and end up 9th place no mans land.
This is what happens when you don't fully commit to a tank and or bottom out when it's actually time. You become fringe playoff teams at best. We're like the MIL of last year except somehow worse. I guess it's the FO's pride to not ever commit to a tank, even though BOS and Philly fully embrace it and they're arguably a bigger market than us.
Its ineptitude and horrible coaching. There is a huge difference between dumping salary and playing young players to tank and purposely trying to lose games. I know its a hard thing to prove but the latter should not be tolerated by any means and offenders banned by the league. This is just a horrid franchise that doesn't know how to win, they are not losing on purpose. People got what they wanted and Joe D. has no power, no one in this organization knows how to win or build a team. Poor Bill Davidson is probably in Hell if he can see this.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,183
- And1: 1,048
- Joined: Jan 30, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
Is there any reason KCP gets no playing time? Our only good perimeter defender. Even the Vinces can't figure it out and they're usually the opposite of everything I think.
Fire Troy Weaver
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,963
- And1: 2,829
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
The thing is, this team and FO doesn't know when the season is actually lost and allows it to go on meaningless streaks to bump us out of the pick order which has somehow been a blessing to us in recent years like getting Monroe and Dre. That's the main problem. They don't know when to say, "Holy s*** we're bad and we're X amount of losses for the X pick, and we have a few games remaining. May as well go for X pick now." Instead you get meaningless wins which further likely compounds things for the worse and for the long term.imagump1313 wrote:DBC10 wrote:Classic Pistons Basketball.NMerch wrote:You know, sometimes I wonder what goes through the coaches heads. If Cheeks, Loyer or anyone wanted to win, they know 1 big needs to come off the bench. Every fan, analyst, ex coach etc has said it. It just leaves me puzzled why it hasn't been done. And then the rookies and role player aren't even used. But I'll just laugh it off if they do it the last 10 games, we win some meaningless ones and end up 9th place no mans land.
This is what happens when you don't fully commit to a tank and or bottom out when it's actually time. You become fringe playoff teams at best. We're like the MIL of last year except somehow worse. I guess it's the FO's pride to not ever commit to a tank, even though BOS and Philly fully embrace it and they're arguably a bigger market than us.
Its ineptitude and horrible coaching. There is a huge difference between dumping salary and playing young players to tank and purposely trying to lose games. I know its a hard thing to prove but the latter should not be tolerated by any means and offenders banned by the league. This is just a horrid franchise that doesn't know how to win, they are not losing on purpose. People got what they wanted and Joe D. has no power, no one in this organization knows how to win or build a team. Poor Bill Davidson is probably in Hell if he can see this.
It's probably not even all of Dumars' fault anyways. It's much likely that Gores is even more at fault here than what's actually being observed. It's such a terrible situation.
I think the last time we actually had a good losing season was the Grant Hill pick. That's it. That time we got the 2nd pick was a gift wrapped for Dumars to set the tone for the future but of course that's a classic.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,963
- And1: 2,829
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
I think Loyer has that Adelman effect going on. He doesn't play rookies unless he absolutely has to.russkopp wrote:Is there any reason KCP gets no playing time? Our only good perimeter defender. Even the Vinces can't figure it out and they're usually the opposite of everything I think.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 5,610
- And1: 843
- Joined: Jun 14, 2012
-
Re: Boston @ Det
- kurtis48239
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,005
- And1: 1,056
- Joined: May 19, 2011
-
Re: Boston @ Det
If it does fall that we not make the playoffs and lose the pick and seeing how were pretty much god awful and should tank out the rest,I want to hear the excuses why we just didnt tank WHEN IT WAS SOOOO GODDAMN OBVIOUS THIS SEASON.
Re: Boston @ Det
- A_dub06
- Starter
- Posts: 2,073
- And1: 968
- Joined: Dec 02, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
kurtis48239 wrote:If it does fall that we not make the playoffs and lose the pick and seeing how were pretty much god awful and should tank out the rest,I want to hear the excuses why we just didnt tank WHEN IT WAS SOOOO GODDAMN OBVIOUS THIS SEASON.
It's frustrating the hell out of me as well. When we can't even win against the celtics it shows we are not good enough for he playoffs which means we need better players. We will resign moose which takes up most of our cap space meaning we won't bring in top tier free agents even though our team rarely does at the best if times.
The only reason I've heard against us tanking which has validity is that the new gm will surely try and rebuild so out pick next season will be higher than next so it's better to give up a pick in the 9-11 range than a 2-7. Thing with that is, if we tank the hell out of this season and finish with a top 7-8 pick in this draft I'm confident our team next season will still be stronger than this with a proper gm, coach and environment to support our players.
I really hope smith and jennings somehow get traded this offseason
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 5,610
- And1: 843
- Joined: Jun 14, 2012
-
Re: Boston @ Det
A_dub06 wrote:
The only reason I've heard against us tanking which has validity is that the new gm will surely try and rebuild so out pick next season will be higher than next so it's better to give up a pick in the 9-11 range than a 2-7. Thing with that is, if we tank the hell out of this season and finish with a top 7-8 pick in this draft I'm confident our team next season will still be stronger than this with a proper gm, coach and environment to support our players.
Absolutely & this team as is, just taking off Smith & Jennings ridiculousness would have a better record than we do currently.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,465
- And1: 2,323
- Joined: Apr 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
princeofpalace wrote:ImHeisenberg wrote:Great day so far for the tank. Detroit loses to the Celtics, and the Lakers pick up a win.
Also, it looks like Monroe is in full on "pay me" mode now.
Monroe looks good because he is good. Cheeks was sabotaging him. He's a legit 17/10 player and we are lucky to have him.
Yes, Monroe was a beast, feasting on Boston's all-NBA front line.

Re: Boston @ Det
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,982
- And1: 1,636
- Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Re: Boston @ Det
ImHeisenberg wrote:princeofpalace wrote:ImHeisenberg wrote:Great day so far for the tank. Detroit loses to the Celtics, and the Lakers pick up a win.
Also, it looks like Monroe is in full on "pay me" mode now.
Monroe looks good because he is good. Cheeks was sabotaging him. He's a legit 17/10 player and we are lucky to have him.
Yes, Monroe was a beast, feasting on Boston's all-NBA front line.
Greg is averaging 18 points and 11 boards since Cheeks was fired.

Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,857
- And1: 2,460
- Joined: Sep 28, 2012
Re: Boston @ Det
princeofpalace wrote:ImHeisenberg wrote:princeofpalace wrote:
Monroe looks good because he is good. Cheeks was sabotaging him. He's a legit 17/10 player and we are lucky to have him.
Yes, Monroe was a beast, feasting on Boston's all-NBA front line.
Greg is averaging 18 points and 11 boards since Cheeks was fired.
It's not like this could've been fact checked or anything, so the best thing to do is make it seem like just one game.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 5,610
- And1: 843
- Joined: Jun 14, 2012
-
Re: Boston @ Det
ImHeisenberg wrote:Yes, Monroe was a beast, feasting on Boston's all-NBA front line.
At some point the few detractors left are going to need to realize there isnt much out there as far as better options & that we could do a whole hell of a lot worse than Greg Monroe next to Drummond for the next decade.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,963
- And1: 2,829
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
Like Josh Smith but that will never happen ahaha, oh wait.Clarity wrote:ImHeisenberg wrote:Yes, Monroe was a beast, feasting on Boston's all-NBA front line.
At some point the few detractors left are going to need to realize there isnt much out there as far as better options & that we could do a whole hell of a lot worse than Greg Monroe next to Drummond for the next decade.
Damn it Dumars.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,465
- And1: 2,323
- Joined: Apr 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
princeofpalace wrote:Greg is averaging 18 points and 11 boards since Cheeks was fired.
I know, you keep telling me that, and I keep reminding you that you're basing your opinion on an extremely small sample size, whereas I base mine more on the near 4 seasons of overall production.
Greg Monroe is a good player, that's a fact. But, I seriously doubt he will ever be a great player, or make an all-star team, or be worthy of a max contract.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,465
- And1: 2,323
- Joined: Apr 01, 2013
-
Re: Boston @ Det
Clarity wrote:ImHeisenberg wrote:Yes, Monroe was a beast, feasting on Boston's all-NBA front line.
At some point the few detractors left are going to need to realize there isnt much out there as far as better options & that we could do a whole hell of a lot worse than Greg Monroe next to Drummond for the next decade.
We already did worse, Clarity. He's wearing #6 for us already.
This team is in too big of a hole to even consider chasing down a PF at the moment.
Re: Boston @ Det
- ComboGuardCity
- RealGM
- Posts: 25,973
- And1: 4,897
- Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Re: Boston @ Det
ImHeisenberg wrote:princeofpalace wrote:Greg is averaging 18 points and 11 boards since Cheeks was fired.
I know, you keep telling me that, and I keep reminding you that you're basing your opinion on an extremely small sample size, whereas I base mine more on the near 4 seasons of overall production.
Greg Monroe is a good player, that's a fact. But, I seriously doubt he will ever be a great player, or make an all-star team, or be worthy of a max contract.
He averaged nearly 16 and 10 last year. And he's doing so now without a jumpshot. He only had one off season to work as a PF and wasn't even told to do so full time. You replace Greg with Boozer on the Bulls and he's an all star this year. You put up 16 and 10 as a big man on a good team and you're an all star.
Re: Boston @ Det
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 5,610
- And1: 843
- Joined: Jun 14, 2012
-
Re: Boston @ Det
DBC10 wrote:]Like Josh Smith but that will never happen ahaha, oh wait.
Damn it Dumars.
lol
ImHeisenberg wrote:We already did worse, Clarity. He's wearing #6 for us already.
This team is in too big of a hole to even consider chasing down a PF at the moment.
Well said man
ComboGuardCity wrote:
He averaged nearly 16 and 10 last year. And he's doing so now without a jumpshot. He only had one off season to work as a PF and wasn't even told to do so full time. You replace Greg with Boozer on the Bulls and he's an all star this year. You put up 16 and 10 as a big man on a good team and you're an all star.
Easily, Monroe is a hell of a #2 or 3 option after Drummond & a shot creating stud wing.
ImHeisenberg wrote:Greg Monroe is a good player, that's a fact. But, I seriously doubt he will ever be a great player, or make an all-star team, or be worthy of a max contract.
He would have been an All Star last year had the team won anything.
& before we use the "he doesnt help his team win more games" ill bring up Al Jeff again.
Monroe isnt a #1 option, to his credit most bigs arent but as I just said, we could do a lot worse as a #2 option than Monroe.