DET @ BROK 730PM

[Clarity]

I wasn't calling Smith dumb. I was talking about the two of them together. They dont fit together with Drummond.

Either start Smith/Drummond by themselves, or start Drummond with a stretch 4, but Monroe has to go.

Calls Smith dumb, then he wasnt calling Smith dumb.

Then they dont fit with Drummond, but then it would be ok if Smith started with Drummond.

Literally talking himself in circles.

[DBC10]

Name some rookie PGs in the last 10 years that have significantly improved their team.

Rose, Westbrook, Paul, Rondo, etc.

We're in the golden age of PGs, it's not exactly hard to name them.

You apparently are having a hard time naming them. Those PGs rookie seasons:

OKC won 28 games
BOS won 24 games
NOH won 38 games
CHI won 41 games

Bulls were the only one to make the playoffs and none of them even had a winning record. Like I said, starting a rookie PG is a great way to stay in the lotto. And the Pistons aren't getting any PG of those caliber with the 7th pick anyways, so I woudn't see your point even if they had all led their teams to the playoffs.

Uhh, no, don't move goalposts. The original premise was if they "significantly" improved their teams, in which yes, they did after their second year. You never specified how, what, why of the circumstances of what "improved" means. Talking first years is irrelevant since virtually nobody except maybe Iverson, MJ, or Duncan made a significant impact to their teams coming fresh from college.

[kurtis48239]

Babysteps.

It's progress to undo the clouds of cognitive dissonance.

Lol every time I read you mention the term cognitive dissonance, I literally lol. You are winning RealGM with that there vernacular good sir.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Is...this a good thing? Heh.

Lol,this question made me laugh.With the gramar and the question,it makes me think you some super computer somewhere who has a weakness for sports forums lol.

[DBC10]

And all that progress of constant mental gymnastics, vanished with a flicker.

[Q00]

I certainly HOPE you're not referring to the guy you call Poop.

Because I just think they're better with Dumb and Dumber off the floor.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Caldwell Poop wasn't on the court. I'm talking about Jerebko.

You're right they are better with dumb and dumber (Monroe and Smith) off the court. That's why said they are better with a stretch 4 next to Drummond. He needs the whole paint to himself to be at his best.

What is wrong with you? I was talking about Jerebko too. Now all of a sudden you're singing his praises when you think he helps you make your invalid point.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You didn't say anything about Jerebko. wtf are you talking about?

I didn't say anything to praise him either. I said the Pistons are better with a stretch 4. That's not praising Jerebko. That's saying Drummond is better with the paint all to himself, regardless of who is playing the stretch 4 role.

[Q00]

Rose, Westbrook, Paul, Rondo, etc.

We're in the golden age of PGs, it's not exactly hard to name them.

You apparently are having a hard time naming them. Those PGs rookie seasons:

OKC won 28 games
BOS won 24 games
NOH won 38 games
CHI won 41 games

Bulls were the only one to make the playoffs and none of them even had a winning record. Like I said, starting a rookie PG is a great way to stay in the lotto. And the Pistons aren't getting any PG of those caliber with the 7th pick anyways, so I woudn't see your point even if they had all led their teams to the playoffs.

Uhh, no, don't move goalposts. The original premise was if they "significantly" improved their teams, in which yes, they did after their second year. You never specified how, what, why of the circumstances of what "improved" means. Talking first years is irrelevant since virtually nobody except maybe Iverson, MJ, or Duncan made a significant impact to their teams coming fresh from college.

No, the original premise was that starting a rookie PG on a lotto team is a great way to stay a lotto team. I specified that in my first post on this topic on the 1st page of the thread, if you're interested. Next time don't butt into argument if you don't know what its about.

[DBC10]

You apparently are having a hard time naming them. Those PGs rookie seasons:

OKC won 28 games
BOS won 24 games
NOH won 38 games
CHI won 41 games

Bulls were the only one to make the playoffs and none of them even had a winning record. Like I said, starting a rookie PG is a great way to stay in the lotto. And the Pistons aren't getting any PG of those caliber with the 7th pick anyways, so I woudn't see your point even if they had all led their teams to the playoffs.

Uhh, no, don't move goalposts. The original premise was if they "significantly" improved their teams, in which yes, they did after their second year. You never specified how, what, why of the circumstances of what "improved" means. Talking first years is irrelevant since virtually nobody except maybe Iverson, MJ, or Duncan made a significant impact to their teams coming fresh from college.

No, the original premise was that starting a rookie PG on a lotto team is a great way to stay a lotto team. I specified that in my first post on this topic on the 1st page of the thread, if you're interested. Next time don't butt into argument if you don't know what its about.

I obviously meant the original premise I pointed out was the first question I quoted you on. You asked a simple question, I answered it, despite it being a loaded question. There was no context to take within that question regardless.

And then you extrapolate my original answer by moving goalposts that those players didn't help their respective teams because something something playoffs and records despite their rebound in the next year. Even though I never implied anything about playoff runs or records in my original post.

[Q00]

Rose, Westbrook, Paul, Rondo, etc.

We're in the golden age of PGs, it's not exactly hard to name them.

You apparently are having a hard time naming them. Those PGs rookie seasons:

OKC won 28 games
BOS won 24 games
NOH won 38 games
CHI won 41 games

Bulls were the only one to make the playoffs and none of them even had a winning record. Like I said, starting a rookie PG is a great way to stay in the lotto. And the Pistons aren't getting any PG of those caliber with the 7th pick anyways, so I woudn't see your point even if they had all led their teams to the playoffs.

^^^^^^this guy can NEVER stick to the original argument, which was about improving THIS Piston team and being better than Brandon Jennings. Also the argument wasn't about which rookie PG took their team to the playoffs.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You got a bad memory, homie. I said from my first post what my argument was for not starting a rookie PG next year, and its the same argument I'm talking about right now. So I don't know wtf you are talking about.

Siva -17 in 5 minutes lol

One of the reasons I prefer to avoid drafting a PG. Starting a rookie at point next year is begging for another lotto season.

Its not because he's a rookie. It's because he's mediocre.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Q00]

Uhh, no, don't move goalposts. The original premise was if they "significantly" improved their teams, in which yes, they did after their second year. You never specified how, what, why of the circumstances of what "improved" means. Talking first years is irrelevant since virtually nobody except maybe Iverson, MJ, or Duncan made a significant impact to their teams coming fresh from college.

No, the original premise was that starting a rookie PG on a lotto team is a great way to stay a lotto team. I specified that in my first post on this topic on the 1st page of the thread, if you're interested. Next time don't butt into argument if you don't know what its about.

I obviously meant the original premise I pointed out was the first question I quoted you on. You asked a simple question, I answered it, despite it being a loaded question. There was no context to take within that question regardless.

And then you extrapolate my original answer by moving goalposts that those players didn't help their respective teams because something something playoffs and records despite their rebound in the next year. Even though I never implied anything about playoff runs or records in my original post.

And I obviously meant the original premise of my post. Which is why I said don't butt into arguments if you don't know what they are about.

Your response wouldn't have even made sense by your premise anyways, as half the PGs on your list didn't even improve their teams at all as rookies.

[DBC10]

No, the original premise was that starting a rookie PG on a lotto team is a great way to stay a lotto team. I specified that in my first post on this topic on the 1st page of the thread, if you're interested. Next time don't butt into argument if you don't know what its about.

I obviously meant the original premise I pointed out was the first question I quoted you on. You asked a simple question, I answered it, despite it being a loaded question. There was no context to take within that question regardless.

And then you extrapolate my original answer by moving goalposts that those players didn't help their respective teams because something something playoffs and records despite their rebound in the next year. Even though I never implied anything about playoff runs or records in my original post.

And I obviously meant the original premise of my post. Which is why I said don't butt into arguments if you don't know what they are about.

Your response wouldn't have even made sense by your premise anyways, as half the PGs on your list didn't even improve their teams at all as rookies.

Name some rookie PGs in the last 10 years that have significantly improved their team.

This question in no way gives context nor circumstance of what constitutes as "improved" means. I merely took it as face value which is fair because this is an open forum after all. It neither gives a precursor to a winning record nor a playoff run in which you seem to cling onto in your argument after my answer.

All I did was answer that yes, those PGs did improve their teams and even more beyond their rookie year especially if we are considering where they (the teams) were at beforehand. Without them (the PGs in question), they (the teams that drafted) would be easily worse off. But I didn't imply it to that degree, so I can see where the confusion from my ambiguity came from. Apologies.

[DetroitSho]

Caldwell Poop wasn't on the court. I'm talking about Jerebko.

You're right they are better with dumb and dumber (Monroe and Smith) off the court. That's why said they are better with a stretch 4 next to Drummond. He needs the whole paint to himself to be at his best.

What is wrong with you? I was talking about Jerebko too. Now all of a sudden you're singing his praises when you think he helps you make your invalid point.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You didn't say anything about Jerebko. wtf are you talking about?

I didn't say anything to praise him either. I said the Pistons are better with a stretch 4. That's not praising Jerebko. That's saying Drummond is better with the paint all to himself, regardless of who is playing the stretch 4 role.

Obviously you're having trouble reading, so I'll help you out and post my initial response:
" I certainly HOPE you're not referring to the guy you call Poop."

Now who on this forum has been called Poop? Hmmmm.

As far as Drummond being a better player when having the paint to himself, it's a great thing Monroe does his best work in the high post. Otherwise there's no way they could fit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[DetroitSho]

You apparently are having a hard time naming them. Those PGs rookie seasons:

OKC won 28 games
BOS won 24 games
NOH won 38 games
CHI won 41 games

Bulls were the only one to make the playoffs and none of them even had a winning record. Like I said, starting a rookie PG is a great way to stay in the lotto. And the Pistons aren't getting any PG of those caliber with the 7th pick anyways, so I woudn't see your point even if they had all led their teams to the playoffs.

^^^^^^this guy can NEVER stick to the original argument, which was about improving THIS Piston team and being better than Brandon Jennings. Also the argument wasn't about which rookie PG took their team to the playoffs.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You got a bad memory, homie. I said from my first post what my argument was for not starting a rookie PG next year, and its the same argument I'm talking about right now. So I don't know wtf you are talking about.

Siva -17 in 5 minutes lol

One of the reasons I prefer to avoid drafting a PG. Starting a rookie at point next year is begging for another lotto season.

Its not because he's a rookie. It's because he's mediocre.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

No YOU have a bad memory because I made the statement that it wouldn't take much as a rookie PG to improve THIS team and be better than Jennings. Operative word, THIS team. That's why you asking the question about what rookie PG's improved their team in their rookie year was irrelevant because how many of those had 2 bigs the caliber of Moose and Dre to work with? If Marcus Smart started on this team next year, minus B. Job and Smiff, with a good 3 & D wing, do you not think this team could win 38+ games? Is that not an improvement on the (probable) 28 we'll win this year?

Again, your first statement was about drafting a PG for THIS team. So the discussion of a rookie point improving his team should be specified to THIS team.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ComboGuardCity]

At this point, is he really going to admit he's wrong?

[DetroitSho]

At this point, is he really going to admit he's wrong?

Nope

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ImHeisenberg]

For kicks, I went to the Nets forum. They didn't bother making a thread for this game, and yet already made one for tomorrow's game against Philly.

Other forums aren't even recognizing the Pistons match-ups as real games anymore.

[wallace72]

For kicks, I went to the Nets forum. They didn't bother making a thread for this game, and yet already made one for tomorrow's game against Philly.

Other forums aren't even recognizing the Pistons match-ups as real games anymore.

You can't blame them,
Now send a batallion of tanks for the last few games.
Give the young guys some PT and tank, tank, tank...

[DetroitSho]

For kicks, I went to the Nets forum. They didn't bother making a thread for this game, and yet already made one for tomorrow's game against Philly.

Other forums aren't even recognizing the Pistons match-ups as real games anymore.

Serious question, would it had made a difference to you if they had?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ImHeisenberg]

For kicks, I went to the Nets forum. They didn't bother making a thread for this game, and yet already made one for tomorrow's game against Philly.

Other forums aren't even recognizing the Pistons match-ups as real games anymore.

Serious question, would it had made a difference to you if they had?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

No difference. I was hoping I could get some cheap entertainment reading their posts about how bad the Pistons are. What I found was more entertaining.

[Q00]

What is wrong with you? I was talking about Jerebko too. Now all of a sudden you're singing his praises when you think he helps you make your invalid point.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You didn't say anything about Jerebko. wtf are you talking about?

I didn't say anything to praise him either. I said the Pistons are better with a stretch 4. That's not praising Jerebko. That's saying Drummond is better with the paint all to himself, regardless of who is playing the stretch 4 role.

Obviously you're having trouble reading, so I'll help you out and post my initial response:
" I certainly HOPE you're not referring to the guy you call Poop."

Now who on this forum has been called Poop? Hmmmm.

As far as Drummond being a better player when having the paint to himself, it's a great thing Monroe does his best work in the high post. Otherwise there's no way they could fit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Everyone on this team has been called poop. I thought you were calling Pope 'Poop' because he's crap. How is anyone supposed to know that meant Jerebko?

Your point about Monroe in the high post makes no sense either. I don't know what you are watching, but Monroe needs to score all of his points in the paint, no matter if he starts at the high post or not. He's not drawing any defenders away from Drummond inside, because no one respects his jumpshot. Which is the whole point of why a stretch 4 fits better than him. Monroe is the last big you would want to pair with Drummond if you wanted to give him all the paint to himself.

[Q00]

^^^^^^this guy can NEVER stick to the original argument, which was about improving THIS Piston team and being better than Brandon Jennings. Also the argument wasn't about which rookie PG took their team to the playoffs.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You got a bad memory, homie. I said from my first post what my argument was for not starting a rookie PG next year, and its the same argument I'm talking about right now. So I don't know wtf you are talking about.

Its not because he's a rookie. It's because he's mediocre.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

No YOU have a bad memory because I made the statement that it wouldn't take much as a rookie PG to improve THIS team and be better than Jennings. Operative word, THIS team. That's why you asking the question about what rookie PG's improved their team in their rookie year was irrelevant because how many of those had 2 bigs the caliber of Moose and Dre to work with? If Marcus Smart started on this team next year, minus B. Job and Smiff, with a good 3 & D wing, do you not think this team could win 38+ games? Is that not an improvement on the (probable) 28 we'll win this year?

Again, your first statement was about drafting a PG for THIS team. So the discussion of a rookie point improving his team should be specified to THIS team.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You don't seem to understand how hard it is to win with a rookie PG, regardless of the talent around him. I wasn't just talking about this team. The whole point of saying a rookie PG is a good way to stay in the lotto next year is because it happens to almost every team that tries it, thus the odds will be against the Pistons too if they go that route, regardless of who is on the team. And no I don't buy that their talent is so great that it can overcome all the growing pains of an inexperienced rookie running the team. I highly doubt Marcus Smart is leading any team to the playoffs next year, and that is the only measure of "improvement" for this team at this point - making the playoffs. Being a 38 win lotto team is no better than being a 28 win lotto team. So I don't see that as improvement, no. The Pistons need to make the playoffs next year and starting a rookie PG is the worst decision any team trying to make the playoffs could do.