Boykins to find work by friday

bankwalker · Post #1 » by **bankwalker** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:04 pm

Could it be in Toronto? To me he seems like more of the type of player that would be a third stringer when TJ comes back and provide help until he does.

Mak · Post #2 » by **Mak** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:08 pm

Anybody but Dixon/Martin.

Silk Wilkes · Post #3 » by **Silk Wilkes** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:18 pm

If Mighty mouse goes somewhere else I'd take little Earl any day. Very good in offensively especially in the 4th quarter.

James Ballswin (Realizar) · Post #4 » by **James Ballswin (Realizar)** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:20 pm

I wonder how much EI coverage NBA players get.

Anybody but Boykins.

Mack11 · Post #5 » by **Mack11** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:24 pm

Earl sucks. Hence why nobody signed this guy. blackhole on offense and thinks he's the superstar in the 4th. This guy will disrupt our offense it wont be even funny.

Dub_P · Post #6 » by **Dub_P** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:33 pm

We might as well sign this guy, at least he has championship experience to bring to the table.

Zeno · Post #7 » by **Zeno** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:48 pm

First, he won't be playing in the 4th. Jose will.
Second, when Jose's not out there, the offense is disrupted already.
Third, he did average 4.5 assists last year, so he sometimes passes.
Fourth, he can shoot.

This a good stop gap move.

If Ford's not going to be back, I would have prefered Damon, but all signs point to his return. This would be a good move.

Mr. Perfect · Post #8 » by **Mr. Perfect** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:58 pm

Eh, no thanks. I'm not interested in Boykins. He's a chucker and a huge defensive liability. I'd rather just stick with Dixon at the point.

ToffKobe · Post #9 » by **ToffKobe** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Earl is Mike James v2 without the pitbull attitude and more sucky.

Mack11 · Post #10 » by **Mack11** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:07 pm

Zeno wrote:First, he won't be playing in the 4th. Jose will.
Second, when Jose's not out there, the offense is disrupted already.
Third, he did average 4.5 assists last year, so he sometimes passes.
Fourth, he can shoot.

This a good stop gap move.

If Ford's not going to be back, I would have prefered Damon, but all signs point to his return. This would be a good move.

Ok so lets get Boykins who does nothing better than Dixon?

and he can't shoot. You obviously haven't seen him play for the Bucks last year. He was horrid.

kmatrixg · Post #11 » by **kmatrixg** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:12 pm

The only reason no one signed him is because he was asking for 5 million a year for at least 3 years - a time where no one had that kind of money to spend. Last year was a year of MLE's and bird years. There was no huge signings of players changing teams. Hes a decent player - quick on teh perimeter which makes him a deadly man defender. I wouldn't mind seeing him in Toronto if it was cheap.

Emphasize cheap.

Spicy P · Post #12 » by **Spicy P** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:17 pm

Mack11 wrote:Earl sucks. Hence why nobody signed this guy. blackhole on offense and thinks he's the superstar in the 4th. This guy will disrupt our offense it wont be even funny.

Not only that, but he'll disrupt the defense as well. The guy is so small that he always gets posted up by the other point guards every possession.

username · Post #13 » by **username** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:25 pm

Definitely Earl Boykins is a major defensive liability

Teams in the past would pick him up for his quickness/hustle/energy. A type of player that would come off the bench that would hopefully turn the tide around if the starting 5 start off lethargic.

I personally would want more of a defensive point guard, say like an Earl Watson instead backing Jose & Ford.

dagger · Post #14 » by **dagger** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:40 pm

For third string point guards, beggars - which is what we are with Dixon/DMart - can't be choosers. No way Boykins is worse than Dixon/DMart. With Ford seemingly set to return after the ASG, I don't see much risk in Boykins, and if either Jose or TJ is injured, I'd have more comfort in Boykins than in the Ewok. Sure, Earl Watson would be a nice third string point guard - except that as third stringers go, he would have the contract from hell.

saham · Post #15 » by **saham** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:51 pm

Raptors can do better.

jamesd · Post #16 » by **jamesd** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:06 pm

Boykins wouldn't be a bad third string point guard at all even though he is a two-guard in a tiny child's body. I also think he would would be a good addition to the team because Boykins is fun to say and is the perfect last name for him. Even if his last name wasn't Boykins I'd probably call him that.

omeloon · Post #17 » by **omeloon** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:12 pm

BC would have him signed him already if he wanted him. There have been a few reports about him being a bad lockeroom guy (much like Knight who has seen himself bounce around a lot). I doubt BC has any interest.

peteyjones13 · Post #18 » by **peteyjones13** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:20 pm

I like Earl, but defintily don't want him on the Raptors. He's a 5-5 shoot first point guard. No not pass first, shoot first. Defensive liability. He's all heart, but frankly, I don't want him here.

Post #19 » by **Turnpikebandit** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:32 pm

omeloon wrote:BC would have him signed him already if he wanted him. There have been a few reports about him being a bad lockeroom guy (much like Knight who has seen himself bounce around a lot). I doubt BC has any interest.

Or he could have been waiting for either the Stoudamire/ Ford situations to dvelop a little further.

He may not have been option 1a, but that doesn't mean he's not an option.

inrapscity · Post #20 » by **inrapscity** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:42 pm

Earl deserves much respect for his size but do we want a guy of his size? what's the problem with TJ and Dixon? they get posted easy. get Boykins and a guy can turn around him like he wasn't even there. Boykins is marginally better offensively than Dixon and slightly worse of a passer than D-Mart although D-Mart doesn't principally pass the ball, he chucks it.