E S V L wrote:VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:
Please, bro. It had been Brooks for a long time, now we have Allen as a fresh unfair target. Allen was and is awesome; he is a better starter than Melton and Bane because of BBIQ and mental maturity.
Melton has gone a little cold but he is better than Allen. I'm good with saying Allen is currently better than Bane. I still say Allen should not have been in this game. Against Utah sure go ahead, but in a win or go home game when Allen looked rusty the game before you simply don't play him. He looked bad against the Spurs which is why he didn't really play the second half. Throwing him back out against GSW seems like an illadvised strategy.
Allen +17, 4-5 3pts
Bane -13, 1-5 3pts
I mean - I cannot even enter into serious discussion around this Brooks-Allen vs Melton-Bane.
Just because it worked out doesn't mean it was the smart gamble going into the game.
Allen -17 IN 5 MINUTES
Given the fact that Allen has been out for a bit and is likely rusty, the smart gamble would have been to not play him after what had happened a mere two days before. A smart gamble would have been challenging the 3pt foul call near the end of regulation. We won and Allen was able to help (mostly in OT) so yeah we won those gambles, but that doesn't make them smart gambles.