Paradise wrote:He’s still 25-26. I think his overall perception of things will look differently in several years. I do think he truly has a little Iverson-level defiance in his blood but we would say the same thing if we had Draymond Green without Curry.
This is a super-important point IMO. Ben just turned 26 in July, and most of this stress and drama was hitting him at age 23-25, half the world away from most of his loved ones. Also, with the family drama back home in parallel with the back issues.
He impressed me a lot here, and I appreciate him taking ownership of things to the extent he did. Also interesting to hear him talk about his chronic frustration with people critiquing his shooting, while at the same time admitting it's something he needs to fix.
MrDollarBills wrote:MGrand15 wrote:MrDollarBills wrote:Also, he did a better job than the Nets did at explaining what happened to his back last season. Dude's sh*t was messed up and the Nets PR handled everything horribly.
I need to see a turnaround here in terms of communication and team preparation. What Marks was running last year was very unprofessional. If the team starts slow in October, Nash needs to go and Marks should be in the hot seat.
The crazy thing about the Nets PR is that it destroyed Ben's reputation. I'm surprised he was so chill about it. Remember how guys were on ESPN like "If Ben doesn't play in Game 3 or 4 - he's the biggest LOSER of all time" and stuff like that. The dude ended up getting back surgery like 2 weeks later. Just so irresponsible.
That's without even considering the fans. If someone probably won't be ready to play, we need to know.
Marks is lucky our media is soft and a little too professional.
If we were the Knicks, best believe Marks would have been taken to the woodshed for what happened last year.
The Nets fed Ben to the wolves. They knew that this guy wasn't ready to play. They should have said Simmons was out indefinitely due to conditioning and health and left it at that, instead they kept teasing the fanbase when Ben had pain shooting down from his neck to his legs, and they wanted him to play his first games in playoff intensity?
Okay, I'm confused here. What in particular was so terrible about how the Nets PR handled things?
Because a herniated disc from my understanding is something that can flare up on its own and recede on its own, and IIRC, the Nets' medical people were cautiously optimistic at various points before ultimately ruling him out. Unfortunately, some med issues are like that.
There may also be an argument that Simmons would have been better off having the surgery much earlier, and not putting himself in the position of 'it might flare up, it might go away on it's own.' So maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it wasn't far from a lose-lose situation from a Nets' PR standpoint. Not to mention, it seems kind of ironic to critique them when they're typically so cagey about releasing timetables.



















