cam1218

I’m not disagreeing with you because I see why he should be starting too, but it makes sense to bring him off the bench for now. I think it’ll be good for him to earn his starting role, shouldn’t just be handed to him. He needs to limit his fouls too, and if he picks up a quick two against the opposing teams starter he might start pressing. I think we will see him starting by February.

I’m a little bummed with Ilyasova’s play thus far, hopefully he can start making his wide open looks.

We had good looks but couldn’t make them. When they went on their run we started rushing things, wasn’t much flow in the offense even with the open looks. The D was up and down, but I’m pretty sure our offense was only good when we played decent defense.

Losing Bembry hurts..but we won’t win games on the road playing like we did tonight.

Nique guessed/suggested sometime in December during the game. Not sure how accurate it is though.

58 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Feels like the Mavs want to end up taking a hundred threes tonight or at least break some record trying to.

I guess they must think they can duplicate how the Cavs always beat us. Even though they aren’t the Cavs..

11 minutes ago, JTB said:

Exactly! Dennis and this whole team played awesome first half and most of Dennis shots were good looks.

everyone is playing under control including baze. I hope that continues! Just stay calm and don’t over do it.

The sequence where Baze was blocked by Noel and came back and fouled Noel was very Baze-ish, but I can’t complain too much outside of that.

Nice run to end the first half! It’s somewhat enjoyable being an underdog again.

I hope we keep Felder and at least give him a look. It would have been nice if this happened with some preseason games left to give him a shot to compete.

Twitter feeds on the "score" app make it seem like Eric Moreland was a rebounding machine. Anyone actually see what type of boards he got? 

One concern I have with this team is rebounding/second chance points. Collins seems to be a good rebounder but Dedmon is expanding his game to be more of a stretch 4/5.

2 minutes ago, Sarcatic1 said:

Liked that Dennis was knocking down jumpers. He has to do that this year. i think good defensive teams will play off him a little and give him the jumper because of his ability to drive

Prince still has a long way with his handles but he at his best when he is cutting and slashing, not taking guys off the dribble

Baze still plays wild as hell smdh

Dorsey with more athleticism than I realzied

Collins is so active man. Dude has a motor

I like what Cook does out there. I hope he wins the back up job

Dedmon can play. The key is to keep the fouls under control

 

Delaney is terrible. Get this dude out of here

I feel the same way, I think Prince benefited being in a system last year where he was around our starters. If he tries to do too much he will struggle, it'll be interesting to see how he adjusts to being a guy we rely on more.

I feel for Delaney after what happenened to his brother, but we had to bring in Calderon last year to help at the point. If he can't make shots there isn't much else he can do.

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Better than the Celtic shower reports.

Luckily I missed something!

Just now, benhillboy said:

Nice little interview with Dedmon.  I rock with homes.

I feel bad for Bob having to interview our bigs while they are both standing up lol. 

A lot of these bigs can probably make the shots during practice and preseason, it just doesn't happen once it matters. Once they miss two (after their first two attempts) they won't have the approval of their coach and teammates. 

Saw that Osman player for them and thought it was Korver for a second. I was wondering what in the world happened to him.

3 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

You're missing too many parts.  The "free ride" is conditional, if your play on the court or field isn't up to par then coaches alone, to speak nothing of the college, are given the absolute freedom to withdraw your scholarship at any point.  If the NCAA rules you to be ineligible then that is also further cause to withdraw your scholarship.  Because of this there is a great amount of pressure on the college athlete. 

There's no way around it, if you choose to be a biology or engineering major chances are you won't have the time or ability to focus on both your performance on the court/field and in the classroom.  If you focus on your studies then there's a good chance your athletic performance will suffer thus leading to a situation where your "free ride" is gone and you and your family are responsible for paying for your education.  If you focus on your performance on the field/court then there is a good chance that your performance in the classroom will suffer leading to ineligibility or a lack of preparation for your future career. 

There is a microfraction of a percentage of all college athletes that go on to professional leagues yet the great many more still contribute to the revenue and/or prestige of the schools they play for.  Because of this there is nothing "free" about athletic scholarships, there is a great obligation that comes along with it and pressure to fulfill it.....and it isn't in the classroom.

I agree somewhat, but I think we will have to agree to disagree overall. GT had a guy graduate and start with a six figure job a year or so ago. I've always enjoyed your posts and I think we both feel a certain way about this argument. Luckily the Hawks play tonight so we can focus on basketball again on this forum!

23 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Of course you don't see the irony of claiming it's about "education" while at the same time claiming that that education should be used on something "useful".

Again, I said the original point was free education. There are a lot of teams that don't compete for championships that have players who still benefit from this. 

It's a free education, the players pick what they want to use it for. If they choose to go to a power 5 school, pick something that might not help them professionaly, and skip classes because they know it's an easy grade, shame on them if they don't get drafted. There are a lot of people that leave college with student loan debt that they have to pay back. 

15 hours ago, MaceCase said:

Can't speak about "free education" when many of these athletes are pushed towards remedial courses and graded on a separate scale from other students by their schools in order to keep them eligible for games that generate millions.  

Athletic scholarships aren't some philanthropic endeavor as the "education" itself is often a tertiary concern at many of these schools.  I won't even get into the arbitrary nature that schools price their tuition,  I don't believe that con of an athlete being off the hook for a ~40k bill.  "Cost of education" is an odd term when a sociology major and a business major are on the hook for the same bill with vastly different prospects for monetary gain in their future.

I said the original point of scholarships was free education. It's not like that anymore, but I don't think anybody saw how much money there was in college sports many years ago.

A lot of players leave a HS team as the best player and wind up being just okay in college. It's unfortunate that they decide to use their free tuition on sociology instead of something more useful.

15 hours ago, AHF said:

I'm lmao at people thinking D1 colleges are bringing their basketball and football players in to further their education.  They do not give the kids time to focus on a real academic curriculum and push them to take the bare minimum in coursework to keep themselves eligible.  They will absolutely place athletes into schools where they cannot handle the coursework because the college doesn't give a crap if the athlete is a real student or not as long as they can play.  

The colleges are focused on the millions that these players bring in by playing and wouldn't even have them attend class if it wasn't required.  Or if they can go UNC style.

The original point of a scholarship was the free education. It isn't like that today with the money the big sports bring in, but I'm sure there are still many athletes that benefit from this. 

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

You need an established minor league for this to work however. Basketball is not baseball like, but it's not a sport in which you can just play immediately unless you are LeBron James. You need developmental time. 

College sports, especially the power 5 ones, do you really think in the major ones, players are actually coming for an education? I've looked at UGA's obvious pro football prospects "major" and I have said "They are not here for school at all" before. That's just the way it goes and in football you can't really have a minor league or straight to the league rule, the kids need to grow into men or they would be destroyed by the pros.

I agree with the learning curve, but we do have the G-League. I just think if you commit to play it should be for three years. The G-League should be the minor leagues, not college ball.

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Not hardly.  

These players are getting their education, room and board, books, and food paid for tax free.  If you start paying them, then you take away scholarship money and have them file 1099 forms for tax purposes.  They pay for their tuition, room and board, books, and food out of their "salary".  

It gets a little old to hear about how these players should be getting paid market value when they are getting their education paid for, while at the same time baseball players do not get full rides.

Adding on to this, the original point of being a student athlete was free education. I don't think they take advantage of this, they just go to a school that seems fun. The whole education part has been lost over the years. 

I just posted this, but I think players should have a chance to go pro (in any sport) as a HS senior or commit to play 3 years at the college level. That way they have a choice to make money if they want to. 

College basketball is a mess unless you are one of the teams landing those 5 star recruits every single year. I want to see a rule like college baseball has. Either you go pro as a HS senior or you play three years at the school you commit to play for.

It's always something before the season starts...

I think it'll be fine and hopefully a good learning experience for him. No matter what, this isn't stuff you want to happen to your best player. Dennis is fiery and a competitor, but I don't want those attributes being apart of his life after midnight. 

1 hour ago, Watchman said:

And you can't guarantee that it won't take 10 years either. 

Or two years either.

6 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So the best response is to bottom the roster out, guaranteeing that you will spend the next 5-6 years building to get to the point where you were already at?

You can't guarantee that it is going to take that long, you just think it will. Each rebuild is unique. You have different situations at GM/Coach, ownership, current players, etc. 

We won 43 games last year, I doubt it will take 5-6 years to get back to that. I wasn't a huge fan of the rebuild, but last year was full of blowouts and bad basketball. After going through that I'm okay with taking a step back and seeing what happens.