Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:NICE

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/FredKatz/status/1853115868567232988

I’ve been watching him (always been a huge RJ guy) and he’s looked like the wing playmaker I had hoped for in the beginning. He looks great initiating offense and is playing with confidence. He was just never a fit with Randle (ironically now that he’s finally gone), and probably isn’t a great fit with Barnes who has been out. Grady Dick is awesome next to him, and Quickley will be too.

I've only seen the highlights. How is his defense and does he still barrel into defenses or is that over?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/NBA/status/1853686392670265810

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:NICE

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/FredKatz/status/1853115868567232988

I’ve been watching him (always been a huge RJ guy) and he’s looked like the wing playmaker I had hoped for in the beginning. He looks great initiating offense and is playing with confidence. He was just never a fit with Randle (ironically now that he’s finally gone), and probably isn’t a great fit with Barnes who has been out. Grady Dick is awesome next to him, and Quickley will be too.

I've only seen the highlights. How is his defense and does he still barrel into defenses or is that over?

I’ll admit I wasn’t watching him closely on defense the few games I saw. But on offense he seems to be a much better decision maker and has been looking to drive and dish a ton. A world of difference as a playmaker and decision maker. A team with Randle, Brunson and Mitch/ Hartenstein all occupying the middle of the floor just put Barrett too much as a spot up player. He seems really in his comfort zone right now. The question becomes can a team ever win with him as a primary creator.

Yeah that seems about right, without having watched. Brunson, Randle, RJ were all guys who are sticky or need ball in hands to be effective. Can only have so many of those guys on one team. Knicks chose to build around Brunson.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/sixthmanjake/status/1853666685355720771

Chandler wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:Clean, there was a locker room incident where he and the writer confronted.
As I said, this kind of stuff riles up fans and for the player it gets personal.
I understand Embiid is not loved around here and perhaps with max contract players should absorb all kinds of things but the line gets thin at times and they are human.

I understand that part but the whole confrontation happened because of this article. I can't see why Embiid is angry from what I just read. The guy said nothing wrong about his brother or son.

I think Embiid is angry that he is always injured and just needed to lashout at someone. Obviously this is pure speculation but if you watch his interview from a few days ago he seemed angry then to.

I have had the same reaction as you have. I don't have a good enough context or background about this writer, so there may be personal history here too that we are unaware of.

Embiid has publicly talked about this personal history and what it means to him. That is my understanding.

I have the opposite reaction. Writer could have made the same exact point saying same exact thing and leaving his little brother out of it.

I read it as him accusing Embiid of not only being out of condition/lazy ( fair game) but dragging his little brother into it as a phony pledge to his deceased brother. IMO no need to go there. That’s the writer being selfish

I agree, the writer was using Embiid's dead brother as well as his son to disparage him. You cant say stuff like that and hide behind "I wasnt criticizing them" That writer was lucky Embiid didnt do worse. This is the part of the article he deleted..

Joel Embiid consistently points to the birth of his son, Arthur, as the major inflection point in his basketball career. He often says that he wants to be great to leave a legacy for the boy named after his little brother, who tragically died in an automobile accident when Embiid was in his first year as a 76er. Well, in order to be great at your job, you first have to show up for work.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:Clean, there was a locker room incident where he and the writer confronted.
As I said, this kind of stuff riles up fans and for the player it gets personal.
I understand Embiid is not loved around here and perhaps with max contract players should absorb all kinds of things but the line gets thin at times and they are human.

I understand that part but the whole confrontation happened because of this article. I can't see why Embiid is angry from what I just read. The guy said nothing wrong about his brother or son.

I think Embiid is angry that he is always injured and just needed to lashout at someone. Obviously this is pure speculation but if you watch his interview from a few days ago he seemed angry then to.

I have had the same reaction as you have. I don't have a good enough context or background about this writer, so there may be personal history here too that we are unaware of.

Embiid has publicly talked about this personal history and what it means to him. That is my understanding.

I have the opposite reaction. Writer could have made the same exact point saying same exact thing and leaving his little brother out of it.

I read it as him accusing Embiid of not only being out of condition/lazy ( fair game) but dragging his little brother into it as a phony pledge to his deceased brother. IMO no need to go there. That’s the writer being selfish

I agree, the writer was using Embiid's dead brother as well as his son to disparage him. You cant say stuff like that and hide behind "I wasnt criticizing them" That writer was lucky Embiid didnt do worse. This is the part of the article he deleted..

Joel Embiid consistently points to the birth of his son, Arthur, as the major inflection point in his basketball career. He often says that he wants to be great to leave a legacy for the boy named after his little brother, who tragically died in an automobile accident when Embiid was in his first year as a 76er. Well, in order to be great at your job, you first have to show up for work.

Don't see it. The writer is repeating what Embiid has said in the past. Joel shouldn't share those details if he's going to attack anyone who repeats them. Embiid was using his dead brother to try and deflect from the fact that there was a lot of true words written in that column.

Its the subtext. The writer is implying that Embiid is letting his family down, living and deceased. You bring up family as a writer, as an outsider, when they succeed, not when you believe they've failed. Bad form, its not his place to do that.

If Embiid had killed someone and gotten life in jail, ok. Not for living up to the writer's expectations as a professional athlete. Too much.

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:Clean, there was a locker room incident where he and the writer confronted.
As I said, this kind of stuff riles up fans and for the player it gets personal.
I understand Embiid is not loved around here and perhaps with max contract players should absorb all kinds of things but the line gets thin at times and they are human.

I understand that part but the whole confrontation happened because of this article. I can't see why Embiid is angry from what I just read. The guy said nothing wrong about his brother or son.

I think Embiid is angry that he is always injured and just needed to lashout at someone. Obviously this is pure speculation but if you watch his interview from a few days ago he seemed angry then to.

I have had the same reaction as you have. I don't have a good enough context or background about this writer, so there may be personal history here too that we are unaware of.

Embiid has publicly talked about this personal history and what it means to him. That is my understanding.

I have the opposite reaction. Writer could have made the same exact point saying same exact thing and leaving his little brother out of it.

I read it as him accusing Embiid of not only being out of condition/lazy ( fair game) but dragging his little brother into it as a phony pledge to his deceased brother. IMO no need to go there. That’s the writer being selfish

I agree, the writer was using Embiid's dead brother as well as his son to disparage him. You cant say stuff like that and hide behind "I wasnt criticizing them" That writer was lucky Embiid didnt do worse. This is the part of the article he deleted..

Joel Embiid consistently points to the birth of his son, Arthur, as the major inflection point in his basketball career. He often says that he wants to be great to leave a legacy for the boy named after his little brother, who tragically died in an automobile accident when Embiid was in his first year as a 76er. Well, in order to be great at your job, you first have to show up for work.

Don't see it. The writer is repeating what Embiid has said in the past. Joel shouldn't share those details if he's going to attack anyone who repeats them. Embiid was using his dead brother to try and deflect from the fact that there was a lot of true words written in that column.

Its the subtext. The writer is implying that Embiid is letting his family down, living and deceased. You bring up family as a writer, as an outsider, when they succeed, not when you believe they've failed. Bad form, its not his place to do that.

If Embiid had killed someone and gotten life in jail, ok. Not for living up to the writer's expectations as a professional athlete. Too much.

Seems like that is what YOU re implying that the writer is repeating.

WE don't know what's in Embiid's head.

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:Clean, there was a locker room incident where he and the writer confronted.
As I said, this kind of stuff riles up fans and for the player it gets personal.
I understand Embiid is not loved around here and perhaps with max contract players should absorb all kinds of things but the line gets thin at times and they are human.

I understand that part but the whole confrontation happened because of this article. I can't see why Embiid is angry from what I just read. The guy said nothing wrong about his brother or son.

I think Embiid is angry that he is always injured and just needed to lashout at someone. Obviously this is pure speculation but if you watch his interview from a few days ago he seemed angry then to.

I have had the same reaction as you have. I don't have a good enough context or background about this writer, so there may be personal history here too that we are unaware of.

Embiid has publicly talked about this personal history and what it means to him. That is my understanding.

I have the opposite reaction. Writer could have made the same exact point saying same exact thing and leaving his little brother out of it.

I read it as him accusing Embiid of not only being out of condition/lazy ( fair game) but dragging his little brother into it as a phony pledge to his deceased brother. IMO no need to go there. That’s the writer being selfish

I agree, the writer was using Embiid's dead brother as well as his son to disparage him. You cant say stuff like that and hide behind "I wasnt criticizing them" That writer was lucky Embiid didnt do worse. This is the part of the article he deleted..

Joel Embiid consistently points to the birth of his son, Arthur, as the major inflection point in his basketball career. He often says that he wants to be great to leave a legacy for the boy named after his little brother, who tragically died in an automobile accident when Embiid was in his first year as a 76er. Well, in order to be great at your job, you first have to show up for work.

Don't see it. The writer is repeating what Embiid has said in the past. Joel shouldn't share those details if he's going to attack anyone who repeats them. Embiid was using his dead brother to try and deflect from the fact that there was a lot of true words written in that column.

Its the subtext. The writer is implying that Embiid is letting his family down, living and deceased. You bring up family as a writer, as an outsider, when they succeed, not when you believe they've failed. Bad form, its not his place to do that.

If Embiid had killed someone and gotten life in jail, ok. Not for living up to the writer's expectations as a professional athlete. Too much.

Seems like that is what YOU re implying that the writer is repeating.

Why bring it up then? So many ways the writer could have pointed out how Embiid was not living up to expectations, instead of bringing up family. Thats what the theme of the article was, wasnt it? Even the writer realized it was inappropriate, deleted that passage, and apologized.

yes or bring it up in a different way

hitting below the belt

Clean wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:Clean, there was a locker room incident where he and the writer confronted.
As I said, this kind of stuff riles up fans and for the player it gets personal.
I understand Embiid is not loved around here and perhaps with max contract players should absorb all kinds of things but the line gets thin at times and they are human.

I understand that part but the whole confrontation happened because of this article. I can't see why Embiid is angry from what I just read. The guy said nothing wrong about his brother or son.

I think Embiid is angry that he is always injured and just needed to lashout at someone. Obviously this is pure speculation but if you watch his interview from a few days ago he seemed angry then to.

I have had the same reaction as you have. I don't have a good enough context or background about this writer, so there may be personal history here too that we are unaware of.

Embiid has publicly talked about this personal history and what it means to him. That is my understanding.

I have the opposite reaction. Writer could have made the same exact point saying same exact thing and leaving his little brother out of it.

I read it as him accusing Embiid of not only being out of condition/lazy ( fair game) but dragging his little brother into it as a phony pledge to his deceased brother. IMO no need to go there. That’s the writer being selfish

I agree, the writer was using Embiid's dead brother as well as his son to disparage him. You cant say stuff like that and hide behind "I wasnt criticizing them" That writer was lucky Embiid didnt do worse. This is the part of the article he deleted..

Joel Embiid consistently points to the birth of his son, Arthur, as the major inflection point in his basketball career. He often says that he wants to be great to leave a legacy for the boy named after his little brother, who tragically died in an automobile accident when Embiid was in his first year as a 76er. Well, in order to be great at your job, you first have to show up for work.

Don't see it. The writer is repeating what Embiid has said in the past. Joel shouldn't share those details if he's going to attack anyone who repeats them. Embiid was using his dead brother to try and deflect from the fact that there was a lot of true words written in that column.

Its the subtext. The writer is implying that Embiid is letting his family down, living and deceased. You bring up family as a writer, as an outsider, when they succeed, not when you believe they've failed. Bad form, its not his place to do that.

If Embiid had killed someone and gotten life in jail, ok. Not for living up to the writer's expectations as a professional athlete. Too much.

Seems like that is what YOU re implying that the writer is repeating.

Why bring it up then? So many ways the writer could have pointed out how Embiid was not living up to expectations, instead of bringing up family. Thats what the theme of the article was, wasnt it? Even the writer realized it was inappropriate, deleted that passage, and apologized.

You bring it up to provide context. Like, I literally knew none of that. I now know it. That is the entire point of context. Now I know the background information. Anyone saying its subtext or saying he is implying anything is adding to what writer actually said. Unless you know what is going on in his head you have no idea and to cast that on someone else is a you problem. I deal with the things I know and can prove in situations like this. The writer said nothing wrong about his family. Simple as that. The exception being if there is a history here I know nothing about. Has he said something bad about his family before? I mean actually said something bad and none of this putting words in his mouth stuff I see people doing.

Doesnt have to say something bad about his family. He is using the memory of his dead brother, as well as his son as a prop to diss Embiid. Thats wrong, wasnt necessary.

Even the writer realized that it was inappropriate, deleted the passage, and apologized. The writer realized that what he did was bad form.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Clean wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:Clean, there was a locker room incident where he and the writer confronted.
As I said, this kind of stuff riles up fans and for the player it gets personal.
I understand Embiid is not loved around here and perhaps with max contract players should absorb all kinds of things but the line gets thin at times and they are human.

I understand that part but the whole confrontation happened because of this article. I can't see why Embiid is angry from what I just read. The guy said nothing wrong about his brother or son.

I think Embiid is angry that he is always injured and just needed to lashout at someone. Obviously this is pure speculation but if you watch his interview from a few days ago he seemed angry then to.

I have had the same reaction as you have. I don't have a good enough context or background about this writer, so there may be personal history here too that we are unaware of.

Embiid has publicly talked about this personal history and what it means to him. That is my understanding.

I have the opposite reaction. Writer could have made the same exact point saying same exact thing and leaving his little brother out of it.

I read it as him accusing Embiid of not only being out of condition/lazy ( fair game) but dragging his little brother into it as a phony pledge to his deceased brother. IMO no need to go there. That’s the writer being selfish

I agree, the writer was using Embiid's dead brother as well as his son to disparage him. You cant say stuff like that and hide behind "I wasnt criticizing them" That writer was lucky Embiid didnt do worse. This is the part of the article he deleted..

Joel Embiid consistently points to the birth of his son, Arthur, as the major inflection point in his basketball career. He often says that he wants to be great to leave a legacy for the boy named after his little brother, who tragically died in an automobile accident when Embiid was in his first year as a 76er. Well, in order to be great at your job, you first have to show up for work.

Don't see it. The writer is repeating what Embiid has said in the past. Joel shouldn't share those details if he's going to attack anyone who repeats them. Embiid was using his dead brother to try and deflect from the fact that there was a lot of true words written in that column.

Its the subtext. The writer is implying that Embiid is letting his family down, living and deceased. You bring up family as a writer, as an outsider, when they succeed, not when you believe they've failed. Bad form, its not his place to do that.

If Embiid had killed someone and gotten life in jail, ok. Not for living up to the writer's expectations as a professional athlete. Too much.

Seems like that is what YOU re implying that the writer is repeating.

Why bring it up then? So many ways the writer could have pointed out how Embiid was not living up to expectations, instead of bringing up family. Thats what the theme of the article was, wasnt it? Even the writer realized it was inappropriate, deleted that passage, and apologized.

You bring it up to provide context. Like, I literally knew none of that. I now know it. That is the entire point of context. Now I know the background information. Anyone saying its subtext or saying he is implying anything is adding to what writer actually said. Unless you know what is going on in his head you have no idea and to cast that on someone else is a you problem. I deal with the things I know and can prove in situations like this. The writer said nothing wrong about his family. Simple as that. The exception being if there is a history here I know nothing about. Has he said something bad about his family before? I mean actually said something bad and none of this putting words in his mouth stuff I see people doing.

Doesnt have to say something bad about his family. He is using the memory of his dead brother, as well as his son as a prop to diss Embiid. Thats wrong, wasnt necessary.

Even the writer realized that it was inappropriate, deleted the passage, and apologized. The writer realized that what he did was bad form.

Can you let us know what you know about Embiid has said about his brother in this context? Seems like you know this.

He said that they were an inspiration. Wasn’t the place of a sportswriter to question his sincerity. Again, the writer admitted that what he did was wrong in bringing up Embiid’s family in this context. He isn’t defending his actions, regrets them, not sure why you are.