s3231 wrote:Harrington should have stepped out on the last play. Why the hell are you staying down low when there isn't even time for a rebound?

By the way, we didn't sign Iverson because Walsh wants our young guys to develop....anyone want to check to see how many minutes Douglas and Gallo played?

Cant really fault them with going with their vets today, this game was kinda important, dont worry by January both of those players will be starting and hill should/will be the first player off the bench.

thejerk wrote:

s3231 wrote:Harrington should have stepped out on the last play. Why the hell are you staying down low when there isn't even time for a rebound?

By the way, we didn't sign Iverson because Walsh wants our young guys to develop....anyone want to check to see how many minutes Douglas and Gallo played?

Cant really fault them with going with their vets today, this game was kinda important, dont worry by January both of those players will be starting and hill should/will be the first player off the bench.

It isn't just today though, Douglas didn't play much against the Nets either if I remember correctly.

I have no problem with trying to win games, which is exactly why I think we should have gotten Iverson. It just pisses me off that we don't play the young guys and try to win with inferior talent.

EnySpree wrote:If I was on the court I would have started a fight with David Lee......that locker room would be crazy cuz nothing could stop me from fighting David Lee....

kelly tripuka is blaming Harrington....harrington actually ran out....on who's man??? David Lee's man....David Lee is so lucky I am not his teamate or his coach....I would have to get arrested.

Lee was one of the reasons why we were in a position to win though.

Yes, he screwed up on that last play, but he did it to help out one of his teammates. I don't think you can entirely fault him for that because Pierce killed us all game.

I really think Harrington should have stepped out sooner to cover. With 2 seconds left, you should not be down by the basket because Garnett didn't have time to pass it off again.

s3231 wrote:

thejerk wrote:

s3231 wrote:Harrington should have stepped out on the last play. Why the hell are you staying down low when there isn't even time for a rebound?

By the way, we didn't sign Iverson because Walsh wants our young guys to develop....anyone want to check to see how many minutes Douglas and Gallo played?

Cant really fault them with going with their vets today, this game was kinda important, dont worry by January both of those players will be starting and hill should/will be the first player off the bench.

It isn't just today though, Douglas didn't play much against the Nets either if I remember correctly.

I have no problem with trying to win games, which is exactly why I think we should have gotten Iverson. It just pisses me off that we don't play the young guys and try to win with inferior talent.

if they passed on Iverson saying the reason was so they could develop the youth, then at least play the youth & be consistent with that... it wouldn't be so frustrating if they at least practiced what they preached.

TMS wrote:

s3231 wrote:

thejerk wrote:

s3231 wrote:Harrington should have stepped out on the last play. Why the hell are you staying down low when there isn't even time for a rebound?

By the way, we didn't sign Iverson because Walsh wants our young guys to develop....anyone want to check to see how many minutes Douglas and Gallo played?

Cant really fault them with going with their vets today, this game was kinda important, dont worry by January both of those players will be starting and hill should/will be the first player off the bench.

It isn't just today though, Douglas didn't play much against the Nets either if I remember correctly.

I have no problem with trying to win games, which is exactly why I think we should have gotten Iverson. It just pisses me off that we don't play the young guys and try to win with inferior talent.

if they passed on Iverson saying the reason was so they could develop the youth, then at least play the youth & be consistent with that... it wouldn't be so frustrating if they at least practiced what they preached.

Exactly.

Pick a direction and stick with it. If you want to develop your youth, then play the young guys, who are probably talented enough to win the same amount of games we are winning right now either way.

If you want to play vets, then it would have made a lot more sense to bring in Iverson and give ourselves a better shot at being competitive.

s3231 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

s3231 wrote:I understand that Lee is partly at fault for that last play. But with 2 seconds left, I don't see how Harrington doesn't step up to cover...

Lee definitely overplayed to help out (and he shouldn't have done this), but I would have liked to see Al step up sooner than later.

No disrespect, but Garnett had the ball for a second and a half and Harrington was on the low block watching the corner 3. How fast was he supposed to get up on him?

IMO, he would have been faster to do that if he expected to do it. There is absolutely no reason for Lee to overplay to that extent. He looked like he was 15 feet from Garnett.

Lol, if I'm Harrington, I start running as soon as I see the ball being thrown to Garnett, that could just be me though.

I think you have to keep in mind how many seconds are on the clock at that point and once you see Pierce pass it off, you got to help out.

I'm not saying I blame Harrington entirely, but I definitely think he could have gotten out there sooner.

I can see your point but that is kinda like saying it's your fault I punched you in the face because you let me, isn't it? IMO, It was ultimately Lee's responsibility to stay on Garnett. Garnett has range out to the 3 line. No way do you leave Garnett wide open to double cover Pierce. And no way do I leave House in the corner open off a rotation.

I would not care if we traded Chandler to move one of our toxic contracts.

Include Chandler with Curry and Mobley for TMAC.