blkexec wrote:fishmike wrote:JesseDark wrote:ToddTT wrote:ToddTT wrote:JesseDark wrote:Grant Hill says take care of that.
You shut your wh*** mouth!
Oh my goodness… I don’t know what came over me. 
You good with me.
I thought he was more injured than was known at the time. I think after the initial injury he only had one game where he was his normal self.
Feel bad for Jules, but Knicks are lucky they have him locked up a bit before the question of a new contract comes up.
I feel bad for fans who are so attached to a player, they throw a hissy fit whenever somebody says anything negative about them.
Jules is lucky to play for such a great fan base along with having CAA support.
One man's man's well-reasoned response is another man's hissy fit....it all comes down to how thick one's skin might be when it comes to such opinionated discussions.
Looking at the back and forth and except for a few weak**** and menstrual references - I'm not sure how you categorize this exchange as a hissy fit...
- Julius Randle has had surgery on his ankle soon after the Knicks were eliminated from the playoffs.
- Most could logically conclude that his overall performance (i.e. both sides of the ball) was hampered by the condition of his ankles.
- Gustav put forth an opinion that JR's performance was not hampered on offense and his defensive output was by strategic choice thereof rather than being mainly a function of his ankle status.
- Fish challenged that opinion
- Gustav offered his own individualized anecdotal experience with bad ankles to try and support his claim
I tend to agree with Fish here.....based on my own experience - that it's more difficult to be reactive on a bad ankle than it is to be proactive.