BigDaddyG wrote:

NYY1NYK2 wrote:i say you start bargs at C, make hibbert step out

Yeah, and throw STAT in there to keep David West occupied. Maybe we can win with offense tonight.

I know this has been a heated topic but at this point until Tyson is close to 100 percent, I think bargs is a better man defender. Tyon has an edge on team defense which depending on the matchup is more important. I'm more worried about Tyson making it hard for Bargs and Stat to establish themselves in the paint. How many times did bargs drive the last game as opposed to the last few games that Chandler was out? Not as much I'm guessing.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

NYY1NYK2 wrote:i say you start bargs at C, make hibbert step out

Yeah, and throw STAT in there to keep David West occupied. Maybe we can win with offense tonight.

I know this has been a heated topic but at this point until Tyson is close to 100 percent, I think bargs is a better man defender. Tyon has an edge on team defense which depending on the matchup is more important. I'm more worried about Tyson making it hard for Bargs and Stat to establish themselves in the paint. How many times did bargs drive the last game as opposed to the last few games that Chandler was out? Not as much I'm guessing.

Yeah, but you could make the case that it was Bargs legs more than anything. There were a couple of times that Bargs had the ball and he was just hesitant. Over the lonh haul, I think you have to start Tyson. But I believe tonight is one of the games where we might be better with Bargs seeing a lot of times at center.

I agree that maybe we shouldn't take a one size fits all approach to who is the starting center. I don't want to set an NBA record for different lineups like I think Larry Brown did when he was coach, but at the same time maybe Woodson needs to take it game to game. I know he wants a stable roster which helps with chemistry, have to strike the right balance which isn't easy in this situation, with this roster.

RonRon wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Dude needs to keep simple like Plumlee on the Nets. Rebound, dunks and energy in defense. Tyler will have problem staying in the league if he does that.

he likely will be gone this off season if he gets an opportunity to shine and does well, a reason why I don't know why we didn't have a player option on him for year 2 like Grunweld originally did before he got hurt

Like Copeland, like Lin....

Is he worth using the 3m MLE on with our needs to upgrade the PGs and SF/PF position, along with a future PF and C as well....

CrushAlot wrote:

RonRon wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Dude needs to keep simple like Plumlee on the Nets. Rebound, dunks and energy in defense. Tyler will have problem staying in the league if he does that.

he likely will be gone this off season if he gets an opportunity to shine and does well, a reason why I don't know why we didn't have a player option on him for year 2 like Grunweld originally did before he got hurt

Like Copeland, like Lin....

Is he worth using the 3m MLE on with our needs to upgrade the PGs and SF/PF position, along with a future PF and C as well....

Grunwald was pretty crafty with that year two option (Gadz, Jorts, Jeffries, Jordan etc.). I know he wanted it included in Pablo's deal but Pablo wouldn't do it. I forgot about that year 2 option in the original deal. Mills isn't experienced enough to do stuff like that. I don't think his job ssecurity depends on results anyway.

BigDaddyG wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

RonRon wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Dude needs to keep simple like Plumlee on the Nets. Rebound, dunks and energy in defense. Tyler will have problem staying in the league if he does that.

he likely will be gone this off season if he gets an opportunity to shine and does well, a reason why I don't know why we didn't have a player option on him for year 2 like Grunweld originally did before he got hurt

Like Copeland, like Lin....

Is he worth using the 3m MLE on with our needs to upgrade the PGs and SF/PF position, along with a future PF and C as well....

Grunwald was pretty crafty with that year two option (Gadz, Jorts, Jeffries, Jordan etc.). I know he wanted it included in Pablo's deal but Pablo wouldn't do it. I forgot about that year 2 option in the original deal. Mills isn't experienced enough to do stuff like that. I don't think his job ssecurity depends on results anyway.

Yeah, it seems simple enough lol. Then again, we did have to free up money for Chris Smith. But, yeah. Murray is another one that can just walk away if plays well enough.

Tyler brings an interesting energy to the floor. I see him playing more if K-Mart doesn't return to the line-up next year. It's gonna really sting if we lose him because of that bush league signing of Chris Smith.

sealy wrote:

RonRon wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Dude needs to keep simple like Plumlee on the Nets. Rebound, dunks and energy in defense. Tyler will have problem staying in the league if he does that.

he likely will be gone this off season if he gets an opportunity to shine and does well, a reason why I don't know why we didn't have a player option on him for year 2 like Grunweld originally did before he got hurt

Like Copeland, like Lin....

Is he worth using the 3m MLE on with our needs to upgrade the PGs and SF/PF position, along with a future PF and C as well....

With Tyson Chandler, if he still has some value, he can fill some of these holes with either young player or draft picks with a bad contract that doesn't go beyond 2015
He just isn't a good fit with our lack of DEFENSIVE players to pair with him, our lack of OFFENSIVE players to make up for his inabilities, and lack of 2way players that could play both OFF and DEF (which usually cost $$$ more because they can do BOTH)

Uggh seriously? I honestly thought they had him locked up for the next yr. I really hate the idiots that continue to run this thing into the ground.

FYI - Nate wore 4 & 2 when he was here.

he also wore 8