His sur-name is Curry........ what topping is a Eddy???

You guys are being a bit ridiculous. To say that TMS is 'defending' Curry is stupid. The opinion of TMS has been the same throughout, "Curry can be a servicable player on a team that has good shooters, a good PG, and a defensive PF." There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, he's not calling Curry a franchise player, he's not calling him an all-star, he's simply saying that Curry can be effective if given the proper opportunity.

How that means he's defending Curry and saying Curry is going to be an all-star is beyond me. Curry is fat, he's lazy and he's a bit of a baby, but I think if you put a bunch of veterans on his team (ones who will get on him for being the things I just described) then I think Curry will be able to do it. No, I don't think it should come to that, yes I think NBA players should have enough motivation to play well because they are paid handsomely but it's not the case with Curry and oh well.

I still stick by my statement that if Curry was paired with some vets and players in the right positions then Curry would put up some pretty good numbers and would be a decent player.

Posted by Anji:

His sur-name is Curry........ what topping is a Eddy???

They could have changed his last name from whatever the family name was to Curry, see, it still makes sense................................................No it doesn't.

Posted by nyk4ever:

You guys are being a bit ridiculous. To say that TMS is 'defending' Curry is stupid. The opinion of TMS has been the same throughout, "Curry can be a servicable player on a team that has good shooters, a good PG, and a defensive PF." There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, he's not calling Curry a franchise player, he's not calling him an all-star, he's simply saying that Curry can be effective if given the proper opportunity.

How that means he's defending Curry and saying Curry is going to be an all-star is beyond me. Curry is fat, he's lazy and he's a bit of a baby, but I think if you put a bunch of veterans on his team (ones who will get on him for being the things I just described) then I think Curry will be able to do it. No, I don't think it should come to that, yes I think NBA players should have enough motivation to play well because they are paid handsomely but it's not the case with Curry and oh well.

I still stick by my statement that if Curry was paired with some vets and players in the right positions then Curry would put up some pretty good numbers and would be a decent player.

Any center/or any other position player could be serviceable if he played on a team that has good shooters, a good PG, and a defensive PF." Every player would like to have a team filled with such players


Will Perdue, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were very serviceable centers when the Bulls won their 6 championships. I'm not comparing Curry to those centers just driving the point home about the above statement. It's almost as enlightening as saying.....

"I'd be a decent jump shooter if I put in the time to shoot high volume attempts and had a personal trainer to help me work on my form and technique every day." UHHHH NO KIDDING!


Another thought is fans will make a similar statement like

"Named player isn't that good or is scrubbish, garbage, etc etc because he puts up stats on a bad team. He wouldn't do that if he were on a better team and wasn't fed the ball constantly"

I know many here have made such statements about other players in the past but because some are using this same line of thought against Curry well now we're out of line.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 01-09-2008 4:00 PM]

Will Perdue, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were very serviceable centers when the Bulls won their 6 championships. I'm not comparing Curry to those centers just driving the point home about the above statement.

& yet that's exactly what you're doing when u call the guy worthless... u'r putting him on the same level as other scrub players of much lesser talent & ability... this is the 1 simple point that's being argued here & yet u can't seem to get it no matter how many times it's been explained to you.

[Edited by - TMS on 01-09-2008 2:09 PM]

Posted by TMS:

Will Perdue, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were very serviceable centers when the Bulls won their 6 championships. I'm not comparing Curry to those centers just driving the point home about the above statement.

& yet that's exactly what you're doing when u call the guy worthless... u'r putting him on the same level as other scrub players of much lesser talent & ability... this is the 1 simple point that's being argued here & yet u can't seem to get it no matter how many times it's been explained to you.

[Edited by - TMS on 01-09-2008 2:09 PM]

No I was drawing attention to Nyk4ever saying someone is "Serviceable". I have no problem with him using the word but bringing out the fact many players could fit the profile. There are a lot of fans who feel "Serviceable" players are "Garbage" because there isn't much that separates them from the pack. Some fans feel "Serviceable" players are easily "Replaceable" which could mean they value their worth as very little or "Worthless".

My question to you why are taking such offense at the terminology chosen?

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 01-09-2008 4:17 PM]

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by nyk4ever:

You guys are being a bit ridiculous. To say that TMS is 'defending' Curry is stupid. The opinion of TMS has been the same throughout, "Curry can be a servicable player on a team that has good shooters, a good PG, and a defensive PF." There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, he's not calling Curry a franchise player, he's not calling him an all-star, he's simply saying that Curry can be effective if given the proper opportunity.

How that means he's defending Curry and saying Curry is going to be an all-star is beyond me. Curry is fat, he's lazy and he's a bit of a baby, but I think if you put a bunch of veterans on his team (ones who will get on him for being the things I just described) then I think Curry will be able to do it. No, I don't think it should come to that, yes I think NBA players should have enough motivation to play well because they are paid handsomely but it's not the case with Curry and oh well.

I still stick by my statement that if Curry was paired with some vets and players in the right positions then Curry would put up some pretty good numbers and would be a decent player.

Any center/or any other position player could be serviceable if he played on a team that has good shooters, a good PG, and a defensive PF." Every player would like to have a team filled with such players


Will Perdue, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were very serviceable centers when the Bulls won their 6 championships. I'm not comparing Curry to those centers just driving the point home about the above statement. It's almost as enlightening as saying.....

"I'd be a decent jump shooter if I put in the time to shoot high volume attempts and had a personal trainer to help me work on my form and technique every day." UHHHH NO KIDDING!

i think the difference is, eddy could potentially lead such a team in scoring. he wouldn't be playing a malik rose dirty work role, he would be a go-to player providing the scoring that no one else on the roster could provide. that's something you can't say about those other players.

bottom line is, eddy has a rare combination of skills and deficiencies. we're really arguing hypotheticals here - IMO the guys you're bringing up have little to do with a player like curry.

[Edited by - Masterplan on 01-10-2008 10:55 AM]

Posted by TMS:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by TMS:

Will Perdue, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were very serviceable centers when the Bulls won their 6 championships. I'm not comparing Curry to those centers just driving the point home about the above statement.

& yet that's exactly what you're doing when u call the guy worthless... u'r putting him on the same level as other scrub players of much lesser talent & ability... this is the 1 simple point that's being argued here & yet u can't seem to get it no matter how many times it's been explained to you.

[Edited by - TMS on 01-09-2008 2:09 PM]

No I was drawing attention to Nyk4ever saying someone is "Serviceable". I have no problem with him using the word but bringing out the fact many players could fit the profile. There are a lot of fans who feel "Serviceable" players are "Garbage" because there isn't much that separates them from the pack. Some fans feel "Serviceable" players are easily "Replaceable" which could mean they value their worth as very little or "Worthless".

My question to you why are taking such offense at the terminology chosen?

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 01-09-2008 4:17 PM]

i'm basing my argument on my definition of the word the same as you are... why are you so obsessed with me stating my opinion here? you're the one ranting & raving about how bad Curry is for the past 6 pages.

Shame on you TMS for trying to have a a sensible, intelligent, conversation with "Trueblue".

Don't you know better?

Trust me, Curry will average 30 Points, 15 Rebounds, and 8 blocks before you have a mature, thoughtful discussion with that "dude". And when it does happen, it will be because his cat walked across his keyboard or something.

oohah

Posted by TMS:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by TMS:

Will Perdue, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were very serviceable centers when the Bulls won their 6 championships. I'm not comparing Curry to those centers just driving the point home about the above statement.

& yet that's exactly what you're doing when u call the guy worthless... u'r putting him on the same level as other scrub players of much lesser talent & ability... this is the 1 simple point that's being argued here & yet u can't seem to get it no matter how many times it's been explained to you.

[Edited by - TMS on 01-09-2008 2:09 PM]

No I was drawing attention to Nyk4ever saying someone is "Serviceable". I have no problem with him using the word but bringing out the fact many players could fit the profile. There are a lot of fans who feel "Serviceable" players are "Garbage" because there isn't much that separates them from the pack. Some fans feel "Serviceable" players are easily "Replaceable" which could mean they value their worth as very little or "Worthless".

My question to you why are taking such offense at the terminology chosen?

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 01-09-2008 4:17 PM]

i'm basing my argument on my definition of the word the same as you are... why are you so obsessed with me stating my opinion here? you're the one ranting & raving about how bad Curry is for the past 6 pages.

TMS you were the first one to bring up the word "Garbage" in this thread.....

that said, i can't call him garbage & follow the crowd because i do see him have games like this from time to time... a garbage player is someone like Adonal Foyle, Big Turd James or someone of that ilk... Curry is far from being garbage... he's got the talent to be an Allstar, just none of the motivation.

No doubt I'm sure I've used this exact word when referring to him in other threads So I knew I was in that "Crowd" group you're referring to. Probably others poster have also. I think Slimpack a modest supporter of Curry in this very thread called him a "Bum" and the two of you agreed on several points not too much back and forth. How come you didn't call Slimpack out for using the word "Bum" a few posts before yours? Cash stated he's "Pretty Much A Scrub" after your post. Bum, Scrub, and Garbage are negative words to describe a player TMS. They don't necessarily have to be taken at face value. But you brought Garbage into this discussion out of nowhere TMS as if it's the one that's a No-No.

Here's another quote of yours

it's being realistic & not closing the blinds & posting emotionally like certain others on this thread by saying the guy is complete garbage when you damn well know he's got a lot more talent & ability than players who we would classify as true scrubs in this league... it's sad that some of you can't post without taking the hyperbole over the top when it concerns some of the players on this roster... to listen to some of you you'd think no one on this team has any business playing in the NBA.

You appeared IMO to be the first to get real emotional in this thread. Like I said before I know what you stated applies to me because I've called him that before but what made you bring it into this discussion TMS? To strengthen your argument, I don't know I'm guessing here. Those quotes are a tad reckless that early in the thread wouldn't you say?

And if you go back and look at my first several posts they were based more off stats and links.

Posted by TMS:

SlimPack acknowledged the fact that he takes things overboard when it comes to Curry & pretty much affirmed what i've been saying all along on this thread... reading the posts before you comment on them is probably a good idea True.

It's funny before the acquisition of Randolph the Knicks are 56-108 since acquiring EY.

Don't let those numbers get in the way of the admiration.

Back at cha

Didn't I say/acknowledge they are words used to describe overall displeasure in a player... several posts ago?

There's nothing wrong with my post really.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 01-09-2008 6:49 PM]

I don't remember anyone ever saying Al Harrington was garbage. People might have said he was overrated but that's different from being garbage. Are you sure they said he was garbage?