TheGame wrote:

TMS wrote:

kam77 wrote:Larry Brown coaching Nate Robinson again is not very likely.

Chicago needs Nate's scoring. Maybe we can get Tyrus for Nate.

i was thinking that made sense too the other day... Nate could help fill Ben Gordon's role off the bench for CHI, they've really missed having a scoring guy off the bench... Nate's not the scorer that Ben is but he's a lot closer than the guys they have coming off their bench right now.

Well, Tyrus for Nate is easy enough to do, but why do we need yet another PF. Why did we draft Hill if we are not going to give him the opportunity? Or, maybe they want to prepare for Lee's departure? In any event, Tyrus is not really a good shooter, so not sure why he would fit in MDA's offense any better than the players that we have.

I and many others here, think Hill was drafted to play the 5 here, eventually anyway. I'm not sure I buy that he was drafted in case Lee was traded...

edit- You just beat me to it TMS, get some sleep

earthmansurfer wrote:

TheGame wrote:

TMS wrote:

kam77 wrote:Larry Brown coaching Nate Robinson again is not very likely.

Chicago needs Nate's scoring. Maybe we can get Tyrus for Nate.

i was thinking that made sense too the other day... Nate could help fill Ben Gordon's role off the bench for CHI, they've really missed having a scoring guy off the bench... Nate's not the scorer that Ben is but he's a lot closer than the guys they have coming off their bench right now.

Well, Tyrus for Nate is easy enough to do, but why do we need yet another PF. Why did we draft Hill if we are not going to give him the opportunity? Or, maybe they want to prepare for Lee's departure? In any event, Tyrus is not really a good shooter, so not sure why he would fit in MDA's offense any better than the players that we have.

I and many others here, think Hill was drafted to play the 5 here, eventually anyway. I'm not sure I buy that he was drafted in case Lee was traded...

edit- You just beat me to it TMS, get some sleep

Oh, I agree. It is clear that is where they want this kid to play. I am not sure he is up to it, but since we are playing Jeffries at 5 now, Hill could not do any worse.

TheGame wrote:
Oh, I agree. It is clear that is where they want this kid to play. I am not sure he is up to it, but since we are playing Jeffries at 5 now, Hill could not do any worse.

Actually Jeffries has been playing really well of late.

markvmc wrote:Good article here on the effects of Nate's stats on our W/L

http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/to-assess-robinsons-benching-go-to-the-spreadsheet/

Yea i saw that. I think it proves Howard Beck reads our posts, because we had a discussion on how bogus that stat is.