# Is Blount the one who is hurting the team?



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Look at the stats- Since he has started last 12 games, the Wolves have gone 3-9. I can't really say that he is really hurting this team with those losses. Casey also put on his fault for using rotation poorly, did not play Griffin. 

Is it him, or Casey, or even Marcus Banks? State your opinion here.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Blount may be hurting the team ,but its because casey leaves him on the court for too long and doesnt play eddie.
give them 24 mins a night each at center and see how we go, blount could be a helpful player on this team... if used correctly


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

Not at all. In fact Blount is helping the team. He's been real solid on offense the past week or two.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

bruno34115 said:


> Not at all. In fact Blount is helping the team. He's been real solid on offense the past week or two.


this is true, the only issue with blount is his defence, which is where eddie helps the team.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> this is true, the only issue with blount is his defence, which is where eddie helps the team.


Yet Casey have no guts to put Griffin in to help out the defense, this is playing a bigger role on why the Wolves keep losing.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Juxtaposed said:


> Yet Casey have no guts to put Griffin in to help out the defense, this is playing a bigger role on why the Wolves keep losing.


Bingo! ... which is why blount is indirectly hurting the team through casey's ignorance


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

Juxtaposed said:


> Look at the stats- Since he has started last 12 games, the Wolves have gone 3-9. I can't really say that he is really hurting this team with those losses. Casey also put on his fault for using rotation poorly, did not play Griffin.
> 
> Is it him, or Casey, or even Marcus Banks? State your opinion here.


It's not Blount, IMO. He's solid offensively, though his defense needs some work. You'd think Coach Casey would put Griffin in more to take care of that.

Laurie


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> Bingo! ... which is why blount is indirectly hurting the team through casey's ignorance


Interesting, but yet ironic. I can have difficult times analyzing stuffs like that, but will come up with a real answer eventually... Which it did.


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

i think blount is helpin this team.. 

i blame casey
his poor play calling, bad rotations.. i blame that.

DOWN WITH CASEY!


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

abwowang said:


> i think blount is helpin this team..


Well, I'm not sure about _helping_, exactly. The question was Is he hurting the team, and for that I have to say NO. But he's not adding much either, is he? 



> i blame casey
> his poor play calling, bad rotations.. i blame that.
> 
> DOWN WITH CASEY!


OK, the common response here (including from me) seems to be that the problems are Casey's fault, perhaps even more than McHale's. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment, though:

The guy's brand new, not just to coaching Minnesota but to head coaching altogether, am I right? Nobody does well with so great a responsibility the first time; it's the way of things for a coach to take a while to get things together and make them run right. If he's still around come next season, he'll have settled down some, figured out what his/the team's goals are, and come to better understanding of who/what he's got to work with. It's unfortunate he got started with a contending team instead of with, say, the Hawks; this way the new coach gets the blame for something that wouldn't even be noticed if the Wolves hadn't been so good before.

Laurie


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

i think mchale is the main issue for this team, he's terrible, the players mainly KG know it too.
casey been very disapointing though, and i think he has to go.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Both Casey and McHale must be the firsts to go, according to I and whoever's wish.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

Juxtaposed said:


> Both Casey and McHale must be the firsts to go, according to I and whoever's wish.


OK, so McHale goes because he's been an awful GM forever, and Casey goes because patience isn't anybody's strong suit.

Look around the League. With whom would you replace them? Who's going to be available (probably) who'd be a good fit for Minnesota? Sacking the head coach and the GM at the same time leaves a huge leadership void--and if you're going to can them, you'd better have someone sensible in mind with whom to replace them..

Laurie


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

Definitly don't fire Casey. Give him another year or two, it's not a good idea to get our 4th coach in two years. But definitly McHale has overstayed his welcome.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

bruno34115 said:


> Definitly don't fire Casey. Give him another year or two, it's not a good idea to get our 4th coach in two years. But definitly McHale has overstayed his welcome.


But will Garnett be willing to hang around for another year or two while Casey gets on-the-job training? KG's ready and wanting to win _now_.

Laurie


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

whenever asked about the situation, KG seems to mention mchale, not casey as the problem.
i dont think both of them would be moved in the same off season, but i definately think mchale should go.


----------

