# Scoop Jackson is as goofy as SHeridan is stupid



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/060825

I don't know what to think of this.Did he and the Reverend Jesse Jackson go get hammered with Grandmaster Flash before he wrote this.The US team needs Adam Morrison...Why because he and Jesus both have long hair?Guy never had a chance in hell of making this team.We have to worry about *GINOBILI, NOCIONI AND HERRMANN...*Hermann is a benchplayer for Argentina.Scola and Oberto both play more than him.There's some homey truth is this stuff,but half of it is silly.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah I read that earlier and had the same reactions. I was like Hermann? Did Scola die?

Annnnd yeah the Adam Morrison thing came out of left field. Adam Morrison had his chance, I'm betting Antwan Jamison kicked his ***.

Adam Morrison doesn't have a lot of range either. He's a great shooter within his range, but he's not like T-Mac who can raise up at half court and knock the shot down with ease.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah I read that earlier and had the same reactions. I was like Hermann? Did Scola die?
> 
> Annnnd yeah the Adam Morrison thing came out of left field. Adam Morrison had his chance, I'm betting Antwan Jamison kicked his ***.
> 
> Adam Morrison doesn't have a lot of range either. He's a great shooter within his range, but he's not like T-Mac who can raise up at half court and knock the shot down with ease.


lets not trash ammo for showing up and trying to make the team and you dont know who trashed who, by the way his range improved dramatically between his soph and junior years.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

He has no better range than Battier, Jamison, Johnson - all players who play the positions Morrison would be playing. As for the bozos at ESPN. I refuse to read their articles anymore or mention their names. That'll show them. :nah:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You'd think this team had been losing every single game the way these "journalists" talk about them. I am starting to not even care what these guys write anymore. They aren't even reporting the news, they are just making **** up now.

Why would Kirk Hinrich not be enough, that we need Morrison? Why would he even bring up Hinrich? Hinrich isn't a better shooter than Joe Johnson. So we simply needed another white player who wasn't better the players picked over him because he was white. Scoop is an idiot.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

It is stupid for anybody to say this team "needs" anybody at this point. But could Adam Morrison be playing a big role for this team? Certainly. He would be doing a hell of a lot more than Antawn Jamison, who really can't help this team at all. If you can't see this, you don't understand international basketball. Morrison would be averaging 25 per game for just about any team in this tournament other than the US. 

It is always interesting to see who does well in international comptetition. 

I thought that Chris Paul would be amazing, but he is playing as if he not only has never seen a zone in his life, but doesn't understand how a zone works. Kirk Hinrich is by far, by far, the best point guard on the team right now. 

LeBron is the best player on the team. Simply amazing how every time he touches the ball, something good happens. 

I really like Joe Johnson as a spot up shooter. He gets in what I am going to call those "Paul Pierce modes", where he forgets he's a roleplayer on this team and forces shots, but if he sticks to spotting up on the perimeter and waiting for his moments, he's a major, major contributor on this team. 

Carmello gets a lot of points, but he isn't the best thing for this team. He's the one player still getting away with taking poor shots, which is the achilles heel of this team. Everybody else seems to understand that they aren't the only scoring option, and need to not just settle for the first shot they can get. 'Melo definitely an international power forward, and is doing a good job of staying opportunistic around the basket. I just wish he would be willing to make the extra pass like everybody is right now. 

And what can you say about Dwight Howard? He's the best rebounder in the world. I almost hope he never develops an offensive game, so he can match up with an elite shooting guard, focus on his defense and board work, and win a few rings. He's a freak

I would start: 

Kirk Hinrich
Dwayne Wade
Joe Johnson
LeBron James
Dwight Howard


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Morrison would be averaging 25 per game for just about any team in this tournament other than the US.


Let's not get carried away

The rest of the post was good though


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Morrison was a good college player in a pretty weak conference.Jamison and Battier were both far better college players.It really isn't close.He's a good scorer and not much else.It's silly to think that he would have any role on this team because we have 9 players who are better scorers.Chris Paul was a significantly better college shooter than Morrison.Saying that this team needs Morrison for his shooting makes as much sense as saying this team needs Novak or Keydren Clark.Both of them are much much better shooters than Morrison.

I don't know of any decent International team that needs Adam Morrison unless he changes his game to fit into a team concept.Germany has Dirk Nowitzki...He and Yao are averaging about 25 per game.When the hell did Adam Morrison become a better scorer than Yao or Nowitzki?DWade hasn't played 6 games though FIBA

<TABLE class=results cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><THEAD><TR><TD class=first height=20></TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">Player name (IOC)</TD><TD align=middle width=20 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">GP</TD><TD align=middle width=45 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">MPG</TD><TD align=middle width=45 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">PPG</TD><TD align=middle width=45 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">PTS</TD><TD align=middle width=60 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">FGM-FGA</TD><TD align=middle width=40 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">FG%</TD><TD align=middle width=60 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">3PM-3PA</TD><TD align=middle width=40 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">3P%</TD><TD align=middle width=60 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">FTM-FTA</TD><TD class=last align=middle width=40 UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">FT%</TD></TR><TR class=spacer><TD colSpan=12>







</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY><TR class=odd onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='odd';"><TD class=first align=middle UUNuG="0" YseOC="0">1.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Ming YAO (CHN)</TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>32.5</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>25.3</TD><TD align=middle>152</TD><TD align=middle>8.8-13.5</TD><TD align=middle>65.2</TD><TD align=middle>0-0.3</TD><TD align=middle>0</TD><TD align=middle>7.7-9.3</TD><TD class=last align=middle>82.8</TD></TR><TR class=even onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='even';"><TD class=first align=middle>2.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Dirk NOWITZKI (GER)</TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>35</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>24.5</TD><TD align=middle>147</TD><TD align=middle>6-12</TD><TD align=middle>50</TD><TD align=middle>1.7-5.5</TD><TD align=middle>30.9</TD><TD align=middle>7.5-9.3</TD><TD class=last align=middle>80.6</TD></TR><TR class=odd onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='odd';"><TD class=first align=middle>3.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Carlos ARROYO </TD><TD align=middle>*5*</TD><TD align=middle>33.2</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>21.2</TD><TD align=middle>106</TD><TD align=middle>4.6-10.8</TD><TD align=middle>42.6</TD><TD align=middle>1.8-4.4</TD><TD align=middle>40.9</TD><TD align=middle>6.6-7.2</TD><TD class=last align=middle>91.7</TD></TR><TR class=even onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='even';"><TD class=first align=middle>4.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Elias AYUSO </TD><TD align=middle>*5*</TD><TD align=middle>31.2</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>21.2</TD><TD align=middle>106</TD><TD align=middle>2.2-5</TD><TD align=middle>44</TD><TD align=middle>4.4-7</TD><TD align=middle>62.9</TD><TD align=middle>3.6-4.6</TD><TD class=last align=middle>78.3</TD></TR><TR class=odd onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='odd';"><TD class=first align=middle>5.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Pau GASOL (ESP)</TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>25.5</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>21</TD><TD align=middle>126</TD><TD align=middle>8.3-12.7</TD><TD align=middle>65.4</TD><TD align=middle>0-0.2</TD><TD align=middle>0</TD><TD align=middle>4.3-6.7</TD><TD class=last align=middle>64.2</TD></TR><TR class=even onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='even';"><TD class=first align=middle>6.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Carmelo ANTHONY </TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>22</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>19.7</TD><TD align=middle>118</TD><TD align=middle>4.7-8</TD><TD align=middle>58.8</TD><TD align=middle>2.3-4.7</TD><TD align=middle>48.9</TD><TD align=middle>3.3-4.5</TD><TD class=last align=middle>73.3</TD></TR><TR class=odd onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='odd';"><TD class=first align=middle>7.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Fadi EL KHATIB </TD><TD align=middle>*5*</TD><TD align=middle>31.6</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>18.8</TD><TD align=middle>94</TD><TD align=middle>6-12</TD><TD align=middle>50</TD><TD align=middle>0.4-3.4</TD><TD align=middle>11.8</TD><TD align=middle>5.6-6.6</TD><TD class=last align=middle>84.8</TD></TR><TR class=even onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='even';"><TD class=first align=middle>8.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Igor RAKOCEVIC (SCG)</TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>30</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>18.3</TD><TD align=middle>110</TD><TD align=middle>4.3-7.3</TD><TD align=middle>58.9</TD><TD align=middle>2-4.3</TD><TD align=middle>46.5</TD><TD align=middle>3.7-4.5</TD><TD class=last align=middle>82.2</TD></TR><TR class=odd onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='odd';"><TD class=first align=middle>9.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Arvydas MACIJAUSKAS (LTU)</TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>29.2</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>17.2</TD><TD align=middle>103</TD><TD align=middle>3.2-5.3</TD><TD align=middle>60.4</TD><TD align=middle>2.2-5.3</TD><TD align=middle>41.5</TD><TD align=middle>4.3-5.2</TD><TD class=last align=middle>82.7</TD></TR><TR class=even onmouseover="this.className='highlight';" onmouseout="this.className='even';"><TD class=first align=middle>10.</TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Dwyane WADE </TD><TD align=middle>*6*</TD><TD align=middle>17</TD><TD class=highlightedCell align=middle>16.7</TD><TD align=middle>100</TD><TD align=middle>6-8.8</TD><TD align=middle>68.2</TD><TD align=middle>0.2-1.2</TD><TD align=middle>16.7</TD><TD align=middle>4.2-5.8</TD><TD class=last align=middle>72.4</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

HKF said:


> You'd think this team had been losing every single game the way these "journalists" talk about them. I am starting to not even care what these guys write anymore. They aren't even reporting the news, they are just making **** up now.
> 
> Why would Kirk Hinrich not be enough, that we need Morrison? Why would he even bring up Hinrich? Hinrich isn't a better shooter than Joe Johnson. So we simply needed another white player who wasn't better the players picked over him because he was white. Scoop is an idiot.


after he said hinrich isnt going to save us he did mention bron and melo, last time i looked they werent white. in athens the undercurrent was everyone was secretly pulling for the rest of the world to beat us because we had an all black team what's the excuse now?, i didnt think morrison was going to make the team and if you wanted to subsitute duncan with miller and ray allen with hinrich that would work for me but those guys didnt want to be there. i like this team just the way it is.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I thought that Chris Paul would be amazing, but he is playing as if he not only has never seen a zone in his life, but doesn't understand how a zone works. Kirk Hinrich is by far, by far, the best point guard on the team right now.



Have you been watching the later games? Chris Paul just set a USA record for total assists in a World Championship game, and it's not even the quarter finals.

He's got like 40 assists to 6 turnovers. And he's actually made four times as many 3's as Hinrich and is shooting overall about 14 points better than Hinrich.

I think Hinrich was the better point guard in the tuneups, but in the actual tourney Paul has been pretty awesome. He's also given up less and less penetration by other guards.

Oh by the by. Here is the roster ESPN wants:

Kirk Hinrich
JJ Redick
Adam Morrison
Nick Collison
Brad Miller

Off the bench:
Kyle Korver
That Kid From Hoosiers

Coached by Adolph Rupp


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Oh by the by. Here is the roster ESPN wants:
> 
> Kirk Hinrich
> JJ Redick
> ...


They would be SICK :laugh:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

rainman said:


> after he said hinrich isnt going to save us he did mention bron and melo, last time i looked they werent white. in athens the undercurrent was everyone was secretly pulling for the rest of the world to beat us because we had an all black team what's the excuse now?, i didnt think morrison was going to make the team and if you wanted to subsitute duncan with miller and ray allen with hinrich that would work for me but those guys didnt want to be there. i like this team just the way it is.


I'm just saying, he said Hinrich is not enough, we need Morrison. Now Joe Johnson and Battier are covering the wings just fine. Saying we need more than Hinrich insinuates that Hinrich isn't enough perimeter shooting, but Hinrich isn't even a designated perimeter shooter. He just seems to want Morrison because we'll have a funky white guy on the team. 

See if Morrison was better than Johnson and Battier today (he isn't), then it would make sense. It's just another horrible article by a horrible writer.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

TM said:


> They would be SICK :laugh:



no spot on that team for McRob, thats bull****.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

HKF said:


> I'm just saying, he said Hinrich is not enough, we need Morrison. Now Joe Johnson and Battier are covering the wings just fine. Saying we need more than Hinrich insinuates that Hinrich isn't enough perimeter shooting, but Hinrich isn't even a designated perimeter shooter. He just seems to want Morrison because we'll have a funky white guy on the team.
> 
> See if Morrison was better than Johnson and Battier today (he isn't), then it would make sense. It's just another horrible article by a horrible writer.


i dont take espn writers all that serious i think they leave a lot to be desired, hinrich i think made the team for a couple of reasons, he's sort of a combo who can fill two spots and he's young(class of 2003), which team usa seems to be emphasizing this year. as for morrison i originally thought they were going to go with a college player theme like they did in the early 90's, he wasnt going to be beating out established nba types based on talent alone. it would have been interesting to see if redick had made it for that reason,now that would have made for some discussion.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

rainman said:


> no spot on that team for McRob, thats bull****.


There's always room for J-Mac. Keep in mind, he'll just have finished his rookie season by the time the '08 Olympics roll around


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Diable said:


> Morrison was a good college player in a pretty weak conference.Jamison and Battier were both far better college players.It really isn't close.He's a good scorer and not much else.It's silly to think that he would have any role on this team because we have 9 players who are better scorers.Chris Paul was a significantly better college shooter than Morrison.Saying that this team needs Morrison for his shooting makes as much sense as saying this team needs Novak or Keydren Clark.Both of them are much much better shooters than Morrison.
> 
> I don't know of any decent International team that needs Adam Morrison unless he changes his game to fit into a team concept.Germany has Dirk Nowitzki...He and Yao are averaging about 25 per game.When the hell did Adam Morrison become a better scorer than Yao or Nowitzki?DWade hasn't played 6 games though FIBA


Yes, the 25 ppg comment was a bit strong. But Jamison or Battier better college players than Morrison? I watched all three extensively, and I'm not buying it. I don't care if he didn't play in the ACC. He always raised his game against the better competition, because his team needed him more. Simply put, Morrison was born to play international basketball. With the extra space and team-oriented focus, he becomes even more dangerous than he was in college. The types of defenders that give him trouble really don't exist overseas. He could easily put up Nowitzki-esque numbers, if he was in a similar situation to Dirk in regards to his teammates and system.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Have you been watching the later games? Chris Paul just set a USA record for total assists in a World Championship game, and it's not even the quarter finals.
> 
> He's got like 40 assists to 6 turnovers. And he's actually made four times as many 3's as Hinrich and is shooting overall about 14 points better than Hinrich.


I don't care what Paul's stats are. He's befuddled by zone defenses. He forces plays. 

Team USA is so much better with Hinrich on the floor. Hinrich makes positive decisions every time the ball is in his hands, and is a terror on the defensive end.

He's the second best player on the team, behind LeBron. And I really don't think LeBron can be considered a human being anymore, he's so far above anybody else.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Hinrich must be the most overrated player ever to hear some people talk.He's a below average shooting guard and a slightly above average point guard.He's a good defender,but he can't guard quick players and he's been beaten more than anyone on this team.

He's a good player who has done very little to merit any such hyperbole.He's a point guard who doesn't create for his team mates and a shooting guard that can't create for himself.Why is it that the Bulls aren't in any hurry to extend his contract I wonder?Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they can replace him rather simply without even adding anyone to their roster and they wouldn't be a lot worse off than they are with him.He's a good player,but act like you have some sense or like you don't think everyone is foolish enough to believe just any damned thing someone else says.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Yes, the 25 ppg comment was a bit strong. But Jamison or Battier better college players than Morrison? I watched all three extensively, and I'm not buying it. I don't care if he didn't play in the ACC. He always raised his game against the better competition, because his team needed him more.


You're confusing two things, JW. Morrison was a better scorer, no doubt, but better college player... You know better than that.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

TM said:


> You're confusing two things, JW. Morrison was a better scorer, no doubt, but better college player... You know better than that.


 Jamison was a strong college player but I would have to say Morrison was clearly better then Battier in college. Battier I don't ever was clearly even the best player on his own team


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Battier obviously wasn't the best player on the 99 team...But he was the best player on the championship team and that's ahead of Mike Dunleavy and Jay Williams who wasn't bad at all..Anyone who says that Morrison was a better college player should be committed.Jamison was the best player on the same team as Vince Carter too.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Diable said:


> Hinrich must be the most overrated player ever to hear some people talk.He's a below average shooting guard and a slightly above average point guard.He's a good defender,but he can't guard quick players and he's been beaten more than anyone on this team.
> 
> He's a good player who has done very little to merit any such hyperbole.He's a point guard who doesn't create for his team mates and a shooting guard that can't create for himself.Why is it that the Bulls aren't in any hurry to extend his contract I wonder?Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they can replace him rather simply without even adding anyone to their roster and they wouldn't be a lot worse off than they are with him.He's a good player,but act like you have some sense or like you don't think everyone is foolish enough to believe just any damned thing someone else says.


Doesn't create for his teammates? Do you actually watch the game we are discussing?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

TM said:


> You're confusing two things, JW. Morrison was a better scorer, no doubt, but better college player... You know better than that.


I would take Morrison, and I wouldn't even think twice. Morrison will be a better pro as well.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Did I read that right? Morrison a better college player than Jamison and Battier. Not even close. Better scorer no doubt, and thats even debatable considering he was giving the green light to do whatever he wanted with the ball. 

BTW regardng team USA, whats with the one pass and shoot thing. Melo should be coming of the bench


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Diable said:


> Battier obviously wasn't the best player on the 99 team...But he was the best player on the championship team and that's ahead of Mike Dunleavy and Jay Williams who wasn't bad at all..Anyone who says that Morrison was a better college player should be committed.Jamison was the best player on the same team as Vince Carter too.


 I disagree that team to me was built on the youngsters and Battier IMO was already perfecting his superstar roleplayer routine. I watched both there careers and I think Morrison had a better college career. No way even if he played in Gonzaga's conference was Battier capable of putting up Morrison's numbers

Jamison on the other hand I agree had an outstanding college player: more impressive then his pro career


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

HB said:


> BTW regardng team USA, whats with the one pass and shoot thing. Melo should be coming of the bench


This is why LeBron and Hinrich are the two best players on the team.


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah, clearly Carmelo and his .645 adj. fg% is taking some awful shots, while Hinrich is an offensive juggernaut with his 2 apg.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

20ppg, 7rpg, 42% 3pt, 80% FT, 10 charges per game, uncomparable leadership, PLUS his brain is so big that *he wears it on the outside of his head*​








(^He did this BEFORE THE GAME WAS OVER^)​
I loved Adam Morrison, but you guys are nuts if you take Morrison over Battier. And yes, I will use the stupid argument - if Morrison played in a better conference, his numbers would still be incredible, but no way he finishes averaging 28ppg and shoot 50% from the field. Oh ya, Battier put up those numbers on a team with more stars and in 5 fewer mpg.

I also prefer guys who play get on the floor, plays defense, etc, not a guy who beats his head on basketball and yells at his teammates when he gets made, I'm sorry, but that's not competitiveness.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> No way even if he played in Gonzaga's conference was Battier capable of putting up Morrison's numbers


Unfortunately, basketball is not just about numbers. To conclude that Morrison was better because of his numbers, and ability to put up numbers, means very little. Morrison is a scorer, so of course his scoring numbers will look good. There is also more than one stat, not to mention the other end of the court.

Besides in ppg and FG%, Battier has the edge over Morrison in every other statistical category during their best collegiate seasons. So claiming that Battier wouldn't be able to put up the same "numbers" in a weaker conference is flat out wrong. Not to mention that Battier hit far more 3 pointers than Morrison in their respective best seasons. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> Unfortunately, basketball is not just about numbers. To conclude that Morrison was better because of his numbers, and ability to put up numbers, means very little. Morrison is a scorer, so of course his scoring numbers will look good. There is also more than one stat, not to mention the other end of the court.
> 
> Besides in ppg and FG%, Battier has the edge over Morrison in every other statistical category during their best collegiate seasons. So claiming that Battier wouldn't be able to put up the same "numbers" in a weaker conference is flat out wrong. Not to mention that Battier hit far more 3 pointers than Morrison in their respective best seasons. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this.


 ^ Strange that in you're first paragraph you say it's not about numbers and the second paragraph you go back to numbers.

I clearly said it was my opinion nothing more. For all the talk about weaker conference , Gonzaga played a very strong out of conference schedule and Morrison's number were just as good out of conference as in conference. In terms of other stats: Battier had better teammates so it's not surprising he'd have more assists and is clearly a better defendeer so more blocked shots and steals. This would also explain his 3 pointers as Battier was a spot up shooter far more then Morrison who had to drive and the like On the other hand despite playing witha better team, he still had a poorer FG% then Morrison. There is nothing personally watching him all 4 years at Duke or his stats to indicate that he would put Morrison type number particulary since he wasn't efficient despite scoring less and having better teammates to get him better shots


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well at least scoop was trying to be positive!

after sheridan's latest column yesterday, where he interviews international media, the MAJORITY of whom pick the USA to win, i emailed him and told him that maybe after the USA does win gold, he and MANNIX from Sports Illustrated should get a room so they can wallow in each other's sadness.

i am such a *****.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> well at least scoop was trying to be positive!
> 
> after sheridan's latest column yesterday, where he interviews international media, the MAJORITY of whom pick the USA to win, i emailed him and told him that maybe after the USA does win gold, he and MANNIX from Sports Illustrated should get a room so they can wallow in each other's sadness.
> 
> i am such a *****.


:rofl:


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> ^ Strange that in you're first paragraph you say it's not about numbers and the second paragraph you go back to numbers.
> 
> There is nothing personally watching him all 4 years at Duke or his stats to indicate that he would put Morrison type number particulary since he wasn't efficient despite scoring less and having better teammates to get him better shots


You were stating that Morrison was superior when looking at the numbers, which he isn't. As for FG%, it's pretty close. The discrepancy is not as large as you make out. We're talking about two efficient scorers. I'm sure his TS% would be close to Morrison's in there best individual seasons. Unfortunately, I don't feel the need to work it out.

Here's a little article about Shane Battier, that goes beyond the stats during his college career. Link 

The teammates argument works both ways. So in reality, it can be negated.

I don't know how you can classify a 3 time defensive POTY through stats. Basketball is far more than just ppg. Despite Morrison's domination on the offensive end, his A/TO ratio was dreadful. His ability to create for others, not good. For someone the offense ran through, he sure wasn't creating a lot of scoring options for anyone else (whether they deserved it or not is another question). Anyone at the NCAA level can make a lay-up, Morrison wasn't creating easy scoring opportunities despite being the offensive go-to-guy at Gonzaga.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I love Scoop, and don't agree with all this hate...but when I turned the TV off last night we were winning by 40 points. No help needed. Close thread.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> I love Scoop, and don't agree with all this hate...but when I turned the TV off last night we were winning by 40 points. No help needed. Close thread.


Dude when you turned the tv off last night the game had been over for 22 hours.It might have been memorex,but it sure as hell wasn't live.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> You were stating that Morrison was superior when looking at the numbers, which he isn't. As for FG%, it's pretty close. The discrepancy is not as large as you make out. We're talking about two efficient scorers. I'm sure his TS% would be close to Morrison's in there best individual seasons. Unfortunately, I don't feel the need to work it out.
> 
> Here's a little article about Shane Battier, that goes beyond the stats during his college career. Link
> 
> ...


 You also realize that you're comparing Battier's best statiscal season which was his senior year to Morrison's junior year? 

Also it's not like Battier's ppg were anywere close to Morrison: we're talking a whopping 8ppg comparing Morrison junior to Battier's senior years. Comparing both as junior , Morrison scored over 11 more ppg then Battier. These are some huge edges. Even if that isn't compelling enough Battier's FG% dropped significantly each year as his scoring increased to suggest that he wouldn't have been able to keep a high FG% if he did have to scoring a whopping 10 more ppg. 

Further comparing just junior years there assist numbers are about the same, rebounds the same, and 3pfg% is about the same. Statiscally a dead heat with ppg sticking out like a huge sore thumb in Morrison's favor.
Battier was and is the ultimate roleplayer but I'll take Morrison's college career in terms of individual performance simply because Morrison's offensive ability much much better then Battier.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> You also realize that you're comparing Battier's best statiscal season which was his senior year to Morrison's junior year?


That means absolutely nothing. There's NO WAY Morrisons numbers grow considerably his senior year, especially considering the players around him would have been better this coming year (That's another argument in itself.).



Pioneer10 said:


> Battier was and is the ultimate roleplayer but I'll take Morrison's college career in terms of individual performance simply because Morrison's offensive ability much much better then Battier.


Again, absolutely no way. He gets 30ppg _maybe_ if he were to stay around. Then again, the players around him, I believe, would be better (even with the loss of Batista), so I don't think he gets 30. 

As for the - "Battier had better players..." IMO, the reason for Morrion's inflated offensive statistics. The guy took 600 of his team's 1828 shots. That's a 1/3 of their shots!

Contrary to the popular belief, you don't win games by *just* outscoring your opponent.

Building a college team and placing 4 other guys around him - no way I'd take Morrison.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I have a different number to gauge Battier by....133


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Diable said:


> I have a different number to gauge Battier by....133


Here we go again.... 



TM said:


> Battier had better players.....


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

TM said:


> That means absolutely nothing. There's NO WAY Morrisons numbers grow considerably his senior year, especially considering the players around him would have been better this coming year (That's another argument in itself.).


His numbers took a big leap from his sophomore to junior years and since we're comparing seasons Battier's numbers improved across his board his senior year from his junior year, so it is absolutely important to point out out the differences in age and season. Even if his PPG didn't improve it's not hard to to imagine that a more seasoned and physically mature player would improve on his scoring efficiency and the other aspect of his games such as rebounding and passing




> Again, absolutely no way. He gets 30ppg _maybe_ if he were to stay around. Then again, the players around him, I believe, would be better (even with the loss of Batista), so I don't think he gets 30.
> 
> As for the - "Battier had better players..." IMO, the reason for Morrion's inflated offensive statistics. The guy took 600 of his team's 1828 shots. That's a 1/3 of their shots!
> 
> ...


He scored his points by shooting of TS% of .614 which is good by any measure: i.e. he scored efficiently which is what his team needed. If you're team was stacked, i.e. had player like Williams, Dunleavy, and Boozer then Battier would be the choice. But for 9 out of 10 teams, Morrison is the better player to have


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

What would you rather start your team with? The ultimate roleplayer, or the ultimate go-too guy? Seems like a no brainer to me. Battier's loss can be made up through other players. You can't replace Morrison's scoring ability. And don't give me that hogwash about Morrison scoring so much because he shot so often. He got triple teamed every night out, and you damn well know it. Still managed to score 35 every other game. 

There's a reason JP Batista averaged 20 per and almost shot 60% from the floor...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Battier is better than Morrison right now. That's all that matters. His 3 point shooting has been good. He brings defense to boot. Allows team USA to be more versatile.

Morrison didn't make the team. If he were good enough he would have made it.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> What would you rather start your team with? The ultimate roleplayer, or the ultimate go-too guy? Seems like a no brainer to me. Battier's loss can be made up through other players. You can't replace Morrison's scoring ability. And don't give me that hogwash about Morrison scoring so much because he shot so often. He got triple teamed every night out, and you damn well know it. Still managed to score 35 every other game.
> 
> There's a reason JP Batista averaged 20 per and almost shot 60% from the floor...


Battier was hardly a role player in college. I also wouldn't label Morrison the ultimate go-to guy. I can think of quite a few ultimates, but Morrison doesn't make the cut.

I don't know how Duke would have replaced Battier's defensive capabilities, he's one of the best defensive players in college basketball I've ever seen. As mentioned earlier, his ability to take a charge was incredible.

Is there a reason why, if being triple teamed, Morrison couldn't find the open man for an assist more often? If Morrison has 3 guys on him, there must be 2 open somewhere. Morrison couldn't find and distribute to these guys for an easy basket more often? His assist numbers don't indicate it.

I'm not a Morrison hater, he should become a better pro than Battier, however, Battier was and still is (in my mind) the better college player.

A bit off topic, but the other day I heard a commentator state that Battier was ok in college and then lept out of no where and was one of those guys that really suited the NBA game - leading to his huge improvement once he reached the pros. I was thinking as he said it, what a joke.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Battier is better than Morrison right now. That's all that matters. His 3 point shooting has been good. He brings defense to boot. Allows team USA to be more versatile.
> 
> Morrison didn't make the team. If he were good enough he would have made it.


Agreed. However, there is more to the story of why Morrison didn't make the team. USA basketball's major sponsor is Nike. Morrison is Adidas. Take a look at how many Nike players are apart of the team, it's pretty easy to see. Not to mention, Coach K and Battier have a great relationship, and some history. I couldn't imagine Battier being left off.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> What would you rather start your team with? The ultimate roleplayer, or the ultimate go-too guy? Seems like a no brainer to me. Battier's loss can be made up through other players. You can't replace Morrison's scoring ability. And don't give me that hogwash about Morrison scoring so much because he shot so often. He got triple teamed every night out, and you damn well know it. Still managed to score 35 every other game.
> 
> There's a reason JP Batista averaged 20 per and almost shot 60% from the floor...


 
Why don't we start the team with 12 better players...Or fifteen for that matter since that's at least the number picked ahead of Morrison.It wasn't a mirage.You show up for the first day of Junior Varsity practice and you compete for minutes and roster spots.All your exploits in the West Coast Conference don't count any more...If you can't cut it then they cut you.End of story.

The fifteen doesn't even include Billups(pregnant wife),Redd(getting married),Oden,Redick,Shawn Marion, or Kobe(injuries) all of whom were far more likely to make the team because they would have brought something to the team that was more needed than what Morrison would bring.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> His numbers took a big leap from his sophomore to junior years and since we're comparing seasons Battier's numbers improved across his board his senior year from his junior year, so it is absolutely important to point out out the differences in age and season. Even if his PPG didn't improve it's not hard to to imagine that a more seasoned and physically mature player would improve on his scoring efficiency and the other aspect of his games such as rebounding and passing


I'm sorry, but there's no his numbers improve that much. Something would have to decrease, whether it's his scoring, assists, etc.

As for having the ultimate-______. Battier of college days compared to Morrions of college days is a no brainer for all the reasons I've already said. He rebounded better, he plays defense, he'll do whatever (I'm thinking charges, most recently getting run over by the largest current NBA player), and he's a better leader than Morrison.



> If you're team was stacked, i.e. had player like Williams, Dunleavy, and Boozer then Battier would be the choice. But for 9 out of 10 teams, Morrison is the better player to have


Again, in my eyes - you're basing everything on scoring. That's just not the most important thing to me.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jonathan Watters said:


> What would you rather start your team with? The ultimate roleplayer, or the ultimate go-too guy? Seems like a no brainer to me. Battier's loss can be made up through other players. You can't replace Morrison's scoring ability. And don't give me that hogwash about Morrison scoring so much because he shot so often. He got triple teamed every night out, and you damn well know it. Still managed to score 35 every other game.
> 
> There's a reason JP Batista averaged 20 per and almost shot 60% from the floor...


Terrible way to compare both players. Would you honestly start an NBA franchise with Adam Morrison and expect some type of success. The guy does nothing but score, and he isnt an extremely efficient scorer for that matter. Remember Jamison was pretty much the go to guy for the Warriors and we all know how that went. I honestly think Adam Morrison will be very lucky to be a Jamison type player. At least Jamison is a pretty good rebounder for his size, but besides scoring I really cant think of anything else Adam does well. He is going to give up just as much as he scores, which basically negates whatever type of impact he has on the court. Battier might not be able to create his own scoring opportunities, but he does a WHOLE lot of things that contributes to a team's success.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Here's a better question. Is starting a franchise with Adam Morrison better than starting a franchise with anyone Paul Pierce or better? I say no. And given that, the next question is, would I rather put Battier or Morrison next to my superstar?

I'd rather put Battier next to him. Morrison is basically only a scorer. But there are so many guys in the NBA who can do it better than him. Dirk, Gilbert, Lebron, Melo, Wade, Kobe, T-Mac--it's a nice little list. And as a role player, is he really even better than Mike Miller? Let alone Shane Battier?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

TM said:


> I'm sorry, but there's no his numbers improve that much. Something would have to decrease, whether it's his scoring, assists, etc.


And you're basing this on what? Morrison somehow gets to peak while Battier still had room to grown from his junior year. Amazing that suddenly Adam Morrison becomes the only player whose numbers wouldn't improve.



> As for having the ultimate-______. Battier of college days compared to Morrions of college days is a no brainer for all the reasons I've already said. He rebounded better, he plays defense, he'll do whatever (I'm thinking charges, most recently getting run over by the largest current NBA player), and he's a better leader than Morrison.


Better leader - that's real quantifiable: I'm sure the Grizzlies had that high on there priority list when they traded Battier away. He's a better defender but I'll take a guy who can score 10 more ppg and do it more efficiently then a souped up Bruce Bowen. Bruce Bowen playes defense and takes charges too. With regard to rebounding: they had the eerily similar rebound and assist numbers when you compare junior year to junior year: but that' not fair for some reason in this debate




> Again, in my eyes - you're basing everything on scoring. That's just not the most important thing to me.


Sure if it was a slight or even modest difference then I would take Battier but Morrison averaged a whopping 10 more ppg. Plus there's two things that come with scoring: one if you can do it and two if you can do it efficiently: Morrison did both. 10 ppg is a HUGE difference particularly when you consider that the college game is only 40 minutes per game.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Morrison is too fresh in people's minds. Everyone has short memories. Apparently Morrison is going to be a better player than Carmelo Anthony was as a rookie.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

HKF said:


> Morrison is too fresh in people's minds. Everyone has short memories. Apparently Morrison is going to be a better player than Carmelo Anthony was as a rookie.


 No by this thread logic's, Melo would have been expected to put the same numbers in his sophomore year w/o any improvement from his freshman year if he stayed at Syracuse


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

It was mentioned once here and then completely ignored, but you guys are aware that Battier was the three time National Defensive Player of the Year right? He was the best college player I've ever seen if you disregard scoring, but that shows him some disrespect, because he scored 20PPG on a team with Jason Williams, Mike Dunleavy, and Carlos Boozer. I know they aren't exactly Derek Raivio and J.P. Batista, but 20PPG is just as impressive as Morrison's 28PPG if you compare scenarios and number of shots.

I was in the Hall of Defense in Cameron about 7 months ago, the last place the Duke team is before they run into the gym, and it was just incredible to see the great defensive players who have been at Duke in the last 15-20 years; Battier was the absolute best. He is going to make a fantastic coach one day, and honestly I hope he coaches college, so he can really have a lot of time with young players and be a teacher.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm a bobcats' fan and I would love to see Morrison become a real player.However I would be happy if he scores 15 points pper game and his defense never causes any ballistic incidences between me and my 32' RCA.In fact I think that there is a real chance that he starts the season coming off the bench behind Alan Anderson.

The Bobcats have a team philosophy that goes like this...You play hard and you play defense.Anderson can do this....I've never seen Morrison try to play defense and I know damned well that Bickerstaff isn't going to let that **** slide.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually Billy King was a better defender than Shane,Nimreitz...but then Shane could probably walk down the streets of Philadelphia without receiving a single death threat.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> And you're basing this on what? Morrison somehow gets to peak while Battier still had room to grown from his junior year. Amazing that suddenly Adam Morrison becomes the only player whose numbers wouldn't improve.


I've said this at least twice, but apparently you're ignoring it. So you're telling me that if Morrison would have stayed around, his numbers would have increased? That means he'd be averaging over 30ppg, 6-7rpg, 2-3apg, 1.5spg. Sorry, but no way - And there's no way because of the reasons I've already stated. He may become a smarter player, but as other people have stated, that doesn't make him a better defender, a better leader, etc.



> Better leader - that's real quantifiable: I'm sure the Grizzlies had that high on there priority list when they traded Battier away.


I thought we were talking college careers.

As Nimreitz stated, it appears that some have forgotten what kind of colelge player he was. We're not tallking NBA at this point.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok. back to sheridan.

today's blog says he doesn't think his job is to be supportive of the american team and to remain neutral.

ok. neutral isn't about hating chris, it's about being, well, neutral!

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=sheridan_chris#20060829


i hope that NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME, one of the USA players takes him out behind the arena and beats the crap out of him and leaves him for dead. ok, not really. but apparently he's had quite the time over there defending his statements about the other teams who don't bathe. he didn't mean for people to take it literally, but guess what? they did! and they weren't happy.

i can't even believe that ANY PLAYER is still talking to him and giving him quotes. don't they realize that he hates them? and he has an incurable disease called tiny dick syndrome? he's pathetic.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Diable said:


> Dude when you turned the tv off last night the game had been over for 22 hours.It might have been memorex,but it sure as hell wasn't live.


 
Looks like you missed the point...the point is we were winning by 40 so all this talk about the team is unwarranted/unnecessary.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> ok. back to sheridan.
> 
> today's blog says he doesn't think his job is to be supportive of the american team and to remain neutral.
> 
> ...


Ouch.

Chris Sheridan I hope you're reading this..


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Real said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Chris Sheridan I hope you're reading this..



:laugh: 


chris sheridan knows how i feel. i sent him an email (besides the one up thread) and he replied from his personal email.

*i also sent an email to the honchos at ESPN asking for an ADDITIONAL reporter next time TEAM USA is out in international competition, just so we, the loyal fans, can have an additional perspective. one that doesn't make me want to slit my wrists.*

if the USA does win, he'll have some splainin' to do. as soon as he's done picking the crow out of his teeth. and if they do win the silver, watch him gloat. either way, it will be ugly.


----------

