# Game 34:Nuggets(18-18) @ Wolves(16-17)



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

@









*Gametime:*Friday, 7 pm (kstc)

*Sheefo's Keys to the Game:*Get KG going early. Their post defense is pretty weak right now. I don't see them containing Garnett very well. Containing Melo and Miller will be key though. Taking the ball at Melo will also be big. Post Boykins when ever he is in. This would also be a nice game for Griffin to get it going offensively.

*Prediction:*W
*Prediction Record:*(19-14)


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> I don't see them containing Garnett very well.


Doesn't really matter when you consider Garnett has lacked the balls all season to actually take advantage of something like this.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Doesn't really matter when you consider Garnett has lacked the balls all season to actually take advantage of something like this.


did last game against fat sweetney on him


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Yeah, and he also didn't do anything against the Bucks. A player of his caliber should be dropping 30+ with easy on fat kids like Sweetney. 17 against the Hornets, 24 in a big L to the Blazers... Garnett seriously needs to grow a pair, realize he's capable of dominating garbage frontlines, and for God's sake stop settling for that fadeaway jumper and take it to the hoop. Not many PF's in the A can match his ballhandling and quickness, especially guys like Sweetney. He's just so freaking passive it kills me.


----------



## The King of the World (Dec 28, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Yeah, and he also didn't do anything against the Bucks. A player of his caliber should be dropping 30+ with easy on fat kids like Sweetney. 17 against the Hornets, 24 in a big L to the Blazers... Garnett seriously needs to grow a pair, realize he's capable of dominating garbage frontlines, and for God's sake stop settling for that fadeaway jumper and take it to the hoop. Not many PF's in the A can match his ballhandling and quickness, especially guys like Sweetney. He's just so freaking passive it kills me.


*salutes this man*

Well said.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Yeah, and he also didn't do anything against the Bucks. A player of his caliber should be dropping 30+ with easy on fat kids like Sweetney. 17 against the Hornets, 24 in a big L to the Blazers... Garnett seriously needs to grow a pair, realize he's capable of dominating garbage frontlines, and for God's sake stop settling for that fadeaway jumper and take it to the hoop. Not many PF's in the A can match his ballhandling and quickness, especially guys like Sweetney. He's just so freaking passive it kills me.


i see what your saying but cmon man kg has said himself he believes pj brown is one of the best post defenders in the game, and then he had pryzbilla put fear of getting swatted and 24 is over his average, i didnt know a person could not have a bad game once in awhile especially when u dont get shots becuz of the offense


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

You're just making excuses for him. Going against P.J. Brown or not, 17 points? Pryzbilla can't guard Garnett, don't even pretend that he can. 24 over his average? Who cares? An extra bucket? Garnett needs to TAKE CONTROL against not just brutal frontlines, but good ones as well. I'm not comparing them as players, but Pierce will burn guys like Tayshaun Prince routinely because he _knows_ he has to step it up. That's what Garnett needs to do - realize he has to carry this team. He has the capability to do it. You guys remember when Webber absolutely TOOLED him? That can't happen, ever.

But hey KG, keep shooting fadeaway jumpers. After all, it's only the WORST shot a PF can make for himself.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Game has started, McCants got a hair cut... Go wolves?


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

KG is 3 of 3 already. We are playing good defense. Good execution on the offensive end right now.10-4 wolves..Make that 12-4


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Well wolves doing what I said they should do. They have gotten KG in here early which opens up the rest of the team. Taking it to Melo, got an And 1 there. Containing Miller. KG already with ten. Griffy is doing great defensively! Amazing blocks right now! He has had 2 unbelivable blocks. One on Melo and one on kmart. Right now 19-9 wolves


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

It looks so funny with Boykins guarding Jaric. He is taking it at him.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Man Griffin is playing amazingly on the defensive end and on boards. His shot is way off though.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

They are reporting that us, golden state, and denver are the finalists in the Artest deal... Tell us something we don't know.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Apparantly Bracey Wright was working out today at the Target Center... Was he called up?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Wright was called up awhile ago.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> Wright was called up awhile ago.



What!!?!?!? When?



McCants is playing great offensively right now.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

A few games ago.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

KG rose to my challenge.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> You're just making excuses for him. Going against P.J. Brown or not, 17 points? Pryzbilla can't guard Garnett, don't even pretend that he can. 24 over his average? Who cares? An extra bucket? Garnett needs to TAKE CONTROL against not just brutal frontlines, but good ones as well. I'm not comparing them as players, but Pierce will burn guys like Tayshaun Prince routinely because he _knows_ he has to step it up. That's what Garnett needs to do - realize he has to carry this team. He has the capability to do it. You guys remember when Webber absolutely TOOLED him? That can't happen, ever.
> 
> But hey KG, keep shooting fadeaway jumpers. After all, it's only the WORST shot a PF can make for himself.


who cares what he shoots as long as it goes in, its not like everytime down he does it...plus if he shoots in the top 5 in the league y in the **** are u complaining?
i didnt say pryzbilla could guard him but he "held" him to 24 points as u said and had like 6 blocks in that game, and kg doesnt score as much as he could becuz currently they have NO plays designed for him becuz casey knows he will get his points so he wants the offense around him to play better


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

also look at this...the games he doesnt score 20 points
1-milwaukee-*w*
2-portland(1st game)-*w*
3-lakers-*w*
4-denver(19 pts)-L
5-charlotte(19pts)shortened minutes cuz of score-*W*
6-sacramento-*W*
7-portland-*W*
8-NOK(only 11 shots in 29 minutes)-*W*
9-SA-L
10-milwaukee-*W*
11-milwaukee-L
7-3 when he doesnt score 20...so idk y u r complaining he needs balls, y go in the lane and risk injury when u r smaller than most 4-5 when u can jump over everyone and knock down the fadeaway?


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

According to the box score, it seemed like KG had a good game overall. He had his rpg numbers going up. McCants did have a good offensive game in the first half.

Wally has torched up the team in the 2nd half. A well deserved win for the Wolves.

Go Wolves!


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

McCants has been putting in work an hour after practice each game with coach Casey and apparantly McHale. Today that showed. His shot selection was great. He also made some amazing passes. He did have trouble defending Earl Watson though.

KG and Wally are playing great together. I think Griffy would of done a lot better if he had played at all in the 2nd quarter. He had 8 rebounds and 3 blocks in the first quarter. 

Very impressive win, now off to face the hot knicks.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

The things I noticed from the box score, the Wolves didnt make the frequent trips to the foul line as the Nugs did. That was prolly why they were so close at the half, so then somehow the Wolves found a way to get ahead in the game by shooting some 3s. 

Wally got only 7 points or whatever at half but ended up with 28, that's very impressive. Tell me what's the biggest thing why they got so much cushion toward the end of game?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> 1-milwaukee-w


Because Wally went off for 30 and Jaric for 24. These guys, second and third options, shouldn't have to post those kind of points in order to win. Besides, the Bucks have such a weak frontline, one Garnett is so capable of dominating, that he can go for 30+ if he asserts himself. But he doesn't, and does something a real #1 option shouldn't do when he's got the mismatch in his favor - let the rest of the team carry him.



> 2-portland(1st game)-w


This was only because Portland sucks. Garnett should be able to drop 30+ on Portland's frontline, too!



> 3-lakers-w


Because the Lakers were held to 74 points. Remind me why Garnett can't drop 30+ on Kwame Brown or Chris Mihm?



> 5-charlotte(19pts)shortened minutes cuz of score-W


Charlotte is trash, and since he had his minutes shortened I'll let this one slide.



> 6-sacramento-W


A terrible game by Garnett, but luckily they held Sacto to 77. You're killing yourself with your listing of these games, because they were all against guys like the Sacramento "tissue paper" frontline.



> 8-NOK(only 11 shots in 29 minutes)-W


Whose fault is it that he only took 11 shots? You're proving my point for me here.

Look, it's obvious you are a Garnett homer and don't want to hear anything that might be contradictive to your opinion that Garnett is unfallible. He's a great player.



> so idk y u r complaining he needs balls


Because he'd be the best player in the NBA if he had some. He'd help this team monumentally if he realized he can dominate if he wants to.



> y go in the lane and risk injury when u r smaller than most 4-5 when u can jump over everyone and knock down the fadeaway?


Come on. Garnett is great at that fadeaway, but it is not a good shot to take. Just because he can make it doesn't mean it's a good shot. Garnett is quick enough and handles the ball well enough to take it to the hoop for a much, much higher percentage shot. KG could literally get to the rack and/or get fouled pretty much every time against guys like Kwame Brown. Instead, he shoots fadeaways. He just doesn't take games into his own hands often enough.

You've shown me games where Garnett didn't score 20 or more and how we're 7-3. In almost every one of those games, it was a case of great D holding the other team down or having his #2 or #3 options bail him out. Why Garnett cannot dominate against these weak players, I don't know. So can I hit you with another number?

17-17. .500 ball. If the Wolves want to make the playoffs, and actually go somewhere, Garnett needs to dominate games. Not all of them, but when he has the opportunity or the team calls upon him to.

Now, it's obvious you are a Garnett homer who doesn't want to hear anything contradictive to your views on him, and judging by your writing "style," and when I was sixteen, I was pretty reluctant to change my position on something, so if you don't want to agree with me, that's fine. That's what opinions are for and all about. But what happens when Wally doesn't carry the load when Garnett doesn't step up? What happens when the defense can't hold the opponent to 74 points? 

All the stats in the world can't tell me what I see with my own two eyes. But let me leave you with this: If you think the Wolves are making the playoffs, or going anywhere in the second season, without a dominating Kevin Garnett, you're nuts.

EDIT: Just noticed that you had a previous reply. Seems this Garnett stuff is a hot button issue. No need to curse, my friend.



> who cares what he shoots as long as it goes in, its not like everytime down he does it...


No, but he does do it way too much when he could easily use his talent and athleticism to get a better shot.



> plus if he shoots in the top 5 in the league y in the **** are u complaining?


Because he could be even better. And I wouldn't care if his FG% dropped. A guy like Bryant shoots 44%, or Iverson, but these guys take over games. Obviously 44% wouldn't be acceptable for a PF, but you get my drift.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Because Wally went off for 30 and Jaric for 24. These guys, second and third options, shouldn't have to post those kind of points in order to win. Besides, the Bucks have such a weak frontline, one Garnett is so capable of dominating, that he can go for 30+ if he asserts himself. But he doesn't, and does something a real #1 option shouldn't do when he's got the mismatch in his favor - let the rest of the team carry him.
> 
> 
> This was only because Portland sucks. Garnett should be able to drop 30+ on Portland's frontline, too!
> ...


so ur saying that u want a guy with an mvp to change how his played all his life to change NOW? y would he do that... 
kg does not care about the points he scores he cares about getting w's and his style of play is to get everyone involved...and if ur saying he doesnt dominate games ur nuts...and if he doesnt at times its becuz our pgs that are in(hudson) are to busy trying to score themselves or he will pass to wally and he will just shoot right away


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Whose fault is it that he only took 11 shots? You're proving my point for me here.


not his really...i mean casey said that he has no plays to run for garnett...becuz he knows he will get 20 points each night...



P-Dub34 said:


> Because he'd be the best player in the NBA if he had some. He'd help this team monumentally if he realized he can dominate if he wants to.


he is the best player in the NBA with duncan and duncan takes as many shots as him...(.02) more...15.8 to 16 while kg averages 2 more assists...


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

trust me pdub i would MUCH rather have kg play worse against portland, charlotte....
than play poorly against teams like utah,dallas, SA, detroit...which as u can see he only played bad against SA and great against dallas 3 teams and SA the other time...


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> so ur saying that u want a guy with an mvp to change how his played all his life to change NOW?


Garnett is not playing the same caliber basketball he did in his MVP season, and that year he had Cassell and a good Sprewell there to help him out, and he didn't need to dominate as much because the '03-'04 Wolves were a better team overall. 



> kg does not care about the points he scores he cares about getting w's and his style of play is to get everyone involved...


I don't care about the points either, as long as this team WINS. But they're .500 right now. If you, and Garnett, are content being a 40-win team, then so be it, which is exactly what this team will be if KG doesn't start taking over some games on his own.

I don't understand why you don't "get it." You're basically saying you're okay with your franchise player being passive and reluctant to take control of games when it matters.



> ...and if ur saying he doesnt dominate games ur nuts...and if he doesnt at times its becuz our pgs that are in(hudson) are to busy trying to score themselves or he will pass to wally and he will just shoot right away


Would you still be a Timberwolves fan if Garnett was traded? My Lord, I've never seen a single person deflect all blame from one person and put it on others. He dominates games SOMETIMES, but not nearly as often as he should and as often as this team needs him too. And when he doesn't, it's Hudson/Szczerbiak's fault? Man, your bias is absolutely ridiculous. I don't even know why I am bothering here. 



> not his really...i mean casey said that he has no plays to run for garnett...becuz he knows he will get 20 points each night...


Then Casey is an idiot, because Garnett is capable of more than 20 points per contest, especially if he played more aggressively.



> he is the best player in the NBA with duncan and duncan takes as many shots as him...(.02) more...15.8 to 16 while kg averages 2 more assists...


No, it is fairly clear to everybody who is not a Minnesota fan that Tim Duncan is a cut above Garnett. You are citing stats, but anybody know follows basketball knows that you can't measure TD's impact with statistics. There's nothing more to Garnett's game than what you see in the boxscore - that's not the way it is with Duncan. His impact on a game is immeasurable. 



> trust me pdub i would MUCH rather have kg play worse against portland, charlotte....
> than play poorly against teams like utah,dallas, SA, detroit...which as u can see he only played bad against SA and great against dallas 3 teams and SA the other time...


I agree. But either he is slacking off against poor teams, wildly inconsistent, or reluctant to take control of a game. Take your pick. Oh, wait, nevermind. It's not Garnett's fault. It never is. Find a way to spin that one off on Troy Hudson.

Look, I'm not saying Garnett isn't an elite player; Top 3 in the NBA. But he could be so much better and the Wolves _need_ him to be better. He needs to have a Duncan-esque presence every night and if he was more aggressive there is no question he could make this team better than it currently is. Let's face it - after KG and Wally, there isn't much here. Wally has stepped up his game big time from the last couple years. Although it hasn't been his job, he has taken over games numerous times this year when Garnett has not done so (which isn't to say Garnett hasn't had a few dominant performances.) But especially against poor teams, Garnett needs to straight up dominate inferior defenders.

I'm done with this. You've heard my two cents, and everything I've said you've pretty much ignored or irrationally made excuses for.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Garnett is not playing the same caliber basketball he did in his MVP season, and that year he had Cassell and a good Sprewell there to help him out, and he didn't need to dominate as much because the '03-'04 Wolves were a better team overall.


Yeah they were a better team and i understand what ur trying to say here but kg isnt going to change his game...he wants all his teamates involved..



P-Dub34 said:


> I don't care about the points either, as long as this team WINS. But they're .500 right now. If you, and Garnett, are content being a 40-win team, then so be it, which is exactly what this team will be if KG doesn't start taking over some games on his own.


well garnett is the only player that isnt one dimensional so its kinda hard to do anything there



P-Dub34 said:


> I don't understand why you don't "get it." You're basically saying you're okay with your franchise player being passive and reluctant to take control of games when it matters.


he's not passive! look at him and duncan they have basically the same exact statistics for shots and kg scores more but ur saying duncan is better? y? becuz he has parker whos better than jaric? ginobli whos better than wally? bowen who is similar to hassell but more polished? and not to mention finley, van exel, horry...




P-Dub34 said:


> Would you still be a Timberwolves fan if Garnett was traded? My Lord, I've never seen a single person deflect all blame from one person and put it on others. He dominates games SOMETIMES, but not nearly as often as he should and as often as this team needs him too. And when he doesn't, it's Hudson/Szczerbiak's fault? Man, your bias is absolutely ridiculous. I don't even know why I am bothering here.


not every star player dominates games...jason kidd? no, nash? sometimes, dirk? not really terry shoots in the 4th usually..duncan? once in awhile but he also has so many other guys to make big shots, horry, parker, ginobli, van exel




P-Dub34 said:


> Then Casey is an idiot, because Garnett is capable of more than 20 points per contest, especially if he played more aggressively.


im not disagreeing, but im saying casey is a defensive coach and knows what kg can do and is getting the other guys involved



P-Dub34 said:


> No, it is fairly clear to everybody who is not a Minnesota fan that Tim Duncan is a cut above Garnett. You are citing stats, but anybody know follows basketball knows that you can't measure TD's impact with statistics. There's nothing more to Garnett's game than what you see in the boxscore - that's not the way it is with Duncan. His impact on a game is immeasurable.


his impact? he does the same thing as kg on both ends...just his supporting cast >>>>t-wolves



P-Dub34 said:


> I agree. But either he is slacking off against poor teams, wildly inconsistent, or reluctant to take control of a game. Take your pick. Oh, wait, nevermind. It's not Garnett's fault. It never is. Find a way to spin that one off on Troy Hudson.


could be hes slacking or just trying to beat them in other ways but idk, and **** you man all this saying im blaming everything against ppl but garnett...seriously i've blamed garnett plenty



P-Dub34 said:


> Look, I'm not saying Garnett isn't an elite player; Top 3 in the NBA. But he could be so much better and the Wolves _need_ him to be better. He needs to have a Duncan-esque presence every night and if he was more aggressive there is no question he could make this team better than it currently is. Let's face it - after KG and Wally, there isn't much here. Wally has stepped up his game big time from the last couple years. Although it hasn't been his job, he has taken over games numerous times this year when Garnett has not done so (which isn't to say Garnett hasn't had a few dominant performances.) But especially against poor teams, Garnett needs to straight up dominate inferior defenders.


so u want kg to be like ...KOBE? i sure as hell dont see him taking 40 shots a game and then have wally play odom? no way there team is in worse shape than us even if they have a same record



P-Dub34 said:


> I'm done with this. You've heard my two cents, and everything I've said you've pretty much ignored or irrationally made excuses for.


would u just shut the **** up, my god...i havent ignored or made excuses im giving u what i have to say and u r saying things that are ludicrous


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

I said I wouldn't delve further into this with you, so I won't, especially when it is evident that you are seriously lacking in maturity. Believe what you want to believe. If you think the things I am saying are "ludicrous," fine. If you think that because Garnett's statistics are better, he's the better player, fine. You can think whatever you want; that's the beauty of life. But I am done arguing with somebody who cannot handle their views being called into question without getting upset.

I wish you would read more posts by Sheefo. He's the same age as you, and the difference in maturity is stunning.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> I said I wouldn't delve further into this with you, so I won't, especially when it is evident that you are seriously lacking in maturity. Believe what you want to believe. If you think the things I am saying are "ludicrous," fine. If you think that because Garnett's statistics are better, he's the better player, fine. You can think whatever you want; that's the beauty of life. But I am done arguing with somebody who cannot handle their views being called into question without getting upset.
> 
> I wish you would read more posts by Sheefo. He's the same age as you, and the difference in maturity is stunning.


IF U WOULD READ WHAT IM SAYING!
i went into how the wolves supporting cast for kg is far worse than the spurs but obviously u didnt care to read that? 
seriously put duncan on the wolves and kg on the spurs then u wouldnt be upset about kg not dominating games when he has 2 other potential allstars on his team starting and another possible one off the bench in finely


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> IF U WOULD READ WHAT IM SAYING!


I did, and a lot of it I deemed either irrelevant or too ridiculous to even waste my time with.



> i went into how the wolves supporting cast for kg is far worse than the spurs but obviously u didnt care to read that?


I read it, but it is irrelevant with regards to how much individual impact each player has on the game, so I didn't bother replying.



> seriously put duncan on the wolves and kg on the spurs then u wouldnt be upset about kg not dominating games


I'm sorry, you are incorrect. You are not in a position to tell me what I would or wouldn't be complaining about. "What ifs" are irrelevant to this discussion, anyways, because I am talking about Kevin Garnett, on the Minnesota Timberwolves, and his impact on games, right now. 



> when he has 2 other potential allstars on his team starting and another possible one off the bench in finely


Michael Finley is not an all-star or even a potential one under any circumstances, do you even watch basketball? Besides, when discussing individual impact and dominance, this is not relevant, anyways.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> I did, and a lot of it I deemed either irrelevant or too ridiculous to even waste my time with.
> 
> 
> I read it, but it is irrelevant with regards to how much individual impact each player has on the game, so I didn't bother replying.
> ...


well i waid say that michael finley is of course not one he still has the potential to be one... 10 points on that spurs team is still pretty nice..considering on our team we have what 3 ppl in dbl figures?


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> I did, and a lot of it I deemed either irrelevant or too ridiculous to even waste my time with.
> 
> 
> I read it, but it is irrelevant with regards to how much individual impact each player has on the game, so I didn't bother replying.
> ...


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> well i waid say that michael finley is of course not one he still has the potential to be one...


No, he doesn't, I'm sorry, he just does not have the potential to be an All-Star guard in the West. He's not the Michael Finley that used to jam on people nightly, he's an old Finley that is more or less just a shooter now.



> y am i not in a position to tell u what u would be complaining about?


Because, unless you are a mind reader, you have no idea what I would be complaining about.



> u said u wanted kg to dominate and get some balls but yet u say tim duncan does that when he does it as much as kg


You just don't understand that there is more to NBA basketball than stats, do you?


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

yeah, if u put him on a team where he could start being the number one or 2 option he could still put up 20 a game


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

In his prime, Finley's best year was 23ppg. He hasn't put up 20 a game in four years, and you're telling me an old, over-the-hill Finley could average twenty a game?

OK, let's just say for argument's sake that Finley could still put up 20ppg. Does that make him an All-Star? Is Wally going to be an All-Star? I mean, after all, he's averaging 20 a game. There are way too many guards in the West that are better than him, and you thinking Finley could still be an All-Star really speaks volumes about how much you understand basketball.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> In his prime, Finley's best year was 23ppg. He hasn't put up 20 a game in four years, and you're telling me an old, over-the-hill Finley could average twenty a game?
> 
> OK, let's just say for argument's sake that Finley could still put up 20ppg. Does that make him an All-Star? Is Wally going to be an All-Star? I mean, after all, he's averaging 20 a game. There are way too many guards in the West that are better than him, and you thinking Finley could still be an All-Star really speaks volumes about how much you understand basketball.


i never said he would i said potential AS IN he would get recognition, and dont question my sense of basketball again


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> i never said he would i said potential AS IN he would get recognition,


Potential means he would have a chance. Finley has zero chance of being an All-Star this year.



> and dont question my sense of basketball again


If you keep saying things that are blatantly wrong and misinformed, I will continue to question your basketball knowledge.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Potential means he would have a chance. Finley has zero chance of being an All-Star this year.


obviously u have no idea what i am saying....idk how many times im going to say this " HE HAS A CHANCE IF HE WAS STARTING!"




P-Dub34 said:


> If you keep saying things that are blatantly wrong and misinformed, I will continue to question your basketball knowledge.


w/e im not saying things that are wrong or misinformed


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> obviously u have no idea what i am saying....idk how many times im going to say this " HE HAS A CHANCE IF HE WAS STARTING!"


Finley wouldn't have a chance if he was starting. If you think I'm way out to left field on this, why don't you start a thread in the main forum about this?



> w/e im not saying things that are wrong or misinformed


Typical.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Finley wouldn't have a chance if he was starting. If you think I'm way out to left field on this, why don't you start a thread in the main forum about this?


becuz im sure most ppl in there would be confused as to what im saying as you are



P-Dub34 said:


> Typical.


im not even going to comment, im tired of your cheapshots saying i know nothing about basketball, and continuing to say so


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> No, he doesn't, I'm sorry, he just does not have the potential to be an All-Star guard in the West. He's not the Michael Finley that used to jam on people nightly, he's an old Finley that is more or less just a shooter now.





P-Dub34 said:


> Because, unless you are a mind reader, you have no idea what I would be complaining about.


u want kg to be more agressive and if he had help then u most likely wouldnt be complaining becuz the wolves would being playing good ball




P-Dub34 said:


> You just don't understand that there is more to NBA basketball than stats, do you?


yes i do, and now stop with this i've told u that duncan and kg are similar-stats-the way the play-neither really dominates-kg is a better shooter-duncan is more clutch


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> becuz im sure most ppl in there would be confused as to what im saying as you are


Who is confused? You're saying if Finley got starter's minutes, he would get consideration for the All-Star game. I'm saying no. Take it to the main forum, explain what you mean, and we'll see. It's not too late to rescind your statement. If you fully believe Finley could still get consideration for ASG given starter's minutes, take it to the main forum. This is your chance to shut me up on this matter.



> im tired of your cheapshots saying i know nothing about basketball, and continuing to say so


You know what? I did take a few cheapshots at you. I tend to not be very friendly after a kid tells me to "shut the **** up" online because he disagrees with my views.



> neither really dominates


I'm sorry, this is just untrue. Tim Duncan is one of the most dominant players in the entire NBA.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Who is confused? You're saying if Finley got starter's minutes, he would get consideration for the All-Star game. I'm saying no. Take it to the main forum, explain what you mean, and we'll see. It's not too late to rescind your statement.  If you fully believe Finley could still get consideration for ASG given starter's minutes, take it to the main forum. This is your chance to shut me up on this matter..






P-Dub34 said:


> You know what? I did take a few cheapshots at you. I tend to not be very friendly after a kid tells me to "shut the **** up" online because he disagrees with my views..


i was disagreeing but u were being to bullheaded to understand or even take the time to understand what i was saying




P-Dub34 said:


> I'm sorry, this is just untrue. Tim Duncan is one of the most dominant players in the entire NBA.


i hardly ever see him dominate, what i see is in the 4th him on the bench while manu, parker, horry give them cushions then by the time he comes back in they have already locked it up


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> i was disagreeing but u were being to bullheaded to understand


To understand what? I understood your point of view, I just disagreed with it. Are you actually that conceited that you believe that I'd have to agree with you for your points to be understood?



> or even take the time to understand what i was saying


Just because I don't agree with you that means I don't understand what you are saying? What kind of logic is that?


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

you did not understand or even pay attention, i told u the finley thing about 5 times before u realized what i was saying....and u were insulting me so i think that this is over becuz it is going nowhere


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> you did not understand or even pay attention,


How can you possibly gather this? I read everything you said, but I disagreed with it. Do you think that I have to agree with you to understand what you are saying?



> i told u the finley thing about 5 times before u realized what i was saying


I understood what you were saying. Once again, you are getting agreeing with you confused with understanding you. You said Finley, given starter's minutes, is a potential All-Star. He isn't. *checks main forum* Still waiting for you to create that thread.



> and u were insulting me so i think that this is over becuz it is going nowhere


Actually, all I ever said is that you lacked basketball knowledge. This was after you told me to "shut the **** up" because you didn't agree with me. Laughable.

You are so confident that your point of views are automatically correct that you think I have to change my mind about what I'm saying to "understand" you, don't you?


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> How can you possibly gather this? I read everything you said, but I disagreed with it. Do you think that I have to agree with you to understand what you are saying?


NO I DONT i've told u that, but i had to post more than once what i was meaning




P-Dub34 said:


> I understood what you were saying. Once again, you are getting agreeing with you confused with understanding you. You said Finley, given starter's minutes, is a potential All-Star. He isn't. *checks main forum* Still waiting for you to create that thread.


becuz theres no point to, becuz im sure most ppl will think what you thought and just put no just based on his numbers this season





P-Dub34 said:


> Actually, all I ever said is that you lacked basketball knowledge. This was after you told me to "shut the **** up" because you didn't agree with me. Laughable.


i told u to shut the **** up becuz what u were saying is rediculous as to kg not be dominant..hes not the most dominant but again i wouldnt want him to be like kobe and have him go for 40 points 20 boards 5 assists and LOSE i'd much rather have him get 15,12 and 5 and we win...becuz unlike kobe garnett knows that he has wally who can hit shots and wally needs shots becuz he is unselfish and behind nash or kidd maybe the most unselfish in the game


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Dude, I'm done. You are too biased for me to even deal with any longer. I don't think either you or I want to deal with this Garnett issue anymore, so it's probably in both of our best interests to drop that before we really step on each others' toes some.

But seriously, put up or shut up about Finley.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

For the record, P-Dub34, you're wrong. I'm not gonna waste my time on you, but there's one thing I couldn't pass up mentiong. You seem to be questioning his shot selection, I guess you have a problem with him shooting fade away jumpers. Well, he's only 2nd in the NBA in FG shooting. Box. The rest of your posts have been complete garbage too, but like I said, I'm not gonna waste my time.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> For the record, P-Dub34, you're wrong.


That's certainly within your right to think so. I disagree. 



> You seem to be questioning his shot selection, I guess you have a problem with him shooting fade away jumpers.


Not so much...he's got that fade dialed, which is too bad because he can get better shots for himself. As I said before, his quickness and ballhandling would enable him to get better shots. I don't really have a huge problem with the fade, it's just a tougher shot than he needs to take. I fully believe Garnett could step it up to a whole next level if he wanted to. Like Tim Duncan level. 



> Well, he's only 2nd in the NBA in FG shooting. Box.


I'm not complaining about his efficiency, I'm saying he needs to be more dominant and step up when the Wolves need him to. I haven't seen enough of that this year.



> The rest of your posts have been complete garbage too, but like I said, I'm not gonna waste my time.


LOL I didn't expect much sympathy from any Wolves fans on my views regarding this matter, but that is fine. As I said before many times, everybody is certainly entitled to their opinions. I'm a bit suprised that you came off like such a douche, because I really respect you as a poster, but that's also within your realm of things you can do. A message board is all about debating. You think I'm wong? Okay, that's fine by me. Just a bit stunned my _opinion_ was called "total garbage" because you disagree with it. I mean, I can be a condescending ***** too, but generally I reserve that for people who I have no respect for, so I'm not going to "fire back" at you.

Honestly, the summary of everything I've said here is "Kevin Garnett needs to be more dominant for the Wolves to go somewhere this year." If you disagree with that, please tell me why, and we can discuss this. Aggressiveness has been the one and only knock on Garnett's game for as long as I can remember, and it is why most of the people who follow basketball put Tim Duncan ahead of Garnett. It's not because Garnett isn't skilled enough to be as good as Duncan, hell, he's probably more skilled. He just needs to be more assertive out there. That's what my point started out and finished as. He doesn't need to be KB taking 30 shots a game, but he's gotta realize this team behind him - it ain't that great. Garnett is 2nd in the league in FG%, as you mentioned. With a FG% like that, he should be shooting 20 times a game, even 21-22 wouldn't be too bad. And I don't care how he does it. If he wants to knock down a fadeaway J at a 55% clip, that's fine. If he keeps shooting 55%, I don't care what he does, but he should be shooting 20 times a game.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

socco said:


> For the record, P-Dub34, you're wrong. I'm not gonna waste my time on you, but there's one thing I couldn't pass up mentiong. You seem to be questioning his shot selection, I guess you have a problem with him shooting fade away jumpers. Well, he's only 2nd in the NBA in FG shooting. Box. The rest of your posts have been complete garbage too, but like I said, I'm not gonna waste my time.


thank you, what i've been saying


----------

