# Any Thornton doubters left?



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

I thought this was deserving of it's own thread since AT has been so impressive this preseason. My question is if there's still anyone out there who would rather have Nick Young or some of the other names being discussed after seeing how good Al Thornton has been this preseason? In fact, maybe a poll is in order to properly record the votes. :biggrin:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

This thread is a little bit too early. You should start if after a few months of the season so that we can see how everyone has done.

Of course, nothing will change the fact that it was not a logical choice at the time, but as with any draft, we can always go back in retrospect to see who we would have liked to get. But 6 games into the preseason is WAAAAAy to early to say who else we could have gotten.

For all we know, there will be a 2nd rounder like a monta ellis, gilbert arenas, carlos boozer, etc. who turns out better than most of the 1st rounders. 

Come Jan 1, i think we will have a half season under the belt, we can see in retrospect who would have turned out the best at the number 14 slot.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Of course it is still only preseason, I understand that. All I'm doing is asking if all of you guys who ranted incessantly about what a terrible mistake this was still hold the same opinion. It was THE logical choice, because no matter what the situation it's always wise to take the best available talent in the middle of the first round. I'll ask this question again on Jan 1, Feb 1, Mar 1....etc, this year, next year and in the years that follow.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Well of course, i feel the same way about the move AT THE TIME on draft day. I had said that the only way this would work out for us, is if a LOT of things happened, most of which has happened. You RARELY take the best available talent in the middle of the first round. If that was the case, according to your standards, wouldnt thornton have gone earlier? You draft the biggest talent if it fits into your teams needs. Only if you are completely set at every position, can you really afford to just draft on talent alone, and not needs. There were "talented" players that should have been picked mid to late first round, but fell greatly. Marcus williams, Fazekas, baby davis, Mcroberts, aaron grey, etc. Arguably More talented than guys such as cook, Kopponen, Crittenton, chandler, etc. who were chosen earlier. 

Pick only one for Jan, feb, march. Because its unlikely that it will be different. I say that the best players will have established themselves by January, or at least their talent will be evident. Then perhaps in a year. 

Even i every year start a thread like this on both of our picks, 1st and 2nd round, of who we should have gotten;


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Generally speaking, after the top 8-10 picks, the _only_ thing you should be doing is taking the best player available because every pick's a crapshoot. In 2002 the Celtics drafted for need rather than BPA and passed over a handful of good NBA players to land a PG and a C (Marcus Banks & Kendrick Perkins). What weaknesses do they have on their current roster? Oh yeah, PG & C. Only it would be a lot easier to address those needs in trade if they'd had guys like Josh Howard or David West on the roster. Most of those players you listed sank because they either weren't that good, had physical concerns, or were perceived as future contract year heroes (like Gray).


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> You RARELY take the best available talent in the middle of the first round. If that was the case, according to your standards, wouldnt thornton have gone earlier? You draft the biggest talent if it fits into your teams needs. Only if you are completely set at every position, can you really afford to just draft on talent alone, and not needs. There were "talented" players that should have been picked mid to late first round, but fell greatly. Marcus williams, Fazekas, baby davis, Mcroberts, aaron grey, etc. Arguably More talented than guys such as cook, Kopponen, Crittenton, chandler, etc. who were chosen earlier.


Well, I'm not sure I really agree with your assessment of some of these players' abilities, but that's beside the point. But the fact that Thornton fell to the Clipps at the middle of the first round doesn't illustrate the point you're making. All of the teams in the early portion of the lottery do take players based on need, the teams near the middle of the pack most of the time have a fairly solid team that is on the verge of making the playoffs. This means that normally each position is fairly solidified and that unless there is a glaring need they are likely to choose the most talented player remaining. The teams drafting ahead of the Clippers felt they got "their guy", allowing them to take Thornton because he was the best remaining talent on the board who happened to slide. We can go on debating this forever, so let's just agree to disagree. But I am glad you understand my reasoning for the poll.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I never doubted him, it's his time to shine. Even more now that Maggette declined.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

I'd still pick Young or Stuckey. Thornton is scoring, but he's also jacked up an assload of shots.

Both are having good preseasons as well, and our best guards (Cassell, Mobley, Knight) are still a combined 100 years old. Also remember that Maggette (our best player right now) is being pushed out of his best position and also being shown the door due to this pick.... and few people will argue Thornton is better than Maggette.

So yeah, i'd absolutely pick Young or Stuckey today, probably all season long. *(BOLDED SO YOU'LL READ THIS TIME) That said, Thornton looks like a very good player, but this team is still severely lacking youth & talent at the PG, SG & Center positions, while we've got 4 starting quality SFs struggling for time...*


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

Ruff Draft said:


> *Even more now that Maggette declined.*


Did i miss something?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i picked stuckey...he might not get a lot of burn on detroit, so he might not put up better numbers, but i like stuckey...


but now that we have thornton, i have no problem with him...he seems to be a good player...


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Easily Thornton, I thought so then, I think so now, I'll think that in 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, etc. No doubt in my mind.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

leidout said:


> I'd still pick Young or Stuckey. Thornton is scoring, but he's also jacked up an assload of shots.
> 
> Both are having good preseasons as well, and our best guards (Cassell, Mobley, Knight) are still a combined 100 years old. Also remember that Maggette (our best player right now) is being pushed out of his best position and also being shown the door due to this pick.... and few people will argue Thornton is better than Maggette.
> 
> So yeah, i'd absolutely pick Young or Stuckey today, probably all season long. *(BOLDED SO YOU'LL READ THIS TIME) That said, Thornton looks like a very good player, but this team is still severely lacking youth & talent at the PG, SG & Center positions, while we've got 4 starting quality SFs struggling for time...*


LOL. You think I didn't read your post? I'm truly offended. 

Look, for one thing it really doesn't matter which position Maggette plays. He's a swingman and most of his points come either off the break (at the line) or from the perimeter, he's not a post-up scorer. As for the perceieved logjam at SF, it really isn't as big an issue as you're making out to be. Thomas is essentially a PF now that Brand is out, so he's out of that picture. Patterson, granted is deserving of PT, but he should have never been signed in the first place since Thornton had been drafted as a lottery pick. Ross is another player, like Maggette who can switch between SG and SF, so he will still get plenty of, if not more playing time than he actually deserves. And Korolev is not considered a starting quality SF at this point and would not get much game action no matter what. The team was ready to let him walk this summer, and still may do so. Besides, Thornton and Patterson are also capable of playing PF as well, which gives Dunleavy a lot of options. The bottom line is that everyone who deserves to play will get their PT.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

and even more so the reason not to have gotten thornton despite even all the other reasons, is because he is the POSTER boy of exactly the things that dunleavvy doesnt seem to like in guys. A player who is super athletic, and relies on the athleticism a lot (wilcox, maggette, singleton), a guy who is a PF/SF, but not really a pure shooter (unlike radman, thomas). and a bad ball handler and distributor. If we had any other coach, he would find ways to work with it, but for some reason, dunleavvy really has the aforementioned things as his pet peeves, and if hes going to bench maggette for things like that, youve got to believe that a rookie is not going to do much better. 

Hopefully dunleavvy realizes that we suck no matter what this year, benching thornton will not do any good for the team.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

Showtime87 said:


> Of course it is still only preseason, I understand that. All I'm doing is asking if all of you guys who ranted incessantly about what a terrible mistake this was still hold the same opinion. It was THE logical choice, because no matter what the situation it's always wise to take the best available talent in the middle of the first round. I'll ask this question again on Jan 1, Feb 1, Mar 1....etc, this year, next year and in the years that follow.


don't listen to yam, preach on...vada


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

Im on the Thornton bandwagon even though I still love Critt and his potential. Thornton has won me over and he is ready to play NOW! Dumbleavy better not screw this one up. If I were him I would start Thornton opening night and move Maggs back to SG. Might as well play our best athletes even though Dumbleavy's history is the complete opposite. I hope he has learned his lesson from the past failures.


----------



## shaunliv (Sep 12, 2005)

leidout said:


> I'd still pick Young or Stuckey. Thornton is scoring, but he's also jacked up an assload of shots.


jacked up an assload?
he shot OVER 50% (9-17) shooting mostly from the outside (including 4-5 3pt fg, where one fg was forced and made because of the shot clock!) 

maybe if he shot 4 or 6 from 17 would i consider him a jacker but shooting over 50% gives him a pass (wouldn't you think?):thinking2:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Again, which is why we need a few months of the season to see what the real deal is. One game he goes 11 out of 15, then theres 4 out of 13. Another game 7 out of 17, then 8 out of 14.

I think after a couple of months we will be able to see which is the real him. Hopefully, its somewhere in the middle, as i doubt hes going to shoot 60% on the year. Nor do i see him shooting 35%.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

id rather Thorton jack up a assload (damn never heard that one before hahah) 
of shots THEN THE CLIPPERS TURNING IT OVEER
AND NOT EVEN GETTING A SHOT OFF....
i really hope Thorton continues to do this during the season 
i think we can really win some games if he keeps this up


----------



## shaunliv (Sep 12, 2005)

Al Thornton is getting love from an NBA blog writer named Eddie Johnson, he answers a readers question, 

*What is your outlook on the future performance of this year’s rookies? Who will compete for ROY and who will bomb?*

I get this question every year and I hate it because I don’t like rookies and never have when it comes to predicting how good they will be. I thought Adam Morrison would be lights out last year, but he never turned them on. Brandon Roy won Rookie of the Year last season, but he does not wow me. Let’s face facts… Every five or so years we will get a rookie that knocks our socks off. LeBron did it a few years ago and now we must wait for the next one. Is it OJ Mayo from USC or is it Jerryd Bayless from Arizona? I will tell you now that it will not be Kevin Durant this year because he is not physically ready to deal with 82 games of pounding. He will score close to 18 a game, but his field goal percentage will be in the low 40s. It’s hard to be Rookie of the Year and you are on a young team and counted on to score and be highly productive every night. That’s why I will go with *Al Thornton of the Clippers*. *Teams shied away from him because he was too old at 23 years of age. Big mistake, this kid has a mature aggressive game and if I had to pick someone he is it.*

word.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

yay! *assload* is not censored, it will become my new favorite word here! :yay:


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> and even more so the reason not to have gotten thornton despite even all the other reasons, is because he is the POSTER boy of exactly the things that dunleavvy doesnt seem to like in guys. A player who is super athletic, and relies on the athleticism a lot (wilcox, maggette, singleton), a guy who is a PF/SF, but not really a pure shooter (unlike radman, thomas). and *a bad ball handler* and distributor. If we had any other coach, he would find ways to work with it, but for some reason, dunleavvy really has the aforementioned things as his pet peeves, and if hes going to bench maggette for things like that, youve got to believe that a rookie is not going to do much better.
> 
> Hopefully dunleavvy realizes that we suck no matter what this year, benching thornton will not do any good for the team.


I don't think one of Dunleavy's pet peeves is poor ball handlers, b/c in that case most of the team would be in his doghouse such as Maggette, Ross, Patterson and Thomas. But I see what you are saying, I just had to point that out because it seems like he doesn't mind having wing players who are bad ball handlers, which is one of the areas that the Clippers need to improve at if they want to play up tempo.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Yes, its been documented in the media how that was one of the things that he didnt like about maggette. One of the reasons why he let simmons go, because he made it his goal in life to move maggette to SF where his ball handling weaknesses would be less important. His ideal player is Jr. A scoring SF/SG with long range, ball handling, basketball IQ, etc. Heck, look at korolev. He didnt draft korolev because he had trilingual english/spanish/russian on his resume. When mobley was signed, he raved about his ball handling ability, and again, ability to move maggette to SF. 

If you dont have a specialty, and you are supposed to be an offensive weapon, dunleavvy insists on ball handling. Thomas isnt a SG, hes a C/PF/SF who shoots 3 pointers. Ross is a defensive specialist whose only job is to defend and hit open mid range jump shots. Patterson is an all around player who can play 3 positions, who knows though what role he will play here, i doubt he will get as many minutes as thornton, but who knows. 

Im not saying i agree with dunleavvy, thats just the way he has been with maggette. heck, even singleton wasnt suppoesd to be a SG/SF, but youve got to believe that one of the factors of his lack of playing time might have been lack of ball handling. Personally i dont understand it. My philosophy is, you use what you have, and work the offense to the teams strengths. 

But if we start seeing thornton doing the things maggette did, when he was in the doghouse...bad shot selection, poor dribbling, no distribution, etc. thornton might be in trouble.


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

If Dunleavy cares so much about his perimeter players being good ball handlers, then why are the Clippers one of the worst ball handling teams in the league then? Wouldn't you think he would target players that happen to be good ball handlers? Patterson, Thornton, Ross, Singleton, Chalmers and Ewing all are below average ball handlers for their positions. The only above average ball handler that he has signed is Knight.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

yamaneko said:


> Yes, its been documented in the media how that was one of the things that he didnt like about maggette. One of the reasons why he let simmons go, because he made it his goal in life to move maggette to SF where his ball handling weaknesses would be less important. .


I could go around picking this crap apart all day. WE DIDN't LET SIMMONS GO!!! He signed a huge offer sheet somewhere else. I don't even know why or how you can say its been Dunleavy's goal in life to do anything with Corey Maggette EXCEPT TRADE HIM!! 
Just FYI Bobby Simmons problem was he couldn't create his own shot for the most part. Who would pay a guy that kind of money who has limited skills... oh thats right the Bucks. (I love bobby though FYI just overpaid).


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> If Dunleavy cares so much about his perimeter players being good ball handlers, then why are the Clippers one of the worst ball handling teams in the league then? Wouldn't you think he would target players that happen to be good ball handlers? Patterson, Thornton, Ross, Singleton, Chalmers and Ewing all are below average ball handlers for their positions.


Proving my point there. Singleton, Chalmers, ewing all let go. Patterson lets see what role he plays with this team to see if he would fall under a position where dunleavvy needs a ball handler. As mentioned, ross's ball handling ability is not important inasmuch as hes not allwoed to dribble the ball at all. hes only there for defense and spot up jump shots. Which i think is a shame. i wish dunleavvy would let him attack more, and dribble. Ross was a scorer in college. 



> I could go around picking this crap apart all day. WE DIDN't LET SIMMONS GO!!! He signed a huge offer sheet somewhere else. I don't even know why or how you can say its been Dunleavy's goal in life to do anything with Corey Maggette EXCEPT TRADE HIM!!


We did let simmons go because he gave us the opportunity to match the deal. Yes, it was overpaying. But put it this way, lets say it was a dunleavvy Jr. or mike miller on the team, do you really think dunleavvy would have not lobbied to keep them despite the big contract? I can say dunleavvy wanted maggette at SF, because he said it many times in the media that year. When simmons was let go, and when mobley was signed, over and over again we heard how esthatic dunleavvy was because he had been trying to move maggette to SF, but couldnt because simmons was an even worse handler than he was, not to mention his game wasnt really suited for SG.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Ross was a scorer in college.


EVERYBODY was a scorer in college. lol. Kurt Thomas led the nation in scoring!


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Not everybody, Heck, just look at this years draft. Deffensive stoppers like corey brewer werent exactly a 20 point scorer.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Not everybody, Heck, just look at this years draft. Deffensive stoppers like corey brewer werent exactly a 20 point scorer.


Okay, I'll alter that comment to say that _almost_ everybody was a scorer in college. 

Most players do score in college, especially at Q's position. How many SF's or SG's actually make the league that didn't score in college? Very, very few.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

2007 - Brewer, jeff green, brandon wright, thaddeus young, julian wright, daequan cook, wilson chandler all 15 points a game or lower. 

Not that many wings were huge scorers, or even above 15 point scorers in this years draft for example. The durants and stuckeys seemed to be the exception not the rule. 

And usually the nba guys are are great defenders werent always big scorers. Bowen's best college year, he got 16 a game. Artest never averaged 15 points. 

its weird how ross has gone from one extreme to the other. Offensive scorer, to deffensive stopper. Almost as crazy as when i found out rodman way back in the day actually shot over 100 3 pointers in one season. The last few years of rodmans career the only 3 point shot attempts he made were buzzer beating lobs from half court or something. 

Then we look at guys like maggette who didnt score in college, and were thought of to be a darn good deffensive player, and maggette has turned into a "bad" deffensive player, but an efficient scorer.

the NBA is a weird league


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

I actually consider a player who averages 15 ppg in college to be a scorer. Most college teams only average 65-70 ppg, which makes 15 points a fairly high total. It's the equivilant of an NBA player averaging 23-24 per game, which I'm sure you would consider a scorer at that level. Maggette wasn't a huge scorer in college, but he only played one season. And that was with a team that included Elton Brand (17.3 ppg), Trajan Langdon (17.3 ppg) and Will Avery (14.9 ppg). Not to mention that Maggette only played 18 minutes per game, which would have equated to a 16 ppg average if he had actually played 30 minutes like the rest of those players. 

Yeah, some guys will make it into the league based on their defensive abilities, but those are usually centers. Bruce Bowen took quite a while to catch on, and is a rare exception as a defensive specialist. But Bowen isn't without offensive ability, he's regularly one of the most reliable and clutch three point shooters in the league, so he can still score when given the opportunity.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Well, i was considering it in regards to who we were talking about, Q Ross who was over 20 point scorer. I honestly do not know of any over 20 poitn college scorers who all of a sudden are just deffensive stoppers who dont show much offensive game.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

yamaneko said:


> Again, which is why we need a few months of the season to see what the real deal is. One game he goes 11 out of 15, then theres 4 out of 13. Another game 7 out of 17, then 8 out of 14.
> 
> I think after a couple of months we will be able to see which is the real him. Hopefully, its somewhere in the middle, as i doubt hes going to shoot 60% on the year. Nor do i see him shooting 35%.


Well, Thornton shot over 50% from the floor all 4 years in college, even as the main option on a team with subpar talent around him thus seeing a lot of double teams. I'd imagine he shoots at least 47 or 48% from the floor over the course of the year, which anyone will take.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

yamaneko said:


> Well, i was considering it in regards to who we were talking about, Q Ross who was over 20 point scorer. I honestly do not know of any over 20 poitn college scorers who all of a sudden are just deffensive stoppers who dont show much offensive game.


Eduardo Najera


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Well, i was considering it in regards to who we were talking about, Q Ross who was over 20 point scorer. I honestly do not know of any over 20 poitn college scorers who all of a sudden are just deffensive stoppers who dont show much offensive game.


He played his college ball at SMU, it's not as if he put up those numbers in the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 10, or even the A10. This is a school who's biggest splashes in the league have been Jon Koncak and Jeryl Sasser. Quite honestly, he wouldn't be anywhere near the NBA unless he had his defense to fall back on. Maybe this is just my opinion, but scoring in conference USA is quite a bit easier than it is on the NBA level.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

He's got a very legitimate shot at ROY. Durant will be in the first slot for most of the season, but Thornton is going to flat out score. Horford & Stuckey don't look to be getting nearly as much burn as him.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Najera is a deffensive stopper? 

Yes, ross scored those points at SMU, but 20 points is 20 points in division 1. Not as impressive as other things, but shows that you have that ability to score. He was conference player of the year i believe, based a lot on his offensive skill. Basically im saying, ross id like to see have more a role on the offense. Im sure everyone sees it every now and then where the clock is winding down, so he just attacks the rim and ends up dunking over like 2 guys...it usually surprises everyone, but then we have to remember this is what he did in college. 

Durant and stuckey were just injured. i wonder how long they will be out for.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Najera is a deffensive stopper?
> 
> Yes, ross scored those points at SMU, but 20 points is 20 points in division 1. Not as impressive as other things, but shows that you have that ability to score. He was conference player of the year i believe, based a lot on his offensive skill. Basically im saying, ross id like to see have more a role on the offense. Im sure everyone sees it every now and then where the clock is winding down, so he just attacks the rim and ends up dunking over like 2 guys...it usually surprises everyone, but then we have to remember this is what he did in college.
> 
> Durant and stuckey were just injured. i wonder how long they will be out for.


If Q had a more consistent jumper, he would probably get the green light to take more shots. But I agree that he is decent at attacking the rim and I wouldn't mind seeing him be a little more agressive doing so.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Anyone know any SMU fans that can tell us how ross was in college? Shooter, attacker, free throw line king, how did he get his points


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Anyone know any SMU fans that can tell us how ross was in college? Shooter, attacker, free throw line king, how did he get his points


I would imagine he was more of a slasher than anything else, that's just based on what I've seen of him in the NBA. I may watched a couple of SMU games back when Q was there, but I have no special recollection of him.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

yamaneko said:


> Najera is a deffensive stopper?


Certainly more so than a scorer. He's a hustle/defensive kind of guy, yes.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

in that case then im guesssing wed have to include guys like madsen then. lol.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> in that case then im guesssing wed have to include guys like madsen then. lol.


Yes, very true. Madsen was a solid scorer at Stanford.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

But like najera, cannot be considered defensive stopper to be compared to ross..


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> But like najera, cannot be considered defensive stopper to be compared to ross..



ross is a defensive stopper???


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> ross is a defensive stopper???


:lol: Yeah when did Ross turn into a defensive STOPPER like the likes of Artest and Bowen? :lol:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Yes, ross is used as a deffensive stopper. He might not get credit for it, but that is the one and only reason that he is on the roster. When you have a player who doesnt have to shoot, and who averages very little points, and most games is assigned the opposite teams leading player, regardless of if its SF, SG, or PG, that my friends is called a "deffensive stopper." Same thing as with bowen and artest who are also usually assigned the opposing teams best player as well. Difference is, those guys are also used greatly for their offensive ability, while ross either has no offensive ability, or is not allowed to use it.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> Yes, ross is used as a deffensive stopper. He might not get credit for it, but that is the one and only reason that he is on the roster. *When you have a player who doesnt have to shoot, and who averages very little points, and most games is assigned the opposite teams leading player, regardless of if its SF, SG, or PG, that my friends is called a "deffensive stopper."* Same thing as with bowen and artest who are also usually assigned the opposing teams best player as well. Difference is, those guys are also used greatly for their offensive ability, while ross either has no offensive ability, or is not allowed to use it.



in ross' case, i would call it a waste of roster space...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

regardless, its the reality of the situation whether we like it or not. 

Sometimes i think people mistake my posts for actual approval or condoning. Like when i talk about dunleavvy's not like athletic players, or perhaps knight not fitting into our offense because of his lack of outside shooting, etc. etc. But im not approving of things like this, just stating the facts of the situations. 

If i were coach would i have used ross the way dunleavvy has the last few years? probably not. But regardless of what we like or dislike, we still end up having to deal with the situation.

As someone else mentioned either here or on another board, it will be interesting to see Ross role once patterson fully knows the offensive and defensive schemes. He doesnt have the lateral quickness of a ross, but offers more on the offensive end. I cant see dunleavvy giving BOTH of them 20 minutes a game, does anyone else here think that?


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

Ross, good defender? Yes. Ross, defensive stopper? Hell no.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Thats what hes used as, and thats what the clippers organization calls him. Seriously, for a guy who doesnt do much else, would dunleavvy start him on this team if he considered him just a "good" defender? 

I dont think ross is the defender dunleavvy hypes him up to be, but at times he does really frustrate guys with his ridiculous lateral quickness. I remember when carmello got so frustrated he got kicked out of the game. Personally hes not a huge deffensive stopper to me like an elite defensive player should be, but hes probably the best on ball defender we have had since....actually i cant remember having as good a defender as he on the clippers.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

PAIDNFULL23 said:


> Ross, good defender? Yes. Ross, defensive stopper? Hell no.


Ross, our best perimeter defender? Arguably! Sure, Patterson is a very solid defender, but he doesn't have the quickness Ross has to be able to stick with the Nash's, Arenas', Parkers' nor Ford's in the league. Don't be surprised to see Dunleavy use Knight-Patterson-Ross at the same time sometimes to slow down the opposing PG-SG-SF, which will obviously kills us on offense.


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

I'm not denying that Ross isn't out best perimeter defender and that he is a solid role player, but his defense isn't to the point where people can be like, "Oh, Ross is guarding such and such, we don't have to worry about him going off on us tonight".


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

PAIDNFULL23 said:


> I'm not denying that Ross isn't out best perimeter defender and that he is a solid role player, but his defense isn't to the point where people can be like, "Oh, Ross is guarding such and such, we don't have to worry about him going off on us tonight".


I agree, he is a very good perimeter defender. But he's not a shutdown guy, he never has been. This team is going to need the extra scoring punch from the SG position, having Ross in there simply to limit his opponent to a basket or two less per game is not going to outweigh the amount of points that he himself will be unable to provide.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

youre preaching to the choir, you should be talking to dunleavvy..regardless of his abilities were talking about how hes used by dunleavvy, and what dunleavvy's ideas of his abilities are..


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> youre preaching to the choir, you should be talking to dunleavvy..regardless of his abilities were talking about how hes used by dunleavvy, and what dunleavvy's ideas of his abilities are..


You're right, this is all on Dunleavy. For as good of a coach as he can be at times, he has some extremely questionable lineups and substitution patterns. There has to be some reason that nobody else in the world can see that he gives Q Ross so much PT. It's not as if this team is absolutely horrible and has to start a guy who might be the 10th man on any other roster, totally baffling. Honestly Mike, Q wouldn't have started for the 1986 LA Clippers, and they only won 12 games all season!


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

back on topic of thornton meanwhile, i hope his injury is not serious, or not something that will linger. The first few games of the season i think will be crucial to his confidence, and staying out of dunleavvys doghouse. Hopefully its not serious and hes just taking the time off to make sure hes 100% ready.


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> back on topic of thornton meanwhile, i hope his injury is not serious, or not something that will linger. The first few games of the season i think will be crucial to his confidence, and staying out of dunleavvys doghouse. Hopefully its not serious and hes just taking the time off to make sure hes 100% ready.


You really hope its not serious? I doubt that. I would have thought you would want him to be out for the year so you could say TOLD YOU SO.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Why? The i told you so has already happened. I never said thornton sucked or was going to be injured for the year? I said that the only way he was going to get guaranteed minutes was if there was some kind of trade, or major injury, and its happened, and now he seems to have guaranteed minutes. 

And you have recieved your only warning to remove your absolutely ridiculous signature.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

ROFL. I thought this was funny. Like i said, the clippers consider ross to be their defensive stopper. Check out this quote from the daily news http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_7346680



> Ross might have appeared the obvious choice not to start, considering his lower offensive production. *But he is the team's defensive stopper*. In addition, Dunleavy needs to have scoring with the second unit.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

yamaneko said:


> Why?
> And you have recieved your only warning to remove your absolutely ridiculous signature.


Why? I don't see anything wrong with it.. just based on things you've said. :biggrin:


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

Since I'm a Wizards fan, I'm just curious what your thoughts are on Nick Young. Since you guys are on the West Coast, you probably have seen him play more.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

clipshow, seriously, dont start too. Its against the board rules because its a personal attack against another person, and baiting, and disruptive. Its not even justified either. Saying that steve francis is better than brevin knight cannot be considered having a crush on someone. Thus, it must be just a personal attack, etc. etc. If you need more clarification you can PM me.



> Since I'm a Wizards fan, I'm just curious what your thoughts are on Nick Young. Since you guys are on the West Coast, you probably have seen him play more.


Well, not sure how many minutes he will get in Washington on a team with Jamison, Arenas, Butler, but i can see him pushing stevenson for minute in the future. The biggest knock on him transitioning, was can his game translate to the NBA? Will his head fakes and fade away that few in college could guard, work against NBA defenders. That we will only be able to tell in time. Hes got NBA 3 point range, and great athleticism. Down to earth guy that should be good in the community if you care about that kind of thing. Decent ball handler. 

Unless you guys have an injury, i dont see him doing that much for you guys, but hes a guy that many thought would go top 10-12, so i think you guys did well.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> clipshow, seriously, dont start too. Its against the board rules because its a personal attack against another person, and baiting, and disruptive. Its not even justified either. Saying that steve francis is better than brevin knight cannot be considered having a crush on someone. Thus, it must be just a personal attack, etc. etc. If you need more clarification you can PM me.


Geez, grow up and quit threatening & warning everyone who disagrees with you.

You're delusional if you think its not justified! You've had a HUGE MAN-CRUSH on steve francis, yuta tabuse & chris kaman for YEARS. How many thousands of lines have you written talking about these 3 guys?

"Thus, it must be just a personal attack" Why? Cuz it hurts your little feelings when people criticize your posts? It's a friggin' FORUM! I didn't know you're the only allowed to endlessly go on & on & on & on... deleting posts of people who disagree...

And how many threads/posts have you deleted lately exactly? i know you got at least 4 of mine this week.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

that sig thing is freakin hilarious...and i've seen other posters quote other posters' posts and not have to remove them....


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

For the last time guys keep it on topic, ill only answer this here in this thread one last time, theres a PM button there for a reason. Leidout, i do not warn anyone who disagrees with me, that is ridiculous. I only do my job as a moderator, which is to send the warnings to those who go against the board rules. its that easy. You think its me who deletes all of your posts? I notice here qross deleting more posts than me, and thats his job as well. Not saying that he is more picky than i, but he is on the board way more than me, so sees more riff raff that needs to be deleted. Heck, i just noticed in your first post in the laker board in 5 months, you were both warned and edited by a laker moderator. Moderators have a set of rules they have to go by, and we all enforce them. 



> You're delusional if you think its not justified! You've had a HUGE MAN-CRUSH on steve francis, yuta tabuse & chris kaman for YEARS. How many thousands of lines have you written talking about these 3 guys?


When someone says man-crush, they are suggesting borderline homosexuality. Now, i know there are homosexuals on here like jcwla who if you say something like that, its not an attack..he has openly expressed crushes on different players before. But when you say it to a straight person, that is a personal attack. I rarely rarely bring up tabuse. Only what 3 years ago when i was angry that we signed overton instead of him? I still have yet to see someone say it really worked out for us having overton, so i dont know what you are harping on. Kaman i only state the facts and other things that have been said in the media. no where have i suggested that i am overrating him, nor have any kind of feelings for him. Steve francis again, i stated facts about his accomplishments, and facts such as he is better than brevin knight. Yet somehow i am accused of having mancrushes. Meanwhile there are people on here who say jared jordan is the savior of this franchise.. 

And bootsrenef, there is nothing wrong with quoting other people. If someone says something, they i hope should mean it. But did i ever say the quote that is in his signature? No, its just meant to be a personal attack ,meant to disrupt or bait. All things that are against the rules here. Simple as that.

So for the last time in this thread, OR ANY THREAD, no more talk of these things. If you have trouble with my moderating, feel free to take it up with me or any of the other moderators in PM. Any more hijacking of threads like this will just be deleted. 

If anyone has issues with things i have said in the past, if anyone feels doug overton worked out better for the organization than tabuse, if anyone feels they have a new argument about how brevin knight is better than steve francis, if anyone feels like somehow the stats i post for kaman are invalid, please go ahead and start a new thread about it, and we can discuss it there. But no more hijacking threads.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

actually this thread is pretty much dead. Sorry Showtime87. I know you had said you would start one every month or something, so perhaps we can wait for a little while, and you can start another one. Ill try to watch it more carefully so that it doesnt go so far off topic for you.


----------

