Author Topic: Marbury available for low cost (Read 7049 times)

jemagee · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2008, 04:31:39 PM »

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 04:31:00 PM

yeah and the Chesney video of this song is also really well done.

MontGem and their psuedo macho act is only for a certain segment of tabacoo chewing hicks. And that's just the women.

I like their songs, but if anyone thinks EITHER of those men are heterosexuals, they have very badly broken detectors...

Reality · « **Reply #16 on:** September 23, 2008, 04:37:50 PM »

Quote from: westkoast on September 23, 2008, 03:39:55 PM

Tony Parker is a top point guard in this league. Marbury is not. He has never shown to be a winner, he has never shown that he can fit into an existing system, and he is not the person you want dominating the ball.

Not entirely true. When Fuhrer Brown coached the Knicks that fateful 2005-6 season, he asked Marbury to shoot less and play purely point for quite a spell. Marbury complied.

Quote

If you want to take shots away from Manu and Duncan so Marbury can shoot 3s and off balanced jumpers, by all means feel that way. To everyone else he is not the answer to the Spurs getting past the Lakers or the Celtics for the title.

What you describe is exactly what Lord Poppycocks 4 Dumb offense calls for. Plus Popped has been complaining about the backup points not shooting enough. That in part is what screwed up DStoudamire, who was doing just fine initially with the Spurs. Distributing the ball and taking timely shots. Poppycock wanted him to start jacking it up more and the results were losing.

westkoast · « **Reply #17 on:** September 23, 2008, 05:11:54 PM »

Quote

Not entirely true. When Fuhrer Brown coached the Knicks that fateful 2005-6 season, he asked Marbury to shoot less and play purely point for quite a spell. Marbury complied.

He did take like what 2 less shots per game? He was still dominating the ball and his teammates didn't like him.

Quote

What you describe is exactly what Lord Poppycocks 4 Dumb offense calls for. Plus Popped has been complaining about the backup points not shooting enough. That in part is what screwed up DStoudamire, who was doing just fine initially with the Spurs. Distributing the ball and taking timely shots. Poppycock wanted him to start jacking it up more and the results were losing.

Popavich's offense calls for going inside out. Not for a guy who dribble for 15 seconds, do a cross over, then shoot a fade away jumper from 20 feet out in hopes it stays down.

Now compare that to throwing the ball to Duncan and him shooting from 4 feet away or faking and throwing out to a wide open Manu for a deadly 3.

Reality · « **Reply #18 on:** September 23, 2008, 05:41:44 PM »

westkoast

Quote

He did take like what 2 less shots per game? He was still dominating the ball and his teammates didn't like him.

Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.

Quote

Popavich's offense calls for going inside out. Not for a guy who dribble for 15 seconds, do a cross over, then shoot a fade away jumper from 20 feet out in hopes it stays down.

Like injured Manu repeatedly did in the 2008 WCFs.

westkoast · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2008, 05:56:06 PM »

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 05:41:44 PM

westkoast
Quote
He did take like what 2 less shots per game? He was still dominating the ball and his teammates didn't like him.
Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.

Quote
Popavich's offense calls for going inside out. Not for a guy who dribble for 15 seconds, do a cross over, then shoot a fade away jumper from 20 feet out in hopes it stays down.

Like injured Manu repeatedly did in the 2008 WCFs.

No I believe he did it for one game LOL Did you forget they lost?

And the Knicks did exactly what when Marbury was there? Make first round exists?

Lurker · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2008, 06:15:24 PM »

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 05:41:44 PM

westkoast
Quote
He did take like what 2 less shots per game? He was still dominating the ball and his teammates didn't like him.
Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.

In Larry Brown's first year Marbury took about 3 less shots a game.

But don't gloat too much Reality...the Knicks as a team took almost 6 less shots per game.

Brown's slower pace had more to do with less shots than Marbury changing his style or attitude.

Reality, for such a "great" player how come Marbury only has been to the playoffs 4 times in 12 years? And two of those were with Minny with KG as the anchor. The guy is a stat accumulating loser.

<light bulb goes on>

Reality only looks at stats thus Marbury must be the best PG in the league. DOH!

Reality · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2008, 06:45:07 PM »

^^ oh boy....
Barrel Fish,
LurkerBarrelkoast

Quote

In Larry Brown's first year Marbury took about 3 less shots a game.

Gee thats nice. For the whole year. Notice what i posted was:

Quote

Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.

Now I must say i do not remember how long Browns experiment with Marbury shooting less lasted. It was much more then koastiebarrels made up "one game".

Quote

Reality, for such a "great" player how come Marbury only has been to the playoffs 4 times in 12 years? And two of those were with Minny with KG as the anchor. The guy is a stat accumulating loser.
<light bulb goes on>

Lurker. I've never posted Marbury was a "great" player. So who and what are you asking?
As to your and koasties assertion that he was always a loser during the Brown era, what were the Kobsters playoff records in those same years?

owned.

Quote

Reality only looks at stats thus Marbury must be the best PG in the league. DOH!

No actually i posted that perhaps he can change with the motivation being a RealChampionship.
As to stats#, Marbury most certainly has demonstrated potential. Now if you dont think the great Greg Popavich and a locker room leader like Mike Finley can help Marbury out, well, i dont know.

I do think it would be a gamble for the Spurs to take him. <<in picture frame Barrel Fish. But at the vet minimum or close, I say sign him up. Excellent risk/reward ratio.

Since Poppycock has already gone thru, lets see
Beno
VanX
JVaughn it appears
Stoudamire
Barrdog ran off despite some great p.g. play.

# here is a little reminder.
http://forums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=2563.0

westkoast · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2008, 07:14:46 PM »

The "One game" comment was about Manu you putz that's why the reference to Manu was quoted above what I was talking about. You've been on message boards long enough to know how it works.

Reality · « **Reply #23 on:** September 23, 2008, 07:17:15 PM »

^^ oh sorry.
But Manu sucked for 4 of the 5 games.
You mean the one game where he rocked, Gm 3?

jemagee · « **Reply #24 on:** September 23, 2008, 07:27:55 PM »

Larry Brown and the Bobcats will be the BEST new sit com of the tv season

westkoast · « **Reply #25 on:** September 23, 2008, 08:25:49 PM »

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 07:17:15 PM

^^ oh sorry.
But Manu sucked for 4 of the 5 games.
You mean the one game where he rocked, Gm 3?

He had that one game where he was rocking it from 3 point land thanks to following Lord Popaspit's game plan of doing inside/out.

Getting Stephon Marbury doesn't change the fact that the Spurs have no one who can stop Kobe Bryant or a number of the other quality SGs in this league. The thing is though no point guard in this league can really contain Tony Parker. At least not for an entire series. Why even mess with that? You've wanted to kick Tony Parker to the curb since the whole Jason Kidd fiasco and yet he's gone on to not only improve his game but to be a key part of winning 2 more championships.

Lurker · « **Reply #26 on:** September 24, 2008, 06:18:32 AM »

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 06:45:07 PM

^^ oh boy....
Barrel Fish,
LurkerBarrelkoast
Quote
In Larry Brown's first year Marbury took about 3 less shots a game.
Gee thats nice. For the whole year. Notice what i posted was:
Quote
Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.
Now I must say i do not remember how long Browns experiment with Marbury shooting less lasted. It was much more then koastiebarrels made up "one game".

You don't get it do you.

THE WHOLE TEAM TOOK LESS SHOTS.

MARBURY STILL WAS ONE OF THE TOP 2 PLAYERS IN SHOT ATTEMPTS ON THE KNICKS.

BROWN DID NOT "REEL" MARBURY IN. HE REELED IN THE WHOLE TEAM.

MARBURY STILL DOMINATED THE BALL INTO THE WORSE RECORD IN KNICKS HISTORY.

USE YOUR HEAD FOR SOMETHING BESIDES A HAT RACK.

Marbury is a me-first, shot happy PG who dominates the ball and has been cancerous to any team he joins. But I really do understand why you want him on the Spurs. You see the Parker/Duncan led Spurs as the biggest challange to your man-crush's title hopes. Has the restraining order been issued yet?

Reality · « **Reply #27 on:** September 24, 2008, 08:09:37 AM »

Quote from: Lurker on September 24, 2008, 06:18:32 AM

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 06:45:07 PM
^^ oh boy....
Barrel Fish,
LurkerBarrelkoast
Quote
In Larry Brown's first year Marbury took about 3 less shots a game.
Gee thats nice. For the whole year. Notice what i posted was:
Quote
Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.
Now I must say i do not remember how long Browns experiment with Marbury shooting less lasted. It was much more then koastiebarrels made up "one game".

You don't get it do you.

THE WHOLE TEAM TOOK LESS SHOTS.

MARBURY STILL WAS ONE OF THE TOP 2 PLAYERS IN SHOT ATTEMPTS ON THE KNICKS.

BROWN DID NOT "REEL" MARBURY IN. HE REELED IN THE WHOLE TEAM.

MARBURY STILL DOMINATED THE BALL INTO THE WORSE RECORD IN KNICKS HISTORY.

USE YOUR HEAD FOR SOMETHING BESIDES A HAT RACK.

Marbury is a me-first, shot happy PG who dominates the ball and has been cancerous to any team he joins. But I really do understand why you want him on the Spurs. You see the Parker/Duncan led Spurs as the biggest challange to your man-crush's title hopes. Has the restraining order been issued yet?

Wasn't talking about the entire year.

Quote

Reality Marbury altered his game much more then 2 less shots per game for a good spell and most certainly was not dominating the ball.

Quote

Reality Now I must say i do not remember how long Browns experiment with Marbury shooting less lasted. It was much more then koastiebarrels made up "one game".

Quote

lurker MARBURY STILL WAS ONE OF THE TOP 2 PLAYERS IN SHOT ATTEMPTS ON THE KNICKS.

He was 1st. Also 1st in assists.

Wouldn't be the #1 option on the Spurs.
You need a copy of Kenny Chesneys "Some People Change".
Will help you overcome your hardheartedness/cementhead.

WayOutWest · « **Reply #28 on:** September 24, 2008, 08:35:38 AM »

Quote from: Reality on September 23, 2008, 06:45:07 PM

As to your and koasties assertion that he was always a loser during the Brown era, what were the Kobsters playoff records in those same years? owned.

LOL, I knew you couldn't keep your mouth off Kobe's jock for an entire thread. What does he have to do with Marbury to the Spurs?

PWN3D!

Reality · « **Reply #29 on:** September 24, 2008, 08:40:32 AM »

I've got my hands on Kobes money for sure.

BarrelFish

Quote

And the Knicks did exactly what when Marbury was there? Make first round exists?

And the Lakers did what exactly in the same 2005-6?

PhillyArena Forums

News: