I almost took a job in San Antonio in 2014 making less money and prob would have set my career back a good amount of years BECAUSE of the Spurs. My irrational fandom is way up there. I was applying to Jobs in TX just cause the squad is there.
Dawg Russ has ALWAYS been a trainwreck. What the hell are ya'll talking about?
Ima a big Russ fan and I literally been calling him that for years but now y'all are "well if he just takes better shots and not be outta control....". What he's done his entire career.
So if he becomes a totally different player in 2 hours it's rockets in 6.
wavycrocket
, but I'm not asking Russ to turn into a completely different player. he's going to shoot poorly. he's a poor shooter. but he can still impact the game being a poor shooter.
I think I could live in Houston if forced to.Imagine moving to Texas
I think our disagreement stems from what "trainwreck" means or how it's being used. I can't speak for
in game 1 he was 10-24, 24 points, 9 rebounds, 6 assists, 5 turnovers. that's poor shooting, but the rockets were +15 when russ was on the floor. he was aggressive, created open shots, and his energy permeated to everyone else. rockets win by 15
in game 2, he was 4-15, 10 points, 13 rebounds, 4 assists, 7 turnovers. he shot poorly AND he was an active detriment. he was indecisive, passive, and shot bad shots for even Russ standards. it was so bad that we were better if he just didn't even play. that's pure trainwreck. despite that, rockets overcame a 21 point deficit and were up 5 in the 4th. rockets only lose by 8 despite their 2nd star being not just bad, but an active detriment.
Russ is a high variance player so it's not really a surprise he can be so bad, but the rockets can withstand Russ being bad as long as he's not actively hurting the team. Game 1 and 2 are picture perfect examples of that. That doesn't mean I'm picking the rockets to win the series, or say that Russ is somehow going to increase his efficiency tenfold. Nothing more than, if he's not actively bad, the rockets can win the series.
I think our disagreement stems from what "trainwreck" means or how it's being used. I can't speak for
in game 1 he was 10-24, 24 points, 9 rebounds, 6 assists, 5 turnovers. that's poor shooting, but the rockets were +15 when russ was on the floor. he was aggressive, created open shots, and his energy permeated to everyone else. rockets win by 15
in game 2, he was 4-15, 10 points, 13 rebounds, 4 assists, 7 turnovers. he shot poorly AND he was an active detriment. he was indecisive, passive, and shot bad shots for even Russ standards. it was so bad that we were better if he just didn't even play. that's pure trainwreck. despite that, rockets overcame a 21 point deficit and were up 5 in the 4th. rockets only lose by 8 despite their 2nd star being not just bad, but an active detriment.
Russ is a high variance player so it's not really a surprise he can be so bad, but the rockets can withstand Russ being bad as long as he's not actively hurting the team. Game 1 and 2 are picture perfect examples of that. That doesn't mean I'm picking the rockets to win the series, or say that Russ is somehow going to increase his efficiency tenfold. Nothing more than, if he's not actively bad, the rockets can win the series.
I almost took a job in San Antonio in 2014 making less money and prob would have set my career back a good amount of years BECAUSE of the Spurs. My irrational fandom is way up there. I was applying to Jobs in TX just cause the squad is there.
I'm shook, how do you have decade old screenshots from the old layout? You've been waiting for this moment for years. Laying in the cut like sting in the rafters
Excuse me?
reformeDWS
you got Houston winning the series?
