John Stockton Day article.

[nuraman00]

What did you think of the various plays, and how did they compare to the Malone one, in terms of screening?

 

[MHSL82]

What did you think of the various plays, and how did they compare to the Malone one, in terms of screening?

Some of them I had to watch a few times. I wish it were like Directv where I could fast-forward and rewind easily without it reloading or going back to some random spot near the mouse click. Like a seven second rewind or a 30 second skip. That would make YouTube so much better. Then, also, let us watch in slow-motion. I wonder if there are other players that do that and YouTube just needs to develop their own that doesn't violate patents or other intellectual property stuff - not that YouTube cares about copyright when I can watch What about Bob for free.

 

[MHSL82]

What did you think of the various plays, and how did they compare to the Malone one, in terms of screening?

Oops, I noticed that I was like Jim Harbaugh, I talked for awhile, but I didn't really say anything about what I was responding to. The Niners' coach is famous for this as he doesn't like the media. He views them as spies, critics, diabolical word-twisters, etc. He can be anywhere from dull as a human can be to dissuade questions or crazy so that no one really knows what he means or says.

 

[MHSL82]

What did you think of the various plays, and how did they compare to the Malone one, in terms of screening?

I perhaps should answer your question. I keep getting distracted by other things and somehow not getting around to what I thought about all those screens, holds, and good defense. It must be the time of day and sleep I get. You know? Those days where you just can't focus and by the time you do, it's time to go to sleep, but you don't want to. Yep. It's been one of those days.

 

[nuraman00]

I perhaps should answer your question. I keep getting distracted by other things and somehow not getting around to what I thought about all those screens, holds, and good defense. It must be the time of day and sleep I get. You know? Those days where you just can't focus and by the time you do, it's time to go to sleep, but you don't want to. Yep. It's been one of those days.

Normally, if it's late, and I can't focus, then I remain not focusing. I just go to bed and wake up really early. (2AM, 4AM, 5AM).

 

[MHSL82]

What did you think of the various plays, and how did they compare to the Malone one, in terms of screening?

I think the Kevin Love one was annoying because I couldn't see it, or it was so far from the shot that it would have been funny to call because it had no affect on the play, IMO. The defender seemed content to go for the rebound after time expired. I seriously don't get why anyone got in position to rebound it. The game is expired! Everyone run at Love! He has no time to pass. Oh, the annoying part was his celebration - that was obnoxious to me.

I think the Webber-Bibby one was clever and effective. I don't know how I would guard that after I realized what was happening.

I think there was more contact with the first Bibby one, but there was some flopping going on. The other contact one seemed like an early box-out.

 

[MHSL82]

Normally, if it's late, and I can't focus, then I remain not focusing. I just go to bed and wake up really early. (2AM, 4AM, 5AM).

The first procrastination was true, the other two were jokes, but I am in that mood right now. It was all true, because I am a bit distracted, but I wanted to see if I could talk about nothing for a bit longer.

But I agree, if I can't focus, it's time to go to bed, but then that's no fun either.

 

[nuraman00]

I think the Kevin Love one was annoying because I couldn't see it, or it was so far from the shot that it would have been funny to call because it had no affect on the play, IMO.

Well, technically it doesn't really matter if a "foul" (if that's what the call is) had an affect on the play.

That's why they call fouls away from the ball, for example. If it's very obvious, even if it didn't impact the play, it can still be called.

During a Minnesota playoffs game in 2003-2004, Sam Cassell started the 4th quarter with 1 foul. He had 5 away from the ball fouls in the 4th, and fouled out.



9:13.0 83-73 Personal foul by S. Cassell


8:07.0 86-73 Personal foul by S. Cassell


8:04.0 86-73 Personal foul by S. Cassell


7:22.0 88-73 Personal foul by S. Cassell


1:26.0 101-92 Shooting foul by S. Cassell


Ok, 4 fouls away from the ball, and the last one was a shooting foul. But I'm sure not all 4 of those fouls away from the ball impacted the play, but they still called them.

One of the strangest events I've seen.

Minnesota would go on to come back and win the game in overtime.

 

[nuraman00]

The first procrastination was true, the other two were jokes, but I am in that mood right now. It was all true, because I am a bit distracted, but I wanted to see if I could talk about nothing for a bit longer.

But I agree, if I can't focus, it's time to go to bed, but then that's no fun either.

Going to bed is fun. Unless you have a lot to do tomorrow and you're stressed about that. Then sleeping isn't relaxing, because my mind is just thinking about how to plan my day tomorrow, and what time table I should have for the tasks.

 

[MHSL82]

Well, technically it doesn't really matter if a "foul" (if that's what the call is) had an affect on the play.

That's why they call fouls away from the ball, for example. If it's very obvious, even if it didn't impact the play, it can still be called.

Oh, I know all about this. In football, they often call a hold or an improper block away from the QB and receiver that every single football person would say had nothing to do with the play. The answer is, don't hold, especially if you aren't helping! Alex Smith had a few TDs taken away the last few years because of irrelevant fouls by others. Some of them really dumb, some ticky tacky. All QBs face this. Once it happened in the Thanksgiving game against the league's best defense (or one of the best) - a 79 yard touchdown taken back because of a wrong interpretation of a call.

Check it out at 0:20.

49ers vs. Ravens highlights - NFL Videos

In football, you are allowed to have one player hit low and another high, in that order - but you cannot hit high with one player and low with another. They called the first, not the second. The game was never the same after that, they then called a bogus pass interference call the next drive for the Ravens. Game over.

 

[nuraman00]

Oh, I know all about this. In football, they often call a hold or an improper block away from the QB and receiver that every single football person would say had nothing to do with the play. The answer is, don't hold, especially if you aren't helping! Alex Smith had a few TDs taken away the last few years because of irrelevant fouls by others. Some of them really dumb, some ticky tacky. All QBs face this. Once it happened in the Thanksgiving game against the league's best defense (or one of the best) - a 79 yard touchdown taken back because of a wrong interpretation of a call.

Check it out at 0:20.

49ers vs. Ravens highlights - NFL Videos

In football, you are allowed to have one player hit low and another high, in that order - but you cannot hit high with one player and low with another. They called the first, not the second. The game was never the same after that, they then called a bogus pass interference call the next drive for the Ravens. Game over.

What does it mean to hit high or hit low? Are you referring to positions on the field, or the person being hit?

 

[MHSL82]

What does it mean to hit high or hit low? Are you referring to positions on the field, or the person being hit?

If one defender hits a guy below his waist from behind and the other defender blocks the guy above the waist into the guy behind, it's illegal due to the chance of injury. But if you just hit the guy low (below the waist) or just high (above the waist) it's ok. If you do both in the order that the Niners did, it's legal because it doesn't carry the same risk of injury, as deemed by the NFL. I can't explain why because I don't know why. The block didn't illegally help Smith complete the pass, it legally did. There are also calls that happen far away from the action that negate calls, too.

The Utah Utes had a trick play touchdown taken away because a lineman - who is not eligible to catch the ball unless you tell the other team he is eligible - went beyond ten yards, and even though the QB didn't throw it to him and no one went to guard him, that negated the touchdown. The policy is if the guy is not eligible to catch the ball he shouldn't distract the defense by appearing eligible? I think it's fair game, if the defense doesn't know he's ineligible, let them guard them - it'd be dumb and their mistake. If the QB throws to an ineligible receiver, that's his fault. But dems the rules.

If the ball is tipped, anyone is eligible to catch the ball, why can't all offensive and defensive players be positioned? All defenders are eligible to catch the ball, of course, otherwise interceptions would be subject to some arbitrary rule and some risky passes wouldn't carry any risk but an incompletion.

 

[nuraman00]

Oh, I know all about this. In football, they often call a hold or an improper block away from the QB and receiver that every single football person would say had nothing to do with the play. The answer is, don't hold, especially if you aren't helping! Alex Smith had a few TDs taken away the last few years because of irrelevant fouls by others. Some of them really dumb, some ticky tacky. All QBs face this. Once it happened in the Thanksgiving game against the league's best defense (or one of the best) - a 79 yard touchdown taken back because of a wrong interpretation of a call.

Check it out at 0:20.

49ers vs. Ravens highlights - NFL Videos

In football, you are allowed to have one player hit low and another high, in that order - but you cannot hit high with one player and low with another. They called the first, not the second. The game was never the same after that, they then called a bogus pass interference call the next drive for the Ravens. Game over.

I don't know what to look at @ 0:20. There's too much going on. Tell me what jersey numbers (and team) to look for.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't know what to look at @ 0:20. There's too much going on. Tell me what jersey numbers (and team) to look for.

Oh, I just wanted you to see the touchdown that was taken away. They reshow the play with the penalty and the hit is at 0:32. The Niners 21 and 62? push over a guy coming at Smith (31). The game would have been so much different because of what the Niners would do if they had the lead, versus being down or tied.

I thought you'd also be interested in that this was the first time where two brothers were head coaches of teams playing each other. Their dad also was a coach and Jim was a QB with Baltimore for a year (played most of his career in Indianapolis and Chicago and San Diego). Another coincidence: he had virtually the same stats as Alex did last year the year (regular season) that he also lost by the same score in OT (playoffs) in the conference championship. He also lost his job by injury, except he wasn't doing well when replaced.

 

[nuraman00]

Ok, so 21 hit 31 low, then 62 hit 31 high.

You're saying that's legal because low-high is ok.

But you also said they called the first. That means they called the low hit. Didn't you also say a low hit and just a low hit is ok too?

So what was the problem?

 

[MHSL82]

Ok, so 21 hit 31 low, then 62 hit 31 high.

You're saying that's legal because low-high is ok.

But you also said they called the first. That means they called the low hit. Didn't you also say a low hit and just a low hit is ok too?

So what was the problem?

I don't know that much about football, all I know is the way the Niners did it, was legal according to articles I read. Had they done the reverse, then it would have been illegal. The refs either thought both were illegal or thought the opposite happened. I'm not sure what's wrong with it except that they called it wrong. When a TDs taken away and the call is right, I get mad at the player, but when the ref is wrong I get mad at the ref and wish the player hadn't made the ref think he fouled or whatever (depending on the sport).

Oh, when I said they called the first I meant the first thing I mentioned. There were two types, low-high and high-low, they called the low-high when they shouldn't have. They should only call it if it's high-low (order matters if they both occur - if only one or the other occur, then it's ok). They don't want one player to block one into the other in that manner - don't know how it's more dangerous, but they say it is.

 

[nuraman00]

I think the most impressive stat that is vulnerable is scoring. Scoring is easier these days and now it is acceptable to just score, regardless of winning. I know, LeBron and Kobe win, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if some guy comes and tops Kareem without much winning (some, obviously). These aren't mutually exclusive, just saying that sometimes to win you must pass and rebound well, too. Plus, people are starting at 19, so that gives them three years before retirement age, assuming they aren't burned out three years earlier, too. Some other stats are passable but aren't as impressive to me.

IMO, any of these league leading career stats, whether it's steals, rebounds, points, assists, 3's made, blocks, in order to get them, you have to play 19-21 seasons.

And you can't play 19-21 seasons, and be the best on your team at that stat for most of that time (steals, rebounds, points, assists, 3's made, blocks), and not be a winner. If you can play for that long, and be a starting caliber player for that long, and be that good at something, you'll be on a winning team.

There have been some guys that could lead the league in scoring for 2-3 years or be one of the top (McGrady, Stackhouse, Abdur-Rahim, Mullin, Al Jefferson) but they're not close to topping the career points. Not even Iverson, who is only 23rd on the leaderboard, and he did it for longer than the aforementioned.

So if one can have that long of a career, and do it for that long (likely 20-21 years), and be that healthy, the team will find a way to build a winner around you.

Or you'll end up on a team that can win.

Bryant just crossed 30K points, and he's likely 4 seasons away from breaking the record, and he's been in the league for his 17th year now. If someone can play for 20-21 years, they'll do more than "some" winning IMO, especially with how durable they had to have been.

And the same goes for those other stats too, even something like rebounds (if anyone ever comes close).

 

[MHSL82]

IMO, any of these league leading career stats, whether it's steals, rebounds, points, assists, 3's made, blocks, in order to get them, you have to play 19-21 seasons.

And you can't play 19-21 seasons, and be the best on your team at that stat for most of that time (steals, rebounds, points, assists, 3's made, blocks), and not be a winner. If you can play for that long, and be a starting caliber player for that long, and be that good at something, you'll be on a winning team.

There have been some guys that could lead the league in scoring for 2-3 years or be one of the top (McGrady, Stackhouse, Abdur-Rahim, Mullin, Al Jefferson) but they're not close to topping the career points. Not even Iverson, who is only 23rd on the leaderboard, and he did it for longer than the aforementioned.

So if one can have that long of a career, and do it for that long (likely 20-21 years), and be that healthy, the team will find a way to build a winner around you.

Or you'll end up on a team that can win.

Bryant just crossed 30K points, and he's likely 4 seasons away from breaking the record, and he's been in the league for his 17th year now. If someone can play for 20-21 years, they'll do more than "some" winning IMO, especially with how durable they had to have been.

And the same goes for those other stats too, even something like rebounds (if anyone ever comes close).

I have nothing to argue here, I don't know what I was talking about. I think I meant that I could see an emphasis on scoring helping, as opposed to just anything to win the game. Malone passed a lot when he could have forced some shots. Obviously, if he did that too long with no results, he'd be less likely to be kept for that long. I just saw a different emphasis and think points record could be broken.

 

[nuraman00]

Case in point, Karl Malone only needed to average 17.4 points for 84 more games (to match Abdul-Jabbar's game total) to pass Kareem. However, he didn't. The man of steel, the durable Malone averaged more points per game than Jabbar but couldn't pass him.

I still smile at this reference.

Great post, I love it.

 

[nuraman00]

Jumeax
I put Stockton Hgiher than Kobe
Kobe is volume, consistency and longevity
But the the highest ranked all-time stat he has is 2nd all time missed shots
(more than any of the other top 10 all time scorers)

Stockton (who went to College)
Has a ridiculousl lead in all time Assists
All time Steals Leader
thas two #1
and had career 51.5 FG%

If in some parrellet universe stockton had been transported trhough time and played with Shaq
in Shaq's time,
that would have been a Nightmare
less
2 fans like this.