CitySushi
Andrew Wiggin's burner account
"Bogut should shoot better"
Hey, CityS, when you can't even quote me accurately (see above), I'll just rest my case.
And, why are my posts "rants" as opposed to yours? Our posts are about the same length, neither of us is cursing the other. We're just having a discussion and we seem to have a general disagreement. Neither of us seems interested in backing down or giving the other one any credit, so we'll have to just leave it at that. We're both trying to make our points, and to say that one of us is "ranting" or "escalating on" while the other is, I guess, "the adult" is silly and I'd think you'd find it hard to sell that argument.
"Considering I agreed with your initial premise, I have no idea how it got this deep"
Finally, I failed to see where you agreed with anything that I said. If you did, you might want to copy something that you said (not restate or paraphrase it, but actually copy your exact words from a previous post). Maybe I didn't catch you agreeing with me. Or, don't bother with it. It's no big deal at this point. We both love the Warriors. Let's move on.
I never said Bogut shouldn't be able to score. I said specifically he does other things to make up for a lack of scoring. I said it would be a plus if he could, but anything he provides is gravy. You seemed to be adamant about his lack of scoring potentially costing us a series or championship. I simply pointed out that wasn't the case because of what he does within our offense and you kind of ran with that.
Any defense I had of Bogut's pluses that he brought to the team in substitution of scoring was rebutted with overwhelming disagreement to the point of defensiveness. You also added to points by interpreting my comments to support your own conclusion. All of my first lengthy post addressed my thoughts on Bogut and what he brought to the table. It wasn't in opposition of your point of view.
I'm all for a lively sports discussion, but when you start throwing out wild analogies that's what got to me. All of my posts are lengthy because I like to fully explain myself. Which I did. You refuted them with extreme examples which to me were wildly inconsistent with anything I said, or even anything you said.
Here's what I specifically wrote:
"In a perfect world, it would be great if we had Shaq or Duncan or Noah or Hakeem. But alas, we have Bogut. And what my main point has been is that he doesn't need to be anything other than what he is."
"Defensively, he sets the tone. He doesn't need to be the home run hitter, he just needs to make sure he does his job well. His job is to defend the rim, alter shots, rebound and play outstanding defense. He has done that in every game this series."
"You said it yourself Curry is more than that. Bogut is not. He has limitations. But within those limitations the coaching staff has put in a position to thrive."
"Not even close to what I said. I'm saying he doesn't NEED to score. Everyone should always be working to better themselves. He is on the team for his defense. Anything else is a bonus."
"The Warriors run a motion based system, not reliant upon a big to draw a double team. That's the beauty of their system. Bogut fits within the offensive scope of what is needed from him."