[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rogers not going to Nets (Yes he is)

At 01:35 PM 8/14/02 -0700, bird wrote:

From: Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



But huge blow? This makes him sound irreplacable. When what I saw was an 
undersized but willing banger who spent too much time outside the paint 
and was clearly too often a step slow in responding defensively, to loose 
balls, and to rebounds that didn't fall into his hands. While taking way 
too many outside shots - something we already had enough people doing. We 
won't even discuss some attempted ballhandling, including some attempted 
end to ends that liven my nightmares. A few more things, but that's the 
basic idea. While he helped us get where we did, perhaps his limitations 
are part of why that was no further.



This seems somewhat revisionist, doesn't it, Kim?  'Leastways, it's not 
how I remember it, anyway.



Nope, not revisionist for me. I've commented before on finding him slow to 
respond. Ask the poor guy sitting next to me in the Fleece how many times I 
used to shout MOVE dammit Rodney, MOVE as the freaking ball went right on 
past before he even twitched : )



Again, I'm not saying I don't like Rodney, I just think people are going 
WAY overboard about what he represents. Good journeyman is better than most 
of what we've had around here for too long and is far better praise than I 
would bestow on Blount or Pot. But that's still all he is IMO.




  I thought Rogers was very quick for his size, though not so much 
laterally (that is, on defense, as far as staying in front on a guy on 
the perimeter), especially in grabbing loose balls.



OK, they may both be true. He probably IS reasonably quick for his bulk 
(not for his height) but had slow reactions/reflex. Honestly, I know he's 
only about 30-31, but what he looked like to me was someone who used to be 
very quick who was starting to show his age a bit. Which means it's likely 
to get worse, not better, because it's not like he was out of shape.




Though you're right about his ball-handling, it's not as if it was on 
display often.  In fact, I particularly liked his drives to the basket -- 
the first step, for a man his size, was fast.



Sure, so long as that's all that was needed - a first step. Make him 
dribble from beyond the paint and that's where trouble showed. And look, 
I'll freely admit that he was probably at least midlevel for a big man. 
Lord knows he was MILES above Pot, starting with being able to catch a pass 
(did Pot go to the Dick Stewart big man's camp instead of Pete Newell's? <g>)




  As for the outside shots, I disagree completely -- I think that was the 
whole plan, and in fact, Rogers displayed a tentativeness when he first 
got to the C's that eventually went mostly away, for the good of 
all.  While no doubt his limitations *were*, indeed, part of why the team 
went no further (as were all the limitations of everyone who played), I'm 
just not sure that really means anything -- in the long run, he was more 
of an asset than a liability, faults and all.



<Nodding> sure, I agree on almost all of that. To a point.

Undoubtably that was the plan. Doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of 
it<g>. I think he could have done more for them being inside a bit more, 
both in terms of shots and availability for rebounds (that he wouldn't have 
to move to get). There were too many times the lane would be wide open and 
he (along with most of the rest of the team) would still settle for the 
outside shot. I'd have rather the outside shot was his secondary option and 
it looked like it was his primary one.



And I certainly agree that he was far more of an asset than liability. 
Thought I made that clear, especially in saying that I'd rather we kept him 
than Walter. I just think people are going WAY overboard about what he is, 
as I said above. Disappointment and creator of new problems that he's gone? 
Absolutely. Huge blow? NIMO.




Whether or not he'll help NJ significantly or not, we let one of our top 
five guys go to, not only a division rival, but perhaps the most important 
competition we have in the Conference.  Oh, and the reason?  Thou shalt 
not pay the luxury tax.  It's one thing to lose him -- bad move but there 
are restrictions, oh, well.  But to lose him to NJ?



I agree that I don't like the reason we lost him BTW. Losing him because 
they didn't feel he was worth what he was asking would have been one thing. 
Losing him for purely monetary reasons (and not even big money, in NBA 
terms) when the coach and GM wanted to keep him is another thing entirely.




(The league needs a new CBA -- the current one sucks donkey.  And/or 
better negotiators for the players' side.  One that doesn't let phrases 
like "sole discretion" make it to the final draft, or at least doesn't 
challenge it after it becomes clear the owners are going to do whatever 
they want ... shocking!  What does "sole discretion" mean 
again?  Duh.)  All this "Championship-on-a-budget!" thinking is just plain 
weird.



Sorry but not the answer. They've had new CBAs, all of them with certain 
agendas and all of them making someone unhappy. While it's not the quality 
of the negotiators as much at issue as their interests. As the saying goes, 
you can't legislate morality, and that's in a sense what they' were both 
trying to do - legislate fiscal morality as they saw it.



Kim