RealGM

stuporman wrote:

Im Coming Home wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Nah, he came in for Divo, not for Brunson so it's cool you guys are so comfortable being openly wrong and not realizing it, it's brave.

You're looking at this the stupidest and most simplistic way possible. "Duhh Burks came in for Divo so that means he didn't replace Deuce!"

Not gonna bother arguing with you when I already gave you the facts of the first 2-3 games Burks was here.

The stupidest and most simplistic way to look at it would be asserting something without evidence, just based on your own imagination...because there's no evidence Burks has replaced Deuce in the rotation...maybe one game one time isn't enough to say it's happening.

Especially since everything since has disproven that idea...but keep on saying it the rest of the season maybe someone will believe you, I sure don't...unless Deuce starts actually losing mins to Burks, then I'll agree, until then, I'll laugh at it.

No one is claiming its currently happening, we are claiming immediately after the trade Thibs tried to make it happen. Luckily a combination of Burks playing like complete sh*t since coming here, and Deuce playing well has prevented Thibs from being able to do it.

And you keep claiming imagination like I didn't just give you the first 2-3 games after the trades minutes where Deuce's minutes were cut down in place of Burks.

Idk why you're even arguing this, as its stupid and doesn't matter anyways. You trying to White Knight for Thibs or something?

stuporman wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Nah, he came in for Divo, not for Brunson so it's cool you guys are so comfortable being openly wrong and not realizing it, it's brave.

So the trade had nothing to do with losing Quickley?

Are you psychic and know exactly why people do something who haven't said why they do something?

No. Are you? You’d have to be to know that’s not why they made the trade.

stuporman wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:Burks was bringing the ball up … Thibs isn’t that hard figure out. The guy bringing up the ball is his PG.

But whatever. The fact that Deuce has overcome it is his very good play and Burks’ VERY poor play. Both needed to happen.

So when Randle or Hart bring the ball up they are the PG?

Maybe it's you who isn't too hard to figure out, agenda > reality.

Both also play point yeah and Hart been doing more without IQ / Randle.

stuporman wrote:

Im Coming Home wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Nah, he came in for Divo, not for Brunson so it's cool you guys are so comfortable being openly wrong and not realizing it, it's brave.

You're looking at this the stupidest and most simplistic way possible. "Duhh Burks came in for Divo so that means he didn't replace Deuce!"

Not gonna bother arguing with you when I already gave you the facts of the first 2-3 games Burks was here.

The stupidest and most simplistic way to look at it would be asserting something without evidence, just based on your own imagination...because there's no evidence Burks has replaced Deuce in the rotation...maybe one game one time isn't enough to say it's happening.

Especially since everything since has disproven that idea...but keep on saying it the rest of the season maybe someone will believe you, I sure don't...unless Deuce starts actually losing mins to Burks, then I'll agree, until then, I'll laugh at it.

It’s true tho. Why do you care. But yeah I’m pretty sure Burks was brought in to reduce Deuce’s role. And maybe to nothing.

Doesn’t matter. Do you think the plan was to bring in Burks, play him early off the bench and then start benching him? Do you not see he’s getting less time?

Was that the plan?

So point is, put aside Deuce altogether if you don’t like that part. Do you think Burks is playing less after the first few games? You don’t need to be psychic to answer that.

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Im Coming Home wrote:He was, Thibs tried at first. Luckily Deuce just been playing too good even for Thibs to ignore

By 'tried' you mean that one game where Burks played 6 mins of time when Brunson was on the bench and Deuce was not in the game so could be construed that he 'took' those mins from him? Asking for a friend...

Nah he came in first, right away. It’s good that Thibs changed course but had Burks not fallen on his face, he’d be playing Deuce’s minutes. Maybe all.

True, if Burks was playing better than Deuce then Thibs would be giving him more minutes than Deuce…but since Burks isn’t, Thibs isn’t, despite the memes.

Im Coming Home wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Im Coming Home wrote:You're looking at this the stupidest and most simplistic way possible. "Duhh Burks came in for Divo so that means he didn't replace Deuce!"

Not gonna bother arguing with you when I already gave you the facts of the first 2-3 games Burks was here.

The stupidest and most simplistic way to look at it would be asserting something without evidence, just based on your own imagination...because there's no evidence Burks has replaced Deuce in the rotation...maybe one game one time isn't enough to say it's happening.

Especially since everything since has disproven that idea...but keep on saying it the rest of the season maybe someone will believe you, I sure don't...unless Deuce starts actually losing mins to Burks, then I'll agree, until then, I'll laugh at it.

No one is claiming its currently happening, we are claiming immediately after the trade Thibs tried to make it happen. Luckily a combination of Burks playing like complete sh*t since coming here, and Deuce playing well has prevented Thibs from being able to do it.

And you keep claiming imagination like I didn't just give you the first 2-3 games after the trades minutes where Deuce's minutes were cut down in place of Burks.

Idk why you're even arguing this, as its stupid and doesn't matter anyways. You trying to White Knight for Thibs or something?

Are you trying to white night for Deuce?

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:
So the trade had nothing to do with losing Quickley?

Are you psychic and know exactly why people do something who haven't said why they do something?

No. Are you? You’d have to be to know that’s not why they made the trade.

It's not me suggesting I do know but it seems you are.

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:Burks was bringing the ball up … Thibs isn’t that hard figure out. The guy bringing up the ball is his PG.

But whatever. The fact that Deuce has overcome it is his very good play and Burks’ VERY poor play. Both needed to happen.

So when Randle or Hart bring the ball up they are the PG?

Maybe it's you who isn't too hard to figure out, agenda > reality.

Both also play point yeah and Hart been doing more without IQ / Randle.

Bringing up the ball, handling the ball, facilitating the offense, creating plays for others...these are skills, not positions even though one position may traditionally do it more than others it doesn't define what position they are playing.

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Im Coming Home wrote:You're looking at this the stupidest and most simplistic way possible. "Duhh Burks came in for Divo so that means he didn't replace Deuce!"

Not gonna bother arguing with you when I already gave you the facts of the first 2-3 games Burks was here.

The stupidest and most simplistic way to look at it would be asserting something without evidence, just based on your own imagination...because there's no evidence Burks has replaced Deuce in the rotation...maybe one game one time isn't enough to say it's happening.

Especially since everything since has disproven that idea...but keep on saying it the rest of the season maybe someone will believe you, I sure don't...unless Deuce starts actually losing mins to Burks, then I'll agree, until then, I'll laugh at it.

It’s true tho. Why do you care. But yeah I’m pretty sure Burks was brought in to reduce Deuce’s role. And maybe to nothing.

Doesn’t matter. Do you think the plan was to bring in Burks, play him early off the bench and then start benching him? Do you not see he’s getting less time?

Was that the plan?

So point is, put aside Deuce altogether if you don’t like that part. Do you think Burks is playing less after the first few games? You don’t need to be psychic to answer that.

More mind reading...

cgf wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:
By 'tried' you mean that one game where Burks played 6 mins of time when Brunson was on the bench and Deuce was not in the game so could be construed that he 'took' those mins from him? Asking for a friend...

Nah he came in first, right away. It’s good that Thibs changed course but had Burks not fallen on his face, he’d be playing Deuce’s minutes. Maybe all.

True, if Burks was playing better than Deuce then Thibs would be giving him more minutes than Deuce…but since Burks isn’t, Thibs isn’t, despite the memes.

Wait...you mean Thibs will play the guy who playing better and helps the team win? Fire Thibs!!!

cgf wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:
By 'tried' you mean that one game where Burks played 6 mins of time when Brunson was on the bench and Deuce was not in the game so could be construed that he 'took' those mins from him? Asking for a friend...

Nah he came in first, right away. It’s good that Thibs changed course but had Burks not fallen on his face, he’d be playing Deuce’s minutes. Maybe all.

True, if Burks was playing better than Deuce then Thibs would be giving him more minutes than Deuce…but since Burks isn’t, Thibs isn’t, despite the memes.

Okay. But the bar for Burks to get minutes was lower. You folks seem to be creating a premise that coaches don’t have plans or set rotations and don’t give certain players preference.

Then when someone points out that in fact they do — which of course they do — you call it mind reading lol.

stuporman wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Are you psychic and know exactly why people do something who haven't said why they do something?

No. Are you? You’d have to be to know that’s not why they made the trade.

It's not me suggesting I do know but it seems you are.

Okay so you’re saying it’s equally possible that Burks came in to replace Deuce.

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:
No. Are you? You’d have to be to know that’s not why they made the trade.

It's not me suggesting I do know but it seems you are.

Okay so you’re saying it’s equally possible that Burks came in to replace Deuce.

or thibs was familiar AND MORE IMPORTANTLY he facilitated salaries matching …anything beyond that is conjecture and unsupported by thibs actions…

BigShot Bojan wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:

stuporman wrote:
It's not me suggesting I do know but it seems you are.

Okay so you’re saying it’s equally possible that Burks came in to replace Deuce.

or thibs was familiar AND MORE IMPORTANTLY he facilitated salaries matching …anything beyond that is conjecture and unsupported by thibs actions…

Who comes in first is neither conjecture nor insignificant. It’s called a rotation.