Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 22:15:30 GMT
@iamoutbreak is starting to look bad when it comes to Ingram since February/March.. Ingram has turned his game around as I told you he would. By midway next season, Lakers will be laughing their way to the bank as Ingram is balling, and the haters have moved on to their next target.. *cash-register* I will never forget the hate for ingram by Lampz and @iamoutbreak Let the hate flow through you, young padawan.  you've already forgotten what we said though.... the whole debate was that he was one of the worst players in the league at that time. we both said he could improve (i flat out said multiple times i think he will be a good player in the end but not a superstar). the argument was that you kept saying he was good AT THE TIME and that he would get minutes on contending teams. he was statistically one of the worst players in the league but you kept saying he was doing well when he clearly wasn't. |
|
|
Lampz
•
Lebron23
Posts: 51,202
Likes: 20,652
|
Post by Lampz on Apr 8, 2017 22:17:34 GMT
@iamoutbreak is starting to look bad when it comes to Ingram since February/March.. Ingram has turned his game around as I told you he would. By midway next season, Lakers will be laughing their way to the bank as Ingram is balling, and the haters have moved on to their next target.. *cash-register* I will never forget the hate for ingram by Lampz and @iamoutbreak Let the hate flow through you, young padawan. might go down as the greatest secondary ball handler role player of all time can't hate on that |
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Apr 8, 2017 22:40:17 GMT
@iamoutbreak is starting to look bad when it comes to Ingram since February/March.. Ingram has turned his game around as I told you he would. By midway next season, Lakers will be laughing their way to the bank as Ingram is balling, and the haters have moved on to their next target.. *cash-register* I will never forget the hate for ingram by Lampz and @iamoutbreak Let the hate flow through you, young padawan. you've already forgotten what we said though.... the whole debate was that he was one of the worst players in the league at that time. we both said he could improve (i flat out said multiple times i think he will be a good player in the end but not a superstar). the argument was that you kept saying he was good AT THE TIME and that he would get minutes on contending teams. he was statistically one of the worst players in the league but you kept saying he was doing well when he clearly wasn't. I was referring to his intangibles, m8. I told you his shooting was off, he was making bad turnovers trying to force things, and stat sheet was missing a lot of the good stuff that is apparent when you see a boxscore of somebody like LeBron, KD, whoever decent. Statistically, he was abysmal. That is changing too now though.. He was doing the small things right though that you don't see on the boxscore and had decent court-vision, passing, versatility, dribbling, awareness, showed improvement, professionalism, etc. It was clear you didn't watch Ingram more than 5-6 games max and focused on what you saw on the boxscore/stats. I watched him play about 60 games this season, and  his stats were a problem and he did make plenty of rookie mistakes. His intangibles drew a slightly different picture though - I saw many flashes of brilliance you will never see on a boxscore. He has high basketball IQ, and he was usually in the right place at the right time - that tells me he has solid basketball instincts and understanding. He couldn't make stuff happen though and made dumb rookie mistakes, which is pretty normal. I think he will be fine and what we saw was normal. |
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Apr 8, 2017 22:45:01 GMT
But it's okay. You can hate all things Lakers - you are entitled to it, m8.. Freedom of speech
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 23:50:47 GMT
no you clearly told us he was good NOW when he was playing horrible. he was a total liability and one of the worst players in the entire league and you flat out told us he'd get minutes on spurs or gsw. don't back track. i told you that i thought he'd improve and i said the only reason he gets minutes is because he is a prospect but you kept arguing saying he was good now because he could dribble lol
|
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Apr 9, 2017 6:42:36 GMT
no you clearly told us he was good NOW when he was playing horrible. he was a total liability and one of the worst players in the entire league and you flat out told us he'd get minutes on spurs or gsw. don't back track. i told you that i thought he'd improve and i said the only reason he gets minutes is because he is a prospect but you kept arguing saying he was good now because he could dribble lol Total liability? I disagree. If we consider his stats then you could call him a complete liability. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other things to consider. Stats and boxscore doesn't draw the full picture. Based on his intangibles, I told you he would get 10-15 mins on Spurs per game. Those are not starter minutes but backup minutes as perhaps the 10th man on the roster. He would also be more effective with Spurs than with Lakers because Pop would put him in better positions to succeed, and he would have seasoned vets around him. Lakers coaching staff is not anywhere as good as Pop and crew (Luke is a rookie coach), and Lakers also lack vets like the Spurs have.. Spurs have Manu, Parker, Gasol, Aldridge, Kawhi, Danny Green, David Lee.. All seasoned vets with multiple years of experience and multiple championships between them. , absolutely Ingram would get 10-15 mins a game on Spurs. That is based strictly on his intangibles. That is also how you develop highly talented players with potential, such as Ingram. You don't develop them by benching them and never playing them because they suck first month into their rookie season. Of course, you don't play them in crunch time of a close game (Lakers did that quite a few times but mainly when Deng was out with injury). Pop knows that better than anyone. Some undrafted guy Bryn Forbes got 8 mins of playing time for the Spurs and JOEL ANTHONY got 7 mins of playing time. Are you saying someone with as much potential and talent as Ingram wouldn't even get 10 minutes per game? Stop it, outbreak! |
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 7:27:01 GMT
no you clearly told us he was good NOW when he was playing horrible. he was a total liability and one of the worst players in the entire league and you flat out told us he'd get minutes on spurs or gsw. don't back track. i told you that i thought he'd improve and i said the only reason he gets minutes is because he is a prospect but you kept arguing saying he was good now because he could dribble lol Total liability? I disagree. If we consider his stats then you could call him a complete liability. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other things to consider. Stats and boxscore doesn't draw the full picture. Based on his intangibles, I told you he would get 10-15 mins on Spurs per game. Those are not starter minutes but backup minutes as perhaps the 10th man on the roster. He would also be more effective with Spurs than with Lakers because Pop would put him in better positions to succeed, and he would have seasoned vets around him. Lakers coaching staff is not anywhere as good as Pop and crew (Luke is a rookie coach), and Lakers also lack vets like the Spurs have.. Spurs have Manu, Parker, Gasol, Aldridge, Kawhi, Danny Green, David Lee.. All seasoned vets with multiple years of experience and multiple championships between them. , absolutely Ingram would get 10-15 mins a game on Spurs. That is based strictly on his intangibles. That is also how you develop highly talented players with potential, such as Ingram. You don't develop them by benching them and never playing them because they suck first month into their rookie season. Of course, you don't play them in crunch time of a close game (Lakers did that quite a few times but mainly when Deng was out with injury). Pop knows that better than anyone. Some undrafted guy Bryn Forbes got 8 mins of playing time for the Spurs and JOEL ANTHONY got 7 mins of playing time. Are you saying someone with as much potential and talent as Ingram wouldn't even get 10 minutes per game? Stop it, outbreak! but i also saod of he were 30 and playing the way he is he'd be out of the league. He was utter trash. There was no redeeming factor other than potential and you argued he was playing well. Quit trying to change history he would have been in europe if he wasn't young |
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Apr 9, 2017 7:52:47 GMT
Total liability? I disagree. If we consider his stats then you could call him a complete liability. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other things to consider. Stats and boxscore doesn't draw the full picture. Based on his intangibles, I told you he would get 10-15 mins on Spurs per game. Those are not starter minutes but backup minutes as perhaps the 10th man on the roster. He would also be more effective with Spurs than with Lakers because Pop would put him in better positions to succeed, and he would have seasoned vets around him. Lakers coaching staff is not anywhere as good as Pop and crew (Luke is a rookie coach), and Lakers also lack vets like the Spurs have.. Spurs have Manu, Parker, Gasol, Aldridge, Kawhi, Danny Green, David Lee.. All seasoned vets with multiple years of experience and multiple championships between them. , absolutely Ingram would get 10-15 mins a game on Spurs. That is based strictly on his intangibles. That is also how you develop highly talented players with potential, such as Ingram. You don't develop them by benching them and never playing them because they suck first month into their rookie season. Of course, you don't play them in crunch time of a close game (Lakers did that quite a few times but mainly when Deng was out with injury). Pop knows that better than anyone. Some undrafted guy Bryn Forbes got 8 mins of playing time for the Spurs and JOEL ANTHONY got 7 mins of playing time. Are you saying someone with as much potential and talent as Ingram wouldn't even get 10 minutes per game? Stop it, outbreak! but i also saod of he were 30 and playing the way he is he'd be out of the league. He was utter trash. There was no redeeming factor other than potential and you argued he was playing well. Quit trying to change history he would have been in europe if he wasn't young I don't recall ever saying he would still play minutes for Spurs or anyone if he played like this for 10 years.. Adam Morrison was out of the league after 3 years of playing like this (although, he was terrible from intangibles perspective, lacked awareness and professionalism too - Morrison was only similar from pure stats perspective). 10 years straight? Forget it. Truth is you expect him to improve each season and if he doesn't, he is out of league. I remember I told you Ingram will be a star in 3-4 seasons - it should be a given that if that prediction holds true, it clearly means he will get better in 3-4 years. If I said he is already a star, I would say he is a star now rather than say 3-4 years later. I never once said that he is a star now or even good enough to be a starter for ANY team. His intangibles are there, but even I agreed that his stats, such as shooting percent, is off. Find me a post where I said he is statically playing well right now - you will never find it because I never posted about his stats. I know how bad his stats and +/- were before February. Everything is predicated on his improvement following a trajectory of improvement and following a parabolic improvement of getting as close to ideal expectations of scouts around the nation pre-draft as possible. Intangibles alone are not everything when we look at a player. You still need to show some sort of impact on the boxscore somewhere ultimately. I felt it was unreasonable to expect a rookie to come out shooting out of his mind and averaging 20ppg. He is not there yet and very rare do you see a player come into the league complete like that. |
|
|
his stats were a problem and he did make plenty of rookie mistakes. His intangibles drew a slightly different picture though - I saw many flashes of brilliance you will never see on a boxscore. He has high basketball IQ, and he was usually in the right place at the right time - that tells me he has solid basketball instincts and understanding. He couldn't make stuff happen though and made dumb rookie mistakes, which is pretty normal. I think he will be fine and what we saw was normal.