HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

The All-Encompassing Minnesota Pro Sports Thread III

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2011, 11:15 AM
  #151
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,552
vCash: 500
Which all comes back to my point in saying drafting Ponder was a massive mistake...

__________________

After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
this providence is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 11:28 AM
  #152
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
Which all comes back to my point in saying drafting Ponder was a massive mistake...
But you don't fix a mistake by repeating it.

Re: Blackmon -

WR in the first round (especially high in the first) are ridiculous risks. They're so often primadonnas who harm your team more than help that I can't imagine making the decision to draft one. Sure, once in a rare while you'll get Calvin Johnson, but most of the time you end up with Michael Crabtree or Roy Williams. Crabtree might help your team (when he's not holding out) but that's usually the best you can hope for out of a first round WR. Roy Williams and his ilk can single-handedly set your franchise back several seasons.

Maybe Blackmon will be the next Megatron, but maybe he'll help drive another team into the ground.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 11:30 AM
  #153
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,779
vCash: 500
So pretty much every high draft pick is not worth it...got it. Thanks Vikings fans!

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 11:32 AM
  #154
BuddyMcCormick
Registered User
 
BuddyMcCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,900
vCash: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
So pretty much every high draft pick is not worth it...got it. Thanks Vikings fans!
That's what I was thinking. There's inherit risks when picking any position, the key is being able to correctly evaluate talent and a person's demeanor.

BuddyMcCormick is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 12:36 PM
  #155
Generic User
Dynamic as they come
 
Generic User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 6,598
vCash: 500
With the way our secondary gets torn apart at will, even by sub-par quarterbacks, the Vikings could take safeties and corners through the first six rounds and I think it would be justified. Shame is that the same could be said for offensive linemen.

All in all, our situation sucks. It is blasphemy to waste away a prime AP while we plug crucial holes. By the time we are up the par with the rest of the league AP won't be what he is now. I hope I am wrong though.

Generic User is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 12:41 PM
  #156
Mansfield
possession obsession
 
Mansfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,907
vCash: 500
i saw from espn's draft rankings that there's a corner and an OT projected #2 and #3, either of them worth it do you think?

Mansfield is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 12:51 PM
  #157
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
So pretty much every high draft pick is not worth it...got it. Thanks Vikings fans!
High picks for defensive linemen and defensive backs seem to pan out pretty well. I'm not sure about linebackers, but running backs are fairly decent.

There's a lot of factors that go into whether a pick is successful or not. QBs have a huge disadvantage as they have so much influence over a game. A star QB can make a crappy team into a middle of the pack one. However, if you draft that star too early, he'll take you out of draft position to get the better picks next year.

It's also important to remember that there are some NFL teams that are just so incompetent (or have different priorities, i.e. losing for better profitability) that they throw off the average. During the Matt Millen era, it probably didn't matter who Detroit picked, he was going to be a failure. They happened to pick all WR, so that hurts the average success of 1st round WR. Current Oakland management is similar, no matter who they pick, he's probably going to have trouble until he can get on another team.

A lot of it depends upon the attitude vs talent of a player. Calvin Johnson is about the perfect WR. He's an absolute beast with some of the greatest talent in the league, but he has absolutely no attitude about it. He's a quiet guy who just wants to play football and live his life. Many college stars can't adapt from being the best player on the team to being just another guy on an NFL team. It's especially hard for those who play the glamor positions (WR/QB/RB). That's why it's so hard to draft those positions at the top of the draft, or even in the first round entirely.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 03:52 PM
  #158
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
I think all the talk of where to draft what position is pretty silly. Elite players are almost by definition the exception rather than the rule. There are examples of deterrents at every position. If a team's in a position to choose elite talent, they should take the guy they feel has the best chance to become an elite player.

RB and WR might be positions it's stupid to take at or near the top of the draft, but just about the only players worth a damn on the current roster the Vikings actually drafted are Peterson and Harvin.

I don't really care what position the Vikes draft this year, as long as it isn't a running back. There are holes all over the roster. I'd prefer they not go WR either, but that's just because I don't think there's a Megatron type prospect available this year and that there are larger needs.

I haven't seen enough from Ponder to make me think he's the answer, so I probably wouldn't have a problem with them taking another QB. I don't really know enough about the non Luck options to have an opinion on them.

No matter which direction they go with in round 1, something needs to be done about both lines and the defensive backfield sooner rather than later. It would be nice for them to massage the draft a bit to try and pick up multiple swings in rounds 2-4.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 04:18 PM
  #159
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,591
vCash: 500
Matt Barkley would be the likely second QB taken. From what I've read he's had much better college numbers than Ponder (although in a much better program). He's supposed to have good accuracy and make good reads, can scramble a bit but not as well as Ponder, has about the same arm strength, sounds like a good well rounded QB, a lot like Ponder.

If Ponder can read defenses and not stare down his receivers, he seems to have the accuracy and arm to put the ball where it needs to be. Maybe he's not an elite QB but I think he's a guy who can get it done.

But it comes back to, for me, improving the line. I'm not sure why they signed Sullivan to an extension, wasn't aware he was worth it, but I guess they need someone. If they can get Kalil and a guard, they can give Ponder more time to hit his targets AND open up lanes for AP.

Listening to Paul Charchian today he rattled off a dozen WR free agents and maybe 1-2 LT free agents. If you can get a high end LT with the #2 pick and address the secondary in the later rounds, get a couple WR's in free agency, drop some dead weight, you can be respectable again.

But draft another QB, and you'll have two good players getting killed every game.

Jarick is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 04:49 PM
  #160
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
That's why the NBA is a joke to me. They obviously don't care about the long term health of the league. If they were serious, they would have nixed the season in order to install a hard salary cap that would kill those kind of deals. Instead we're seeing even more concentration of talent.

That's going to probably cause a lot more relocation and other problems around the league. Even if they had revenue sharing where the half dozen successful markets could give money to the rest of the league, ticket sales and interest would drop and drop.

And unlike hockey, there's a lot more competition for basketball fans' eyes and cash in college basketball. It's a much bigger sport on a much bigger stage than college hockey is.
College basketball being more popular than college hockey isn't bad for the NBA, that's free advertising for their future stars. The NHL would benefit from more casual fans getting to see their young players before they hit the league.

The recent exodus of big time players from smaller or less desirable markets has more to do with mismanagement by the front offices of those teams. Players got sick of less than competent GM's and chose to take their legacies into their own hands. Unfortunately, a guy like LeBron chose the front running d-bag route for his legacy.

If front offices surround their stars with talent, they'll have a chance to hold onto them. If they don't, they're probably going to leave eventually. It's in their interest to put a quality product on the floor. If they don't, fewer people will pay attention and their best player might get sick of spinning his wheels. The biggest problem in the league is that a lot of the league front offices make stupid decisions, and that's very tough for teams without a winning track record to overcome.

I'm not really here to debate NBA vs. NHL, I think that'd be a waste of time even by internet forum standards. It's possible to enjoy both sports/leagues. The product the local teams in both has put forth the last couple years has been pretty awful. The quality of the Wild's product has improved this year, and it looks like that could be the case with the Wolves as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avder View Post
And then theres the players of the NBA. I remember that the players of the NBA when I watched it in high school were all pretty respectable as far as I could tell. They showed up, played the game, and went home. Now I just feel like the NBA players think every moment is a party or something. I don't really feel like I want to be associated with that kind of stuff. I just don't feel I can respect the culture that now surrounds the NBA.

Oh, and I dont like the changes that the NBA has gone through as far as rule changes. Playing defense now is apparently a foul or something. Its rediculous. Seems geared toward letting the superstars steal the show. How big is an NBA bench? 12 guys including the starting 5? How many of them actually get used for more than 30 seconds in a game? Speed up the game so that you have to constantly swap players during stoppages so the game revolves less around superstars and more around a team oriented style of play.

I could go on and on, but this rant is long enough at this point, and I am close to passing out.
Just out of curiosity, when did you go to high school? If it's after 1970, you might be remembering wrong about the players showing up, playing the game, and going home, or just hearing more about it due to the 24/7 nature of the media nowadays. Also, it's not like the NHL doesn't have its Roxy Flu types.

The NBA is far from perfect, but you seem to be suggesting going back to the way it was in the 60's, which wouldn't be the answer at all. The game's grown since then. Basketball isn't like hockey, it doesn't get more entertaining the more pell-mell things get.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 04:57 PM
  #161
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Matt Barkley would be the likely second QB taken. From what I've read he's had much better college numbers than Ponder (although in a much better program). He's supposed to have good accuracy and make good reads, can scramble a bit but not as well as Ponder, has about the same arm strength, sounds like a good well rounded QB, a lot like Ponder.

If Ponder can read defenses and not stare down his receivers, he seems to have the accuracy and arm to put the ball where it needs to be. Maybe he's not an elite QB but I think he's a guy who can get it done.

But it comes back to, for me, improving the line. I'm not sure why they signed Sullivan to an extension, wasn't aware he was worth it, but I guess they need someone. If they can get Kalil and a guard, they can give Ponder more time to hit his targets AND open up lanes for AP.

Listening to Paul Charchian today he rattled off a dozen WR free agents and maybe 1-2 LT free agents. If you can get a high end LT with the #2 pick and address the secondary in the later rounds, get a couple WR's in free agency, drop some dead weight, you can be respectable again.

But draft another QB, and you'll have two good players getting killed every game.
I don't really think of these things as an accurate depiction of Ponder, which is why I wouldn't hate the Vikes taking a QB. They need to address the line as well, and a QB won't help them next year, but I don't see Ponder as a reason not to draft a QB.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 05:10 PM
  #162
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,552
vCash: 500
The success rate for receivers working out for teams as a free agent is extremely low. More often than not if a WR is going to work for a team, they need to be drafted and developed under a system. Very hard for them to catch on in a different scheme.

As for FA linemen, put simply, teams don't allow capable ones to walk.

Both positions are the way they are on this team because of how the Vikings have approached the draft the last several years.

If it were up to me and the team isn't picking another QB, my pick would be Claiborne or Blackmon if the team stays at #2 which is where they'll likely be. Subsequent picks would be addressing purely offensive line for the next 2-3 rounds. There will be a handful of OTs available at the Vikings second round slot who, given their draft slot, aren't much of downgrade from Kalil. In such a scenario, they're still getting elite level talent and finding much better offensive linemen than they currently trot out there.

The thing that throws a wrench into the whole bit is that I have utterly no faith in this current front office to identify talent.

this providence is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 05:30 PM
  #163
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Averman View Post
I don't really think of these things as an accurate depiction of Ponder, which is why I wouldn't hate the Vikes taking a QB. They need to address the line as well, and a QB won't help them next year, but I don't see Ponder as a reason not to draft a QB.
Ponder is "good enough for now." If they draft a QB, I want him to sit. That's not going to happen with a top 5 pick. If they don't think Ponder can cut it, they can look to get a QB in the second/third round and pick OT/CB, or try to trade down.

Cleveland, New England, and Cincinnati each have two first round picks. Looking at current standings, it's not unlikely for Cleveland to have the 5th to 7th pick and one in the late 20s. If the right teams lie between the Vikes and Browns, it's feasible for Cleveland to offer both firsts and a late pick (Atlanta's 4th?) to move up.

If New England realizes Brady's on the downside of his game, they might be convinced to finally cash in on all those picks they've been hording. While both New England's and New Orleans' picks will be late 20s, the Vikes would command two firsts and maybe two seconds for that pick.

Cincinnati currently employs Adam (Pacman) Jones. I think that says a lot about their CB depth. They might move their pick and Oakland's pick (both mid teens right now) and maybe more (judging from last year's Julio Jones trade) to take Claiborne.

With the number of holes the Vikings have, their best bet might be to trade down. One CB might not fix the defensive backend, but right now there's two CB ranked in the teens. How great would it be to take a CB and OT in the first as well as a QB and FS/SS in the second round?

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 05:59 PM
  #164
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Ponder is "good enough for now." If they draft a QB, I want him to sit. That's not going to happen with a top 5 pick. If they don't think Ponder can cut it, they can look to get a QB in the second/third round and pick OT/CB, or try to trade down.
I guess I don't really get the "good enough for now" designation. The team as a whole as crap so not having a good QB isn't a big deal?

I just haven't seen enough from Ponder to think of him as a long term solution at the position. I don't think it gets easier to find that solution outside of the 1st round. OT/CB would be great, but those aren't the only holes. Trading down's fine as well, the Vikings are bad enough that most options are more appealing than the status quo.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 06:05 PM
  #165
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Averman View Post
I guess I don't really get the "good enough for now" designation. The team as a whole as crap so not having a good QB isn't a big deal?

I just haven't seen enough from Ponder to think of him as a long term solution at the position. I don't think it gets easier to find that solution outside of the 1st round. OT/CB would be great, but those aren't the only holes. Trading down's fine as well, the Vikings are bad enough that most options are more appealing than the status quo.
Ponder's best comparable I can think of is Sanchez. He's a playoff QB on a decent team, but isn't elite by any standard. He's not going to win games for you, but he won't lose the ones you should have won. He's good enough to keep the team playing while patching holes. To bring it back to hockey comparisons, he's like Niemi in Chicago's cup run. He certainly didn't win it for them, but he was good enough to not let the rest of the team down.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 06:45 PM
  #166
Avder
Global Moderator
Sleep? What's that?
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The ANGRY DOME
Country: United States
Posts: 31,450
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Averman View Post
Just out of curiosity, when did you go to high school? If it's after 1970, you might be remembering wrong about the players showing up, playing the game, and going home, or just hearing more about it due to the 24/7 nature of the media nowadays. Also, it's not like the NHL doesn't have its Roxy Flu types.

The NBA is far from perfect, but you seem to be suggesting going back to the way it was in the 60's, which wouldn't be the answer at all. The game's grown since then. Basketball isn't like hockey, it doesn't get more entertaining the more pell-mell things get.
I disagree with that last statement, especially comparing the last few bits of college balls vs NBA ball Ive watched. With the college side of the game, they players are all playing for something, and theyre actually trying, including on defense. On the NBA side, defense is a joke, and players look non-dedicated and disinterested at times. To me the NBA represents a place where the most talented players in the world go to get paid, not to play amazing basketball. Speeding up the game would help, as would removing obstacles to playing actual defense, as defense should be relevent. I would rather see a hard fought game with scores somewhere around 70-80 points a side rather than the usual explosions for 100-120 most defense-light NBA games seem to churn out.

Avder is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 08:21 PM
  #167
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Ponder's best comparable I can think of is Sanchez. He's a playoff QB on a decent team, but isn't elite by any standard. [bHe's not going to win games for you, but he won't lose the ones you should have won. He's good enough to keep the team playing while patching holes.[/b[ To bring it back to hockey comparisons, he's like Niemi in Chicago's cup run. He certainly didn't win it for them, but he was good enough to not let the rest of the team down.
I guess I could ask why Ponder's best comparable is Sanchez, but I'm not really all that interested. I don't really think Ponder's good enough for the bolded statements to apply to. He could improve, but if that's the best case scenario it isn't something that would keep me from looking for something better. If you think he's better than that, I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-19-2011, 09:43 PM
  #168
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 3,745
vCash: 2551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Averman View Post
The recent exodus of big time players from smaller or less desirable markets has more to do with mismanagement by the front offices of those teams. Players got sick of less than competent GM's and chose to take their legacies into their own hands. Unfortunately, a guy like LeBron chose the front running d-bag route for his legacy.

If front offices surround their stars with talent, they'll have a chance to hold onto them. If they don't, they're probably going to leave eventually. It's in their interest to put a quality product on the floor. If they don't, fewer people will pay attention and their best player might get sick of spinning his wheels. The biggest problem in the league is that a lot of the league front offices make stupid decisions, and that's very tough for teams without a winning track record to overcome.
How are front offices suppose to acquire talent without giving up the talent they have?

The price difference between good players and star players is too little, that means if you don't get a 1st overall pick to draft a star you have to spend your cap space on players that aren't good enough to get you to the playoffs but are good enough to prevent you from getting a good lottery pick. (Pau Gasol)

Look at all the good teams right now, all of them have a drafted Star player that it started with and then have the money to go over the cap to bring in the Pau Gasol type players that keep the team good.

It also doesn't help that teams like the Lakers can constantly pawn off these high priced good players for small market teams stars, the proposed Lakers - Hornets trade would have been amazing for the Lakers and the Hornets would have been stuck with 20mil in cap space on players that wont get them to the playoffs. Yet the media hypes it up like its some amazing deal for the Hornets when the only reason is its hyped is because another star ends up in LA.

A major problem I have like Jarick is defense, players don't try to play defense and when they do its called a foul. Its dumb that you can juke a player into jumping straight up then jump into him to get a penalty. Its also dumb that players drive into defenders then throw up the ball in order to get free throws even though its very clear they weren't in the process of shooting until the after the penalty.

It takes defense out of the game when you cant touch a player without a penalty, it honestly looks like you play defense by just waiting until the end of the shot clock before you decide to score.


Last edited by melinko: 12-19-2011 at 09:51 PM.
melinko is offline  
Old
12-20-2011, 02:54 AM
  #169
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by melinko View Post
How are front offices suppose to acquire talent without giving up the talent they have?
The same way front offices in most sports do. Draft wisely. Make good decisions when trading or making a foray into free agency. Manage the salary cap responsibly and take advantage of the teams that don't do the same. Prey on the teams employing less competent GM's.

Memphis has recovered from losing Pau, and the Lakers haven't had all sunshine in lollipops. They were forced to deal a star who helped his next team to a title and they recovered in large part because they did an underrated job in the draft (they unearthed two of the better young centers in the game through the draft, Bynum at #10 and Marc Gasol at #48, and used Marc to acquire his older brother).

I agree that the proposed deal for Paul was a bad package for the Hornets, but the league ended up securing a nice haul for him, by rebuilding standards.

Honestly, looking at the complaints lodged by you, Avder and Jarick, it looks like you're all mostly taking what you dislike about modern pro sports and lumping it onto to basketball because it's your least favorite of them.

That's fine, and the local team hasn't exactly been putting forth a quality example of the sport in recent years. I'm not here to convert any members of Yeo's congregation, or get into some hockey vs. basketball debate that would be a gaping time suck even by internet forum standards. Just dampening some of the hate. I will say that for the first time since Garnett was dealt, the Wolves shouldn't be the bottom of the barrel example of what the NBA brings to the table, and have a good shot at being a team casual fans won't find insufferable to watch.

Probably a fine example of damning with faint praise, but since the last two years in particular were avert your eyes type disasters, it needed to be said.

Football and hockey have also made rule changes/given increased emphasis in areas to give the offense a leg up. It's a general trend in pro sports that isn't limited to the NBA. Stars and good players are dealt for future assets or get attracted to markets other than the one that drafted them. Gaborik's playing in New York and Fletcher dealt what was likely the team's most valuable asset at the time out to California.

As for the problem with stoppages towards the end of games and the refs giving players the rip through move, I agree that it's annoying. It doesn't ruin the game for me, but I work evenings so I end up catching most games delayed a bit on DVR anyways. The league is supposedly trying to cut down on handing out gift free throws, we'll see if it takes. I expect there will be enough of a crackdown to generate a couple early season stories, but for things to revert back by the end of the year.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-20-2011, 07:59 AM
  #170
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
I don't like watching basketball because it's incredibly boring.

It's almost as boring as baseball, and that's an incredible statement considering it's a running time game versus the slowest modern discrete play game. There's too much scoring for any individual scores to mean anything. It has no opportunity for "highlight reel" plays. There's really nothing in it to watch.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-20-2011, 09:11 AM
  #171
Avder
Global Moderator
Sleep? What's that?
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The ANGRY DOME
Country: United States
Posts: 31,450
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I don't like watching basketball because it's incredibly boring.

It's almost as boring as baseball, and that's an incredible statement considering it's a running time game versus the slowest modern discrete play game. There's too much scoring for any individual scores to mean anything. It has no opportunity for "highlight reel" plays. There's really nothing in it to watch.
This is another failing of basketball. There really arent any turning-point plays. Its more or less momentum that builds the 10-20 point runs that a team goes on, and those are too easily interrupted by timeouts and the like. Sure, a single dunk can be fierce, but its still only 1/50th of the points the team scores that night.

And I actually find baseball to be a lot less boring. At least you can do other stuff while having a baseball game on.

Avder is offline  
Old
12-20-2011, 09:55 AM
  #172
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,591
vCash: 500
Hmm I dunno if I said anything about defense, I don't know enough about basketball

Honestly I enjoyed watching the Wolves a little more than the Wild Saturday. Rubio was fun to watch and some of those little passes and especially that pass to Williams where he dunked was entertaining. I don't think I have the energy or free time to follow the sport but there's potential.

For me, I think hockey and football are the two best. There's an opportunity for a highlight reel play at any point in time. Basketball's pretty close, and that's probably just because I never really got into it. Football you get caught up in the hoopla. Baseball I just can't stand at all, nothing ever happens, so slow paced, but that's just me.

I just think with the way the NBA is set up, if I become a Wolves fan, in the back of my mind I'm thinking "Love, Rubio, and Williams are gone when they hit free agency" and how would that make me want to get invested in my team?

Jarick is offline  
Old
12-20-2011, 11:15 AM
  #173
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
 
Dee Oh Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington
Country: United States
Posts: 6,375
vCash: 500
I was a huge fan of the Wolves back in the Garnett days until management went and ruined the team. It was just so painful to watch lately that I couldn't even tune into the games...hopefully this year will be different.

Dee Oh Cee is offline  
Old
12-20-2011, 12:38 PM
  #174
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
It's hard to watch basketball because even if you're up by 20, there's still a shot that you can come back. There's too much scoring going on for one little individual basket for you to cheer IMO. And it should be more like a 20 team league rather than a 30 because there's only a few teams that matter. I think the NHL has more parity, and you never seem like you're out of it in the NHL. I'll always cheer for any of my sports teams even if they aren't great. I'd love to see the Wolves do well. I think they have an entertaining team, I just don't like to watch a full basketball game. Maybe pop in at the end or watch the highlights and see the score.

I'm a huge baseball fan though. I love the game even though I'm with most of you when you say it's boring. I can see that, but having played for so long when I was younger makes me love it. It's the kind of sport that you can just sit back and relax and occasionally there's a tense moment. It's usually just on in the background and I'll pay attention when a big play or pitch happens. I can't just sit there and watch it unless it's a playoff game generally.

mnwildgophers is offline  
Old
12-21-2011, 01:10 AM
  #175
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Hmm I dunno if I said anything about defense, I don't know enough about basketball

Honestly I enjoyed watching the Wolves a little more than the Wild Saturday. Rubio was fun to watch and some of those little passes and especially that pass to Williams where he dunked was entertaining. I don't think I have the energy or free time to follow the sport but there's potential.

For me, I think hockey and football are the two best. There's an opportunity for a highlight reel play at any point in time. Basketball's pretty close, and that's probably just because I never really got into it. Football you get caught up in the hoopla. Baseball I just can't stand at all, nothing ever happens, so slow paced, but that's just me.

I just think with the way the NBA is set up, if I become a Wolves fan, in the back of my mind I'm thinking "Love, Rubio, and Williams are gone when they hit free agency" and how would that make me want to get invested in my team?
I get this. There's an opportunity for edge of the seat suspense moments at any point in the game (deep bomb, just about every decent scoring opportunity). In basketball you'll see some cool **** and/or moments that make you toss your remote if you have a rooting interest, but you're unlikely to get that sort of suspense for at least the first 40 minutes or so of game action, if they come at all.

Why would "Love, Rubio, and Williams are gone when they hit free agency" be more in your head than "Granlund, Brodin, Coyle, etc. are gone when they hit free agency"? Rubio's excuse for not signing seemed more solid than Granlund's. We'll see about Love after this year. The Wolves can pay him more money than any other team, and if they look to be headed in the right direction, I think they'll have a decent shot at resigning him.

The hiring of Adelman was a huge step towards making this a better situation for Love. He bumped heads with and got jerked around by Rambis, the last coach, a guy who was likely a more abhorrent coach than Richards. Love went to high school with Adelman's son in Oregon and Adelman was around the team a lot when he had a year off in between Sacramento and Houston. On top of the preexisting relationship, Adelman also happens to be one of the more successful coaches in recent NBA history.

If Love gets locked down, that could be a step towards getting Rubio and/or Williams to stick around down the road, but that wouldn't be a concern for a few years.

Averman is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.